Hell and God cant Co-exist.

[Esquilax]

So now you’re going to argue against causal order? Give me a break. You objected to the 5th Way by saying that regular causality was a brute fact Typical Ex-Lax...always reaching for the argument of convenience. But that’s okay. I don’t object to people taking the absurdist/nihilist stance if that’s their existential choice.

Heaven for-fucking-fend that a person's position might be more nuanced than Wooter's immediate understanding of it, right?

Let me spell it out for you: causality might just be a brute fact within expansionist models of the universe- you've completely failed to demonstrate that it has any additional significance or requires any special justification, as usual- but just because something is a function of a given universe model doesn't mean that it's the same in every model, including pre-big bang models, nor that the entirety of my position is encapsulated in one objection, either.

But hey, don't let that stop you lazily strawmanning: it seems to be the only thing you've got going for you anymore.

...prior to the big bang, all ideas of how change works go out the window, and this is something supported by all of the physics we currently understand.

You point is mute because it is based on a flawed understanding of physics.
There is no time prior to the big bang. The temporal order was part of what got actualized along with everything else.

First of all, it's "moot," not "mute."

Secondly, linear time as we understand it certainly began with the big bang, but that's not the same thing as time, period. An actual understanding of physics would show you that physicists generally believe that we'd need an entirely new set of physics to describe the pre-planck time universe, including new modes of language to properly communicate those ideas... none of which exist yet, because of the limitations on our ability to measure that point in the universe's development. As usual, your understanding of the ideas you discuss are overly simplistic and not reflective of a comprehensive, nuanced view of the subject.

But anyway, let's assume that time as a whole did start with the big bang: wouldn't that mean that your observations of change and how that works stop counting at that time, meaning that they don't apply globally and, thus, don't require a god to get started? You know, the thing I've been saying all along?

Moreover, your argument loses all force if you present it properly, which is "the evidence we observe suggests that, in our current expansionist universe, actual things can cause change, but they might not be the only thing."

You seem not to realize that the opposite is absurd. Or maybe you do, having taken the absurdist stance.

Argument from fucking ignorance again. You know, for someone so hot on logical arguments, you've got a conveniently loose grip on basic tenets of logic and its associated fallacies. It's almost as if you're just trying anything to reach a presupposed conclusion where you've been right all along, and you don't really give a shit about logic proper...

Oh, and by the way? Still haven't bothered to connect your spurious argument to the god conclusion you're attempting to make. I know you're searching for distractions to mask that, but that's kinda the big failure here for you. How is your conclusion relevant to the argument at all?

There is very little point in presenting a rational argument to a nihilistic absurdist that questions causality and the thinks things that don’t exist can do things.

So basically, you can't actually argue your position, so you're reduced to strawmanning me and primping up your incredulity as though it actually means anything, in an attempt to dismiss me from the conversation, instead of justifying anything?

"You're a nihilist," is not an argument, Chad. It's just dishonest dodgeball to avoid answering for your total lack of an argument.