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

Introduction RT is committing the fallacy of thinking I’'ll continue to follow him down these rat holes extrinsic to the actual debate we are supposed to be having, but I won't. I see no need to explain the meaning of the word unresolved, we have dictionaries for that, and I will let the voters decide for themselves whether my use of the word “unresolved” requires unanimous consensus from all philosophers. I consider RT’s repeated assertion that the basis of the 2,500 year old Cosmological Argument has been resolved with a logical proof to be an exceptional claim, and I don’t accept that “it is just self-evident” and there is “no reason to think otherwise” constitute proof of that exceptional claim and won’t debate it further. I will simply leave it to the voters to decide for themselves if it is reasonable to think that Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Gottfried Leibniz, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Bertrand Russell and hundreds of other brilliant philosophers spent the last 2.500 years just wasting time on a first cause debate when it is was self-evidently obvious that there is no real argument to be had, and they can also decide for themselves whether or not the various reasons these profound thinkers have debated over the centuries didn’t actually exist. Frankly, his approach leads me to wonder if my opponent learned to debate by watching Monte Python’s “Argument Clinic” skit and I intend to give the relentless stream of unrelated disputes and semantic distractions no further consideration. Instead, I will turn my attention to the task at hand and try to find something in my opponent’s ramblings that might vaguely be interpreted as supportive of his exceptional claim so I can address that. B-Theory The simple fact remains that the B Theory is “tenseless” and the follow on quote from my reference was taken out of context, the point made was that the A Theory’s “past, present, and future are equally real" and exist concurrently without tense, the word “past” expresses “tense” and is meaningless in the B-Theory. The B-Theory does in fact deny a coming into being, but it also denies the “finite past” of the resolution, so the argument is not valid and does not constitute proof of his extraordinary claim by any stretch of the imagination. A-Theory Prelude) More irrelevant semantic distractions, dismissed without further comment. A-Theory After I quoted him, RT now recants his objection that he “never once said that” and concurs that “If A then B” is in fact his argument. But he now claims he need not substantiate anything for it to constitute the proof of his exceptional claim other than to say “it only has to be possible”. He makes no other effort whatsoever to establish that it is possible other than to assert that it is “self-evidently possible”, which is not a valid argument. “The validity of an argument depends solely on whether or not the argument has a valid logical form” [1] As I pointed out, “If A then B” does not have a valid logical form. “An argument must have at least two premises and one conclusion” [2] Yet it only has one premise, consequently, my refutation was not an appeal to ridicule as RT accuses, it was just a statement of fact that it “isn’t even an argument”, and as such, it certainly cannot be the “proof” of his extraordinary claim. As promised, I searched through my opponent’s ramblings to find something else that might be construed as supporting his extraordinary claim and all I found is his oft repeated assertion that “We have no reason to think that a "prior" to the universe had to have been the case”. That assertion is simply false, there are in fact plenty of reasons to think that, and I will address only a few that my remaining space permits. RT stated, “Also, my opponent is correct that a temporally prior to the universe, at which there was no universe would mean that the universe came into being”, so he has acknowledged that the existence of these reasons would completely refute his argument. Note that the contention is strictly epistemological, nothing more than “a reason to think it” is required; what follows are only a few of the many reasons to think it: While the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) is certainly controversial, it is a necessary presupposition of both logic and science in the pursuit of intelligibility, and it states that everything must have a reason or cause. The PSR is the methodological basis of all arguments and of reason itself, and given the PSR, a finite past to the Universe necessarily raises the question of what an antecedent cause or reason for its first state would be, and clearly an antecedent cause or reason for the first state would necessarily precede it temporally. The PSR is certainly a valid “reason to think” there must be a prior, and to simply ignore the PSR is to dismiss the foundational principle of logic, science, arguments, and reason itself. In his so called “proof” RT equivocates between treating time as a neo-platonic incorporeal variable, and a substantivalist treatment as a kind of substance or entity, which is logically inconsistent. There are two general ways to think of time, as an epistemological construct, defined simply as “what our clocks measure”, and as having ontological status independent of human existence, which is Einstein's relativistic spacetime component of the fabric of the universe. Kant’s primary achievement, why he is considered “The father of modern philosophy”, was to demonstrate that the mind is constructive of reality, and space and time are the frameworks of how we think about reality, so we necessarily think of time in terms of the epistemological construct mentioned. When RT says the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago he is in fact using the epistemological construct measured in terms of temporal distance from the present, and in such a construct, there is indeed a measurement that corresponds to 13.8 billion years ago, which would temporally precede the first state and by his own admission, necessitate a coming into being. His equivocation to substantivalist time to insist there need not be a prior to the first state is a misinterpretation of the “best science” he references to make the point. In cosmology, “our best science” is the “standard” or “Lambda-CDM” model, which explicitly states that spacetime came into existence during the Big Bang, which necessitates a temporal “prior” to its emergence. RT’s own misinformed reference to “our best science” actually refutes his extraordinary claim and is therefore a logical fallacy. Lastly, the General Theory is explicitly ontological, it tells us what space, time, matter, and energy are, and what it says they are is relationships, as such, they are contingent substances, and their postulated coming into being at a specific point in time by the Lambda-CDM model does in fact logically necessitate a prior realm or framework upon which they can be contingent. Conclusion I have shown conclusively that RT has yet to provide the stipulated logical proof and in fact, has yet to evenpresent an argument in support of his extraordinary claim. All that he has provided so far is semantic distractions, logical fallacies, and self-refuting references, certainly nothing here yet constitutes proof of his claim. He has also gone first in this debate and will get to go last, which is fine because I didn’t say the first round was for acceptance only. But in the interest of an honest debate, I would ask that he finally present an argument in the next round so I have an opportunity to respond to it, if his tactic is to wait till the final round to actually present an argument I will be forced to use the comments section to respond. I am still waiting to see the logical proof of your extraordinary claim RT, please present one next. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...