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

Salam, hello, hola, shalom, to our readers and Rational_Thinker9119. I want to thank my opponent for agreeing to debate this issue and I appreciate the immediate use of this argument. In hind site I wish we had 10 rounds to investigate this together. It was an argument I saw presented in a previous debate. Rational_Thinker's challenger at that time conceded rather early on the grounds they lacked sufficient understanding to give worthy rebuttals. I found the case interesting and I think deserves a proper investigation in this forum.Rebuttal 1 The metaphysical is necessary to describe this eventOn the surface my opponent's case appears semantic[1]. I summarize it as: The question of what happened “before” the Big Bang is an impossible question, because time, the temporal dimension did not exist until the Big Bang. Therefore there was no “before” states or events to consider. They by definition would have to exist outside of time. Existing outside of time would be metaphysical [2].My opponent rightfully did not refer to the big bang as the beginning to the temporal dimension. He kept his argument to point in dealing only with the temporal dimension. The finite of the universe includes the 3 spatial and the temporal dimension, so the consideration of all average dimensions is within scope of this debate. He uses the same argument outlined in my above summary for both the A-theory and B-theory of time[3]. It is interesting to note that if you take the chart for B-theory (ii) you can overlay it upon A-theory (i). It was thorough to investigate both theories. The premise and conclusion apply to the T0 event and "before". The T0 event is different in B-theory. In that B-theory being a more deterministic[4] view of time, eliminates cause and effect relationships. Some have used B-theory to scientifically back the philosophy of predestination. So the event does not need a before. Given if all events from past, present, future are real it follows that when a pool que ball hits another pool ball, the object ball did not move because of this event. The phrasing is that T0 the object ball was at point A and at T+1 the object ball was at point B. Therefore I understand arguing from each theory.However, the real question is does the modal reasoning, cause and effect, in the scenario of at the beginning of space-time require a metaphysical understanding? I argue it does. That very question has been raised about the modal intuition being adequate to describe metaphysical attributes. Such as the action of thinking. Then where does an epiphany[5] come from? Materialism and modal intuition is forced to say there are no epiphanies that originate spontaneously. Tho that is debatable as well [6].Burden of proof is shared so I feel I have to make this case. If my opponent feels my reasoning is subject to many rebuttals that would lead this debate off topic, I am willing for a mutual concession scored as tie and a new debate started with Does materialism reasoning allow for the existence of the metaphysical? Certainly there may be better paraphrasing.Example 1 The 2 dimensional measurement of a 3 dimensional object with a 2 dimensional instrumentIf you take a basketball and want to measure the length of it's seam with a straight metal ruler, you run into problems. When you lay the ruler along the seam you will read 0 inches and be unable to measure the basketballs seam. when you move the ruler you can have the indication of 3 inches but lose the zero. in affect you lose the reference point from which you are measuring. The result is erroneous. I call this the stiff ruler dilemma. If the ruler is wood (slightly more flexible) you can push the end down and curve the ruler along the seam. You can now accurately measure about an inch from zero, but readings past that become increasingly less accurate. If you push the ends too far, you will break the ruler.I call this the "Rule of Rules": Rules are like guidelines, they can bend so much for increasingly less accuracy until they break. When they break, it is instant and utterly catastrophic. There is no single snap shot or picture you can take of the ruler that will produce a correct reading on the ruler.There is a way around this. You can lay the ruler down and roll the seam along it. Marking where you began and ultimately finish again. This requires that you utilize 2 additional dimensions for your measurement to be accurate. A dimension of time and a spatial dimension along the vector of travel the rolling basketball takes. Interesting enough if this is filmed, and you look at each slide of the film, you will see the erroneous snap shots as described above coalescing to produce a correct measurement.Rebuttal 2 Failure of current experience to describe the Time=0 event.If the above logic is sound then I move on to clarify the correlation to our reality. The Big Bang Theory and (the charts my opponent presents) do not start at Time=0. The vertical line in my opponents charts more accurately should be T+1 plank second. This is because all kind of issues arise at T=0 [7]. Formulas shatter, axioms make no sense, it is catastrophic to understanding. The "Rule of Rules" in full effect. To illustrate a simple formula. Speed is distance over time. At T=0 there was no time, so time =0. There was no spatial dimensions so distance =0. This means any speed measured at the universes T=0 event would be x 0 miles / 0 hours. 0/0 is mathematical erroneous.I don't think my opponent was playing semantics with his argument. I think the words failed because tense is irrelevant at T=0. I think his presumption fails because other extremely well established laws of nature and formulas fail at T=0. That failure is not an indication of a lack in a creation event. It is a lack of understand on our part. A lack of knowledge to sufficiently describe such an event.ConclusionSo to properly describe the event of the universe being created would require the addition of extra-dimensional descriptors. As was the case with the basketball. So I reason, A reasonable mind would have to consider the metaphysical in such events. The reasoning mind does not have to make assertions about the nature of these extra dimensions. Merely consider they're possible interactions, constraints, or context may impact the observable.I intend to shoulder my burden of proof of how this necessitates a creator in a latter round. But I feel I should pause and give my opponent the chance to refute any claims so I can address such rebuttals in the explanation I will deliver.[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... definition 1.1[3]http://plato.stanford.edu...[4]http://www.merriam-webster.com... definition 1.b; 2[5]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[ 6]http://link.springer.com...[7]http://www.superstringtheory.com...