Atheism Doesn't Necessarily Entail That A Universe With A Finite Past Came From Nothing

Con's Misunderstanding Of My ArgumentUnfortunately, Con still hasn't even shown a basic understanding of my argument and it is rather embarrassing. He comes out of the woodwork with a straw-man in his last round:"Not only did he claim that there wasn't anything before the universe. .. " - ConI never once said that there wasn't anything before the universe. That would assume that there was a before the universe, at which not anything existed. My position is that there was no before the universe. There is a huge difference between these two statements:(i) There was not anything before the universe(ii) There was no before the universeIf (i) is true, then there was a before the universe (at which nothing existed). If (ii) is true, then there was no before the universe. Two statements that entail completely opposite conclusions cannot be logical equivalents, thus the assumption that (i) and (ii) really mean the same thing is dead false. (i) assumes there was a before the universe, and (ii) assumes the exact opposite. If one refers back to my diagrams in my first round, the difference is as clear as day. Above the red line, you will see that there is not anything prior to the first state of the universe. Below the red line, you will notice that there is no prior to the first state of the universe at all: So, as I have shown, my opponent is straw-manning my position. The view isn't that there was not anything prior to the universe, as that would assume there was a prior to the universe at which nothing existed. My position is that there was no prior to the universe. Both of these statements cannot be true:a) There was a before the universeb) There was no before the universeTherefore, it is logically necessary that these two statements do not mean the same thing:(i) There was not anything before the universe(ii) There was no before the universeOne assumes a before (at which not anything exists), and the other assumes no before. Definition Of EternalLets examine Con's definitions of Eternal, and I will number each one for ease:"Eternal:: having no beginning and no end in time : lasting forever (1): existing at all times : always true or valid (2): seeming to last forever" (3)If we go with (1), then the universe is not eternal as it has a starting point 13.7 billion years ago. However, if we go with (2), then even with a finite past the universe is eternal! This is because the universe has existed at all times (all 13.7 billion years of time). Con's mistake is assuming that "all" equates to "an infinite amount". This is rather outrageous, as that is obviously not true. If I have "all" the cars in the world, that is still a finite number. If I have "all" the women in the world, that is still a finite number. Thus, if the universe has existed at "all" times (all 13.7 billion years of time), then the universe is eternal even with a finite past according to Con's own definition provided. Con states:"Therefore, we have both eternal and always as meaning at all times and yet Pro argues that his universe is finite and always exists. A conundrum of logic, no doubt. " - conThere is nothing illogical about that at all. If Con is defining "eternal" and "always" to mean "at all times", then yes, even with a finite past the universe is eternal and has always existed. Remember, "all" doesn't mean "an infinite amount", so if the universe has existed for all 13.7 billion years of time, then it has always existed. Thus, the only conundrum of logic is the opposition to my view, not my view itself. Definition Of NothingHere is more proof that either:A) Con is not reading my roundsorB) Con is not understanding my roundsMy opponent states:"Pro dismisses my definition of nothing, but fails to recognize it is not my definition. I understand he wouldn't like the definition as it refutes his claim at logic, but it stands on its own merit, not my opinion. " - ConHowever, in my last round I said:"I do not disagree with my opponent's definition; my argument works assuming this very definition. " - Pro I am baffled at the fact that Con can type with a straight face that I dismiss his definition as flawed, when I said I did not disagree with it in my last round. I actually feel insulted, as it is clear Con isn't even paying attention to the debate we are having. What is the point of having a debate if you aren't even going to pay attention? Coming Back To Con's Misunderstanding Of My ArgumentMy opponent states:"If there was not a prior to the universe, there was nothing prior to the universe. " - Con I already debunked the above statement in this round. Those two cannot be equivalents, as they entail opposite conclusions. If there was not a prior to the universe, then that means there was no prior to the universe. If there was nothing prior to the universe, then that means there was a prior to the universe, at which nothing existed (one could argue that the term "nothing prior" is not even coherent terminology, but that is not really relevant to the resolution). Since one statement entails no prior, and the other one entails a prior (at which there is not anything), then they cannot mean the same thing. One entails no prior, the other entails a prior. Once more, two statements entailing opposite conclusions cannot mean the same thing. This should be simple logic. Con also stated:"My opponent has pretended at logic while attempting to twist language to attempt a fantastic new state of being where the lack of anything does not result in nothing and eternal and finite have the same meaning. " - ConWhat state of being where the lack of anything does not result in nothing are we talking about here? I completely agree with Con in that if there was ever a lack of anything in existence, that would equate to nothing. This is a Red-Herring though, as my view lacks this "lack of anything" prior to the universe, as my view entails there was no prior to the universe for there to be a "lack of anything". Also, a universe with a finite past can indeed be eternal if we define eternal as "existing at all times", as "all" does not equate to "an infinite amount". If we define eternal as "having no beginning" then no, the universe is not eternal, as the universe had a starting point 13.7 billion years ago. "Pro has claimed a finite universe that always existed, that began, but not from nothing, even though there existed nothing previous. " - ConOnce more, my view denies a "previous" to the first state of the universe. There could have only been either something or nothing previous to the universe, if there was a previous to the universe for there to be either something or nothing. My view is that there was no "previous" at all. Thus, under my view, both of these statements are false:i) Previous to the universe, there was nothing ii) Previous to the universe, there was somethingBoth of those statements self-evidently assume a "previous to the universe". Since my view assumes no "previous to the universe", then both of those statements are false necessarily. We can only ask if there was something or nothing prior to the universe, if there was a prior. If there was no prior, then such questioning is inherently illogical. Conclusion This whole debate has proven to be a waste of time really, as Con doesn't even seem to have the slightest grasp of the concepts I am putting forward, and he is misrepresenting my position to no end with shameless straw-man arguments. I also question whether or not he is even paying attention to this debate (his claims regarding me "dismissing" his definition of nothing as false gave that away in my eyes). I have shown in this debate beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe can have a finite past without God, and still not come from nothing. Con hasn't even come close to rebutting any of my arguments successfully, and I doubt he will pull a miracle out of his hat next round. The resolution has been strongly affirmed.