This, perhaps?
Just Google "Big Bang" and "wrong" or "alternative" and you'll soon discover that the nice, clean explanation of the Big Bang, as understood by the majority of the population, is not quite so well understood after all, or indeed thought to be the nice, clean explanation it was once thought to be.
But this is not a physics or cosmology lecture.
But your argument is based on unproven assumptions. And as such is flawed.
I'm aware that there are and have been a variety of alternative theories. The one you linked is a new version of the steady-state theory, with similar problems.
If you're interested in hearing the modern history of cosmological theory(which is basically one failed attempt after another to be rid of the BB theory and it's implications), and exactly why alternative theories to the Big Bang have failed within the scientific world, you may find the following audio links useful.
http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/Defender_podcast/20040530CosmologicalArgumentPart4.mp3
http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/Defender_podcast/20040606CosmologicalArgumentPart5.mp3
Ever heard of conservation of energy? Where have you ever seen energy destroyed / annihilated?
Absolutely I've heard of it. I haven't, of course, witnessed that. Only God has.
Many credible scientists affirm that the BB was the BEGINNING of space, time, and energy. You know that. You also know, deep down, that they have credible reasons for believing this. They're not idiots.
I would challenge you again to really try and come to terms with the idea of an eternal universe. Why it, instead of nothing?
How could matter be in a changeless state if it has never begun?
It has been noted by top mathematicians that the idea of an actual infinite is just that. An idea. There can be nothing in the real world that is actually infinite, as it is an abstract concept.
Simple questions such as, "If the universe is eternal, why didn't this moment happen sooner?" Or, "Why hasn't the universe yet descended into it's ultimate destruction?" highlight the problems with the issue of an infinite physical world. And again: If I promised to give you something, a cookie, after an infinite amount of time, would I ever give it to you? Of course not. Yet you can believe that events are occurring now in light of an infinite past.
The simple point is this: It makes no sense that a physical world could exist in its current state in time if there were an infinite amount of times prior in which this state could and should have occurred.
For close-minded people, perhaps?
Why does everything have to come into being out of "absolutely nothing" and not merely have existed eternally?
You are of course happy for your "transcendent cause" to have existed eternally - and to create matter from nothing - but not for that matter to have existed eternally.
Well, there is no evidence for such a claim, in fact quite the opposite. I find it baffling to think that the universe is here "just because." The whole of science is predicated on finding out causes to effects, and it is ironic that so many are willing to stop at the ultimate cause - by postulating that there is none.
So you claim "God did it"?
So you claim "nothing did it?"
And nice use of the word "IF" - as you now seemingly are less certain than you were when you assumed it as truth earlier.
Rather than the more rational "it happened"?
The word was used for the sake of the argument, to get you(or anyone else reading) to entertain the idea(and I hope you have, instead of just trying to beat my arguments!).
As to your later sentence - I must reiterate a previous point. "It happened" is hardly rational, especially on the "scientific" mindset of finding CAUSES for happenings. That's exactly the kind of faith-based statement that you apparently want to stay away from. But you can't. At the end of the day, you either have to believe that the universe "is just here" without giving heed to a cause, which is basely unscientific, or acknowledge that the universe has a beginning. As the scientific data suggests.
Also, you used the statement "It happened" incorrectly, as that implies a beginning to this hypothetical eternal universe. The correct statement would be, "It just is", as you're postulating that the universe has no starting point.
No beginning, no end.
Despite the data that all causes and effects rejoin at a single point.
Despite the fact that this belief puts faith in a mathematical abstraction.
Despite the fact that saying "it just is" is about the most unscientific statement you can make.
Science doesn't explain eternity. Naturalism fails abysmally at this point. It cannot delve into matters of timelessness, as an actual eternity would imply.
We are products of the eternal, Sarkus. There indeed exists an entity that has no beginning and no end - we are all privy to that knowledge. For "some reason" we have a conception of eternity - and a yearning for it - despite our utter inability to grasp how it can exist.
If we can not go back beyond the "first cause" (as you put it) then why oh why oh why assume that there was a "god" that did it?
Unless of course you are falling back on the indoctrination of your youth?
Because, if we cannot go beyond the first cause, it is because it is not physical(wherein it would not really be the first cause, because something physical exists outside of it). If it is not physical, there is a logical inference to make: to the metaphysical.
Finally, I don't understand how your last statement, or similar statements made by atheists, are meant to have any validity on a grand scale. There are countless cases of people, many absolutely brilliant(not that I believe that truly matters - but I find it funny that many atheists like to categorize theists as irrational or stupid when some of the most brilliant minds of past and present were of theist, particularly Christian, persuasion) who, though not raised in a religious atmosphere, become impassioned believers.
Once you account for the multitude of people like this you may realize that, although religious upbringing assuredly has an effect on the beliefs of many, the point is null as a theory for belief as a whole.
An open mind may want to investigate exactly why these people(brilliant and not-so brilliant alike!) were converted -
in spite of lacking your assumed predetermining factor for belief.
