The Big Bang Theory Does Not Require A Singularity At T=0

"This is based on the flawed assumption that general relativity is applicable by itself during all periods of time going back to pre-Planck Time." Well, anything prior to the singularity is an assumption, particularly how everything comes from nothing. But I digress. For this debate I intend on a two-pronged approach that places emphasis on empirical observation and philosophy to show that time indeed could be mathematically categorized as T=0. With that brief introduction, lets get started. First and foremost, anything that exists only exists because of a cause. What do I mean? Something that exists only exists as the result of something else -- cause and effect. And the cause of somethings existence is always outside of itself, meaning, nothing has ever been demonstrably shown to have existed without a cause facilitating its existence. For instance, your birth was not the cause of your own doings. Rather, you exist because two people, along with the laws of nature, have allowed for your procreation. These are immutable laws of physics that have never been shown to be usurped. I naturally would defy PRO to prove otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I do not intend to use a logical fallacy, such as an argument of consensus, however, these theories reach beyond the theoretical stage for countless astrophysicists, mathematicians, and cosmologists. It therefore lends itself to more than mere credence and ends up being self-evident truths about life and the universe in which life itself is contained therein. Secondly, since time and space are essentially homologous, as in "space-time," one cannot exist without the other. This seems fairly axiomatic without introducing lengthy theorems to prove it, because if something exists, when did it exist, and where did it exist? Obviously one cannot do without the other. For instance, when two events are separated by timed intervals, enough time passes between them for there to be a cause/effect relationship between the two events. For a particle traveling less than the speed of light, any two events which occur to or by the particle must be separated by these intervals -- hence, time, space, and matter being distinguishable from one another, however, they are not separate entities for they need each other in order to exist. Its that triune nature of physics that allow for life. Now, consider that there was no singularity, no point in which time began. Would time itself then become timeless? Surely not just on a philosophical level, because time outside of space means nothing, and indeed, could not exist in actuality-- never mind conceptually. Time, I think you would agree, are not merely contrivances of the human mind. Sure, humans have assigned intervals to time for our own benefit, but time in fact is a very real phenomenon regardless of how we divvy it up for our own convenience. Lastly, empirical evidence in the form of Hubble's redshift strongly imply that when the universe began, time itself began. Obviously you see it differently, and I'm intrigued as to how you intend on proving otherwise. But what happened before Planck's Time (10-43 seconds after the universe began) no one knows empirically. However, fundamental forces such as gravity begin to differentiate between other laws. And if we were to go backwards in the time-line, we see that the universe began at T=0. If for no other reason, time cannot be infinite for the sole fact that space was not infinite, nor is there not infinite mass. This more than amply implies that time had a beginning, and tracing it back, we see the singularity. I am, however, very interested in your argument. As a caveat, I would suggest that it be readable for to the average layman. Swamping them down with mathematical theorems will be useless for all parties involved. It may smack of sophistication, but if your adherents can't understand what you are talking about, its pointless. I'm looking forward to the debate Lucretius.