Your question presupposes there was a trigger and an entity to pull it, invalidating the question.

Beyond that, the cause for the big bang is unknown. And since the big bang itself erased any evidence of anything prior to the big bang (if there was something), we will likely never know, unless we gain sufficient knowledge to recreate it in a predictable fashion. But even then we'll only be guessing.

I would not say that it is unknown . After all
We have the bible that states that in the bigining
God created the heavens and the earth. Pointing
To a universal bigining just like what scientist and
The huble Law predicted.

You clearly already have in your bible all the answers you require and are quite satisfied with them. Tell me, what stories do you think you would  have accepted as fact had you lived in the time before the story of the god of Abraham was circulated?

OH MY THOR HE GOT US!......Oh wait, oops, need to recalibrate my BULLSHIT DETECTOR!

Thor pulled the trigger that caused the first bolt of lightening.

Oh wait you say, that doesn't work for you?

THEN WHAT THE FUCK makes you think a "who" by any label is required? Does a volcano need a volcano god to erupt? Does a hurricane need the ocean god Posiden to be "triggered".

Is Allah needed to start the big bang?

Is Vishnu needed to start the big bang?

How about this, no one knows what caused the big bang. SCIENCE has some ideas, such in quantum mechanics. Some scientists lean to it starting from nothing, while others see it as a product of the death of prior events, much like rotting leaves become fuel for other plants.

Your stupid book of ancient myth explains nothing except that humans are gullible and love fiction.

Otherwise Santa and Allah and Thor would fit in the gap just as well as your pet deity claim.

If hurricanes don't need a god to start, why the fuck would the universe need one?

Theist ignores responses, asks answered question again, everyone facepalms.

Time is effected by gravity, SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACT. Does that freak me out? YES, does it make sense to me? Yes in the sense that science has proven this. But no, just like the video of the guy in the hallway where it seems normal until he backs up and the hallway shrinks. But IN BOTH cases it doesn't matter, my emotional reaction to a real event doesn't change scientific facts.

AND you display the depth of reading comprehension of a flea. I said SCIENTISTS  are working on the solution of BOTH. Some lean to "nothing" some lean to something prior. WHERE THEY AGREE WHICH YOU ARE TOO FUCKING DENSE TO ACCEPT, is that a "WHO" in either case is NOT REQUIRED. But I guess Stephen Hawkins doesn't no shit.

And FYI if you drive a car, does that mean because you can drive it, you must know how to build it? Do you assume when you are in a car, because you cant build one, that it is run on pixy sperm and assembled by Santa?

Scientists currently have not solved EITHER way if the universe came from nothing, or dead fuel prior. What they do know ON BOTH SIDES, is that a stupid myth written by ignorant goat herders OF ANY LABEL, not just yours, none of those fictional beings will fill the gap. And on top of that ON BOTH SIDES, they BOTH see the solution as being non cognitive, non thinking, non magical.

You have nothing. You are merely projecting human qualities and human desires on a non human world. You merely want a super hero to be the cause. But the truth isn't sexy enough for  gullible people like you. The truth is that we are merely a result of unthinking and non human processes, much like a snowstorm isn't capable of thinking of where it strikes or how many exact snowflakes it produces.

So , you are saying that quantum mechanics
Breaks the laws of causality. Is this correct,
Correct me if I am wrong.

What conceivably gave you the idea that making sense to you matters in the least? What idiot gave you the idea that something from nothing is not the normal occurance when there is only nothing? Why did you believe them? What evidence did they provide?

Helllo,

Quantum Mechanics has been shown as absurd via Einstein's theory of relativity. Because of this somebody decidied to start a religion to blend the 2 together. This religion is called String Theory.

The religion of string theory has absolutely no basis in "science." It is a game, a religion. It is blind faith.

Since Bob used a position that has already been show as absurd and refuted by general relativity, then we have an ape that's wants a banana in the middle of an ocean don't we?

As far as the light in Genesis 1 before the sun was created. Naturally this would be the stars. "Evidence" shows that the speed of light actually traveled faster in the past then it does in the present. This would be an ad hominem for your position both in retrospect to Genesis 1 and the Big Bang.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Listen to you. A book full of magic in talking donkeys, talking snakes, talking bushes. Oh and lets not forget that you claimed your invisible friend allowed the Japanese Tsunami that killed 13,000 people, not as a warning to them, but as a third party hostage to warn America to kiss your god's ass.

For someone who needs an electron microscope to find their penis, you are one to talk.

I have a theory about Jean's relativity. He is proof that evolution isn't about smarts, he is what happens when the credulous fuck.

                    You haven't answered my question yet. Where did this light come from and where did it go to?

I have now met three Christian apologists online and my opinion of them has dropped considerably and consistently since I met the first one, who was actually a nice guy. Too bad its been downhill ever since.

I have a good friend who is a quantum information theory physicist and also a Christian lay leader in the Episcopal church. I wonder how he would react to one of his brethren trashing the field.

