DDO Olympics Philosophy and Morals: Round 2

I'm going to start by re-iterating the definition of God from the first round, keep it in mind for later: the necessary, personal first cause of the universe.Premise 1An Overview of Modal LogicCon Rebuttal: Oscillating Universe Cosmology (OUC)My overview of modal logic simply states definitions. Arguments pertaining to the contingent or necessary nature of the universe are in response to the LCA's second premise. I moved my answer to this argument down below.The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)Con Rebuttal: Reliance on Sensory PerceptionThe PSR does not necessarily rely on sensory perception. Yes, my first argument in favor of the PSR does cite sensory perception. However, that is not the entirety of the argument. The PSR has its foundation of the philosophical principleex nihilo nihil fit, from nothing comes nothing. Lets assume the falsity of this principle and the PSR. Imagine a world in which happenings do not need reasons. If existence did not require explanation then why do objects not simply pop into existence? The very fact that things no not pop into existence without reason is proof that things that do exist have reason.Furthermore, I continue with a much stronger argument in favor of the PSR, the implicit justification of negative states of affairs. If a dog does not bark then our explanation is that it lacked cause to bark. This explanation inherently accepts the validity of the PSR. If my opponent would like to reject the PSR then he must explain why dogs do not always bark.------Con Rebuttal: Quantum PhysicsMy opponents states that, "recent developments in physics, particularly in the fields of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, have falsified numerous old assumptions/intuitions about the nature of our universe, showing that our current sense/experience-based intuitions about the universe are not at all guaranteed to be correct, either."It is my opponents burden, if he wishes to support this argument, to specifically state what discoveries have been made and what precisely their implications are. If we do not hold academic claims to this standard then any argument can be refuted by somebody shouting out that, "recent discoveries in the fields of biology, agriculture, physics, mathematics, and art have proved this argument wrong" and the defense of any argument would be impossible as one would be forced to find arguments that may not even exist in order to refute them. I'll allow my opponent to introduce new arguments in the next round pertaining to quantum physics, granted that he explicitly states what the arguments are.-----Con Rebuttal: The conditions prior to the Big Bang were radically different - Part 1I'm not entirely sure what my opponent is trying to argue. Yes there was a lack of space and time, this is addressed in my second premise as a reason in favor of the LCA. This argument precludes the possibility of a physical explanation of the universe, ergo an abstract explanation is required. I'll refer back to this below. For now let's address the possibility of universes creating themselves independent of space and time, without regard to the PSR. If that is the case, then why hasn't another universe created itself on top of our own? If a universe can, through physical, i.e. brute action create itself without reason, and this occurs independent of space and time, then at any seconds of our lives there ought to be an infinite number of universes creating themselves and in an infinite number of universes an infinite number should come into existence precisely where ours did. This does not happen so we know that the universe did have reason to come about, i.e. there was a cause. This proves that the origin of the universe followed the PSR. As I promised I will prove that this cause was not natural below.Perhaps more importantly, my opponent explicitly states that he is defending the BBT and claiming that the laws of physics were different prior to the Big Bang Singularity (BBS). However, the second source he links in defense of this claim, his third citation (http://superstringtheory.com...) poses arguments that reject the BBT entirely. It specifically states, "This exploration is guided by three outstanding problems with the Big Bang cosmological model" and does not explain how these objections are resolved using the BBT. My opponent has thus far proposed 2 cosmological theories. He uses the OUC as refutation to the LCA, then dismisses the OUC in favor of the BBT, and in his defense of the BBT he links an article that refutes the validity of the BBT. I haven't a clue as to what my opponents position is.Premise 2Con Rebuttal: Oscillating Universe CosmologyThe OUC, if true, does not prove that the universe exists necessarily. Yes, the universe would be eternal in the future direction, however in the past the universe would still have a cause. Let me explain: The OUC is essentially the same thing as the BBT except after the universe collapses, it uses that collapse in order to cause another bang and reform the universe. In other words, the OUC and the BBT both argue for the same origin of the universe, where they differ is how the universe acts upon its collapse. As such, we can address the origin of the universe for both theories with the same arguments. The OUC allows the universe's existence to explain every universe after the first, however it does not explain the existence of the first universe, or the cause of the first big bang. There was no prior universe to collapse and cause the first universe to form, or it would not be the first universe.-----Con Rebuttal: This premise is a baseless assertion, the universe could be necessaryI addressed this above-----Con Rebuttal: Needlessly inserting the word Natural My opponent misunderstands my argument. All things exist physically or non-physically. That's pretty simple and is a tautological truth, either it has a physical form or it does not. Solid objects are physical, the laws of logic and mathematics are not. Brains are physical, minds are not. You can replace the word Natural in my argument with physical and arrive at the same conclusion, they mean the same thing in terms of the LCA. My opponent then denies the possibility of there being a divine first cause. Nobody is talking about divinity. The God I defend is defined as, "the necessary, personal first cause of the universe." There are three conditions for a being to be defined as God. (1) It exists necessarily, not contingently. (2) It is personal. Nonphysical beings are either personal or abstract. For example, the laws of mathematics have no intent or thought, they are abstract. A mind would be able to think, ergo it would be personal. (3) It is the first cause. The LCA holds that the first cause of the universe must exist necessarily and must be personal, ergo the first cause must be God. Remember that I am not assuming that God is the only explanation. The LCA addresses types of explanations. Because every other type of explanation is impossible, we know that the final explanation must be true through the process of elimination.-----Con Rebuttal: The conditions prior to the Big Bang were radically different - Part 2If the universe is contingent, which I proved above, then it must have a first cause that is necessary. As said last round, "The existence of a contingent being cannot be explained solely by other contingent beings, for those contingent beings would require explanations from other contingent beings ad infinitum. Thus, there must be a first cause, a necessary being that explains the existence of all contingent beings." Now extend everything I wrote under my second premise from last round in order to exclude the possibility of a natural first cause. The warrants are not directly addressed, so I do not need to respond to any rebuttals for them to stand.