Hi, new to the forums. :-) I was recently involved in a discussion with a Creationist who claimed he'd devised "mathematical proof" that made the Big Bang "problematic." Here's what he wrote: "The general consensus regarding the "big bang" theory is that the universe began as a singularity that suddenly expanded into the universe we know today. This in and of itself poses no problems with physics. However, if we consider that this expansion would have a probability of occuring every moment, this is where the problem lies. The probability can fall into one of two categories, either P=0 or P>0. For P=0 we find that the universe would be infinitly aged, which is no issue, however the problem here lies in the fact that with P=0 the expansion would have never occured. If we consider a system in which P>0, no matter how close to 0, the expansion would occur after a FINITE amount of time, which would imply there is a point at which the universe was actually created, or some other event that set this system up (in which case we refer back to the beginning, with the exact same situation). While this in NO WAY disproves the big bang theory, it does raise questions." Maybe I'm overthinking it and that he really is making the simplistic and dumb case that I think he is? Any ideas what this means? Have you heard this line before? Thanks!