Short Post- The Conversation on Cosmology

Here is a quick post on the conversation I feel that I am having with proponents of the cosmological argument:

Josh: "Demonstrate to me that cause and effect reasoning applies before the big bang."

Larry the apologist: "It applies then because it applies now."

Josh: "Aha. But you are claiming that things are not like they are now by stating that there was a point in time when matter, time, and energy did not exist. If we were to look backwards in time at that instance you would be absolutely wrong in stating that "it applies then because it applies now." If there were no matter, time, or energy, why would there be cause and effect reasoning? Now you must demonstrate to me that cause and effect reasoning is transcendent.

Summary of my position:
You can't have it both ways.

• The cosmological argument claims that "things were not as they are now" by saying that there was a point when time, matter, and energy (everything in the universe) did not exist.
• Then it tries to go the other way and say "things were as they are now" by applying our type of reasoning to something apart from time, matter, and energy (everything in the universe).

Our reasoning is based on the observation and experience of our universe. It is wrong to assume that our reasoning would apply to something that is different than and separated from our universe.