Quote Originally Posted by The12lber
Clearly, because it is logically inconsistent and "a concept without foundation" to state that if you propose a supernatural progenitor you have to explain its origin as well.

A better conclusion to come to: our scientific understanding is incomplete. That is all.
There is a huge difference between an infinite god being outside of his creation, and a finite creation that self-generates.

In order to lay down a foundation for creationism, believers only have to accept their belief in an unprovable infinite creator.

In order to lay down a foundation for the Big Bang, believers need to prove that finite reality can be created within the laws of science.

While it may appear that it is unfair to make science prove it's hypothesis, that is exactly what science is supposed to do - observe, test, and draw accurate conclusions.

Since you obviously are ready to concede that the Big Bang hypothesis is already flawed, and violates the 1st law, would you like for us to ignore that, and move on to singularity, smoothness, horizon, and magnetics - the obvious next issues to discuss before we really get in-depth? We are only glancing the surface right now, and I think you have established that you do not wish to pursue creation of matter any further. We will just assume that it magically came to exist for now (for the sake of this discourse). Am I correct in this assumption?