The Million Dollar Question

[Esquilax]

Fine do you think there is a need of something to be eternal.
If not then you need to defend your position

Oh good, a childish one who doesn't understand the burden of proof. Such joy.

I don't particularly think any certain way about universal origins; I'm happy to admit that I don't know, and leave it at that. But you're saying that there definitely does need to be something eternal there, and for that to work you've got to get your ducks in a row. That's the burden of proof; positive claims need to be demonstrated. Simply not believing you when you make a positive claim doesn't mean I suddenly need to defend the opposite. It just means you've failed to provide any evidence.

Do you have any evidence?