[Physicist]

Science is based upon observation.

Indeed, but we have many ways to observe. We are not limited to telescopes.

Since science requires that SOMETHING be present in order for something to happen

I can think of at least three ways to interpret this statement; would you clarify this?

then the theory that NOTHING existed and brought forth SOMETHING is not scientific

According to any Big Bang model I know of, there never was such a "time when nothing existed". All you are shredding is your own misconceptions regarding the Big Bang.

nor is it observable.

You are mistaken if you believe that a thing must be directly observable in order to be accessible to scientific inquiry. The criterion for science is whether a model makes testable predictions. This the Big Bang does very well. It has survived more rigorous and quantitative observational tests than all but perhaps four or five models ever devised by mankind.

[DittoJed2]

According to any Big Bang model I know of, there never was such a "time when nothing existed". All you are shredding is your own misconceptions regarding the Big Bang.

I stated earlier (much) that there are two prevailing thoughts amongst big bang theorists. One, that in the beginning was matter which always existed and it caused the bang. The other is in the beginning was nothing. Saying I'm shredding misconceptions is silly considering the discussion that has been occurring the last couple of pages. Some of your compatriots obviously believe in the beginning was "nothing" and cause isn't even neccessary.