Big Bang Found

You're forgetting that, inextricably linked with the creation of space, the singularity which we know as "the big bang" also created time. Actually created time itself. There is no "before" the big bang - the concept is as meaningless as asking someone at the north pole to walk further north.As a result, concepts like "logic", and our day to day experience of cause and effect don't apply. There wasn't a "moving force", which you refer to, to create anything, because there was no time before the big bang for it to move in.

If wands were real, they'd be compatible with anything. But for as long as we have no evidence that magic exists, we'll keep going where the evidence leads us. Saying that a scenario is compatible with a supernaturally omnipotent being is semantically circular and trivial - a meaningless statement which takes us nowhere. It's the same as me saying that if I had Superman's powers, I could leap tall buildings. True enough semantically, but nothing that gets us anywhere. You've got two problems here.First, the supernatural is not a theory - it's an abstract concept, with no basis in observed evidence. Applying Occam's Razor to the supernatural and a scientific theory is inappropriate.Second, even if you could apply Occam's Razor in this way, how on earth do you know if the supernatural is the more parsimonious explanation ? If it existed, maybe its processes and steps would be hugely more convoluted, involved and complex than those of the scientific theory - there is no way you could tell, unless you could test the supernatural explanation. By definition, you cannot.

Not entirely sure what you're shooting at with that statement, but I've been at the point you refer to for a considerable period of time.

Heaven is clearly short of a decent barber or two then.

In an environment where every physical law of our universe seems not to apply, what is it that leads to your conviction that the law of causation continues to apply ?

But this is precisely my point. If the very laws of physics themselves break down and cease to apply prior to Planck time = 1, then what chance do those constructs have, which we loosely term the laws of logic ?Logic is a series of constructs based on day to day human experience. It already breaks down at the quantum level of physical science - the double slit experiment, for example, defies "logic". Why should the human, logical construct which we call the law of causation (actually, it would be better to call it the law of causality) have any necessity at the very start of our universe, if physical laws themselves don't apply then ? Human experience, on which logic is based, stands no chance of being relevant at that point.