I'm sorry, I'm completely lost. So now you are trying to tell me the universe may not have been the beginning, but that it did not come from anything. You are

I'm sorry, I'm completely lost. So now you are trying to tell me the universe may not have been the beginning, but that it did not come from anything. You are aware of the scientific issues with the cyclical universe model I take it? There are issues with entropy, fine tuning, the fact that information cannot leave our universe through the event horizon of black holes (singularities), that universes of the size of our own are almost infinitely less probable than much smaller universes, that our universe does not look to be headed for a "big crunch", etc. You also say, "You are the one that believes things happen without a cause". So now are you trying to tell me that you believe things cannot happen without a cause and that I am the only one asserting that? If so, then do you not see that an infinite number of prior causes (e.g. your cyclical universe theory) leads to an actual infinity of prior events and that we never get to this point because there are an infinite number of events that must precede it? (This is but one of many absurdities implied by such a presupposition.) The only escape from your argument is to suppose that there is a first cause which is uncaused, outside of the physical universe whose existence is necessary but which is sufficient to explain the existence of the universe. If you do not accept that, then your position seems to be that our universe does not have a reason for its existence (a cause) and that it does not need one (you seem to have claimed that, regardless, quite apart from my deduction from your claims). I claim only that things which do not have a beginning need no cause. And I claim that it logically follows that such things are changeless. If not, you have to accept the existence of an actual infinity, something which leads to a multitude of mathematical contradictions (look up Hilbert's Hotel). You can't argue with a deductive argument by saying that it is wrong but we just haven't figured out any workable alternative yet but that we are working on it. You have to either refute the premises or demonstrate a self contradiction in the argument. Without that, the argument stands. You are welcome to your opinion that you are suspicious of the premises.