That doesn’t address the question. You said: "If there was nothing at the big bang, there would be nothing now.” That is meaningless. The Big Bang was something, so what this says is: If there was nothing when there was something (?!) there would be nothing now.
It says what it says there there was something at the big bang or we would not be able to measure it (CMBR), we have no idea why you keep talking about nothing.
If you accept that there was a Big Bang, and that it was something, then if you want to talk of the possibility of there having been nothing in relation to the BB, then you have to specify what you mean.
Sorry I don't have to specify anything science doesn't work like that go back through the logic again
You keep saying there was nothing before the big bang I am simply saying science has really no comment on the matter I have repeatedly told you we can't measure the other side of BB yet so science is silent on the matter.
All we can say is there was something at the big bang.
Before the big bang take whatever guess you want flying pigs, nothing, everything, god, green aliens, or Elvis Presley because science has no data to argue with you.
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model of the early development of the universe
Correct it is and that theory starts with something at the big bang. If you want to argue there is something or nothing that predates our universe then it is cosmogony as we have no data.
Can you please show me any scientist or science theory that says there is an absolute nothing before BB because you keep sort of insisting it, Hawking is probably the only one brave and crazy enough. For me put whatever you want before the BB I really don't care as it isn't science.
