They seem to think it’s their best argument so here you go;
For the purpose of argument I’ll grant that something of finite duration requires an infinite first cause because infinite regression goes against common reason (also I’ll note that infinite regression and an infinite subject are logically interchangeable).
All the evidence of Big Bang Theory takes us back to a singularity. A point where time has no practical meaning. From which the rapid expansion known as the Big Bang could “begin”.
Maths describes this singularity in a way that words never could. Any attempt is poetic licence at best but an effort must be made..
First thing to note about a singularity is that it is in a state of entropy. Now entropy is an equilibrium but isn’t necessarily perfect. The cosmic background radiation shows imperfect expansion so the singularity must be also (good start for God yeah?).
A fluctuating state of entropy could theoretically remain so indefinitely. Most of the fluctuations would resolve back to normal entropy without consequence. But sometimes the fluctuation might cause enough “space” for forces to resolve.
Now most of the time these would again collapse back into steady entropy. This pattern could still continue indefinitely. Especially since we’re not dealing with “time” here, this state is functionally eternal.
Now if this happens perpetually there will eventually and inevitably come instances where the entropic state fluctuates and forces resolve enough for the internal expansion to overwhelm the contraction and a big bang to occur.
Remember the “Big Crunch” theories everyone was worried about a few years ago? Most of the innumerable examples of this type of expansion would fall into this category. Most before stars could form, even if the laws in those universes could handle stars.
But evidently we ended up in one where stars could form and.. well the rest as they say is history.
To think the Big Bang was the only one and that it required intent, is the most grievous puddle thinking I have ever seen.