Atheism Doesn't Necessarily Entail That A Universe With A Finite Past Came From Nothing

Con's Position Is A Non-StarterAs I already alluded to in my last round (which my opponent himself even seemed to notice), Con's whole position is based on a false-dichotomy; which is an elementary logical fallacy. Here is a direct quote from my opponent:"My position is that the universe must either be eternal (as in, it always was) or it spontaneously generated from nothing, if we assume no creator." - ConFirst of all, I already gave a third option in my first round breaking this non-dilemma. Secondly, my opponent's position is logically incoherent as his definition does not comply with the English Language. Con tries to equate "eternal" with "it always was" as if they have identical meanings. This is problematic, because "always" by definition simply means "at all times":"al·ways(ôl w z, -w z, -w z) adv. 1. At all times;"[1] As far as we know, the universe has existed at every point of time there ever was (which includes 13.7 billion years). This means, that defining "eternal" as "it always was" is a non-starter from the get-go, as even with a finite past the universe has always existed. This means, that Con's position is fatally flawed by default due to the definition error on behalf of my opponent.Con's Definition Of NothingThis whole section from Con is essentially pointless, as I do not disagree with my opponent's definition; my argument works assuming this very definition. This section from my opponent is also a Red-Herring, as I deny the "nothing" aspect completely in my view, making squabbles about the definition of "nothing" a fruitless distraction.Addressing The Problem Con Has With My Argument"The major reason I would object to my opponent’s theory is because it lacks the answer to this question: What came before this finite universe? What was there one second before 13.7 billion years ago?" - ConMy view assumes that there is no "before" the first state of the universe 13.7 billion years ago. Thus, asking what came "before" is a logically flawed question as far as my position is concerned. It would be like asking what is in the basket in my room, when there is no basket in my room... The question is inherently illogical. Similarly, if there is no "before" the first state of the universe 13.7 billion years ago, then asking what was "before" this first state would be equally absurd. "There are only two general answers to this question: 1. Something. 2. Nothing." - ConIf there was a "prior", or "before" the first state of the universe 13.7 billion years ago, then yes; we would have to ask if there was something, or nothing. This is self-evidently a true-dichotomy. However, this question only has meaning if there was a "prior" or "before" the universe to even ask such a thing. My view is that the universe existed in a very compact state 13.7 billion years ago and expanded, but there was no "before" this state. Once more, if there is no "before", then asking what was "before" is an unreasonable question if we are trying to determine the truth involving an ontologically real scenario. "There are only two possibilities for a finite universe. Either it came from something else or it came from nothing." - ConI already pre-rebutted this assumption from Con in my last round:"Instead of adhering to the notion that the universe came from absolutely nothing, we can just assume the first state of the universe didn't 'come from' at all; it just existed 13.7 billion years ago and expanded." - MeWe can just assume that the first state of the universe all those billions of years didn't "come from" at all, it just existed and expanded. To say the universe "came from" either something or nothing, assumes the universe must have came into being if it has a finite past. While this is a common position, it is dead false. In order for the universe to have come into being, then prior to the first state of the universe, the universe must have been out of being (something cannot come into being, unless it was out of being prior). However, since my view denies any "before" or "prior" to the first state of the universe 13.7 billion years ago, then there was never a "prior" to the first state of the universe at which it did not exist. This means, that even with a finite past, the conclusion that the universe came into being can be easily avoided. Here is a diagram to illustrate the different between:(i) A universe with a finite past, that came into being (or "came from" either something or nothing)and(ii) A universe with a finite past, that did not come into being (or, did not "come from" either something or nothing) If you notice picture (i), you will notice that the universe is out of being prior to the first state it exists. Thus, the universe has a finite past and comes into being. If you take a look at (ii), you will notice that there is no "prior" to the universe at which it is out of being. Thus, claiming it came into being as far as (ii) is concerned, would be a harsh misnomer to say the least. In a nut shell, Con's claim that a universe with a finite past must have either come from something or nothing is clearly false. Thus, my opponent claiming that it is a necessary truth was nothing short of outrageous to put it mildly.ConclusionMany of my opponent's concerns were already addressed in my last round, which leads me to believe Con did not properly read my last round, or simply did not comprehend the concepts I was putting forward. In my first round, I outlined the difference between a first state of the universe that comes from nothing, and a first state of the universe that doesn't come from nothing. Since Con did not show any logical or metaphysical problems with my diagrams in the last round, then I proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Atheist can assume the universe has a finite past without assuming the universe came from nothing. In this round, I showed that Con's position is a non-starter from the get go as it is based on a faulty definition, and is fallacious. I also demonstrated in this round that a finite past need not even come into being, and the the universe always existed even with a finite past. Since I addressed all of Con's concerns sufficiently, while Con has yet to make a dent in any of my argumentation; the resolution is strongly affirmed. Sources[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...