Big Bang supports love to argue that time did not exist prior to Big Bang. Their famous argument is that “North of North Pole is meaningless therefore asking what existed prior to Big Bang is also meaningless.”
Here we are to analyze this argument without dragging ourselves to ultra deep philosophy. In simple sense, North Pole is not a dead-end where further movement is not even possible. Suppose moving towards North Pole is considered as backward movement in time. At North Pole, we reach to Zero time. Now forward movement is possible. OK we are again moving to South side but not on the same side of globe. We are watching new scenes and facing new events. It is still a forward movement. It was not meaningless to move further from North Pole.
Secondly, North of North Pole is essentially an upward movement beyond the point of actual North Pole. That upward movement shall eventually take us to the equally, or may be less famous, “North Star”.
Within a BIG picture, if we are standing on equator, then our North is pointed towards North Star and South is exact opposite direction. From equator, if we start moving towards North and we adopt a straight line which is not affected by the curvature of globe, then our first destination towards North would be the North Star itself. And that will not be the end of journey towards North.
The argument that “North of North Pole is meaningless” is equally meaningless argument as saying that “Corner of Circle is meaningless”. With a meaningless argument, existence of time before a particular event cannot be denied.
According to the standard Big Bang Model, time before Big Bang was meaningless. Then a meaningless event occurred and everything emerged and all what emerged was expanding like a balloon. And this is known as a serious theory of Modern Physics. I accept that under certain conditions, time can be meaningless but the condition won’t be like that “North of North Pole is meaningless”.