The statement is incorrect, since the Big Bang theory does not make such a hypothesis. Content does matter, not metaphysics.

A shady-looking chap pulls you into a dark alley. He is a physicist who wants to sell you a universe — well, in fact, several trillion universes. It is cheap and you ask him what the catch is.

There are, he admits, four catches. First, he doesn’t know how this universe started so he’s made up a “Big Bang”moment when time starts and beyond which none of his theories works. Second, one of his biggest ideas — the Standard Model of Particle Physics — is full of so many arbitrary numbers that he has had to invent trillions of other universes (the multiverse) in which these numbers are different. Third, his two master theories  (quantum theory and relativity) both seem to be true, but they contradict each other. Finally, he hopes that his laws of physics apply all the time everywhere but he’s not sure and, frankly, he hasn’t a clue what these laws really are.

Caveat emptor! This guy must be selling you a dud. Or is he? Most physicists and, indeed, most scientists believe all of the above, which is why so many science journals and sci-fi films are full of so much weird stuff involving twisted time, quantum leaps and, their weirdest invention, the block universe.

http://bryanappleyard.com/the-universe-a-buyers-guide/

 Golden,

I am not an expert but I believe logic is a universal language so certain statements can be evaluated by non experts:

You say:

I have no problem with the  central assumption of the Big Bang Cosmology that matter may very well have come from a single point on the spacetime continuum

It is true that anyone can make assumptions whatever one wants but I have some problems with that one.

Andrew,

1.  This is the content - container issue.  Leibniz already challenged Newtonian physics as being based on the assumption that a container (space-time) needs to exist prior to things.  Space-time is a mathematical concept that can be used to interpret the world but it does not make sense to assume that it can exist in itself prior to the world. Any theory of origin that take as a priori a theoretical framework is a form of platonism and leave totally unexplain the original theoretical ground that is supposed to explain the origin.  So it simply pack all that there is to explain in this a priori theoretical ground.  It is a form of theology where God is replace by the mathematical ground.

3.  The only way to infer the past is based on structure of existing entities. The past is an inference based on the steps necessary to create this structure.  Any science is based on this principle that we can call : structural hierarchy IS history.   We have to forget the notion of time provided by a theoretical time dimension.  We can only goes back to the point where there is absolutely no structure, neither material nor theoretical. In other words we will make progress but we will never reach a point where this impossible ideal can be practically achieved for obvious reasons.

Golden, hi

please read my work

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315825530_Theory_of_Empty_Universe_Second_Draft?_iepl%5BviewId%5D=jLKk1vTDMDYJaTUtv0JoUFKW&_iepl%5BprofilePublicationItemVariant%5D=default&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=prfpi&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationTitle

Article Theory of Empty Universe (Second Draft)