Hell and God cant Co-exist.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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...

(Emphasis mine.)

If causality [causal relationships] can be different from universe to universe, then they aren’t really brute facts. If they aren’t brute facts then the principle of sufficient reason applies. There must be a reason, or justification, for why these particular causal relationships hold and not some alternatives.

…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…

Not at all. I do not limit causal relationship to temporally succession the way Hume, for example, does.

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…[/i]

The logical principles at play are the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. The argument-from-ignorance objection only applies when conceivable but as yet unknown alternatives are possible. In this case, there are only three conceivable categories under discussion: 1) things that could exist and do; 2) things that could exist and don’t; 3) things that cannot exist and don’t, and; 4) things that cannot exist yet do. These four exhaust all possibilities. Any of the first three are conceivable. The fourth is incoherent, and yet this is the one to which you continually appeal.