Jem, just wanted to let you know that i read your response. If we agree that if the big bang hypothesis turns out to be true, or should we say becomes widely accepted as correct, and we also agree that it does not encompass the idea of something coming from nothing, which we seem to, then there is still a problem. If we argue that a "Creator", was responsible for the big band which was the beginning of the Universe, we would surely want to argue that the Creator was also responsible for the extremely dense hypermatter that was origin the big bang. But then we get to the problem of who or what created the Creator. Did it Create itself? Or is the answer that the "Creator" did not have a beginning but always existed, just as some hypothesize that matter and /or energy, which are interconvertible, always existed and therefore had no beginning. This is entirely conjecture at this point, and you can see that there is no need at all to add the additional complication of introducing a "Creator" into the mix. The idea is strictly a construct of religion. In any case, it seems rather pointless to interject the idea of a "Creator" into discussions of the big bang hypothesis, and the only reason I can think of for wanting to do this would be to rationalize one's religious faith.
I find the argument that the "Creator" always existed and was responsible for the creation of matter and energy even less satisfactory than having to acknowledge that we just don't know where matter and energy came from in the first place.
I seems that it is best to just accept that religion can not provide logical answers to questions regarding the physical Universe, and leave it at that.