Anyway, Stephen Hawking confirmed what was said earlier about causation and went further to say that asking what went on before the Big Bang was like asking to find the edge of a sphere because prior to the BB, time did not exist. Therefore, there was no time for this God to create the universe.

One of the biggest differences I've seen in the majority of educated atheists and educated Christian apologists is that the former do not come across as smug, self righteous egomaniacs.I don't even see such in Dawkins and Hawking has said that he would be the last person in the world to "tell anyone what to believe". What's up with the theistic variety?

The real question about what started the big bang is a good one, right now there isn't a clear idea but there are several possibilities. One is that in effect we're seeing what could be an endless series of big bang big crunch cycles and ours is just the latest.  This is plausible as from what we understand matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. There are some ideas from string theorists as well, and I'll even say that maybe some sort of being did cause it, the problem is that there's no reason to assume that a supernatural being did such a thing. It would be like assuming that gravity worked by means of invisible beings holding you to the planet.

Lies. Once again: There is no "law" of causality.

You said,

Stephen Hawking confirmed what was said earlier about causation and went further to say that asking what went on before the Big Bang was like asking to find the edge of a sphere because prior to the BB, time did not exist. Therefore, there was no time for this God to create the universe.

The problem with this theory is that The bible states
That God is not governed by time, he is eternal and therefore,
Is outside of time.

If God created the heavens and the earth during the BB as the bible says,
Then time would be the outcome of the BB as Hawking stated.

So if no time existed before the BB then it would be
Logical to say that God created the universe because
He is the eternal one who exist outside of time as stated
By the bible.

If God exist outside of time, then the laws of physics
Do not apply to him.

Would you agree?

Yes.  Nonexistent things also exist outside of time, and the laws of physics do not apply to them.  Would you agree?

Why did you say No?
Would you elaborate your answer?

this discussion with the lord of the circular fallacy is going to be fruitless. Look, Jim. If it's in the bible, it's true. Even if it can't be proved empirically and even if none of its assertions are definable. It's still true. Because it says so. In the bible. 

Ok, Jim...I'll look at Post 3

Post 3 seems to reinforce my sense you are employing fallacious circular reasoning - to wit, bald assertions written in the bible must be true because they are written in the bible. The bald assertions of the Genesis account cannot be compared in any way to the process of expansion from a singularity. The mythical Genesis account of creation is incoherent and the author was either plagiarizing multiple translations of the complete works of Berosus or fell victim to an intoxicated continuity editor. 

The Christians call it heaven.
The Buddhist call it nowhere.
The Atheist call it nothing.

Are you a buddhist?

This was likely covered by some poster or other, but causation is a temporal phenomenon.  Meaning that you have matter in state A, you have the CAUSE and in a temporal vector you arrive at state B.  Since time is a property of the universe, you cannot use it to explain how the universe was created.  

The bible says a lot of idiotic things, this is simply one of those idiotic things.  

Here's what I consider a very good article on first cause. (I think Zaq gets the point across nicely in this one)

http://silverskeptic.blogspot.ca/2012/04/first-cause-part-ii.html

"So we have to ask what precisely is meant by “begins to exist.”  I’m going to introduce two new terms, to help keep things strait.  “Forms” is the word I’ll use to refer to pre-existing matter taking a new shape.  If we claim “everything that forms has a cause,” then it seems we are saying that whenever matter takes a new shape, it must have had a previous shape and some general rules governing how it got from the old shape to the new shape.  And the previous shape plus the rules is what we call the cause of the forming.  For the other interpretation, I’ll use the word “appears.”  When matter appears, it goes from not existing to existing.  In other words, there has to be some net gain in total energy of the universe in order for matter to be appearing."

Now, I don't expect you to actually read, or understand those articles.  But if you have a bit of time, do try and give it a good read.  Speaking of which, how long do you think it would take god to read those articles, since he's outside time and all.  Would you say it would take him 0 time? as in NO time.  Wouldn't that equate with the reading not happening at all? If not, what is the difference between something taking ZERO time, and something not happening?  

Now if you want to dwell deeper into physics and how time plays an important role, we'll play that game.

What 'laws of causality'??

There are things which have no clear identifiable cause, and/or  only 'need' an infinitesimal 'initial cause'.

Quantum Mechanics says that if the energy involved is small enough, there is a finite probability that an event can occur spontaneously. Since the nett energy of our universe is zero, it can initiate with no external 'cause'.

Even without Quantum Mechanics, Complex systems with feedback can display chaotic behaviour, where an infinitesimal change in starting conditions can 'cause' an entirely different outcome.

It certainly doesn't resolve anything to propose something which can override all physical laws, i.e. 'God', which also has no cause.

Hope all's well at your end. 

You know nothing about physics yet you tell me, a degreed physicist, about the subject. Is baptism really a brain enema? You asked about quantum mechnics and were given the correct answer. You demonstrated your ignorance of the subject with the form of the question.