[conservative_crusader]

"I would like to point out that in your argument you take as a given that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction." You then attempt to apply that given to the big bang. What you fail to see is that this entails an unstated assumption, namely that "the laws of physics are applicable at all times in the history of the universe." This is generally accepted by scientists to NOT be the case. When or where are the laws of physics not applicable? Why at the very point in time at which you attempt to apply them, namely at the earliest moments of the big bang. (Technically during the duration of time from the big bang equal to the Planck time, I forget the value, but it's approximately 10^-34 seconds.)"

I also like this argument, but allow me to disagree. You say that it is accepted by most scientists, Is this something you expect me to accept on faith? And even if most scientists accept it, Scientists a thousand years ago generally accepted that the earth was flat. The very idea that at one point the rules of physics do not apply: time, motion, gravity, et cetera, is ridiculous, in order for the big bang to take place there must have been some reaction to result in what is now the universe.

[stremba]

But you accept your premise that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" for the very same reason, namely that it is an accepted scientific principle. Before Newton, this principle was NOT generally believed. And all the laws of physics have limitations on their scope, so why should it be so difficult to believe that our current laws are limited to times that are more than 10^-34 seconds after the big bang? I am not saying that there are no laws at work then, just that the ones we currently understand do not hold there.