taiji2's complaint

Well, my plan goes something like this:(1) Ask to see evidence for their claim.
(2) Wait for them to produce evidence.
(3) Die of old age.During phase 2 of the plan I may intermittently point out that a claim made without evidence is worthless, but I'll try not to be mean about it.

I don't have any, which is why I don't claim to know about it.You see how this works?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You can't even thank me without being snide. You have in fact been answered on this forum in a way that has been completely honest, not to say forthright. Where would that be, then?If we don't know anything about what's before the Big Bang, then are we not obliged to start at the Big Bang?

It may be on-topic, but can we meaningfully speak about a subject on which we have no evidence? If we can't look back before the Big Bang, then we can't see if there was nothing, or if there was something, or indeed if there was a time before the Big Bang at all (many physicists seem to think there wasn't, just as (by analogy) there is no point due north of the North Pole). So what would we be talking about?---P.S: This thread might interest you. EvC Forum: The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing?