The absense of time is really an absense of reference points. So, once we establish a reference point in the here and now -- for example, it takes 24 hours for the earth to revolve around the sun -- then we can extend that reference point both forwards and backwards ... add infinitum.
Then would you say that if there is no reference point of any kind, then time does not exist? You can't extend reference points ad infinitum. You can only extend them back to the Big Bang. That is the first known reference point. You may argue that there were others that we don't know about, but unless you can show that they exist, it is an argument from faith.
Or, consider this ... If you took the hands and numbers away from a clock, would that clock still exist? Sure it would, you would just have no way of keeping track of time.
There would be countless ways of keeping time if clocks didn't exist. In fact, we can even measure time past, billions of years before the invention of clocks. But even with the best of techniques, we can only extrapolate time back to the Big Bang.
And that makes sense. How could you possibly measure time if
nothing existed. Your disingenuous argument is based solely on your religious belief that something existed before the universe. Well, that and your near total ignorance of physics, mathematics, cosmology, neurology... really almost all science.
No, the question is, Was there anything else before the beginning of me? Because if there wasn't, how did "me" come about?
No, that is not the question. You began when you began, not before. "You" must be defined the same way in both parts of the sentence.
Now lets test you. Consider the following statement:
"X existed before Y"
For any value of Y (skyscrapers, Iacchus, time etc.) is there always a valid value of X? (This is a yes or no question by the way).
You don't remember my posing this rather "implausible idea?"
