Nope.No we don't know that, science doesn't pretend either. Just you.We absolutely can know it wasn't a continuation of something. How do you believe the continuation of something put all the matter and energy into a tiny space where it then began to expand and cool?I never rejected the part about the universe having a beginning, like, sure, everything has a beginning. What I say is that we can't see all the way back to the BB, so we can't know if the BB was the absolute start, or that it was a continuation of something.I've already provided the link and pointed you to the section that explains how we know the universe had a beginning.That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You throw out a link to CERN and expect me to see if there's anything there that's relevant to the discussion. It's up to YOU to lay out your argument with links to the proper spot of the website after you've quoted the relevant passage. Proof of the BB coming from nothing isn't a general link to CERN, do you get that?CERN is bogus and doesn’t make any sense?
Alexander Vilinken is bogus and doesn’t make any sense?
But you didn’t answer my questions. Do you reject the evidence of red shift and cosmic background radiation?
I am now asking you very specifically what evidence you reject.
Do you reject the evidence of red shift and cosmic background radiation?