It is stated:

"In quantum studies, it's common to see subatomic particles like protons and electrons seemingly appear out of nowhere, stick around for a while and then disappear again to a completely different location."

Which requires time.

"Black holes, like the universe before the Big Bang, condense into a singularity. In this ultra-packed point of mass, gravity is so strong that it distorts time as well as light and space. Simply put, in the depths of a black hole, time does not exist.

Because the universe also began as a singularity, time itself could not have existed before the Big Bang. Hawking's answer, then, to what happened before the Big Bang is, "there was no time before the Big Bang."

"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in." "

"Before the Big Bang..."
... which is a time that didn't exist....
Matter exploded out of a singularity
... Where "time does not exist," and from which even light could not escape...
If there there was no time for a creator, how did quantum reality have the time to create... anything?

Unfortunately, you have a few misconceptions about what the Big Bang actually means. The pop-sci view is that the universe began as an infinitely dense singularity, a single, dimensionless point containing all of the energy in the Universe, and then suddenly exploded, giving birth to time and space. This is not what the Big Bang theory actually says, though. In fact, virtually no cosmologist would accept this idea. That is the result you get if you try to extrapolate past the Planck epoch using only general relativity without quantum mechanics, but we know that general relativity breaks down at that point because the effects of quantum gravity become important. Therefore, we cannot extrapolate that far back. What the Big Bang theory actually says is that the Universe expanded from an extremely hot dense state to the state it is in today. We have a pretty good idea of what happened up to a tiny fraction of a second after the point where GR gives a singularity, such as the unification of the electromagnetic and weak forces, but before that, all of our theories are still speculative because they can't be tested. Most scientists believe that cosmic inflation and grand unification occurred in this early state, but these haven't been proven yet. Ideas of what occurred during or even before the Planck epoch are even more speculative because we don't know anything for certain about what happens below the Planck scale.
Since we don't actually know what happened at the beginning of the Planck epoch, it is incorrect to claim that the Big Bang proves that the Universe came from nothing. It doesn't.

If the Universe did come from nothing, though, I don't see how that would be proof of a supernatural origin. It actually seems to be proof of no supernatural origin. If the Universe came from nothing, then it didn't come from the supernatural.

https://connectivityweb.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/connectivity-beyond-limits/

that may well all be interesting, but my claim is simply, that the "Big Bang Theory", is, to this very day, by far, the most respect and widely held scientific argument, for the commencement of our Cosmos.

Hi Doug, (Sorry for the delay in responding.)

>>>"It should be. In my experience, many believers interpret the Bible on the assumption that it will confirm something that they are already convinced must be the truth."

I trust your experience,- mine is limited on this subject. Its saddens me that people do this. You run the risk of misleading yourself.

I think Pope Benedict XVI said it well:
"...every exegesis must fall short of the magnitude of the Biblical text. No matter what explanation we give, it will be inadequate."

You might like this post

https://strangenotions.com/is-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-a-sound-proof-for-god/#comment-2372941905

The Big Bang theory, is arguably the best and now most widely accepted theory for the commencement of the current Cosmos. The "point" science seeks, is the very beginning of the "creation" process, that "commenced" the "Big Bang" of this current, or any previous Cosmos [unlikely one did exist, but the argument should be considered] - of course, all of this is entirely theory and in truth, will likely always be so. What is, increasingly clear, is at some "moment" time and space did commence and that is a pretty solid "proof" for a supernatural origin of everything, out of "nothing" and that is "no thing", ie, being the absence of any and every thing - that time and space appeared - not the empty space "slide of hand" some cosmo-personalities try on!

Seriously, if the "new atheists" are anyones benchmark, for "thinkers" [free or not - whatever that term means!], they really do need to start, reading some real Church AND secular history, of both philosophy and science. They [the new atheists] are, in truth, "the dumbing down of society", made in the flesh, for us all to see! ;)

It was a pleasant surprise to find all the Ratzinger titles were reasonably priced. Often books recommended by participants in forums like this one are either out of print, with used copies costing $50 and up, or, if in print, at least that expensive, even if there is a Kindle version. Having spent my entire career in the publishing industry, I can understand why some books (especially textbooks) are so expensive. But I am often mystified why others seem so outrageously overpriced.