[Right_Wing_Madman]

There are some issues with your post:

1) We have a cosmological explanation that we NEED to apply to fit the Big Bang model.

The core Big Bang theory (hot, dense early universe expanding) is supported independently by multiple lines of evidence. Additional elements were added because data demanded them, not because scientists "needed" to prop up the model.

2) The big bang model needs a certain amount of mass (and subsequently energy) to exist in the universe for it to have even a chance of occurring.

The Big Bang describes the evolution of the universe from a hot, dense state onward. It doesn't require a specific total mass/energy "of occurring."

3) The actual observations are showing we are missing large numbers of orders of magnitudes to mass and energy for the big bang to have happened.

The "missing" mass/energy is inferred because gravity (via General Relativity) doesn't match observations unless extra unseen components are included. It's not that the Big Bang "couldn't have happened" without them.

5) "To defend their beliefs (without evidence), they created Dark Matter and Dark Energy - the idea is that it’s an Invisible Mass and Energy at immense scale - far more matter and energy that we see in all the galaxies."

Dark matter and dark energy were not invented ad hoc to "save" the Big Bang. They were inferred from observations that couldn't be explained by visible matter alone.

[BereanBrain]

https://www.ucdavis.edu/blog/taking-dark-energy-out-equation

String theory, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, all are like “spontaneous generation”.

Looking at science history, a lot of things fall into this category.

The cause and effect universe is DEAD. (at the underlying level).