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.
No evidence means that all else is conjecture and there is no way to say that one conjecture is more valid scientifically since neither can bring forth evidence in its support. Your "refutation" is therefore total nonsense.
...And I reach the same logically valid conclusions, the difference is I do not rule out a futherance of these SAME principles which futher demonstrate the validity of certain written historical text. (Some text may validate the priciples) In other words, I'm not close minded to possibilites which SEEM to have never been discredited and futher strengthen the principles and laws of physics as can be observed this day.