It is plausible to assume that a finite universe was caused or created by a creator

1. Semantics of “Universe”Pro makes a clear distinction between space, time, and the laws of physics and nature and what he argues is the universe, to which he only affirms the “universe” is “all of space and everything in it including stars, planets, galaxies, etc.”. I have no problem with this definition, only that he continues to use it consistently. Also by extension, it is seriously damaging to Pro’s case as a result. And I will add several arguments to affirm this.2. Impossible to justify claims regarding the Universe as a wholePro’s arguments regress to appeals to epistemic possibility to affirm plausibility, however this seems insufficient, given most definitions of ‘plausible’ appeal to more than just bare possibility. E.g.:"having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approvalor acceptance; credible; believable:”[1]“Capable of being believed; believable or plausible” [2]And so on. While I would agree it’s a statement about epistemology, rather than metaphysics, Pro needs to do more than just say it’s ‘epistemologically possible’ to affirm plausibility. For most things which we are in ignorance of all the facts are ‘possible’, but no by means probable. It’s possible the moon landings were hoaxed, and there are always ways to explain away any facts presented to dismiss it, however it would remain implausible, even if possible.Pro seems to misunderstand my argument from the problem of induction. The point is we can only make predictions or justifiable claims IF AND ONLY IF we first presuppose the uniformity of nature principle. This principle though we know simply does not apply in the conditions Pro is arguing a creator did something.Pro has not attempted to demonstrate where my analysis of i.) why this presupposition is not necessary or ii.) that this presupposition is sound during the conditions of the big bang/before the big bang. It’s only by these two ways which Pro can hope to affirm his arguments.2.1 Application to the Big BangPro agrees with my analysis here. The whole reason why our laws break down is that we do not have an understanding of nature or context of nature to justifiably make laws. Physicists do propose a theory of quantum gravity if necessary, but these remain steep heaped in speculation. None invoke creation or causation, however. 2.2 Application to the Universe as a Whole “Causality is separate from the Universe. I argue that the Universe is subject to causality and that causality is not subject to the Universe.” I would kindly ask Pro to justify these mindbogglingly massive claims. He assumes that the universe (as I define, includes the mechanisms which bring forth the laws of physics) is subject to the same principles that work within it. This is a classical fallacy of composition.“It is logically impossible for the Big Bang to emerge from no time at all if time is directly linked to causality.”That presupposes the big bang was ever “caused” or has an “explanation”, which I argued is not the case since there is no reason to think the universe is externally explicable, or has an external cause, or any cause whatsoever. This is due to the uniformity of nature principle already discussed.If the universe is uncaused or self-caused, then Pro’s entire case goes out of the window. If the universe is externally caused, then Pro’s cause ONLY applies if it’s caused by an intentional creator. He has much work to do to affirm this specific scenario is even plausible."This is why, it is more plausible to assume that time/causality is a dimension/principle separate from the Universe."We have simply no empirical experience whatsoever outside of our three dimensional fabric of space and one of time. Thus I have no idea how Pro can even dream of justifiably making plausible claims outside of that context, which is exactly the situation of the universe as a whole.3. The explanation/cause of the universeI have yet to see Pro affirm any of the premises within his two arguments, thus we should treat them as bare assertions. We have good reason to believe several premises in each of his arguments are false. However, and only one needs to be false in each for the conclusion not to follow.1st ArgumentPremise A of Pro’s first argument is irrelevant, and Premise C is presupposed within the context of this debate, thus I only need to refute Premise B:“Premise B) Space, time and matter that has not always existed, is finite and has an origin needs to have been caused or created by a creator.”Again, Pro has given no reasons to believe this is true, and hence has failed his burden of proof. I gave reasons why this is false from creation via. substance, or via. space (zero energy universe), as well as the problem of induction.2nd ArgumentP1 is a clear false dichotomy. I already argued last and this round round how the universe can be caused by a non-intentional substance, such as space (such as which is proposed in the zero energy universe hypothesis), or some other putative substance which is not based on space or time or intentionality.P2 I do not see how Pro can hope to affirm as true, since we have no experience of a philosophical “nothing” (absence of anything), and a physical “nothing (empty space) we already know generates virtual particles.P3 Pro has simply taken for granted, and has not attempted to affirm. I gave good reasons to think this is false with my argument from atemporalityPro’s tries a blatanton the resolution here by arguing simply arguing the universe is ‘caused’ is enough to fulfil the resolution, but the resolution makes more sense when read with a fully creator subject, and is also just false, since agent causation is a form of intentional causation. Moreover most arguments for God for example argue that God is an efficient cause of the universe, which would clearly qualify as an example of intentional causation, and shows that ‘caused’ does not “assumes there was no intention or purpose in the creation process".4. Argument from ThermodynamicsThe first law of thermodynamics, or the conservation of energy states that “that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.”. Moreover the same applies to mass, which is now known to intricately linked due to Einstein’s law of mass-energy equivalence.[3]Thus, if Energy can only be converted to other forms of energy or matter, and vice versa, then the “universe” (as Pro has defined) is a self-contained system where it’s impossible to go from a state of no mass-energy to a state of mass-energy. Thus, I can make the following argument:P1. If the universe is created or caused, then mass & energy creation is possibleP2. Mass & Energy creation is impossibleC. The universe is not created or causedP2 holds IF we assume a uniformity of nature principle (which Pro must also assume himself if he is going to make any claims whatsoever about the big bang), and P1 is de facto true. Given that P2 is one of our most powerful and well-attested laws suggested from induction within science, then Pro has a MASSIVE mountain to claim to render a creator as even possible, let alone plausible.A very potent universe explanation exists within the zero energy universe hypothesis, which argues that mass & energy were never created, since the net energy content of the universe is actually zero. This leads to the predictions of a spatially flat universe, as well as a mechanism by which empty space can produce particles of impunity, which we have found with virtual particles.[4]5. Argument from TemporalityAs a minor twist on my argument from minds:1 Causation requires temporality2 A cause of the universe must be atemporalC The universe has no causeBoth premises I ahve affirmed in round 1. Time allows us to speak the language of causality, to deparate before & after. Thus these work to negate Pro's case once again.Works Cited 1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...;