problem with the cosmological argument

Can the universe have an infinite past?Science:Until the 20th century it was widely believed that the universe always existed, in a static state.Along came the big bang theory, with evidence that the universe is expanding, & demolished that belief.Then some people said maybe the universe is not static, but infinite never the less.They were able to say this by theorizing that the universe is perpetually expanding & contracting.This worked well until scientists discovered that the universe is so spread out that gravity would never pull it back.According to the standard model of the big bang theory, the universe (i.e. space time & matter) did not exist before the big bang.In 2003, Arvin Borde, Allan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary. What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the early universe. Because we don’t yet have a quantum theory of gravity, we can’t yet provide a physical description of the first split second of the universe. But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that the quantum vacuum state of the early universe—which some scientific popularizers have misleadingly and inaccurately referred to as “nothing”—cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning. Even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, their theorem requires that the multiverse itself must have an absolute beginning. (1)Philosophy:“here i wasn't straw maning the problems you pointed out about a infinite existence say that ((anything)) that doesn't have a beginning is illogical to exist.”Nope.The infinity paradox only applies to specific types of things.The most simple & intuitive counter example is mathematics/numbers.Numbers exist outside of time (i.e. they are not effected by time.)“nothing is by definition is outside of space time and have no beginning so instead of saying god created the universe i can say the universe came from nothing.”"Nothing", by definition also can’t be a cause.Remember were looking for an “uncased cause” [sic].“and (af ab sgsg gfgh) that's something by definition outside of space time and have no beginning”?In what dictionary?“IF YOU MEAN BY MIND (consciousness) THEN IT CANT BE BOTH TIMELESS AND IMMATERALbecause if there a timeless conscious mind then he is required to precise all action happening all at once because for such mind there wont be (past ,present or future) and if that being is also infinite then he is required to precise infinite action happening all at once some of those action would be contradictory.”I have no idea what my opponent is trying to say.“we know that consciousness originate from the brain”Nope.Consciousness originates from the mind, not the brain.It interacts with/through the brain, but it does not originate there.The mind is something we only know of through universal intuition, it cannot be “observed”/measured scientifically. I think my opponent means to bring up the multiverse theory, but what he mentions about it seems rather irrelevant to this debate.Multi verse:1) The multiverse theory is a highly speculative, undeveloped theory for which there is absolutely no evidence. Iits called theoretical physics for a reason. & If you notice, the video provided by con, begins with the following:SCI Fi SciencePhysics of the impossible2) It doesn't counter the philosophical elements of the KCA--so long as infinity is still impossible the multiverse had a beginning, all things beginning have a cause thus you eventually must get to an immaterial and timeless being that brought these into existence-God.3) In 2003, Arvin Borde, Allan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary. What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the early universe. Because we don’t yet have a quantum theory of gravity, we can’t yet provide a physical description of the first split second of the universe. But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that the quantum vacuum state of the early universe—which some scientific popularizers have misleadingly and inaccurately referred to as “nothing”—cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning. Even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, their theorem requires that the multiverse itself must have an absolute beginning.(1)(1) http://www.reasonablefaith.org...