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

IntroductionI thank Adam_Godxilla for instigating this debate, and for being rather concise with his arguments. I will first present a negative case, which should directly or indirectly deal with Pro’s opening arguments.Negative Case 1. Semantics of "Universe"I need to get this out of the way first, as it is so important to this debate. Pro has not defined what the "universe" means, as it can take on several definitions. Because Pro has not defined the universe, he is dangerously close to committing the fallacy of equivocation throughout his opening arguments. For the sake of this round of arguments I will be defining the universe as:"Our four dimensional space-time, and all the matter, particles, energy and all the laws of physics that a part of it"This I think it a very reasonable definition, as it is this universe which the Big Bang theory theorises the "origin" of the universe of. This is going to become very important later.2. Impossible to justify claims regarding the Universe as a wholeThis argument borrows significantly from David Hume’s posited ‘Problem of Induction’. He makes the claim that there are two types of knowledge, a priori and a posterori. A priori claims are ones which we can know to be true by virtue of just thinking about it. These truths are also necessary truths in the sense that regardless of the metaphysical nature of the world we inhabit, what is true a priori for one world will be true a priori for all worlds. Two apples plus three oranges will always give you five pieces of fruit, and there simply is no other way this fact can be.[1]On the other hand, synthetic truths, ones that are known a posterori run into the problem of induction. That is to say we cannot justifiably make claims about how reality will be in the future by virtue on what happened in the past without first assuming the principle of the uniformity of nature, the reason for this, David Hume argues is that we simply have no justification to expect the future will be anythign like the past. We simply do not have a properly basic understanding of reality to make thiis statement. It is conceivable, and metaphysically possible for reality to turn out in two different ways unless there really is a uniformity of anture principle acting, which for now, we take fo rgranted when making inductive inferences and arguments.It is this critical assumption that one must make when making inductive arguments which underpins all of science, and most critically, underpins any hope Adam has of making claims about the universe.2.1 Application to the Big BangThe problem here is, the principle of the uniformity of nature is exceptionally dubious to assume once we take the conditions to the extreme. Since the uniformity of nature also applies to context. For example throwing a ball through the air is goign to have different dynbamics to throwing it through water. We simply have two different environmental contexts, and the uniformity of nature assumption simply does not hold until we apply the same contexts.The singularity proposed by assuming relativity to hold at infinitely small scales merely represents the breakdown of our laws of physics. We are already confidence that the strong and weak nuclear force, as well as the electromagnetic force are not distinctly separate forces in these conditions. More seriously are that space and time are posited to possess infinite curvature, and that if there is a scientific principle that governs these conditions then it would be a theory of quantum gravity, as it is the realm of quantum mechanics that is known to govern the extremely small scales of the universe.What this means is that space, time, and by extension, our notion of entropy are completely different to what our common ‘classical’ notions of space, time and entropy are. Thus, the context is different to what we can make (possibly) reasonable claims about within inductive reasoning, we simply do not have this uniformity of nature principle that we can reasonably assume, as we know for a fact that the conditions and context of the big bang itself are simply beyond experience.Thus, to make claims about the nature of what the singularity is (assuming it ever existed), what the big bang really is simply impossible to do without a priori principles, and I wish Adam best of luck in finding those.2.2 Application to the Universe as a WholeGiven these insurmountable problems are present for just the Big Bang itself, which arguably is (or was) part of the universe, or was a state of the universe. When we go outside of any point of the universe, or any point the universe existed, then we run into even bigger problems. Because here we know for a fact the uniformity of nature principle doesn’t hold, since you need nature…. to have any uniformity of nature, thus any claims regarding the universe as a whole are patently absurd.This extends to rebut Pro’s arguments since pro is advocating for some sort of ‘cause’ or ‘explanation’ of the universe, however the big bang was part of the universe. The language of causality, and ‘explanations’ that we are familiar with is predicated on our experience within our three dimensional space and one of time environment. Within the universe we have space, time and entropy, which gives us our arrow of time, time gives a frame of "before and after" and all events we know about occur within space., the ability to tell ‘before’ from ‘after’, and everything from which we make inductive claims regarding causality. Thus even assuming that the inductive laws of causality, and contingency etc. do apply within the universe, we are in a completely different context when talking about the universe as a whole.3. The explanation/cause of the universeIf we assume trhe universe has a cause/explanation, and that cause explanation has something intimately to do with the big bang, then why should we assume that it was created with intentionality? Making this leap from "the universe has an explanation" to "the explanatgion of the universe is X" is a massive one, and I simply have not seen Adam attempt to uphold this in his opening roundPro literally asserts by fiat that "if the universe is finite, then it's plausible to assume the universe was created, that is to say it was willed into existence or crafted with intention", but Pro literally skips over half of what he has to prove here!!! Why should the cause of the universe, IF it had one, be an intentional one? This presupposes a whole plethora of dubious assumptions, such as the fact that intentions can even exist outside of our universe, or that it's even possible for intentions to exist without a temporal context (time).Moreover, simply arguing that a pre-existing substance (that is not intentional) solves this issue equally as well, and doesn't rely on these additional assumptions, therefore we should reject Pro's speculation outright by virtue of Occam's razor. Moreover, IF Pro believes he has good inductive reasons to accept an intentional first cause, then I have my own argument to respond in kind:P1) Intentionality requires functioning mental processesP2) All mental processes are temporalP3) The explanation of the universe is necessarily atemporalC) The explanation of the universe is necessarliy not intentionalP3 is obvious by definition of the universe I have given, which posits the lack of existance of time without the universe. If Pro argues time existed before the universe, then he runs into a plethora of subsequent issues such as there existing non-mental substances without the universe. P1 is also de facto true. Thus the only premise that can be challenges is P2, which is an inductive statement abotu what we know about mental processes. All thoughts we know about require a chain of events, beliefs -> senses -> processing -> action. Thus if Pro want sot challenge this, then he also undermines any right to make inductive arguments.Works Cited1. http://en.wikipedia.org...