There Is an External Cause of the Universe

Thanks for the reply. On the resolution: My opponent suggests that I am not being topical in this debate--that I have somehow failed to uphold the resolution. My opponent makes only two claims regarding this: 1. That I have the BoP to show that an external cause is necessaryRebuttal (1): *I accept the BoP of showing that "There is an External Cause of the Universe." *I have not stopped attempting to demonstrate that this is the case since the beginning of the debate. I have no idea what my opponent is trying to say in this claim.*My opponent designed this resolution and challenged me. There should be no reason why my opponent is unprepared to debate this resolution.*This is round 3. Why didn't my opponent read my arguments earlier?*Con's claim that this is not the appropriate debate is not only wrong (I follow the definitions and the debate perfectly) but is also bordering on "semantics," which would be an automatic 7-point loss for my opponent. I would not like to win that way, however, so please don't make this your sole reason for voting for me.2. That "it's very hard for [Con] to argue against the resolution" because of my suggestion that quantum fluctuations are external causes and " "space" outside the known universe operates differently."Rebuttal (2):*I sympathize with my opponent's difficult position in this debate, but I must remind the voters that he challenged me to debate this resolution; thus, he should not complain that his position is too difficult.*Concerning quantum fluctuations, I merely pointed out that they are either part of the universe or not part of the universe. If they are not part of the universe, than they are "external" to it according to my opponent's definition, and under that scenario I have already won. If it is internal to the universe, it cannot explain the origin of the universe, for quantum fluctuations would then need to be explained (After all, remember that my opponent's definition of "Universe" is "The totality of all states of the universe").*My opponent has also claimed that it is unfair for me to point out that we have no idea how entities external to the known universe act. This should be obvious since they are, in my opponent's words, "outside the known universe." If they are not part of the "known" then they are "un-known," so it should come as no surprise that we do not know how such entities behave. This is hardly unfair--I am merely pointed out that this is not a good argument for my opponent to make.Sources: *My opponent dropped two of the most important arguments in this debate: My argument part I, and my analysis on "sources." I have written out four paragraphs outlining exactly how sources should be evaluated, and why they should be evaluated in this manner. My opponent merely said: "As for sources, my opponent has failed to present sources that show some sort of evidence for his argument, using them instead to make a philosophical argument. The sources I present provide evidence for the assertions I make, and this well gets factored in to the source vote."*My opponent completely ignored my reasons for not providing sources. I argue that all sources on this topic are completely useless in my debate (see part I). I pointed out that the only fair system would be that if my opponent proves me wrong, then sources should be evaluated normally, but if I am right in that my opponent's sources are useless, then I have shown the most proper role of sources in the discourse and therefore win the sources vote. The quality of my opponent's sources do not matter if they are irrelevant--I could provide great sources on gender theory, but doing so would be irrelevent and I'd lose the sources votes.*My opponent has utterly ignored these arguments (all four paragraphs), so they should automatically flow to me. Please be aware in case my opponent puts in new arguments in the conclusion; I will not be able to respond or point them out.Part I (Infinite Causal Probability):My opponent completely misunderstands my first, and most important argument. This argument not only demonstrates an infinite probability of there being an external cause, but also effectively refutes my opponent's entire case.Here is how the argument went:a. There is a possibility that the "past" is an illusion that was created along with the rest of the universe 1 second ago.b. All scientific data is explained just as effectively by the hypothesis that there is no past as the hypothesis that there is a past (beyond 1 second).*My opponent only addresses points "a" and "b." My opponent suggests that a-b alone is not at all sufficient proof of there existing an external cause of the universe. I emphatically agree. My argument comes from points c, d, e, f, and g; all of which my opponent ignores.*Thus, Russell's illustration about the teapot has nothing to do with this scenario, because in a-b, I'm only establishing that there is a possibility of this existence. The probability of its existence comes later.