A former agnostic, with doubts?

[Madness20]

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.

But the thing is, nothing really states there was no time "before"/beyond the big bang, what's is staten, is that as far as we know, the existence of time prior to planck second is basically irrelevant, because our universe had it's own space-time phasing by being born from a singularity, which means that everything was built in an independent spacetime inflation, simillar to what is thought to happen in places like black holes, but at a much greater scale.

For the most advanced set of physics theory's like string theory and quantum mechanics, the most widely accepted idea is that our universe is a simple result of interception of dimensions/"branes" that already existed and, with great probability, create indefinite ammounts of universes with different ammounts of energy and matter and dimensions arrangements.

Also, i disagree with your definition of the possibility of an innocuous cause to our universe being created by the universe itself. If it's caused and causes the universe, it certainly can't be innocuous, and uncreated causal loops simply are contradiction.

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.

I'm unsure it's really a false dichotomy, it could probably be somewhat proved by simple induction in set theory, like this informal example:

Universe is everything or exists some i natural that U C Ui
Ui is everything or exists Ui+1 that Ui C Ui+1

If exists k € N: Any p =\= k : U(p) C U(k)
=> U(k) is a majorant to everything, and it's supreme of U(i)
Which is the same as same as saying that the collection of everything has a supreme collection.

Else U(i) is not majored <=> Any p, exists l € N : U(p) C U(l)

Which is the same as saying every universe is part of a bigger collection - which i called "infinitelly transcendant"

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.

Of course i don't know, but i believe in logics capacity to formulate absolute truths or extrapolations, and "nothing" is an absolute definition of the absence of anything existing - a.k.a. not existing, again, even in physics the closest thing you have to "nothing" is a void of time and space that actually contains an absurd ammount of energy, and that "nothing" has particles generating within it and annihilating themselves all the time. Again, i'm formulating my beliefs, it'd be counterproductive to simply state "i don't know".
And to be honest, i feel that "I don't know" was never actually a productive position in terms of science and obtaining answers, it might be great at refusing to explain your own beliefs, but that's it.
"i bellieve/ i suspect/ i doubt" is actually the position that might benefict and enrich science and metaphysics.

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.

I have nothing to suggest linear causation? All science is based in linear causation, it's not me arguing, the fact that we have very consolidate theorys that can simply explain the inflation of the universe through simple causations, it's in itself evidence to say that we do live in a linear causation world. Again, Big bang theory just can't explain anything before planck second, which is a ridiculously small ammount of time, but science has great suppositions that might eventually come to be shown true.
Even in quantum mechanics, despite certain oscilations being stocastic and that can only be described in probability waves, but anyway probabilities become frequences and on a mass scale, quantum uncertainty is irrelevant, and that's why in terms of mechanical physics' everything works just, right. There's also the factor that many of this "uncertainty" is just "theoretical" and might easily be disproved with more information on string theory for example.

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.

Ok, this, i accept it's a fallacy, but the "logical" nature of our universe still isn't logical if we don't consider that logic certainly extends beyond it, and universes too.

Even in consideration that this is an "oasis" of logic, total symmetrys, special entropical entity with perfect causation chains, stable higgs fields, the forces stabilities, stable atomic connections that allow the complexity and total replication of organic matter and every other "special" event to our universe, in comparison to other possible universes, we're assuming an ever replicating machine trying to recombine itself into different sets of logics or lack of it, which in itself, is an unexplainable "intent"/determination, unless we recognize there is "intent"/determination indeed.

That there is a great dose of "intelligence" in the way our universe organizes, it's undeniable in my opinion, and i'm not necessarily implying the intelligence might be evidence for a god, but certainly is evidence for a "greater" design that our universe is just a partition of. Even without a god, i must say again, it's brilliant.