A former agnostic, with doubts?

[Esquilax]

The causation beginning with the big bang, would make the universe an "uncaused" causual loop, is that what you are suggesting? Wouldn't that be contradiction?

Well, I'm suggesting that I don't know, mainly, but the point is that our understanding of causation isn't readily equipped to deal with a pre-big bang world. If there's no time there's nothing for any cause to happen in; this is weird stuff, stuff that we aren't even able to properly talk about without knowing more about the mechanics of it. All I'm saying is that it's unjustified to assume that things progressed in a straight cause-to-effect line before there was linear time. For all we know, the "cause" to the universe could be some innocuous thing that happened after the universe expanded, but still happened to cause the big bang due to reverse causality in whatever was beyond it.

I call it an entity as an existence, i could as well call it a thing. The "thing" is, this "thing" either is continuously transcending infinite, or it has a supreme. Your choice. xD

Or a lot of other things. No need to be making false dichotomies here.

Exactly because "nothing" is defined as non-existence, and obviously couldn't exist. Something always was there, somehow. And the moment you define something can't come from "nothing" you simply can't accept there isn't something as eternity, in fact in terms of physics we know such thing as infinite time distortion is possible.
If you don't agree with this, i'd like to see you arguing how can something come from nothing.

I don't need to do either. I just need to point out, yet again, that the correct position to take when you don't yet have sufficient evidence is "I don't know," rather than assuming based on potentially incorrect fragments of data.

No evidence for what? That some kind of arrow of time must preceed the Big Bang? This is the obvious conclusion, like Tobie said, if the universe shifted from 2 different states, something must have allowed that shift, which is an analogy to time must have passed somehow.

And there you go again, making leaps of logic based on your intuition. I'm always leery of people saying that things are "obvious," because usually they aren't and the person just wants to bypass actually demonstrating their premises, like you have here. You have nothing to suggest linear causation, nothing to discount reverse causation, or even just some third thing we don't know about yet, but for some reason you're still making declarative statements as though you do know.

Get used to the limits of human knowledge. Stop pretending.

Isn't it weird that we have a well defined causual system and timearrow, when presumably our universe could and should be way more chaotic?

Like this, for example: how did you determine that an undesigned universe "should" be more chaotic? How, with your sample size of one, did you decide that? What was your data set? And if you only used the one universe we have, then aren't you begging the question?

Not to mention this entire thing is just a fallacious argument from personal incredulity anyway, but it also fails on its own merits too.