Evidence

Well, the equations that predict black holes also predict white holes, and the big bang is functionally equivalent to a white hole. And we have found black holes. So...seems like the most plausible explanation for the big bang is...it was a white hole. Still can't extrapolate backwards for the same reasons, but there are at least implicit causes of white holes suggesting there was spacetime before the big bang.

To my knowledge, we also have zero evidence that they didn't exist. Nor have we ever observed matter/energy appearing out of ~~thin air~~ vaccuum, so it seems unlikely to me.

And to my knowledge there can't be a before time.
- Oh yeah? Then where did they film The Land Before Time? Checkmat
- Well, yes and no. Time is a concept derived from a change in state. There is no “real” time. If the universe before the Big Bang existed in a static state, then the concept of time itself becomes meaningless. So in that case, it would be “before time” in a sense
- Duh, spacetime is a casual filter.
- Time is an illusion
  
  It's just a human made concept to create a reference to measure shit
Well, we haven't directly observed matter appearing spontaneously in a vacuum, but we have evidence to support it does happen

“Before” the Big Bang is nonsense. It’s equivalent to saying “head north from the North Pole.”

It's not so much that we know there was nothing before it, but that we can't figure out what was before it.
- No, in our current best-supported model of the universe (Lambda-CDM) the concept of “before” the Big Bang is meaningless. It is the apex of the spacetime “bell” from which everything emerged.
- Seems like a distinction without a difference, I sort of assumed the OP meant that is all I mean. We don't know anything before the beginning after all. Like you said.
That's nonsense. You think some massive amount of matter just materialized from nothing into a singular point? How do you think all the stuff managed to get there in the first place?
- How do you think all the stuff managed to get there in the first place?
  
  You're still thinking like a meat-monkey. There are stranger states out there than one can imagine, and that's not hyperbole. There was no causality before expansion, because there was no meaningful interactions or spacetime in which interactions can occur.
  
  You're always going to have a hard time imagining this, because again, you are a human. We all are, none of us can imagine states of the universe without time and space.
- Not just matter but time as well. That's what they were referring to. There is no "before time".
  
  Regarding your rethorical question: go find an answer and you're sure to win the Nobel Prize.
- It wasn't matter that did the banging, it was space-time itself. Have you heard how we know that the universe is expanding? Well we can extrapolate backwards and find the point in time where space-time was just a point: "the big bang". Not only was there no space-time for matter to exist in before the big bang, there was no concept of "before" because that word only makes sense in the context of spacetime. So yeah, the person you're replying to is right, "before the big bang" is a nonsense phrase.
- It's only something we can speculate about. It represents a limit to our ability to gather any evidence that might validate those speculations. We can't say what happened before it, because time itself was one of the things that popped out of the big bang. What would "before" even mean if time didn't exist?
  
  Even if time and matter did exist in some sense, we can't get any evidence for it. We can't make any kind of useful theory about it. At best, we can make wild guesses.
  
  We could also just say "we don't know what it was like". Russell's Teapot suggests we should instead say there was nothing, because we can't prove there was anything.
- Based on the comment you're replying to, I assume they would say "no, nothing materialized from nothing because there wasn't a 'before' in which nothing could have existed"
very nice analogy. I'm stealing it.
I still think that means I have to up towards Polaris.

Evidence of god?

ZEROOOOO

I know it's old, but I still cannot believe it's the same woman in every panel. Girl looks like a different person in each pic.

It's not the same woman. It's an interview style advertisement with 2 women. Here's the ad - https://youtu.be/1n9sLzlxPf0?si=GFUfdfBUpA5BFazE
The original commercial was showing different women as if to imply it works for anyone. The arrangement of the panels is different from the original ad. It looks like panels 2 and 4 are swapped. I believe there are 2 different women.
- If you look at the straps on her outfit,it looks like it's two people.
That's what I was thinking. And I just noticed that in 2 of the pics the shoulder strap to her shirt is different. If it's not different women, it's at least different shirts in some of the panels

Hey, man, we're all just echoes of light bouncing around and making good vibrations as we bounce pgf of each other. Yeah, man, like, totally trippy when you think about it.

I think the inability to destroy or create matter counts as Evidence but not necesarily Proof.

It doesn't as the laws of physics as we currently know them break down at the scale and pressures involved in the very early universe.
- Alright but until you can create or destroy energy/matter then you have no evidence to back your claims or dispute mine.

Evidence of happiness in life? Zero

One
- Dang, nice
- Teach me your ways, master

Your universe is a derivative of another source of matter or energy. You are a derivative and there is nothing you can do about it.

Guess I'll just try and intergeate the best I can.

Those cosmologists would be very upset if they could read.

Well you're forgetting about the big unbang, which occurred just before the big bang and condensed all matter and energy into a tiny speck.

Not a tiny speck. You're not far off however. Theoretically, before expansion, all matter and energy is contracted into an infinitely dense space. Infinite density of infinite mass and infinite energy occupied infinite space. Or at least that is the start of the big bang.

The hot big bang is basically just "let there be light" wrapped up in science words and don't get me started on the period of rapid inflation. It's incredible to me that the bedrock of modern physics is hand-waved away to get grad students focused back on either bigger nuclear plants and bombs or more qubits.

It's incredible to me that the bedrock of modern physics is hand-waved away

Nothing is waved away. It's just a point the math breaks down, just like black holes. That all evidence so far supports the math doesn't help explaining what exactly is/has been happening there.
Fortunately the big bang isn't actually a bedrock of anything outside of cosmology and can be entirely ignored by the rest of physics.
Please start on the period of rapid inflation. I'm curious to find out what you think
- There are a ton of competing models for how the early universe formed. In order to explain why the universe is so smooth and flat though, they all invoke the idea of a short (10e-37 seconds) period of time immediately following "the singularity" that is presumed to have been literally the first point. During inflation the universe blows up 100000 times in size (and correspondingly drops in temperature by the same factor) then immediately slows down to roughly the rate of expansion we see today.
  
  There are a lot of simulations and theories about this could have worked. And I'm sure they all have lots of grounding and math and believers. But none of thr explanations I've ever heard amount to more than "when I do this funny thing, the math works and none of of us know why" and that has been the state of quantum physics for 70 years: a series of "we don't know but the math works."
  
  In software, we call that tech debt and I feel like our current model of profit-driven science isn't capable of actually finding or reporting the answers that underly the debt-riddled results out of modern labs.
- Yes, I do too