You accept the existence of the infinite and for causation outside of time and space in terms of your religion but deny them to science.
Either they are possible or they or not.
If you like Tegmark, then you must admit to transformations. Many worlds transforms into wave function collapse (in terms of perception). Superposition transforms into classical results (again in terms of perception). And yet you believe that the universe is “expanding” even though the way you seem to use the term is meaningless. You say that in the absence of space things cannot exist and yet you base your intellectual life on their existence. You say that in the absence of time, events cannot occur. And yet your world-view depends on the opposite.
Dear grasshopper, snatch the pebble from my hand :)
Neither therefore can the term "physical causation" or any other physical terms, e.g. physical laws, operate as restrictions on God.
God is the only possible candidate for the uncaused cause (first cause) of causation.
All physical cosmologies rely on space/time for physical causation (e.g. multi-verse, multi-world, cyclic, ekpyrotic, imaginary time.) They cannot have an infinite past (plentitude argument, everything that can happen did) because there was a beginning of real space and real time. All they do is move the goal post to prior space/time which also had a beginning, i.e. a finite chain of prior physical causation.
Truly, the only closed cosmology known to me is Max Tegmark's Level IV Parallel universe which is closed precisely because it is radical Platonism. In his view, the perceptible physical world (the frog view) is a manifestation of the real mathematical structures which actually exist outside of space and time.
The Platonic paradigm raises the question of why the universe is the way it is. To an Aristotelian, this is a meaningless question: The universe just is. But a Platonist cannot help but wonder why it could not have been different. If the universe is inherently mathematical, then why was only one of the many mathematical structures singled out to describe a universe? A fundamental asymmetry appears to be built into the very heart of reality.
Tegmark, Max, Parallel Universes, Scientific American, May, 2003
Barrow, Pi in the Sky, pg. 296-297
But the frog cannot discern this because he relies first on his sensory perception for knowledge. He is a natural man. To him, the particle is in an orbit, the wave is continuous. He cannot perceive by sensory perception alone the beginning and end of it.
The bird whose perspective is Platonist - the "beyond" - discerns this. Sensory perception is not his most certain source of knowledge. Reasoning to the Platonist would trump sensory perception.
More importantly, the Christian discerns the "beyond" directly, Spiritually - even if he does not have the terms of mathematics, physics and philosophy to describe it to others.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. I Corinthians 2:11-14
To God be the glory!