I never denied either of those, but the truth is we know absolutely nothing about the behavior of the universe before the Big Bang, so you are simply jumping to a conclusion with insufficient data.
Well, since science believes space/time didn't exist prior to the Big Bang, you're going to have a hard time finding "data".
No, science simply doesn't know what the universe was like at that time.
Because the universe as we do know it has a finite age (~13.7 billion years) we can only see a finite distance out into space: ~13.7 billion light years. This is our so-called horizon. The Big Bang Model does not attempt to describe that region of space significantly beyond our horizon - space-time could well be quite different out there. Pre-big bang we might suppose that space-time as we currently know it did not exist, but we can not know for certain(at least not yet) that space-time in some different form did not exist.
Our understanding of the workings of the universe is too full of unknowns for you to be jumping to conclusions.
Indeed, there are interesting possibilities for the edge of the universe. I think the cyclical theory is particularly interesting -- you couldn't actually reach any "edge" of the universe because if you got close enough to it, you'd find yourself going back in the other direction!
It's amazing that when we look up at the stars, that we're staring into the past -- four years, 20 years, thousands or even millions.
Poll
