@johnprytz I was not assuming that the theory espoused is completely correct. I was only speaking to your fundamental misunderstanding of it.

the very idea that the initial expansion is in some way similar to a black hole tells me everything I need to know about your understanding of the theory.

@johnprytz a black hole is not the singularity. your insistence that they are the same is the fundamental lack in knowledge I am referring to.

@johnprytz okay, then you do understand that if the theory of initial singularity is true, it is nothing like a black hole, right? that's not what your previous words implied. you are saying "no singularity, no black hole" right now, but previously your words implied that "if singularity, definitely black hole", which is not by necessity true.

@Donotbelieve you can pretend all you want. I know you like me.

Yep. Also if I'm not mistaken the sentence "there was no time" is more correctly expressed as "the speed at which time flowed was zero", according to general relativity in a singularity. Time is how we perceive the changes of the physical dimensions.
Beside that, I have to agree with OP that without data is just a guess. Maybe when we'll understand dark matter and energy the guess will be more educated.

@Ubik
I also agree that it could be called a guess in a way, but it is hypocitical to say something is ridiculous becsause it is a guess and then a few sentences later make even wilder guesses with no theories behind them at all.

@Dietl Definitely, I'm totally with you on that.

@johnprytz
If you had actually studied logic you would clearly see that your argument for time is circular. The law of conservation of energy (within the concepts of "creating" and "destroying" ) presupposes the existence of time. You are basically stating that A therefore A. This really is Logic 101.

"If the Big Bang event actually created space, then space has to be composed of something."
This is a non sequitur. Just because something exists doesn't mean it has to be "composed of something".

Since chemistry is the study of atoms and molecules your question what the chemical formular of space is makes absolutly zero sense.

I think you confuse logic and proofs with reasonableness. The assumptions you make are reasonable and might very well be true but this is far from a proof that it must be so. You rely on your intuition and that is fine for most things in life, but keep in mind that those intuitions evolved for survival on a relatively stable planet. Our intuitions are useless when it comes to the extremes of physics. Quantum mechanics, black holes, the Big Bang those are things where we have to be very careful with our assumptions. Arrogance is not justified in these endeavours.

I would really advise you to study physics in university since you seem to have great interest in it. It might benefit you to actually have to calculate the things yourself and then see what conclusions you really can get out of the equations. And you would see what big amount of work has already been put into those theories you so easily dismiss. Forming a laymans opinion from some articles and papers you get from the internet leads you to just those naive and fallacious arguments you have written here on multiple occasions. If you cherish logic and really seek truth you have to take these kind of things more seriously and be more rigorous.

I showed you how your reasoning is circular and told you that one of your arguments is a non sequitur. If you see no problem with that I can't help you. Those are only the worst things your arguments can be. No big deal, he?
I know I won't change your worldview one iota, but just for others, who might read this, a few clarifications:

• Writing "Logic 101" and "You can't argue to the contrary" doesn't make an argument right and it seems silly when (1) it's clear that you have no idea about logic and (2) I already did argue to the contrary.
• "equations can be misused and abused as in my example with extrapolating backwards" <- this is one of the things I'd like to point out. YOU do this too.You "extrapolate backwards" the law of conservation of energy just like physicists do with general relativity, but unlike physicists you have no theory that makes any testable predictions. You just use guesswork (and circular reasoning again).
• Reading comprehension! I did not say logic is useless. I only said our intuitions are useless. That you somehow conflate those two is pretty telling if you ask me.
• "should we just throw up our hands in total despair and say therefore we don't know" YES! Saying "I don't know" is the right answer to give in this case. This is the opposite ancient cultures did. They did the same as you. Did made some groundless speculation, proposed Gods and whatnot at the beginning or made the claim that the universe was eternal, when if fact we don't know.

@johnprytz
Ok, step by step, tell me at which step you disagree.

• We only know that the first law of thermodynamics holds because we have evidence.
• So if the evidence showed differently, we would have to give up the law.
• So this law is not a logical law that is necessary the case. In other words there is the possibility of a universe/other dimension/unknown space or time where the law doesn't hold.
• Since we know nothing specific about the big bang it is possible that it is such a thing, where the law does not apply.

There are other things wrong with your comment but let's stick to this point for now.
One minor thing I do want to point out, which I only bring up because I expect you to agree. Not accepting a premise doesn't mean that I accept the negation of the premise. Saying "I don't know if it is raining" for instance means not accepting the premise "It is raining" but it doesn't mean accepting "It isn't raining" either.

I don't think you fully comprehend what I'm trying to tell you here. The first law applies to our universe, that is what we know (to a reasonable degree of certainty), but if it applies to other things than our universe we have no evidence for or against, so the reasonable position is to wait until we have at least a hint to say one way or the other.
You make a claim here, though. You said it is impossible that the first law doesn't apply, without evidence. I'm not sure if you changed or are willing to change your view on that. But I think we said all there is to say about this so if you don't want to change your mind that's fine by me.