Reasonable scientific minds observed the "red shift" and microwave background radiation and concluded that the universe is expanding, which means that in the past the universe was smaller than microscopic. And before that there was nothing.
http://www.universetoday.com/54756/what-is-the-big-bang-theory/
When a reasonable idea extrapolates to an unlikely extreme, perhaps the idea is not valid.
Let's question the "facts."
If the universe is expanding then the far away galaxies should look very small. However, astronomers assume that distant galaxies are the same size as near galaxies. http://www.astro.washington.edu/courses/labs/clearinghouse/labs/HubbleLaw/measurements.html
If the universe were expanding then a photon of light would travel further distance than its speed would allow and at the same time it would be unable to reach a far away place that is receding faster than the speed of light. This paradox seems unreal, but it is a logical extrapolation of the expanding space theory.
If everything in the universe came from nothing, then it would be a major violation of one of the key the laws of physics, which states that "all matter and energy in the universe is constant," unless everything came from something else, but what was it, and was it concentrated in one point, or was it infinitely spread out? If it was spread out, then perhaps there was a Big Chain Reaction that traveled outward in all directions, converting the mystery stuff into matter and radiation.
Why do we assume that the universe consists of everything that we see? Why not assume that there are galaxies beyond the Hubble distance?
If there was a Big Bang, then why do we assume that there was only one Big Bang? Maybe there are Big Bangs happening all the time, just beyond the view of the Hubble telescope. Maybe there are an infinite number of Big Bangs, half of which consist of antimatter, so when the Big Bangs expand into each other, they annihilate each other. This makes me think of the universe as a fireworks show, The Grand Finally.
