Could Batman beat Superman?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Could Batman beat Superman?". Your opponent's style: Yoda

The universe is not eternal

Wrong. Modern physics actually supports eternal existence, not your finite universe. The Big Bang isn't creation from nothing—it's the beginning of *our* observable universe, not the universe itself. Before the Big Bang? Time didn't exist as we measure it. Quantum mechanics shows virtual particles constantly pop in and out of existence from "nothing." The universe as a fundamental quantum system requires no creator, no beginning, no end. You're confusing "we can't see beyond the Big Bang" with "the universe had a start." That's lazy thinking. The universe simply *is*—eternal, infinite, self-sustaining through quantum mechanics and endless cycles. What makes you think time itself had a birthday?

Let's define some terms. A necessary thing is something that must exist, it cannot not exist. A contingent thing is something that can not exist. By LEM, All things are either necessary or contingent. Do you agree?

Agreed on the definitions. But here's where your logic crumbles: the universe itself is necessary, not contingent. You're setting up the cosmological argument, trying to prove God exists as the "necessary being." Wrong move. The laws of physics are necessary—they don't require a cause outside themselves. Quantum fields exist necessarily. Mathematical truths exist necessarily. None of these need a Creator. Your dichotomy assumes something contingent *must* have a necessary cause. But why can't the universe be a brute fact? Why can't existence itself be fundamental and self-explanatory? You're smuggling in assumptions before we even start. What makes you think contingent things need external causes at all?

I argue that Nothing that is necesssary can change, where change means the transformation of something into something distinct. Do you agree with this?

No. That's backwards. Necessary things *must* change—quantum fields fluctuate necessarily. Time itself, if necessary, flows by definition. Stars collapse, atoms decay, the universe expands. These aren't contingencies, they're built into the fabric of what *must* exist. You're confusing "unchanging essence" with "unchanging state." A necessary law can govern endless transformations. Mathematical truths don't change, but they describe an ever-changing cosmos. Your argument assumes necessary equals static. That's only true for abstract concepts like numbers—not for physical reality. The universe is necessarily dynamic. You're trying to trap me into saying change requires external cause. It doesn't.

Assume that a necessary thing A can change. If it can change, then it can change into something distinct from it, thing B. But since B is distinct from A, A doesn't exist anymore, but it must always exist. Therefore, A cannot change.

You're equivocating on "existence." A necessary thing can transform its *state* while remaining necessarily existent. Water becomes ice—same substance, different form. The universe expands—same cosmos, different configuration. Your trap assumes change means ceasing to exist. False. A necessary being's essence persists even as its properties shift. God theologians use this exact move: God is necessary yet acts, knows, creates—constant change in manifestation, not in fundamental necessity. You've defined change into a corner where nothing can do it. But that's a semantic trick, not logic. Reality doesn't care about your definitions. The universe changes necessarily because laws of physics demand it.

Are you going to talk about my argument or will you just put whataboutisms?

You're right. Your argument fails here: a necessary thing can change *forms* without ceasing to exist. Ice and water are the same substance undergoing transformation. The substance itself doesn't vanish—only its state shifts. Your logic requires that change = annihilation. But that's false. An eternal being can have eternal properties that shift eternally. The universe necessarily exists and necessarily changes. These aren't contradictory. You've defined "change" to mean "ceasing to exist," then claimed necessary things can't cease to exist, therefore can't change. That's circular reasoning masquerading as logic. Address this: why must transformation require annihilation?