The universe does not necessarily require a cause

Refutting My Opponent:My opponent didn't really make much an argument in her last round, she just basically copy and pasted parts of my rounds, then asserted that atoms are timeless. Lets say we go with the theory that atoms (what matter is made of) are timeless, wouldn't this mean that they wouldn't need to have a cause because beginnings only have meanings to beings in time? Oh ya, that's right, you asserted that atoms are timeless in time, which I'm not sure makes much sense in the context the Theists use to describe the "cause of the universe" as timeless. Since this wasn't really defended, and Con didn't tie this in with this hypothetical necessity for a cause of the universe, it can be dismissed.Continuing My Case: Claiming that "something couldn't come from nothing" may be illogical. Wes Morriston (Prof. of Philosophy at the University of Colorado) has pointed out that "something couldn't come from nothing" (this referring to absolute nothingness) is ascribing a conditional power to “nothing.” Saying that something couldn't come from nothing, would be to imply that nothing has the property of "prevention power" (the power to prevent something from coming from it). However, "nothing" should have no properties, including the power to prevent something from coming from it. To say "something couldn't come from nothing" is to say that "nothing" prevents the existence of something. The problem is, that it is difficult to say why nothing would have such a conditional power. Surely it makes more sense to say that nothing has no powers at all, including the power to prevent something. [1]Many Physicists (such as Victor Stenger) have claimed that what we would think of as "nothing" (no mass, no energy, no space, no time, no spin, no bosons, no fermions-nothing) would theoretically be unstable (this is not to be confused with "absolute nothingness"). Simpler systems spontaneously give rise to complex systems in nature, and "nothing" is assimple as it gets. [2]You could never continue to have "nothing" in this context.In some models of the origin of the universe, the vacuum undergoes phase transition to something more complicated in nature, like a universe containing matter. The transition from what we would call nothing to something, would need no external cause.As Nobel Laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has put it, “The answer to the ancient question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ would then be that ‘nothing’ is unstable.” [2]Now, simple systems are unstable and spontaneously form into more complex ones, and this is what we see in nature. The least complex system we could possible imagine is "nothing" (even calling it a system makes it not "nothing" anymore, this is how unstable it is). Theoretical models such as the inflationary model of the early universe bear this out. Many simple systems are unstable in nature, that is, have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy (like what we see with snowflakes). Since “nothing” is as simple as it gets, we would not expect it to be completely stable. In some models of the origin of the universe, the vacuum undergoes a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter. The transition from what we would call "nothing" (even if it is not, "absolutely nothingness" to something), requires no external agent or cause. Basically, for as long as the universe has, time has, so there has never been a time when there was nothing (this would be impossible). However, to claim that something couldn't come from nothing is still unfounded. Because of the arguments presented in the previous rounds, and this one to put the cherry on top, I think I have met my burden of proof. Conclusion:None of my arguments were logically refuted, my opponent contradicted herself, and she does not have the upperhand in this debate. I provided logical arguments addressing why the universe does not necessarily require a cause, and have the upper hand in this debate.Sources:[1] http://commonsenseatheism.com...[2] http://www.csicop.org...;