*The only thing I wanted to show in a-b is that there ONE possibility that equally explains all data. Oddly enough, my opponent seems to agree with me: "However possible this may be, it does not satisfy....burden of proof." My opponent does not once contend that this is possible. My opponent also does not contend that this hypothesis equally explains the data, effectively conceding both points I was making in a-b. *My opponent claims that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence." My opponent is basically claiming that his position is more parsimonious (follows Occham's Razor more closely) than my position. I'm going to flip that claim on its head. It is Con who assumes that this universe existed in the past without any evidence whatsoever. I am the one simply doubting this. My explanation that the universe didn't exist actually removes an unnecessary element (the hypothesized "past-universe"), in favor of something simpler: "some external cause." Therefore, the mythical lion either applies to my opponent's hypothesis or both our hypothesis (1 second ago and however many years ago my opponent is claiming) are equally parsimonious. Even if I am wrong and my opponent is right about this, however, parsimony does not much matter because of my other points state that there is infinitely high probability of an external cause.Here comes the important parts:c. Since we know that there is one possibility of the universe being 1 second old, there are at least two possibilities that the earth is 1 or 2 seconds old, and three possibilities of the universe being 1 second, 2 seconds, or 2 and 1/2 seconds old. If you consider all of the fractions of seconds, the universe has an infinite possibility of being caused externally even in the last second. Considering the fact that my opponent thinks that the universe is billions of years old, the number of possibilities that the universe was created by an external force are clearly infinite.*My opponent dropped "c" entirely.d. Any one of my opponent's hypothetical scenarios represent only one possibility (optimistically) over billions of years. My position is infinite. Therefore, there is an infinite chance that the universe was created by an external force. Therefore, my position is infinitely more plausible (in effect, proof positive).*My opponent dropped "d" entirely. Uncontested my assertion that there is an infinite possibility of my hypothesis, I therefore win this debate by default.*My opponent may be tempted to make a new argument against this that I can't refute. Please be aware of this, judges.e. This point just reinforces what I said in "d" so my opponent doesn't miss it. Unfortunately it's--*Uncontestedf. Creation of the universe in this manner is caused by something external to the universe, even if it is similar to universe as some of my opponent's hypothesis suggest.*Uncontestedg. Balance of probability is infinitely in my favor.*UncontestedEmpirical Non-Evidence (Ships Passing in the Night):*My opponent fundamentally misunderstood my first argument. Due to this fact, my opponent, I feel, has misunderstood my entire case, including the reason for my discounting empirical evidence (which I wrote on thoroughly and explicitly last round).*Basically, because all of the "evidence" of the past might as logically be new memories formed seconds ago along with the creation of the world, this "evidence" cannot be used to predict that the universe is 1 second old, let alone billions of years old.*My opponent talks about the movements of galaxies billions of years ago, but there is an infinitely small possibility of this "evidence" working at all--a point that my opponent implicitly conceded multiple times in "I: a-g".*My opponent does not give a single clear argument for why my a-e points of the "Ships...Night" section are incorrect. My opponent basically just restates his scientific evidence and says he thinks they should count.Extend my all of my "II: Infinite Regress" points. For every second I accept as a possibility of external causation, Con must deny.III: Common Sense:*My opponent claims that kinetic energy laws etc. defy "logic," but this is not at all true. You can't defy logic. They do however, defy "expectations," but that is not the point I'm making. My opponent's arguments do not contest the value of common sense. Please extend.IV. Ethics/PsychologyMy whole purpose in IV is to show that I: Infinite Causation is practical and helpful. My opponent does not disagree. Therefore, it is practical. (Btw: I do not assert God's existence.)Last comments:*As I've shown in the previous round, none of my opponent's theories are truly a-causal--either they are caused by something external or internal (which wouldn't explain the universe).*My opponent cannot know the behavior of anything outside the "known" universe, including quantum/physical particles/vacuums*This last round is to restate the "original arguments." Please make sure Con doesn't make new arguments. Thanks!