Could the universe have come out of nothing without a cause

When I post an argument, and my opposition comes to conclusions rather quickly before I have the proper time to respond, the impression is that something other than honest play is going on. But I may have been wrong. This has been the case in other debates I had where the opposition was definitely manipulative, but I may have been wrong about you. You: I don't understand what Con meant with the first paragraph ("failing to realize that not everything can happen immediately: sure enough, I provided my argument for the existence of the Cause in my previous post, after defending it from you."), so I can't really respond. All I have to say is that no evidence for a god is given. Answer: When you gave your argument for the non-existence of a cause (no time before beginning therefore no cause) I responded by telling you that the cause is not governed by time because the cause created time, therefore your arugment is not valid. Then, you told me that I gave no evidence of a cause.. the reason I did not was because I was going to do it in my next post, and I did it in my next post. You: Then go to the premises. This time Con uses the analogy of a football. However, that is once again not a good analogy. If a football is made, nothing happens except that energy which already exists moves matter that already exists to form something new. When the universe started to exist, there was nothing. It came out of nothing. The two can't be compared. Answer: Look at it this way: if you find an unidentified round object infront of you, you immediately conclude there is an explanation of it's existence (f.ex., brought by wind). If you were there with someone, and you said "don't worry, I am sure it does not have an explanation, it's just there" That person would think you are crazy. Then, if we increase the size of the object to the size of the planet, it still needs an explanation, then if we increase the size of the object to the size of the solar system, it still needs an explanation, if we increase the size of the object to the size of the universe, it still needs an explanation. Size is irrelevant, the fact that it exists requires an explanation. In other words, if you require an explanation of the existence of an unidentified round object in front of you, then you also require an explanation of the universe, it follows logically -- if you say that the universe DOES NOT require an explanation, you have said that the round object that you have seen earlier does not either, which is absurd. You: The argument you gave for the second premise makes even less sense. If atheism is correct (which it most likely is), there is indeed no explanation (yet). If your (unsubstantiated and extremely unlikely) theory of god is correct there would indeed be some sort of explanation. Granted, it's a pretty terrible explanation (On par with the flying spaghetti monster or magic), but it is an explanation nonetheless. I am arguing that it is more likely that the universe came into existence without a cause than that an all powerful being exists outside of space and time, while still being able to influence space and time. Answer: The universe came out of nothing and nothing is not only empty space, it is not even space. It's quite literally nothing. Therefore, either it does have an explanation of it's existence or it does not have an explanation and it just popped into existence from nothing. If it does have an explanation, that explanation is required to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial and with free will. The reason it can't have time is because time was not created, the reason it can't have space is because space is was not created the reason it can not have matter is because matter was not created and the reason it has free will is because it could choose to make the universe rather than not. This sounds exactly like the God presented in the three major Abrahamic religions. You: I have given reasons for denying the premises, and the explanation is that you suppose that the only possible explanations are an external cause or that something necessarily exists. I am arguing that there may be more than that, and that that must be true because the alternative (god exists) is so incredibly unlikely. Answer: I have given reasons for denying the premises, and the explanation is that you suppose that the only possible explanations are an external cause or that something necessarily exists. I am arguing that there may be more than that, and that that must be true because the alternative (god exists) is so incredibly unlikely. Answer: It's not possible for anything physical to 'necessarily exist', that is only possible for numbers, sets, and other mathematical entities. When you say 'there may be more than that' you are arguing from ignorance, not only that, but since the universe is literally everything that exists by definition, there is nothing more than that. You: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. God's existence is an extraordinary claim. There is no extraordinary evidence for god. Therefore it is unlikely that he exists. That only leaves the option that the universe is uncaused. Answer: I find the claim that the universe just popped into existence and then a pondscum formed and then we came from that pondscum way more extraordinary than that it was made. Indeed, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so hand it over. I have given one philosophical argument for God, and I would have given way more if there were time, but there is simply not. I could have given you the argument of irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagella, I could have given you the logical argument that since every piece of information we know of was made by intelligence, then also the information in our cells was made by intelligence, I could give you the utter impossibility of random chance accidents to have brought this place into existence, even the extraodinary chance of a single protein itself which is at 10^130 and life way more than that. In other words, I have the evidence and I am providing it, even though your claim is more extraodinary than mine. Your denial of the premises is not due to reason, it's due to your lack of understanding of these premises, and I do not blame you, perhaps I'm a terrible writer, let the audience be the judge -- and I certainly hope a fair one at that. Then you repeat your argument which I have refuted eariler, woah.