Atheism relies on the belief that nothing is needed to have anything occur.

I still prefer +. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ OF THE RESOLUTION: The resolution is a piece of humour that essentially means that atheist don't believe that there had to be an original cause. This was originally clarified in the first round: "The resolution means that atheist beliefs rely, or depend, on the lack of causation. Causation is the fact that in all properties of the physical world have a cause. For example, we are currently on Earth because the molecules that our bodies stem from have been bound to earth by gravity. This "Problem of Causation" can be held against atheism in that the universe requires some metaphysical force to exist that would cause the beginning of the existence of matter and energy, which has no cause. " This early clarification means that the debate is framed upon whether or not atheism relies on ignorance of the fact of causation. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "PRO must show that nothing is needed to have ANYTHING occur. " Since when is that my burden? I must simply affirm that atheism relies on ignorance of causation. That burden is an option of CON to disprove the resolution. My opponent claims that all the effects of the universe spawn from some first cause. However, such a cause (in all cases) would require another cause, as I will show. My opponent claims that nothing was needed for anything to happen before the big bang: "big bang did not exist forever; before it existed, there was no time. Its expansion was the first event. " According to the principles of cause-and-effect, this "first event" and the mere creation of time would require a cause. My opponent does not give a cause. .. and his atheism-based arguments rely on there being no cause. My opponent's refutation of my logic relies on the claim that there is no cause without time. .. However, time is but a dimension of which we perceive to move in one direction at a constant rate. . http://www.scienceray.com... Just as other dimensions, time does not have a beginning or an end. Time could not have been created in the beginning, and had it been created in the beginning, this would require causation (contradiction). Atheism relies on the ignorance of this causation. My opponent's second refutation of my logic is two-fold: First he claims that there are effects, hence there is a contradiction. This was exactly my point. Once we input causation into the picture, atheism begins to contradict itself. Second, he claims that the universe could have been originally caused. I have already refuted this (this cause would require its own cause and time could not have been created at the beginning). CONCESSION: "If I claimed that not anything requires a cause, that would be a concession. " This is inherently false because the resolution is not that you are arguing that cause-and-effect is possible, but that atheism does not ignore this principle. My opponent clearly has conceded this, as shown in earlier rounds. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My opponent has attempted to redefine the true meaning of the resolution in the last round to what its meaning was established as in the first round. I also thank my opponent for the fun and for the avoidance of the stereotypical theism versus atheism debate. Because the intended and original meaning of the resolution has been affirmed, I urge a PRO vote.