Sorry, what is the issue here? Nothing about the beginning of the universe itself is pretty straightforward.
The Friedmann equation is… interesting and important. I have a few classes where we go through the equation and some of its implications, but what does it have to do with the beginning of the universe exactly?
I was looking for the relativistic equation that demonstrates that time had a beginning.
That was my point, about absolute time: it does not exist.
Personally, I agree with you (and I consider myself to be a Christian.) I recognize the appeal of William Lane Craig’s Kalaam Cosmological Argument; however, I don’t subscribe to the opinion that a Transcendantal Argument is the Be-all and End-all argument for a transcendant prime mover.
That said, I’m surprised that you, of all people, believe in Absolute Space and Absolute Time. I seem to remember that you’re a fairly staunch subscriber to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, no?
I like to include the objective evidence. 
One of the problems with General Relativity and QFT is that they are more of a theoretical framework than a theory. This means they can describe many things which may not be real. So they do not of themselves constitute evidence. To get an actual theory like the Big Bang or the Standard model you make lot of assumption in addition to matching a number of measurement.
And then often scientist need to make adjustments and alteration to the theory to match more measurements and observations. Some conclusions get pretty solid as more evidence simply give you a more and more precise calculation of that result. The age of the universe is an example of this. But many more questions remain unresolved.
While it certainly is the implication of the Big Bang theory that time as we measure it began 13.8 billion ya with everything else. It is an overstatement to say this is a proven fact. All our equations of physics pretty much unravel at the very beginning of the universe. We can get close… down to rather small fractions of a second, but before that is just a big question mark. All we have are guesses and speculations with no real evidence to decide between them. Some like the idea of a creator and other don’t like this idea. Those that don’t like the idea of a creator like to put it all down to natural law and thus like to imagine the universe coming from some event in a higher dimensional structure. And while it is unlikely (nearly to the point of incoherence) to be a continuity with time as we measure it. This would still be something that went before in a causal sense. In a way, it seems funny to me how all of that sound so similar to a lot of theological ideas.
What science does as a part of it’s routine are new discoveries.
Something that is thought as supernatural may exist beyond our observance or very rare occurrences.
I like the example of upper-atmospheric lightning (Upper-atmospheric lightning - Wikipedia). It was unknown until caught from space.
Another example of mysticality is a dark figure in a hood that was seen in New England from airplanes (note: when airplane flights became common). It was mystery until explained with a light-mist effect during dawns in certain atmospheric conditions.
I am amazed by thinking of it from the opposite point of view: not chasing myths and beliefs, but going for new discoveries.
There is a lot more to know on the Earth and in the universe.
There is an evolution of theories and their validation, which is possible with the observations.
Science is experimental proof + ideas on paper + technological development which goes beyond our knowledge.
This is a steady process of trials, information gathering, confirmations, refining of the data and enlarging, coordinating knowledge.
Einstein’s conventions were made 100 years ago and still they work and get new proofs with technological leaps.
After years we will be able to observe something that is a theory right now (like multiverse) or an unacknowledged hypothesis with new tools.
Flight into space and seabed exploration carry cutting-edge aims and results for science and the Earth and universe understanding.
Let us be clear. Science is based on the physical, that is, on matter, energy, space, and time. The Big Bang Theory based on established science says that none of these existed before the Big Bang singularity. If this is true, and there is nothing to refute it, the Big Bang is a dead end beyond which science cannot venture.
Deleted by author
There are others who have universes being produced from other spacetimes.
https://www.discovery.com/science/Universe-Inside-Every-Black-Hole
I didn’t know that I believed those things. In fact, I’m pretty sure I don’t.
I support them as far as they describe reality. If my understanding is correct, Einstein’s equations break down at some point, such as in the singularities of black holes.
There Might Be a Universe Inside Every Black Hole
There might not be, too. We have objective evidence of a creative God.
Actually, … II didn’t really think so; but I can’t make sense of something someone said and thought I might have misunderstood what it is that you believe too.
BTW, didja see my latest thread?
Yeaaahhhh. No. Conservation. If protons decay then black holes will consume the universe from 10^43 years and will have all evaporated by Hawking radiation in 10^110 years; what goes down must come up.
That would be in our universe.
And you think the laws of physics can be different in any other?
What I am saying is that the energy transferred to the new universe would take on its own course. Our own universe, according to our best understanding, started with a quark-gluon plasma which only later condensed into protons.
No energy will be transferred anywhere else. Why would it? It’s here. Black holes, which are here too, evaporate.
10^−10–10^−6 s after the Big Bang, matter existed in the form of a quark–gluon plasma
What happened in the 10^−10 s eternity before the quark–gluon plasma?
That’s the big question.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.