Orac, you were the one who said: “"If there was nothing at the big bang, there would be nothing now.”
You also said: “It says what it says there there was something at the big bang”

When I pointed out that the first of these statements was tautologous, and asked you to be specific about what you were saying; your response was: “Sorry I don't have to specify anything science doesn't work like that”

You said of the Big Bang: “…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”.

Now you say: “Big Bang is hardly an exact definition”

What are you saying; that Big Bang is fine when you use it, but inexact when I use it? Are you “being anal” when you use it, or is that just a insult you reserve for people who are not fobbed off by indeterminate circumlocution.

There never was nothing.