Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, it has a cause.

It would seem the Con couldn't post his arguments in time, I suspect that this was not an intended forfeit. At any rate, I will go ahead and make my closing arguments... and Con can go ahead and make all his arguments in the last round.In this last round I will begin by going through the three premises one by one. 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. I would like to begin by examining the premise. This premise claims that everything that begins to exist has a cause... by extension it also claims that everything that has a cause begins to exist. We will shortly see why this is true, and why it applies to the universe.Imagine however for a moment that the premise stated that everything that exists has a cause. Note that there is no reference to beginning in this case. Let us consider what this would mean. If everything that exists has a cause, this would basically mean that existence itself had a cause. How can existence be caused by that which does not exist? To put it another way, how can something that does not exist, cause something to exist? No matter how you look at it, it is completely illogical. Now then, let us take this a step further. Without considering the nature of existence or that which has always existed, let us consider for a moment that which we call time. Like existence, time can not begin to exist. The reasons are simple. First of all a beginning is meaningless outside the context of time. Secondly, time can not be caused because causality is also completely meaningless without time. Neither existence nor time have a beginning or cause. Therefore neither existence nor time, are included in the above premise. With this in mind, let us get back to examining the premise.The premise as I have shown, does not claim that existence came from nothing. The premise states that everything that begins to exist has a cause. What does it mean by beginning to exist? Well, that means that it did not exist at one point in time, and at a later point in time it does exist. Beginning to exist refers to the first point in time at which something exists, regardless of the form or state in which it exists at that point.To summarize, something that exists from a a certain point in time onwards, began to exist. Everything which falls under this category has a cause. This means that something that did exist, caused something else to begin existing. There is an empty meadow, a farmer buys the meadow and builds a farm. The house did not exist, and then it was built and began to exist. Began to exist does not refer to a progressive act of becoming, but to the point in time at which something can be considered to exist. One person might argue that the house existed the moment the architect conceived it in their mind, another might argue that the house existed the moment it was put on paper, and someone else might argue that the house existed the moment the walls and roof were up, finally someone might claim it only began existing as a house when it is complete. It matters not when one says something began to exist. That is besides the point. The point is that the house did not exist at a moment in time, and then at a later moment in time it can be said to exist. The same point applies to everything else that begins to exist whether it is a tree, a dog, a shoe, a stone, a planet, a computer, a book, a ball, a game, or a universe. Different people may say the same thing begin existing at different points of time, but that is irrelevant. The point is the did not exist, and later they did or do exist. Let us move on to the next premise.2. The universe began to exist.I have already explained that existence has no beginning and no cause. I have likewise argued that time has no beginning and no cause. Now let us quickly see why the universe has both a beginning and a cause.If the universe is all that exists, or existence itself, then the universe has no beginning and no cause. Basically if the universe has always existed, then it has no beginning and is exempt from the first premise. The Bang Theory completely and utterly destroys this idea. How can the universe have began with the Big Bang, if it has always existed? How can the universe be given an age if it has always existed? Basically if there was a point in existence, when the universe did not exist, then it had a beginning and a cause. That is the first premise in a nutshell.We have already established that existence itself could not begin or be caused. We have also established that something that does not exist, can not cause something to exist. Now I ask you... can either of these points be applied to the universe. Let me put it into two simple question.Is the universe existence itself?Has the universe always existed?3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.During the first premise we have already made it abundantly clear that everything that begins has a cause. Now if the universe is not existence itself, and if it has not always existed... then something existing before the universe caused the universe to exist. It is that simple. There has to be something that has always existed, because existence can not be caused by the non-existent. Perhaps it is the essence of existence itself... but is this the universe? I doubt it.I thank my opponent for accepting the debate. It has been enjoyable, though it is very unfortunate that he could not make use of all the available rounds. I would happily debate him again. I hope to have made myself clear to both Con, and all the readers.Please remember that burden of proof is equal.