Thank you gnostic! "Proof" is a mathematical phenomenon and "evidence" is a physical phenomenon. So I guess my point was that physics based on "proof" is coming to the conclusion that this "proof" is not going to become physics based on "evidence" because this "proof" takes things outside of measurable reality.
Yes.
Which then helps us to understand why the "Big Bang" came from nothing.
No.
The "Big Bang" marked the time of initial expansion of the universe began, as time = 0 second, and as the universe expand and cool, energy were being converted into subatomic elementary particles (quarks, electrons, etc), that are the building blocks of matters. Here, good working knowledge of particle physics is required, to understand the formation of the early universe.
The "Big Bang cosmology" is like HISTORY of the observable universe, starting from that initial expansion to our time today. The history are divide and subdivide into different stages or periods of the universe evolution (not talking about biological evolution). Perhaps the most important of understanding the universe's history is the early universe, from the initial expansion, to the formation of the earliest stars.
Once people understand what and how the early universe formed, understanding all other parts of history of later periods, fall into place.
The theory to the Big Bang cosmology only describe the observable and verified parts of the universe's history that is date back to 13.77 billion years.
Anything before the initial expansion (Big Bang), like the singularity, multiverse, the nothingness, etc, are outside the scope of the BB theory.
If you were to ask me, does science of the Big Bang cosmology give us everything we could possibly know about the universe? I would say definitely not.
What a lot people failed to understand about the science of physical cosmology, people especially creationists, is that the Big Bang theory is still ongoing investigation and ongoing discovery.
Alexander Friedman and George Lemaître may have started the hypothesis of expanding early universe, in the 1920s, other scientists began contributing more to this theory.
Scientists, like Albert Einstein, who may not have accepted Big Bang at the start, but without Einstein's 1917 theory on General Relativity, Lemaître wouldn't have started his paper on the expanding universe.
Like George Gamow, who introduced Big Bang nucleosynthesis and stellar nucleosynthesis into the theory was a very important landmark of understanding the early universe. Gamow did what Lemaître couldn't do - to explain how particles and elements were formed in the early universe.
Gamow again, but partnering with Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman had predicted in 1948 (or 49) the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) as evidence for the Big Bang. CMBR wasn't discovered until 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. The best image of the earliest universe come from the space probe WMAP, during 2010s.
Usually when there are lot of masses in the universe, the gravity should be pulling all the objects together, and this should have halted expansion and should have began contracting; and this should lead to the Big Crunch. But instead astronomers and cosmologists are observing that the universe has contracted at all. If anything, the universe is actually accelerating in its expansion. So scientists began to theorise that Dark Energy is possibly what is causing the continuing its expansion.
However, scientists still don't know what this dark energy is, because no one have yet discovered or directly observed yet. Dark energy is pretty much a mystery. But both WMAP and the Planck space probe have discovered that the matters comprise of only 4.9% of the universe, while dark matters have been estimated to be 26.8%, and 68.3% of dark energy.
What I am trying to say is that we are still learning new things about our universe, and we still learning things about the Big Bang cosmology. We may never learn everything about it, maybe not in my lifetime. But at least for now, the Big Bang cosmology is still the only cosmology that have been verified and tested (or evidences).
There are no evidences (yet) to support theoretical theories like multiverse model, the oscillating cosmological model (Big Bounce), or this something from nothing that you and ben_q have been promoting. There are many theoretical models, but none of them are factual...yet.
My problems with ben_q is that he is treating this nothingness-something claim as fact, when nothing about his claim has been verified. He is still arguing with me, using his faith, not evidences to support his argument.
I am actually quite open to and fascinated by the different cosmologies that other scientists have envisioned or presented, but without evidences for these theoretical theories, I am not ready to put my money behind any of these unsubstantiated theories.
In science, and I can only speak for myself, is that evidences are more important than proof, especially to establish what is "real". Theoretical models are just maths and numbers, and maths don't always reveal reality as they are. And I don't think ben_q understand that.
I think you should look at proofs and theoretical models with no evidences as a proposal or a bill that haven't been formalised.
(but then I have already said that even though you seemed to have taken it wrong). "Don't be coy," Coy, 3. Annoyingly unwilling to make a commitment . 
