The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.[1][2] As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day.

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.

The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory.

Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions
There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?

First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4

In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950.

Big Bang Theory - What About God?
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"? We won't attempt to answer that question in this short article. We just ask the question:

The nature of the universe reveals that a purely naturalistic cause for the universe is extremely unlikely and, therefore, illogical. One cannot say that a miraculous naturalistic event is a scientific explanation. Miracles are only possible when an immensely powerful Being intervenes to cause them. The Bible says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,10 and that He created the universe.11 When a model doesn't work, scientists must be willing to give up their model for a model that fits the facts better. In this case, the supernatural design model fits the data much better than the naturalistic random chance model.

Yes, the Big Bang is the name of a rock group. But more importantly, it is the name of one of the theories of the origin of the universe. It is a widely accepted theory, but also has been under some attacks recently.

When discussing the origin of the universe, there is always the confrontation between the theists and the atheists. Theists believe essentially that God created the universe, or at least some “Intelligent Designer” did. Atheists hold that the universe has been eternal and needed no Creator. This argument has raged for centuries.

However, due to more recent discoveries such as galactic motion and proton decay, scientists have come to believe with certainty that the universe, at some point, actually began. The final nail was the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Based on this, physicists feel that there are only two plausible explanations for the origin of the universe. First, someone made the universe (intelligent design) or second, the universe made itself (random chance).

The third option, favored by the atheists, that the universe has always been here, is too contradictory of empirical science. No other plausible theory has ever been proposed. The implications of this are wild, and have led to the proposition of the Big Bang theory, which, at its heart, is an atheistic theory.

We know that the universe did have a beginning. Before that, there was nothing…no time, space, matter, energy, nothing. The theory says that our universe sprang into being as a singularity some 13 or 14 billion years ago. We really do not know what a singularity is, because they really defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of black holes, which are areas of intense gravitational pressures. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is compacted into infinite density. This is, of course, only a mathematic concept. These zones of infinite density are singularities.

Our universe is believed to have begun as an infinitely small, infinitely dense and infinitely hot singularity. We do not know where it came from, nor do we know why it appeared. The theory says that after the initial appearance, it inflated (the Big Bang, which may or may not have been an actual explosion), expanded and cooled, until the universe as we now know it existed. We do know that this expansion and cooling continues to this day, and is represented by the aforementioned Second Law of Thermodynamics.

There are some disquieting issues with this theory, at least to the non-Physicists. First, the singularity did not appear in space. Space did not exist before the big Bang and in fact, had to begin inside the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed. So, where did it come from and why? We don’t know. All we do know is that we exist within space and at one time it did not exist and neither did we.

There is some evidence for the Big Bang. As mentioned, the universe did appear to have had a beginning. It is also expanding, since we know that galaxies are moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance (Hubble’s Law). Also, the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation seems to indicate to some that it is the remnant of the heat that must have been produced by the Big Bang. Even the presence of certain light elements, like hydrogen and helium, are thought to be supportive of the Big Bang.

At the same time, there are other theories out there. Many come under the heading of Inflation Universe Theories, and currently there are about 50 of these being proposed and studied. But all of them are generally acknowledged to have their own problems, and will likely never be proposed and accepted as “the” answer.

As even with the Big Bang, it seems that the only way to get realistic calculations for any of the IUT models is to make assumptions that are not really justifiable. We can make certain observations and, based on the observations, make certain assumptions as to cause, then go about mathematically “proving” the theory. But, if the assumptions themselves are flawed, or the observable data are flawed to begin with, all we are doing is forcing the situation to conform to what we want it to be. This is not good science in general, and particularly not good physics.

In short, the Big Bang theory is not the best theory, it is just the currently most popular. Even the person who named it Big Bang, Sir Fred Hoyle, has now walked away from it. Others have begun to look toward Einstein and his static space-time paradigm as a means of dealing with the origin of the universe. Again, however, physics may not have advanced to the point where any truly plausible work can be generated.

George Ellis, a renowned astrophysicist, basically says that he and others believe that there is a range of models that could explain the origin of the universe. He can posit several that cannot be disproved based on observations. Yet, he himself admits that they are not sufficient, and can be excluded on philosophical grounds. And this problem of the philosophy of the scientist may in fact be something of the core problem.

Cosmology, or the study of the origin of the universe, is an area where science and theology meet head on. If one is predisposed to discount Creation as a “supernatural” event, then one would tend to ignore anything that did not or does not occur within the natural realm. But the “natural” realm is in itself the product of an event that took place outside of this natural realm. Recall the discussion of the singularity and how is suddenly sprung into “being” and in so doing created time and space and matter and energy. Was this “natural” or supernatural?

If the singularity existed before the universe existed or, put another way, existed outside the natural realm, what else is out there? What else may “suddenly spring into being”, who or what is determining this occurrence, and what caused the thing before the universe to exist?

