These appear to be two bald assertions, not a philosophical argument.
My starting position would be to reject the first assertion out of hand, as both unsubstantiated, and likely unsubstantiatable.
The second assertion seems potentially reasonable, given a finite universe, but would need to be expressed more rigorously for me to accept it unconditionally.
The juxtaposition of the two gives some suggestion of an attempt to make some variant of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
I am however at a loss as to where you think you are going here, and skeptical as to whether it is a rabbit-hole I wish to go down. This line of reasoning seems to be off-topic to this thread’s stated topic:
Can the “Liar, Lunatic or Lord” argument be made to work?
Therefore, if you wish to discuss it, it would be more appropriate to make a new thread for it (I do not however guarantee that I will be interested in discussing it with you there).