Over at Rational Christianity the Big Bang rears its head:

The God-debate is riddled with false presumptions, faulty assumptions and logical leaps. Perhaps the greatest of all of these logical leaps is found in a nearly unchallenged on – the Bang Theory. Yes, the theory itself is challenged often, but one of its assumptions isn’t.

The Big Bang Theory is simple. It’s the idea that we see radiation residue all across the galaxies of the Universe, all equally spread out, evidence of an explosion. This evidence, coupled with the fact that the Universe is expanding, and therefore was once “smaller” provides adequate evidence to consider a theory of two points: First, all matter was once in a tightly held ball which could only be “undone” by a cosmic “explosion”. Second, that the universe as we know it was caused by a very different existence.

Scientists now generally reject the old theory that the Universe has “just always been here”. They now agree that there had to be a start, of sorts. Before the Big Bang, they say, there simply wasn’t. Nothing existed.

Don’t worry; I won’t be going into the cliché argument here that, “Aha! There was nothing! So nothing happened!” While I think that, properly constructed, this is a great argument, I’ll be focusing on something else in this article. If you want to see that argument explained, just read the Uncaused Cause article. Instead, let’s take a different approach to the discussion, for the sake of understanding it better, and considering all potential sides of the issue. My argument is simple:

Why do we assume that the Big Bang was the cause? This simple question is the summary of an argument, a challenge that cannot be met. Scientists have absolutely no way even theoretically possible to say that the Big Bang was the first cause. They simply argue that it was a cause.

Click on Rational Christianity above and read the rest of this. (Note that their “uncaused cause” link is broken, but can be found here.)