The universe needs a creator, therefore God exists - part 2

Hello This is a continuation of the debate "The universe needs a Creator, therefore God exists". My opponent forfeited after their arguments getting suddenly deleted before posting them, and so I would like, if my opponent sengejuri wishes so too, to keep the debate going. http://www.debate.org... Below are my R3 arguments, where the debate was left. "It seems that my opponent is under the misapprehension that I agreed to their first two premises. In fact, I do have some objections on which I shall elaborate below, I just did not mention them in the previous round. My sources require no subscription, for I have gone through no such process. Perhaps my opponent refers to the two APS journals I cited. In that case, I should mention that what I intended to use as my main source regarding these journals were the abstracts and not the whole articles (for the same reason Pro mentioned), while the latter may be examined for additional information if the reader wishes so. I agree with the concepts of A and B hypotheses of the nature of time, but I would like to make some clarifications on the latter, while describing my rebuttals. For the reader's convenience, I will quote Pro when referring to a specific argument or claim they made. "We have zero reason to believe B theory time is true." Not at all. As I showed, science has proven how time is subjective depending on a variety of factors, drawing the conclusion that time is a property of our universe. To be exact, time is often labeled as an illusion [1]. That is quite a reason to believe in B theory, considering how it contradicts A theory. "If we truly lived within B Theory time, for example, time travel should be possible. We should be able to easily move from the future to the past at will because moments in time are merely different points in the same "loaf," all just as real as the present. And yet, at this point, it still seems this is an impossible thing to do. We have no evidence to suggest that time travel is real." Time being a property of the universe does not imply that time travel is possible. In fact, I have no idea about whether it is or not. I will make use of my folder analogy once more; I described time events as reports written in an infinite series of papers in the folder of the universe. Nevertheless, the claim that information is able to somehow transfer to another paper or that a paper can be moved to another location in the folder is an assumption. In order for that to happen, an intelligent being that exists outside of our folder has to do it. But, to the information inside the folder, such as us, that would not be comprehensible, considering the paradoxes Pro mentioned. Therefore, if B theory is true, it can be said to contradict through logic the concept of an extra-universal intelligent being, namely a God, too. But that does not have anything to do with this debate, unless my opponent is able to scientifically and logically prove the existence of God (although I doubt that). Note that I cannot know if time travel will ever be succeeded. I am unable to predict the future scientific discoveries. But if it does happen, it will prove that time is even more complicated than philosophy and my analogy suggest. "In B Theory time, we should expect to have just as many future "memories" as past ones. If all points in time - past, present, and future - are equally real and have always existed, then what can explain the fact that we only have memories of past events? The best possible explanation is that the future has not happened yet, which confirms A Theory time." As mentioned before, time is practically an illusion and a property of the universe. Meaning, while it presumably does not affect the universe as a whole, apparently exists within it. It is just like a fish tank, filled with water; the fact that the fish is able to swim in the inside of it does not necessarily imply that fish can swim out of it too. We, the fish, describe our aquarium according to what we perceive inside it. But it would be wrong to attempt to describe the outside world using what we have experienced within its boundaries. One may also think of the above as a book. The reader, after finishing the book, can reread it, knowing what is going to happen in the "future", as it is not going to be any different, no matter how many times they read it. In fact, the information is all contained in the book. But I doubt that the characters would be able to realise that their future has "happened" again, namely every time one reads the book, and therefore they would not have any memory of it. "Furthermore, all of science depends on the reality of A Theory time. Only in A Theory can you have a cause and effect - a present action that impacts a future result. Science is, at bottom, the process of discovering cause and effect with the goal of manipulating future results. In B Theory, there are no causes and effects, things just "are" because moments do not actually pass (hence, how you can have a causeless universe). Science would be destroyed in a B Theory universe, because there would be no need to discover causes and effects if it were possible for things to have no cause. Conversely, what we perceive is exactly the opposite - everything has a cause. Since absolutely everything we experience in our reality came from a cause, it is both reasonable and justified to assume that the universe, therefore, also had a cause. If Con can provide one single example of something that exists without a cause, I will forfeit the debate immediately." I disagree with the claims made here. What happens within a universe has a cause, for time exists within it. On the other hand, if time does not affect the universe, it does not need to have a cause itself. I will describe the universe with the term theists use to justify religion and describe God; "infinite". Also, please do not forfeit unless you believe that you cannot defend your thesis in any way. Thank you. Conclusion: There are reasons to believe in B theory, and thus we cannot reject it yet. Evidence, contrary to Pro's claims, overwhelmingly supports neither theory yet, for that is up to our future arguments to declare, and so I await my opponent's response. Sources: [1] Time "Why Space and Time might be an illusion" https://m.huffpost.com... "Are Space and Time fundamental?" http://www.pbs.org... "