Is it pseudo-science to claim that scientific evidence demonstrates the existence of God? Does science give good reasons to believe that God exists? The only way to answer this question is to examine the evidence. Too often people are willing to use science to criticize religion, but then are unwilling to honestly consider an attempt to use science to give evidence for religion. Such a double standard is simply inconsistent. We must give up any a priori presuppositions that science can have nothing to do with religious faith (other than "disprove" it), and let the evidence speak for itself.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

In this paper, we will examine an argument that has recently become very popular in answering the question I have posed with a yes---science does give us very good evidence for the existence of God. It is called the Kalam Cosmological argument. During the course of detailing the argument, we will also examine several objections to see if it can hold its weight. In the end, I hope it will be clear why I agree with the Christian apologists who find in the Cosmological argument a very strong case for God's existence.
The Kalam Cosmological argument is really very simple:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. Philosophical analysis reveals that this cause must be God.
5. Therefore, God exists.

Agnostic and internationally known scientist Robert Jastrow, in his book God and the Astronomers, lists "five independent lines of evidence" that the universe had a beginning. They are, "the motions of the galaxies, the discovery of the primordial fireball, the laws of thermodynamics, the abundance of helium in the Universe and the life story of the stars."

Einstein's general theory of relativity also gives good evidence for an expanding universe. His equations showed that if the universe's density is lower than a certain amount (the critical density), the universe should be expanding with time. If the mass in the universe was greater than this amount, the universe would eventually stop expanding and fall together on itself. At first Einstein tried to avoid such conclusions about an expanding universe and added his famous "cosmological constant" for this purpose in his 1917 paper, "Cosmological Considerations on the General Theory of Relativity." But in 1922 mathematician Alexander Friedmann found an error in Einstein's attempt to establish that the universe was static, and showed that the universe must either be expanding or contracting. Astronomer William de Sitter, who worked independently of Friedmann five years before, also found that on the basis of Einstein's equations the universe must be expanding. Later, Einstein admitted his error and called his cosmological constant "the greatest blunder of my life."

“If the universe were expanding, the question remained: What had it expanded from? Georges Lemaître, one of the strangest characters to wander onto the stage of twentieth-century physics, was the first one to attempt an answer. Born in Belgium in 1894, Lemaître was plump, irritating, and ahead of his time. In 1927, unaware of Alexander Friedmann's work, Lemaître published a paper in an obscure Belgian journal in which he drew a mathematical theory that linked general relativity with the comparatively few redshifts that already had been seen. Lemaître concluded in the paper that the universe must be expanding. His hypothesis was two years before Hubble's announcement that he had discovered galaxies in recession.

“But in 1929, Edwin Hubble made the landmark observation that wherever you look, distant galaxies are moving rapidly away from us. In other words, the universe is expanding. This means that at earlier times objects would have been closer together. In fact, it seemed that there was a time, about ten or twenty thousand million years ago, when they were all at exactly the same place and when, therefore, the density of the universe was infinite. This discovery finally brought the question of the begging of the universe into the realm of science.

Abstract
In this article, we briefly discuss the big bang and investigate its theistic implications.
We look at evidence for the big bang.
We see that the big bang creation event came as a distasteful surprise to atheists…
and that the big bang can rationally be viewed as evidence for the supernatural…
and as evidence for a Christian Theistic view of the origin of the world.
And we look at the characteristics of the Cause of the big bang (based on the evidence)…
and find a good match between these characteristics and the Christian God.
Evidence for the Big Bang
Various pieces of evidence point to the reality of the Big Bang (i.e., that all matter, energy, space, time, and forces of the physical universe came into existence at an instance about 13.7 billion years ago).
The second law of thermodynamics (shows that the universe can not be infinitely old, or else it would have run out of usable energy, i.e., it would have reached heat death, or maximum entropy)
The observed expansion of the universe (which, extrapolated into the past, indicates that about 14 billion years ago, the entire universe was about the size of the period at the end of this sentence, and before that it didn’t exist –i.e., it had zero size.)
The predicted (and observed) background radiation in our universe (confirms that the big bang really happened).
The predicted (and observed) ripples in the background radiation in our universe (confirms that the big bang really happened).
The general theory of relativity, predicts an expanding universe (i.e., a universe that contracts as we look into the past, until it reaches zero size, and ceases to exist).
The space-time (singularity) theorem of Hawking and Penrose shows that not only all physical matter and energy and forces, but also all physical space and time of the universe came into existence at the instant of the “birth of the physical universe” (i.e., the singularity at the beginning of the physical universe.)
A Big Surprise for Atheism
Not predicted: The Big Bang is not what would be predicted by atheism (for example, if we were to speak to atheists 120 years ago, when people did not know about the big bang).
Not a natural consequence: The big bang is not something that is a natural consequence of Atheism (because atheism would hope that the universe was eternal, in the hopes that then there might be no need for God).
A surprise: And the Big Bang comes as a surprise to Atheism…
We see this in the reluctance of atheists and atheist-influenced scientists to accept the Big Bang…
Example #1: It appears that Einstein was influenced by atheist thinking in preferring a closed-universe that does not need a God… this is why he committed what he later admitted to be the biggest blunder in his career… he incorporated a fudge factor into his theory of relativity to avoid an expanding universe (his theory of relativity had pointed to an expanding universe, but Einstein didn’t like the idea most-likely because of being influenced by practical-atheism, which prefers an eternal universe which might not need a God to create it)…
Example #2: Another example is astronomer Fred Hoyle who for many years resisted the Big Bang theory (he and two other atheist scientists came up with what is called the “steady state theory” which opposed the big bang theory for several years, until the scientific evidence for the big-bang became overwhelming).
Example #3: Another example is an atheist editor of the British scientific journal “Nature” who wrote an editorial titled “Down with the Big Bang”, where he expressed his strong distaste for the Big Bang because it invoked a beginning to the physical universe (my take: because he didn’t like the fact that science has proved that the universe is not eternal… because if the universe is eternal, then maybe one could hope that God does not exist… that the universe does need God to create it).
Quotes by other scientists (who were atheists) also indicate a distaste for the big-bang (because atheists expected the universe to have existed for ever, and were surprised to find that the universe did NOT exist forever).
Evidence for a Christian Theistic view of the origin of the World.
A self-proclaimed Agnostic (non-Christian) astronomer, Robert Jastrow (founder of NASA’s Institute of Space Studies) writes:
“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced sharply and suddenly at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy” (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, p. 14).
Scientist George Smoot (who was the scientist who lead the team of scientists who first measured ripples in the cosmic background radiation) says: “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing”. (quoted in Fred Heeren, Show me God, p. 139.)
Evidence for the Supernatural
Agnostic (or Atheist) non-Christian scientist Arthur Eddington states: “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural”. (Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe, p. 178)
Speaking of the big bang, agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow states: “That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.” (A scientist caught between two faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow, Christianity Today, August 6, 1982).
Why “supernatural”? … because all matter, space, time, all natural forces and all of nature, came into existence at the big bang…
So whatever caused the big bang had to be outside of nature… i.e., had to be supernatural.
So we see that it is rational to view the Big Bang as evidence for the Supernatural…
The Physical Universe is an Effect
Speaking in the context of “cause and effect”…
Since the physical universe did not exist for ever, it is an effect.
It is rational then to ask, “what is the cause of this effect”…
An aside: It is evident that something exists (today). E.g., we can reasonably infer (as a fact) that the physical universe exists today.
Given the fact that the physical universe exists today, there are only two rational alternatives: (a) either the physical universe always existed, and is uncaused, or (b) the physical universe had a beginning, and was caused by something else…
A third alternative (c) that the universe caused itself – is irrational… because the universe would have to pre-exist itself which is impossible… i.e., for the universe to not exist, and then to cause itself to come into existence, it would have to have existed before it existed to be able to bring itself into existence… which is a confusing mess of irrationality …
So, we have only two rational alternatives (a) and (b) above…
Since there is now overwhelming scientific evidence that the physical universe did NOT exist for ever, but actually had a beginning (about 13.7 billion years ago), this eliminates alternative “a” (i.e., that the physical universe always existed, and is uncaused)…
This (above) leaves us with alternative ‘b’ as the rational conclusion. I.e., the physical universe had a beginning, and was caused by something else…
What was the Cause of this Effect (the Physical Universe)
What was this “something else” that created the physical universe?
Let us call this “something else” the “First Cause”.
What are the Characteristics of this First Cause (that created the Physical Universe)
The First Cause had to be supernatural (as we discussed above).
It had to be non-physical and non-material (since science shows us that all physical matter, energy, forces, space, and time came into existence at the big-bang… these did not exist before the big-bang).
The First Cause had to be transcendent (i.e., outside of time, space and matter).
It had to be extremely powerful (to be able to create our vast physical universe).
The First Cause had to be extremely intelligent … to design and fine-tune our vast physical universe – i.e., there is strong scientific evidence that parameters that control the big-bang have been extremely finely tuned to better than 1 part in 10^50, i.e., 1 followed by 50 zeros, (to enable stable galaxies, stars, planets to form, and for life to be sustained on planet earth) and that the negentropic starting point of the physical universe has been fine-tuned to one part in 10^10^123 … it would take extreme intelligence to be able to plan and execute such incredible fine-tuning.
The First Cause had to be volitional, with the ability to freely make a choice to create the universe… (a volitional being could choose to create the universe; an impersonal force would not be able to make such a choice… E.g., if all the preconditions were eternally present for an impersonal force to create the physical universe, then the physical universe would have to have been created an infinite eternity (of time) ago… An eternal impersonal force could not choose to ignore all the pre-conditions that were eternally present to create the physical universe, until a specific “time” 13.7 billion years ago, and then choose to create the universe… However, a volitional being, could indeed make a choice to not create the physical universe (even if all the preconditions were ready and available), and conversely, could indeed make a choice TO create the physical universe 13.7 billion years ago…
The First Cause had to be pains-taking and had to care about the creation (given the extent of care taken with the fine-tuning of the physical parameters of the physical universe for stability and for intelligent life, us, to exist).
And it had to be personal (since volition, intelligence, and caring are key components of what it means to be personal).
These characteristics fit the Christian God extremely well.
An Aside: Based on the characteristics above, it is rational to rule out atheism, pantheism, panentheism, and deism… leaving theism as the most rational choice. And given Theism, I find that the Christian God is the best choice.