So here's what I can conclude from this...Something has always existed and the question is WHAT...I certainly agree with the law of physics, but it perplexes me that since we both can not observe or proove WHAT existed, since it has never been observed or prooved, only documented by superstitous conjecture, your BELIEVE is that it is something other than what you believe to be superstitious conjecture, eventhough you have to make the same form of superstitious conjucture about WHAT existed just as anyone else.
(Am I good at run-on sentences or What!!?)
I make no superstitious conjecture. None at all. I reach what seem to be logically valid conclusions, based on demonstrable principles of physics. Unlike theologians, my conclusions aren't fixed for all eternity; they are subject to revision when new information indicates the need for revisions. As I said, because of the apparent nature of the big bang, there is no evidence of conditions during the prior state of affairs, and I won't speculate as to what such conditions may have been -- but I do maintain (because of the conservation laws) that there was a universe of matter/energy then, as there is now. I can't go any farther than that. And I know that many physicists disagree with me about the existence of a "prior universe." I may very well be wrong. Such is life.
Swamis, gurus, and other assorted con-men may rush in at this point, seeking to profit from the absence of evidence, as their pronouncements about "outside of time and space" are beyond testing and falsification.