The finitude of the past of the universe does not necessitate that the universe had a creator

RebuttalsR Straw-ManNo Straw Man was implied. I apologize if I misconstrued his argument. It has been used for in a argument based on semantics. I was merely covering my bases. The rest of my arguments such as the Basketball example was to show that there is ontological room for a creator and that to properly describe the creation of the universe one must accept a casual effect from outside of this universe.R Confusion regarding the chartsI concede. Chart (ii) looks like a good description for B-theory and I admit the confusion is on my part.R B-theory Eliminate Cause and effect RelationshipsI see my opponent meant B-theory in the presenterism as opposed to the Eternalism view. Being now clarified an investigation in how eternalism can negate cause and effect is irrelevant.R Modal IntuitionI was arguing that a metaphysical cause is necessary.SourcesI completely reject that the sources were just to fill space. I'm sure the voters know the difference between definitions and content. Which still leaves 2. I don't cite for space. I included all of them because I don't want my opponent wasting time arguing over a misunderstanding of a word. This matter could be subjective as some voters have suggested to include more sources for such arguments. I leave it to the voters to decide on sources I won't tell them what to ignore.The last 2 rebuttals will be evident in the following arguments.My opponent is asserting, "poof" the universe exists. And that there is no reason to think that action requires a cause or is subject to any reality.The idea that the universe was caused by the interactions of a multiverse or extra-dimensional membrane is not new. Many scientist have gone in different directions. The holographic being this 3 dimension is founded on 2 dimensions. There is also a proponent that states this 3 dimension is the event horizon to a 4 dimensional black whole. So the acceptance of a metaphysical space that produces the observed universe is not an unreasonable stance to take.My opponent asserts according to the best science the universe is 13.7 billion years old. But why even believe that. If the universe "poof" into existence as a closed system with no "metaphysical" outside casual influence then there is nothing stooping the universe from spontaneously existing 5 seconds ago. The universe came into existence with all the quantum states to produce the appearance of 13.7 billion year old age and all the quantum states to account for false memories of what you think you were doing one week ago or yesterday. Occam's razor is a tool to find the simplest situation, because that tends to b the correct answer. It is not a measure of whether in reality that situation or true or not because it does not infer this from the evidence just the amount of assumptions or lack of evidence. Given if the universe popped into existence with the least amount of assumptions for quantum states, then this situation is only met by the beginning universe. When the universe had no time or spatial dimensions and the quantum state was the same through out. Even more so all the matter and energy in the universe was a singularity and had the properties of a Bose-Einstein condensate. This is the most likely time of spontaneous existence. The B-theory of time can be described as being the interactions between quantum states. The illusion of the passage of time is from those interactions propagating through the universe.[1] [2] I think this view is supported by the Wheeler-Dewitt equation, which has no temporal integer. If this homogeneous Bose-Einstein condensate is a closed system then it would remain in such a state "indefinitely". As stated earlier for this state to change and transform into the present universe a quantum change must occur. In fact good evidence supports that the universal singularity was driven into expansion by a quantum fluctuation.This quantum fluctuation would have to be greater than possible to arise from quantum perturbations so as not to be negated by the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. The evidence for the propagation of this wave can be seen in things like the gravitational ripples of the CMB, as well as the temperature differences in the CMB. If this force erupted from inside the Bose-Einstein like condensate of the universe then it would be symmetrical and rather even in its distribution. The observations say otherwise. Which is why explanations involving extra universes and membranes (like M-theory) are necessary to accurately describe the creation event of the universe. This is like measuring the basket ball.In the next round after answering rebuttals I will discuss how this force is related to being evidence for a creator.[1]http://www.google.com...[2]https://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk...