My case against Creationism and Infinite regression

[Mister Agenda]

Why?  The universe is simply a changed form of what it was 'before' the Big Bang'.

So, you don't think that the beginning of space-time and all physical reality (including physical laws) could be characterized as a new system? Please also explain how the laws of physics stop working at Planck time (before you get back to the singularity) and how the First Law of Thermodynamics mysteriously is exempt and will continue on not just to the singularity, but through to the other side. 

In addition, please tell us what came 'before' the Big Bang that avoids the absurdity of a past infinite chain.

Fallacy of composition, Steve. As you pointed out, our universe is the system, and the Laws of Thermodynamics apply within it, within the space and time of existence as we know it. We know that things in the universe have to follow the LoTs, but we have no basis for concluding that the LoTs apply to the universe itself or to the conditions preceding it.

BTW, so many people like to claim that a past infinite chain is absurd, but none of them can prove it isn't the case. The argument against infinite regression seems to consist of primarily 'it makes my brain hurt so it can't be true'.