I didn't say that--what I said was that the concept of "natural process" doesn't apply to the big bang because etc. But it appears I may be mistaken (see next comment).
I meant "Singularity" which is described as being about the size of a dime and that from which our universe was born.
Okay, but your link doesn't say there was any "substance" to that singularity. It credits the appearance of the singularity to a "vacuum fluctuation," a term I wasn't familiar with. First I tried reading the Wikipedia entry, but I couldn't make head nor tail of it; but a search on "'vacuum fluctuation' 'big bang'" led me to a page with this fascinating section:
"The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space. The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction?
"It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero within the observational accuracy. The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of puzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all. (Davies, 1983, 31-32)
"Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know - the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness - a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility. (Pagels, 1982, 247)"
So apparently, according to modern physics, the big bang is far from impossible and, in fact, may be the "path of least resistance"!
There's quite a lot of conjecture and "It might be so it must be" in that page you provided. I wondered if I even detected a little techno-jargon in there. But I don't know enough to sort technojargon out of that topic -- do you? Are you certain (by some means other then your sheer faith in the auther) that there wasn't ant techno-babble in there?
So apparently, according to modern physics, the big bang is far from impossible and, in fact, may be the "path of least resistance"!
Yeah, physics that nobody can demonstrate to me. And saying "oh, well, the big bang is now possible because it's possible for the negative energy that to release large amounts of positive energy.." just differs the problem: We still have the problem that such a thing cannot be demonstrated to even be possible. (While that website had a few lines stating that it was possible, it is no more proof that it's possible then when some website quotes people saying that intelligent design is possible.)
We still have the problem of something having taken place which requires that the laws of physics as we've always known them, to be suspended or not exist. It's still requires a faith in something that we cannot reproduce and which aren't even possible with the current known laws of physics.
-Jesse