There Is an External Cause of the Universe

Thanks to my opponent for the excellent response.A word about sources...*My argument hinges on the idea the empiricism cannot be used to determine whether or not the universe was caused by an external force. That therefore leaves me in a pickle about sources, because I cannot cite scientific evidence or theories without contradicting myself. This is the original reason why I wanted sources not to be evaluated, because from my position they do not matter.*Seeing as my opponent rejected this idea, we must come up with some sort of fair way of evaluating sources such that I am not forced to automatically lose due to my arguing against the scientific process. The following method I believe will be the most fair to my opponent and myself, and additionally be entirely logical. Should my opponent win the arguments, he will have successfully defended that one ought to use science to solve this metaphysical problem. Under that scenario, sources my be evaluated as usual.*However, if I win the arguments, then I demonstrate that sources about the original cause of the universe are useless. In such a situation, sources should automatically go to me, since I have revealed that all my opponents sources are faulty, whereas the logic that I offer would be the one acceptable source of knowledge of original causation in this debate. --- In summary, if the arguments are in my favor, I should win sources as well. If the arguments are in my opponent's favor, he should win sources. ---*This is an extremely generous assertion on my part, because I make myself vulnerable if my opponent claims that sources should go to him automatically. Remember though that my argument attack the idea of scientific sources in the scenario, so the sources points should go to my if my arguments are convincing.General Rebuttal: Ships Passing in the Nighta. I understand my opponent's wanting to turn the debate to the side of physics, his major. Unfortunately, though, while his analysis of physics is excellent, almost all his arguments not competitive with my model. That is to say, his arguments and mine are "two ships passing in the night." I could theoretically accept all my opponent's evidence and still win this debate.b. Scientific Process: Science, including physics, is always based on empiricism. Empiricism relies on the gathering of data on "past" phenomenon. This "evidence" of the "past" may be made into scientific theories or mathematical models. All of my opponent's arguments are based off of these scientific theories/data and mathematical models, both of which rely entirely on empirical evidence of the "past."c. My arguments, however, point out that all empirical evidence is useless in determining whether or not the universe was caused by an external force. The reason for this is fairly simple. The fact remains that we are currently living in the present, and all evidence that we have, physicist or no, is in our minds in the present. It is therefore conceivable that all of the universe was created an instant ago, set up in such a way that there is an illusion of the universe having existed for longer. One's memories of "years ago" may be been formed one second ago. Thus, there is at least one scenario in which all empirical evidence, and therefore all mathematical models and scientific theories/data, are useless in determining whether or not the world was created by an outside force.d. However, as I point out , there is not only one scenario for this to happen but an infinite number of scenarios. Even if my opponent asserts that the universe is one second old, my opponent has a one-in-infinity chance that that is correct. e. My opponent claims that the universe was not caused. This means that there is an infinitely small possibility of that happening, because my opponent would have to deny that during each an every location in "time," the universe was not created. Whereas under my model every instance of time represents a possibility that the universe was created by an external force, for my opponent each moment of time represents another forced denial. My opponent claims that this My opponent's scenario is therefore infinitely small, whereas my scenario is infinitely large.Specific Rebuttals:a. Quantum superpositions (P1-P4). My opponent's entire argument is based on premises that have been validated only by empirical evidence, which as my argument I asserts, is not actually evidence at all. Additionally, I see no reason why an external event would have to have an omniscient view of the universe, or even a "view" at all (P1). P2 says that observation collapses quantum sperpositions, but this only applies in the known universe, whereas we know very little of existences outside of the known universe. P3 is an assertion well beyond the scope of physics. Physical bases its propositions on evidence of known phenomenon. Something outside of the unvierse is beyond its scope, and therefore it cannot apply its analysis to it.We therefore have no reason to conclude C.b. Quantum fluctuations are based on empirical evidence, which as I've stated have an infinitely high probability of being wrong.*Additionally, this arguments suggests that quantum vaccum is the cause of events. If quantum vaccum is considered a state of the universe, than it does not explain the creation of the universe, but simply dodges the question. If the quantum vaccum is the universe, then we would therefore have to inquire about what caused it.*Also, my opponent admits that this argument seems far fetched. Apply that to my argument that my opponent's stance does not make sence to the average person. *The energy of virtual quantum quarks causing the energy we see show one of two things. If the quantum universe is NOT part of the universe, then it demonstrates how the universe is created by an outside source, and I win the debate. If the quantum universe is part of the universe, then my opponent is forced to explain then how the quantum universe came about.c. "Now that we understand quantum fluctuations and the inherent potentiality in a quantum vacuum, now let's see how this applies to the universe's creation itself." My opponent here admits that the remaining analysis is based on this previous supposition, which I have shown to be faulty. My opponent's arguments therefore fall like a deck of cards.*Additionally, the remaining arguments are based on empirical evidence, which I have shown to be a faulty attempt at evidence.*My opponent tries to assert a very complicated theory on the universe creation, but will need to give evidence for each component of it. Right now these theories seem far-fetched--my opponent has not even pointed out the evidence modeling "10 dimentions," but simply point to other researchers. Not only is all empirical evidence faulty, but my opponent does not even present sufficient empricial evidence at all to justify its many components.* My opponents entire argument hinges on paragraphs and paragraphs of complicated theories of physics. My opponent must prove them all, because his conclusions hinges on all of them being true. If just one aspect is faulty, my opponent is left with no argument (which I suggest is already the case due to my contention 1).d. Most scientists do not claim to "know" anything, but humbly point out that the empirical evidence points that way, because all science is based off of gathering and organizing data. I have pointed out why this data cannot be trusted; therefore my opponents arguments fail.e. "Acausal" Ekpyrotic Universe tells the story of how the universe was created by the collision of multiple dimentions. These dimentions represent an external cause to the unvierse, if it explains at all. Therefore, my opponent is arguing for my side, and this theory shows that I win.Retro-Causality: This is based off of emprical evidence, which I show to be faulty.Simultaneous Causality: Even if these components begin to exist at the same time, A (an external cause presumably) still caused these events. This way of dodging time does not make much sense, especially seeing how time is really a measure of causality.None of these properties give any sort of evidence to my opponent's case, and entirely ignores/does not contradict my own propositions I-IV. Conclusion:I. There is an infinite chance that the universe is caused by an external eventII. My opponent's propositions is not only infinitely small, but does not make sense in infinite regress.III. My opponent's propositions deny common senseIV. My opponent's argument is less ethical than my own, so not only should we prefer mine by default because it's true, but because it's goodAll of my opponent's arguments are based on empriricism, which I show to be unsupported. Please see above for my analysis on source points.Thanks, and good luck!