I will debate ANY TOPIC

AveI will keep this round relatively simple.In contemporary philosophy, an argument is sound if all of the premises are true and the argument is logically valid. Since I believe that the argument is logically valid, I will refute the truth of the premises, thereby establishing the unsoundness of the argument.Pro employs ambiguous language, a great sin in analytic philosophy, in defending premise one. He defends it based on the "obvious" metaphysical principle that "out of nothing, nothing comes". Even if this metaphysical principle is true, it does nothing to support the first premise. An entity can begin to exist without a cause even it does not come out of nothing. For example, in certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, virtual particles emerge out of the quantum vacuum with no cause, thus constituting an entity that begins to exist without a cause. However, they did not emerge from absolute nothingness.Pro's second defense of premise one is ambiguous, as it changes the meaning of the first premise. Pro asks why we don't see entities popping into existence every day if the first premise is incorrect. Here, Pro is not speaking of entities coming from nothing, but entities coming into existence in a spatio-temporal context, much like virtual particles. P1 is first defended by the notion that something does not come from nothing, but now it is being defended on the notion that everything that begins in space-time has a cause. The same is true for the third premise. Pro bases his defense on our experience, which takes place in a spatio-temporal context. Therefore, he is again defending it based on the notion that everything that begins in space-time has a cause, not on any metaphysical principle about entities coming out of nothing.Pro implicitly assumes that we should trust our "metaphysical intuition", whatever that may mean. Such "metaphysical intuitions" are seldom accurate. Aristotle's metaphysical intuitions about motion were overturned by Galileo and Newton's first law. Our intuitive notions about action-at-a-distance, or locality, were overthrown by Alain Aspect's experiments with elementary particles. Experiment, contrary to our metaphysical intuition, has demonstrated that two particles can have instantaneous causal relationships with each from opposite sides of the universe. From the history of science, there are no good reasons for accepting our "metaphysical intuition".Pro states that we experience things coming into being having causes, so everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is clearly an attempt at inductively justifying the first premise. I'm shocked that he does this without noting any of the problems with this method. I can use inductive generalization to disprove the theory of relativity! In all of my experience, when an object in motion gets pushed, it travels faster. Therefore, I can make an inductive generalization that an object in motion goes faster when it’s pushed. Imagine a William Lane Craig book traveling at the speed of light. According to my inductive generalization, if I push the book, it will travel faster than the speed of light. This means that my inductive generalization has proven that an object can travel faster than the speed of light. If your warrant for P1 can be used to disprove one of the most confirmed theories in all of science, there’s something wrong with your warrant.There is another problem with this kind of reasoning. Pro is utilizing inductive reasoning, which does not yield necessarily true conclusions. In another words, it can always have its conclusion disproved at a later point. However, premise one purports itself to be necessarily true for anything that begins to exist. Inductive generalization is only tentative, so it cannot be used to support a premise that claims to be logically necessary.Pro is taking Einstein's general theory of relativity beyond its range of validity. Physicists do not know if the universe began to exist or not. General relativity, which invokes principles such as the principle of locality, is inconsistent with quantum mechanics, which demonstrates non-locality. This inconsistency has greatly disturbed physicists, and they have taken up numerous attempts at solving this inconsistency through quantum gravity and string theory. On some of these models, the universe began to exist, while on others, the universe existed forever. Since physicists don't know which one of our complete theories of the universe is true, they refuse to conclude whether or not the universe began to exist.Pro's mathematical proof against an actually existing infinite is not convincing. In his first scenario, one has an infinite number of marbles and gives their friend all of the even numbered marbles. One would then have an infinite number of marbles remaining left. However, if one gives their friend every marble three and above, then they will have two marbles left. However sound this may appear, it has no application to time. When one is dealing with marbles, they cannot have "1.7 marbles" or "2.8" marbles. One either has a marble, or they do not. This means that in the second exchange, one cannot have an infinite number of marbles because they cannot have all of the numbers in between zero and one and one and two. However, when dealing with time, such quantiites are possible, like "1.5 seconds" or "9.8 seconds". If we take Pro's argument and use time instead, then the problem becomes quite clear.Suppose that one has an infinite amount of time, whereas their friend has no time. If they give them all of their time after three seconds, the person will have an infinite amount of time remaining. Thus, infinity minus infinity is infinity. What if they give all of their time above two away? They will still have an infinite amount of time, for there are states of time corresponding to 2.1, 2.11, 2.111, ad infinitum. Thus, infinity minus infinity is stil infinity.It is logically possible for the universe to have caused itself to come into being. This may seem absurd at first glance. As popular reasoning goes, "If something causes itself, doesn't it exist before it begins to exist?" I would agree that this type of self-causality is absurd. Something cannot cause itself to begin to exist before it begins existing. However, there is a different type of self-causality which does not fall into this absurdity. Suppose that the universe brings itself into being at an instantaneous moment; In other words, it causes itself at the same time it comes into being. One cannot object to this scenario on the basis that the universe exists before it causes itself, because there is no temporal gap in the scenario I am describing. Therefore, there is a logically possible situation where the universe brings itself into being.It is logically possible for the universe to have no cause. I have already shown that the warrants Pro gives for the proposition that “everything that begins to exist has a cause” are insufficient. Therefore, it is entirely possible for the universe to have began without any cause.In conclusion, Pro's defense of P1 requires him to take two inconsistent interpretations of what P1 is even saying, entailing that his case for the premise is incoherent. Furthemore, his justifications cannot be taken as support for the premise. His contention that the universe began to exist cannot be established by contemporary physics.Vale