See above for a definition of special pleading. What you are doing is adding conditions to your argument without setting out those conditions in your original argument. i.e you are claiming that causes can be outside of our spacetime and that causes outside of our spacetime are not subject to causality.
Not infinite: eternal , as in timeless.
What does eternal mean except infinite? You are just attempting to redefine words now.
I am not claiming there was an infinite regression, because there is no way of me knowing that. I do agree that before the big bang there was no spacetime as we currently understand it.
Fine, then what if the hypothesis is that the universe was the result of the act of a conciousness as Craig puts forth? How is that any different than some of the other thoroughly unprovable hypotheses put forth regarding the origin of the universe?
It's not different at all, if they are not falsifiable and do not predict the behaviour of the universe around us. If they are falsifiable and do provide predictions then there is a world of difference. one is science the other is supposition.
Even provable hypotheses are essentially "made up". It is just that later on they prove to have predictive, and not just explanatory, value.
Err no, if the empirical data supports a hypothesis then you can't say it is 'made up'. Yes, that is the main benefit of science, the value of scientific prediction comes after the hypothesis is proven not before.