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

Explicitly stated in the challenge, my contention is that “he has not and cannot "prove" the assertion without resorting to equivocation, conflicting axioms, shifting the burden of proof or other logical fallacies and the challenge was for him to "accept the burden of proof and make a valid argument”. I will bold these logical fallacies from now when he does resort to these fallacies. Introduction I had simply stated that he is making an extraordinary claim and he has not tried to refute that, but he still responded with the tactic of shifting the burden of proof through equivocation. He begins by stating that. “There is no consensus in philosophy on the Kalam Cosmological Argument” which supports my comment that it is unresolved, and then equivocates on the very definition of “unresolved” to try to shift the burden of proof, saying that “I must prove” that all philosophers agree on the subject and therefore there is absolute consensus, in order for it to be “unresolved”. It just makes no sense to claim that I must prove it is “resolved” to say that it s “unresolved”. RT appears to want to have a different debate with me than the one we are having, if he wants to argue that the KCA is resolved, or that “unresolved” means “resolved”, then perhaps he can challenge me to another debate after this one is over and I will accept, but as far as this debate is concerned, he did agree that this isn’t what we are debating, and he did in fact validate my contention that he cannot prove his extraordinary claim without equivocation and shifting the burden of proof. He is equivocating on what we are debating and on the definition of “unresolved”, and trying to shift the burden of proof by insisting that I must prove that “unresolved” means “resolved”, clearly a logical fallacy. B-Theory RT’s entire argument is based on an equivocation between McTaggart’s mutually exclusive A and B Series of time, it asks us to assume two conflicting axioms, and then shifts the burden of proof by challenging me to prove his equivocations wrong, this of course is not a proof by any reasonable standard of logic. I dismissed his B Theory argument on completely valid grounds and he now appears to want to have yet another different debate with me about B Theory and Eternalism, and again, perhaps he can challenge me to another debate after this one is over and I will accept, but I would like to finish this debate first. I correctly showed that his assumption of the B-Theory negates the resolution and his argument because the B-Theory is tenseless and the equivocation between assuming a finite past under the A Theory and then concluding that it “doesn’t equate to it coming into being” under the B Theory is in fact the logical fallacy of equivocation. He claimed that “tensed language can be used when dealing with tenseless theories”, which is only an observation that tensed language is typically used when the tenselessness of the B Theory is comparedto the tensed A Theory, but it is a “begging the question” logical fallacy. It remains true that “Those who wish to eliminate all talk of past, present and future in favour of a tenseless ordering of events are called B-theorists [1]”and he does assume the B Theory while talking about the past. My dismissal of this as a logical fallacy stands unscathed. He goes on to have an argument with himself about A and B Theory, and Presentism and Eternalism, contradicting himself, presenting references that actually support my assertion, presenting a false logical syllogism about Eternalism and the B Theory which states that the past, present, and future are all real when McTaggart's A and B Theory argument was an argument that time itself is not real. He somehow concludes from this selfdialog that what I meant to say “is that there is no past with respect to an objective present in a tenseless theory”,but that is not what I meant to say, what I meant to say is what I said, that “the argument "Assuming the B-Theory ofTime" cannot be considered a valid logical argument”. In the end, it is another attempt to shift the burden of proof by stating “My opponent simply hasn't proved that the past, present, or future cannot exist under B-Theory”, which I certainly don’t need to do, I only need to point out the logical fallacy inherent his argument’s equivocation between A and B theory, and the logical fallacy of assuming the B Theory to talk about a finite past, and I have done both. He again tries to mock my simple comment about being a philosophy student, which I have been for over thirty years, saying “This seems rather embarrassing for a philosophy student, because simple research begs to differ”, despite the fact that even the simple research he referenced disputes the validity of his argument. Mocking an opponent under false pretenses might be a common Internet debate tactic, but it is not a valid logical argument and it certainly does not constitute proof of an extraordinary claim. Perhaps my opponent should become a philosophy student to learn what a logical argument is and what constitutes a logical proof. A-Theory (Prelude) RT begins with another semantic equivocation, the fact that he has not provided “any evidence for his assertion” isrefuted by claiming that “external evidence” is not required in an a priori argument. Nonsense, an a priori assertion is certainly not proven by assertion only, at least something is required to prove an extraordinary claim. He then proceeds to another Internet debate tactic of demeaning my approach by claiming that am appealing to ridicule by saying his “argument isn't "even an argument" and it is just an "extraordinary claim", when it is a fact that he has yet to present a logical argument to support what is indeed an extraordinary claim. He then equivocates between the “temporal dimension” of my valid point, and an “existential dimension” of the universe having a first state, as if it supports his argument when it actually refutes his argument because the existence of a temporal prior to the existence of the universe does in fact equate to it coming into being, another logical fallacy. A-Theory RT equivocates about what he said and didn’t say here; he refutes my valid representation of the form of his argument, by claiming “I never once made that argument”, which simply isn’t true. I represented the form of his argument as stating “if there was no "prior" to the first state of the universe”, then “we cannot say it came into being", and that is what he argued, I will quote what he said: “With the universe however, it is self-evidently possible that there is no "prior" to it's first state at all. What if there was no "prior" to the first state of the universe all that time ago? Then there could be no "prior" to the first state of the universe at which the universe did not exist, meaning that we cannot say it came into being if that was the case.” Clearly he did he make that argument, and it is in fact the only argument he has yet to make. He goes on to try to mock my philosophy student comment again with a peculiar invalid argument that I should know that claiming an assertion is self-evident constitutes an a priori proof, nevertheless, an “extraordinary claim” is not proven by simply declaring it “self-evident”. Conclusion I do not carry the “shifted burden of proof” to prove the equivocations about his argument’s “conflicting axioms” wrong, I only need to prove that his argument is based on these logical fallacies to make my case and I have done so conclusively. My opponent needs to engage in the actual debate we are having and attempt to either present an actual argument that constitutes “proof” of his extraordinary claim, or just concede the debate, and he has yet to do either one. Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...