I will PROVE that a finite past of the universe doesn't equate to it coming into being

Introduction Rational_Thinker9119 (RT) references the "Kalam Cosmological Argument" in his argument and while we are not actually debating that, it's clear that this debate derives from RT's deep interest in it. Personally, I'm just not all that interested in the Kalam Cosmological Argument, I don't debate the existence of God because there is a reason the word "faith" is associated with such belief, and therefore it is not amenable to logical proof one way or another. That said, I am a student of philosophy and will note here that the Cosmological Argument has been debated by many of the greatest minds the world has ever produced for over 2,500 years; it was put forth by no less a towering intellect than Aristotle and is unresolved and therefore it is still being debated by brilliant thinkers to this day. I would certainly not be so presumptuous as to even think that I could finally resolve it after 2,500 years, but my opponent has repeatedly made a claim that amounts to contending that he has in fact finally resolved the 2,500 year old debate with a "logical proof". I consider this to be an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, hence the challenge. That is why the resolution was worded the way it was, and it is why the debate challenge was so explicit regarding RT carrying the burden of proof regarding his oft repeated assertion. My opponent has presented two arguments, one assuming the A theory of time, the other assuming the B-Theory of time. I will address his second argument first as I believe it can be summarily discarded as a non-sequitur simply because the resolution being argued does in fact explicitly assume the A-Theory of time.Assuming the B-Theory of Time The argument "Assuming the B-Theory of Time" is completely invalid because it conflicts with the basic premise of the resolution it is attempting to argue. "A finite past" is the given assumption of the resolution, and whether or not that finite past necessitates the universe coming into being is the question being debated. The B-Series is of course tenseless, there can be no past, finite or otherwise, in the B-Series. Consequently, it is logically incoherent to assume the B-Theory in support of an argument regarding the implications of a finite past when the B-Theory denies the very existence of a finite past. My opponent summarizes the argument as follows, "If the B-Theory of time is true, then the universe did not come into being even if it has a finite past". This is clearly the equivocation fallacy contained in a single sentence, if the B-Theory is true, the universe did not come into being AND it does not have a finite past, it is certainly not valid to say "even if" it has a finite past. My opponent states that "This is not even controversial" to which I would have to respond with a Wolfgang Pauli quote, "It isn't even wrong", it is just logically incoherent. Hence, the argument "Assuming the B-Theory of Time" cannot be considered a valid logical argument.Assuming the A-Theory of Time My opponent's argument "Assuming the A-Theory of Time" merits more consideration and a deeper analysis. The problem I see with RT's argument is that it provides no evidence whatsoever that he can in fact prove anything associated with his extraordinary claim, it is in fact unclear to me whether it even qualifies as a logical argument, and I am certain that it does not constitute "proof" by any stretch of the imagination. I must start by addressing my opponent's extraordinary claim and the resolution itself because RT used the phrase "harsh misnomer" to characterize use of the phrase "it came into being" if in fact there was no prior to the first state of the universe. But if that is the case, then the debate resolution itself is a "harsh misnomer" and his extraordinary claim simply makes no sense. What is being debated here is the implication of a "finite past", to say that the universe has a "finite past" is to say that it is temporally finite, and by definition it must be temporally "bounded or limited" in order to be "finite". Within the context of time, which is what temporal means of course, to contend that the totality of time is coextensive with the past of the universe is to deny that the past is temporally "finite". There would be no difference between finite and infinite in the case my opponent is arguing because the past is not bounded or limited within the temporal dimension being addressed. So in that context, the word finite is the misnomer and my opponent"s extraordinary claim is simply a matter of misguided semantics.That said, now I will address his argument. If A = there was no "prior" to the first state of the universe And B = we cannot say it came into beingThen the logical form of his argument is:1) If A then B2) Therefore BThis of course, is not a valid argument, the valid argument would be:1) If A then B2) A3) Therefore BBut in his argument RT only maintains "If A, then B" without doing anything whatsoever to establish A, and as such, it amounts to simply saying that "If I am right, then I am right, and I am right", which might a reasonnable characterization his assertion, but it is not an argument. The only things he has even attempted to offer in order to establish A is that "It seems at least possible" and his contention that A is "self-evidently metaphysically conceivable". I certainly don't see how what it seems like to my opponent can be considered evidence or proof, and his contention that A is "self-evidently metaphysically conceivable" is nothing but an unwarranted assertion, it is not in fact, self-evident. "It seems" and "it is self-evident" are not valid arguments in defense of the extraordinary claim my opponent has made and they certainly do not constitute a logical proof, they appear to simply be a semantic rewording of the extraordinary claim rather than a logical argument in support of the claim. With these two contentions RT is only really saying that if one were to accept his claim on faith, then one would have no reason to question it, and that certainly isn't an argument.RT only offers two other contentions that could even vaguely be considered supportive of his claim, one is his oft repeated assertion that "We have no reason to think that a "prior" to the universe had to have been the case" and the other being "According to our best science, the universe is around 13. 7 billion years old". The first contention appears to be nothing more than a subtle attempt to shift the burden of proof, in the context of such an extraordinary claim it only really says "You must prove me wrong", so it is not a valid argument. It is also flat out wrong, there are certainly good reasons to think that, but I am running out of space and will have to offer that refutation in the next round. RT's reference to our "best science" as it relates to cosmology invokes the Lambda-CDM model "as if" it supports his claim when it clearly does not, this misguided representation of there being scientific evidence in support of his extraordinary claim is based on an equivocation, but again, due to character limitations I will have to address that misrepresentation in the next round. Conclusion RT has repeatedly made an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, and as explicitly stated in the debate challenge, "I am contending that he has not and cannot "prove" the assertion". I believe this initial review of my opponent's argument explicitly demonstrates that "it provides no evidence whatsoever that he can in fact prove anything associated with his extraordinary claim". Again I will quote Wolfgang Pauli, "It isn"t even wrong", and in fact, the case has been made that it isn't even an argument. Consequently, he has not provided a logical argument, and what he has provided certainly does not constitute "proof".Sources http://en.wikipedia.org...\http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...