The Cosmological Argument is Sound

Pro claims that the universe must have a cause, because it began to exist. However, the uncaused cause of the universe never began to exist, but instead simply existed.If the uncaused cause never began to exist, then it cannot be said to not have always existed - that is, it must have always existed.I quote Pro:"If the past existed eternally, then there would be an infinite number of events occurring before the present moment. If there were an infinite number of events occurring before the present moment, we would never reach the present moment. However, we have reached the present moment. Therefore, the past could not have existed eternally."So Pro contradicts himself.Why is there no reason to think that things exist without cause? Because things don't happen constantly without cause all of the time? They do.[1] Quantum fluctuations are short changes in the energy in a point in space, for no reason and violating the law of conservation of energy, as it is the addition of energy to the system, albeit temporarily.Pro does not distinguish between something beginning to exist without cause and a violation of the laws of physics. He thinks that, if things can happen without reason, then they must violate physics. However, as I explained in the previous round, the laws of physics existed before 'things' did. As such, things can happen without reason so long as they abide by the laws of physics.Pro claims that if we accept that things can happen without reason, then we cannot be confident in our knowledge of our evolutionary history, because there would be a tiny bit of doubt. But there already is doubt. It is possible that we just spontaneously appeared a few minutes ago, and it simply happens to be that everything appears much older. It is not because of absolute confidence that we accept what we accept, but because of parsimony.It does not matter if that dismissal of philosophy is insulting. Philosophy is not science. Science is science. Metaphysics explains, but it does not justify with empirical evidence. Science does not have metaphysical claims build into it, because it is, as already stated, study. Science does not assume the existence of absolute truth for little reason, but because that is what is most logical. Experiments demonstrate that things follow certain rules, and there are few outliers. Therefore, it is parsimonious to assume that there is absolute truth rather than relative truth. And empiricism is not metaphysical. Empiricism is simply the use of evidence over non-evidence.Pro claims that I am using the fallacy of equivocation in my definition of nothing, because I explained that the laws of physics would exist with the negation of everything. Pro believes this because he is simply refusing to address my explanation that the laws of physics are not 'things' but instead simply the way in which things work. When everything is negated, time is not - it matters not, but as it is a concept it still exists.Pro perceives a difference between the idea that if a certain point must be reached halfway before it can be reached, and then halfway again ad infinitum, and what he said, about an infinite number of steps.They are exactly the same. What he said was that if there was an infinite number of steps which must occur, then we can never reach the present moment. That is zeno's paradox.I am not committing the fallacy of a fallacy, because I am not saying that his argument contains a fallacy. I am saying that his argument is zeno's paradox, which is demonstrably false, regardless of however enticing it is.Pro becomes agitated that I attacked his definition of god. If he does not wish to address it, he need not. However, I felt that, since I could, I might as well show the flaws in his definition.Pro then debates this issue which cannot be debated, and claims that omnipotence is the ability to do anything which is logically possible.Now, I ask questions.Question 1: Why do you believe that the negation of everything includes the negation of concepts such as time?Question 2: How much, then, can god lift? Can he lift infinitely much weight, or can he create more than he can lift? Or can he only create as much as he can lift?1: http://en.wikipedia.org...