There is no external cause of the universe

AveEntailment argumentFor the second time, Con does not respond to the fact that FLRW metrics prove that every state of time is half-open. This is empirical evidence for the first premise of my argument that has not been refuted. Until Con addresses this evidence, he concedes the point, and the first premise by implication.It's apparent that Con has never read A Brief History of Time, because he says that Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems prove a singularity exists. Hawking withdrew these theorems twenty-five years ago! What Hawking actually says in his book is that 'there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe'. [1]My arguments weren't even against a mathematical singularity. I'm perfectly fine with a mathematical singularity. My problem was with a physical interpretation of the singularity. I gave two arguments against a physical interpretation. None of these two arguments have been answered by Con, despite the fact that he had two rounds to do so.Con asserts that the argument is a tautology. He never proves why the logic it tautological, so this is just a bare assertion. I'll provide an argument against this claim as I wait for Con to provide reasoning: The truth of the first premise seems to entail the conclusion. They are not the same thing logically. There is difference between logical entailment and logical equivalence. Therefore, the argument is not a tautology.Con tries to prove that my argument is circular reasoning, but none of his reasons have anything to do with that fallacy. I provided an argument in my last round to show that the argument is deductive, not circular. This wasn't answered.Con resorts to straw manning the entailment argument extensively. I have already explained how my argument is consistent with Big Bang cosmology, which says that the universe is finitely old. My argument does not say that the universe is eternal and infinite, as Con writes.Con continues to use the straw man about past-eternal universes. My argument does not depend on the universe being past-eternal, as I showed in my last round and opening statement. Con doesn't respond to any of that reasoning. He just keeps saying 'the universe cannot be past-eternal'.It's strange that Con won't stop talking about quantum vacuums. What does my argument have to do with quantum vacuums? Arguments like "If one believes that the universe suddenly popped into being from the quantum vacuum state, which literally means in other words that the universe created itself. From where did the vacuum state universe came into being? Did it create itself or exists necessarily." and "Thus he may agree to the finite beginning of physical state but begs the question how come the non-physical quantum vacuum state have been eternal and infinite?" have nothing to do with my argument at all. Furthermore, this entire paragraph is an argument against a straw man: "We can see from evidence. Singularity theorem is not depended upon general relativity. I am sure Pro assumes the initial condition of the universe which had zero-dimension and infinite density to be static and eternal. That is what the quantum vacuum state from which the universe evolved in its physical shape and form. I quoted earlier that the Alex Borde Guth theorem could not possibly be eternal and static but that too had a boundary. Scientists agree that the initial condition prior to time Planck is non-physical, that does not mean it was static and eternal, self-existent and necessary."To clarify, my argument is that the universe had no beginning state (a state of the universe that was preceded by no other state), but it still had a beginning in the sense that every state existed at a time less than 13.9 billion years ago.Con also drops several lines of argument. He quoted from Barrow and Tipler to show that quantum mechanics doesn't eliminate the singularity. I pointed out that my argument was against a physical interpretation of the singularity, not the singularity, and that I wasn't trying to eliminate the singularity based on quantum mechanics. He completely ignored this in the last round.Con accused my argument of committing the fallacy of composition. I spent my last round explaining why my argument does not commit this fallacy. Con drops this in the last round.Con argued that the universe causing itself was absurd. I pointed out that the causation I'm talking about looks like [...X--->Y--->Z...]. It is not A--->A. Con drops this in the last round.PlagiarismI'm sorry if this is harsh, but Con is outright lying. He wrote that he cited the link, when he did no such thing. He didn't cite the link, ReasonableFaith did as an anti-plagiarism measure. DDO user bladerunner060 explains:"THAT SAID, something about the way that "citation" was done pinged at me wrong, so I did a little experiment.The information is pulled from reasonablefaith, which is coded as HTML5 (you can tell because of the pink highlighting of text...boilerplate FTW).And when you paste from there?It appends a "Read more: URL" to the end.So now this person didn't even cite, no, the website did it for him as a way to PREVENT plagiarists like him. I wonder whether he even noticed." [2]I even preemptively answered this in the last round: "Virtually every statement made by Con was plagiarized from William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith website. I understand that there were links which said 'Read more:', and then a URL, but that wasn't Con trying to cite his sources. That's a built-in feature with Dr. Craig's website. If you copy and paste anything from his website, that will come with it. You can try it yourself if you don't believe me."Even if Con provided links (he didn't), that does not mean he didn't plagiarize. As the Purdue University Online Writing Lab says: 'There are some actions that can almost unquestionably be labeled plagiarism. Some of these includebuying, stealing, or borrowing a paper (including, of course, copying an entire paper or article from the Web); hiring someone to write your paper for you; and copying large sections of text from a source without quotation marks or proper citation.'Read that closely. 'Copying large sections of text from a source without quotation marks or proper citation''. Con clearly failed to do this, so it's plagiarism no matter what he says.Con has extensively plagiarized from ReasonableFaith.org, and then lied about to try and cover his tracks. Plagiarism is one the worst things you can do in life, and on a debate website like this. This is for your ideas, and your arguments. I didn't come here to debate with copy and pasted text. If Con wants any type of future on this website, he should apologize and promise to never to do this again. Until then, I'll be sure to warn anyone who debates him about this episode.Voters should give, at the very least, conduct points against Con. If I were a voter, I would give seven points against Con, and happily.ValeReferences1: A Brief History of Time, pg 532: http://www.debate.org...