The universe needs a creator, therefore God exists - part 2

1. My opponent's first two premises:1) Something cannot create itself. This is self-evident, because something cannot create itself if it already existed in the first place.2) Nothing cannot create something. Let's be clear on what we mean by "nothing." It means quite literally "no-thing." No matter, no energy, no space, no natural laws, no properties. Therefore, logic and all scientific observation confirms that nothing cannot create something, because out of nothing, nothing comes.I am going to elaborate on both premises, though in a peculiar way. If my opponent sees that what I explain does not contradict their premises or is irrelevant, they may consider it a separate argument. I would like to introduce the multiverse and eternal inflation - "bubble universes". I noticed that Alexander Vilenkin mentioned how eternal inflation is "impossible" in the essay Pro cited, but I found his explanation inadequate, as the more sophisticated answer was in books he used as sources which, for apparent reasons, I cannot access through the essay. The idea in general suggests the creation of innumerable universes in a multiverse that "contains" them. That happens because of a process called quantum fluctuation, namely: "A quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of empty space, as allowed by the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle states that for a pair of conjugate variables such as position/momentum or energy/time, it is impossible to have a precisely determined value of each member of the pair at the same time. For example, a particle pair can pop out of the vacuum during a very short time interval." [1] This meaning that particles are, in fact, able to pop out of nothing ("nothing" is kind of a tricky word to use here, as it may violate my opponent's definition [2]). Continuous - or rather, indefinate - fluctuations in the sea of inflation, when falling to lower energy states in certain areas, stabilise and form universes [3]. Below a brief explanation is seen in a diagram: [3]For more information, I cited four talks of the theoritical physicist Lawrence Krauss, which I strongly reccomend to the reader in order to avoid misinterpretations and obtain a better view on the matter, as well as an article that elaborates on the reasons we have to believe in a multiverse. [4,5] One of the most basic of the aforementioned is what is known as the cold spot. It is an wide area in the map of the CMBR that shows a temperature lower than expected, as the name suggests, which is mostly believed to have been a result of the collision of two universes, one of which being ours, during the proccess of inflation [6].2. Luminiferous etherAfter Pro's advocation, I will accept the Michelson and Morley experiment as insufficient to dismiss the ether hypothesis. I would like to make some clarifications on what is called "luminiferous ether" and its properties. "In the late 19th century, luminiferous aether, aether, or ether, meaning light-bearing aether, was the postulated medium for the propagation of light. It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently wave-based light to propagate through empty space, something that waves should not be able to do. The assumption of a spatial plenum of luminiferous aether, rather than a spatial vacuum, provided the theoretical medium that was required by wave theories of light." [7] The M-M experiment disproved the concept of the ether being in motion, but the LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) proposed an ether that is motionless and undetectable. As the LET goes on not disproved and making accurate predictions equal to those of relativity, everything seems fine. Why prefer relativity instead of the Lorentz ether theory? Exactly because Lorentz deems it undetectable, while providing the same results as relativity [8]. I will remind my opponent the same argument they used against the B theory of time, namely Occam's razor. Certainly, something that is claimed to exist but cannot even be detected and yet is said to provide the same results as an already existing and explainable theory is not even considered science, but philosophy.Pro in R1 and R2 stated that "The changes in time and space we observe in relativity experiments (time dilation and length contraction) are effects on our measuring instruments, but do not necessarily reflect absolute reality" and "Lorentz did not assume this to 'fit his philosophy' as Con claims. Rather, Lorentz proved it happens because the equations don't make sense without it, and the LIGO observatory works because it's true". On the one hand, the claim that time dilation and length contraction are distortions to our observational instruments, while on the other they refer to time dilation and length contraction as causing the distortions in our measurements, the latter they justify with the phenomena's application into experiments, such as those in LIGO, to which of course I agree. The problem is, the first claim contradicts the second, as in the one case they mention unexplainable distortions on our istruments causing us to believe in time dilation and length contraction but do not reflect reality, and in the second one they correctly say that time dilation and length contraction are actual effects that are fundamental to science. Well, it's no wonder that lead me to assume that Lorentz thought of it so that it "fits his philosophy". Either way, my response lies in the previous paragraph.3. Train thought experimentWhat I attempted to show in R2 is that the experiment itself is conducted in away that explains the nature of the lenght contraction and time dilation phenomena, while proving that there is no absolute frame of reference. Or, more accurately, since we know relativity is true, through this experiment we can prove the occurence of lenght contraction and time dilation and the lack of an absolute refernce frame. I do not see what paradox is my opponent trying to point out against relativity.4. B time theory and causesExactly the opposite, I stick to my statement that "What happens within a universe has a cause, for time exists within it". But my opponent seems to not understand it. I will present it in logical sequences:i. In order for actions to have causes, the causes have to happen before the actions.ii. Causes need time to exist.iii. B theory of time postulates that time exists only within the universe, being a property of it.iv. Causes, which we have experienced inside the universe, imply that time exists within the universe. We have no experience of causes outside of the universe.v. Causes existing do not contradict the B theory of time.5. Hawking and Vilenkini. Though quite interesting, Hawking's essay does not explain if the universe is finite and why, but bypasses the topic saying that it is not possible to know what was before the big bang with our current scientific knowledge.ii. Vilenkin, on the other hand, does a good job on explaining why he believes that the universe does have a cause, but, when saying evidence or observation, I meant factual proof. This being impossible lead me to say that no scientist had ever done it. Perhaps I misphrased it, but it is irrelevant to our debate anyway.6. Empirical evidence and relativityMy opponent fails to spot the difference between the significance of empirical evidence of the reds being all the same and of the B theory of time. Firstly, there is the philosophical question of "is your red the same as my red?", impying that we can never be sure that we all perceive the same reality or that we cannot even know if we perceive reality in the first place. This problem is bypassed due to the fact that if we do not accept what we observe to be the same and true we can never progress scientifically, while there is no evidence that suggests it in the first place. Namely, we need to rely on empirical evidence. In the second case, however, although I do claim that time is an illusion and thus empirical evidence of our everyday life cannot dismiss it, I do support the theory through relativity, which has proven that both space and time are subjective and not absolute (see space - time fluctuations and gravitational waves, "ripples" in the fabric of spacetime [9,10]), contradicting what A theory postulates. That is currently in favour of B theory, which my opponent has not been able to refute yet.Sources:[1] Quantum fluctuations, Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org...[2] Nothinghttps://m.phys.org...[3] Eternal inflation - bubble universeshttps://aeon.co...[4] Lawrence Krauss' talks on a universe from nothing and more...(please ignore any religious implications and/or comments made. Though a renowned scientist, Krauss is also one of the most active against religion atheists)[5] Multiverse https://www.space.com... [6] Cold spothttps://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.ras.org.uk...http://www.telegraph.co.uk...https://futurism.com...[7] Luminiferous etherhttps://en.wikipedia.org... [8] Lorentz ether theoryhttps://en.wikipedia.org...[9] Space - time fluctuationshttp://adsabs.harvard.edu...[10] Gravitational waveshttps://www.ligo.caltech.edu...https://spaceplace.nasa.gov...https://en.wikipedia.org...https://www.space.com...