Creationist Equivocation

[Objectivist]

If existence is primary, then it is eternal.  Existence is primary.  The question "where did it all come from" is a nonsensical question that trades in stolen concepts.  The universe is existence seen as a whole and represents all beings, their attributes, their actions, their relationships, etc., so saying that the universe came into being is like saying the universe came into itself.

Just out of curiosity, do you think that existence preceded the Big Bang? How does that work? I know there are various theories...

Do you hold that the universe is somehow eternal, with no beginning? If existence preceded the Big Bang, and existence is something, then there was something before. 

I know you don't believe in any supernatural stuff, so we don't have to go through that. But I'm curious if you see a point at which all the stuff started (Big Bang-like). 

I've watched a few Roger Penrose videos on YouTube but they are way over my head.

According to the big bang theory, there was a singularity.  The singularity was all the energy in the universe was in a very small area and it was very, very hot.  So yes there was something there before if before even has meaning in that context.  We know that when space is warped, time slows down.  If the singularity was an infinitely dense area of spacetime and energy, then in that state  one second may just be the same as infinity.  If time began with the expansion of the singularity then there is no problem.  I understand that the singularity is really a result of applying the math of general relativity beyond its limits, the plank distance.  There are other hypotheses that don't predict a singularity such as loop quantum gravity and cyclical conformal cosmology.  

I do hold that the universe, all that exists, is eternal since time is a part of the universe.  Time presupposes existence.  Existence doesn't presuppose time.  I don't see any reason to suppose that something hasn't always existed.  I recognize that energy and matter are interchangeable and that one can become the other, that neither can be created or destroyed in a closed system.  My views are not contradicted by either the big bang or Thermodynamics.  But I'm not an expert in either.  

I think that if one proposes that at one time nothing existed, besides contradicting one's self, one would have a hard time justifying this proposition since nothing wouldn't leave any evidence of its "existence".  The very concept of evidence presupposes existence, i.e., facts that are evident.  This also presupposes that consciousness also exists for the evidence to be evident.  I think there's no escaping the fact that existence exists.  It's the most fundamental fact.  One either accepts this or denies this.  The problem is that denial is a type of conscious action that presupposes both the existence of consciousness and some object that the consciousness is aware of.