"There is no such thing as sequential causation"
Could you explain why you think this in clearer terms please? Entropy seems to say otherwise.
What I think is really "inherently inexplicable" is why you think absolute certainty is required for scientific knowledge, but we've already gone over this in other threads...
"the big bang theory is based on the sequential causation model of time, the idea that every event is caused by a preceding event."
"that every event is caused by a preceding event."
That isn't entirely true: for now at least, there is room for probability: to demonstrate this, all I need is a box, a cat, a radioactive source, and a vial of hydrogen cyanide; anybody?
Again, as I've said before, vacuum fluctuation and/or cyclic bang/crunch cycles are reasonable suggestions - they use observations to form ideas.
The big bang is not necessarily a "first cause" , but even if it was, it can be explained with testable experiments and observation.
"i dont think that postulating logically impossible entities (such as a big bang = first cause) is trying to understand."
" think it's more accurate to say that God is the cause of the big bang"
"logically impossible entities"
Who created god? did god create himself, or did another god create him etc. ad infinitum?
What created the universe? did it create itself, or did another universe create it etc. ad infinitum?
To say that god created the universe, then say that its logically impossible for the universe to be caused by a big bang is contradictory - they use the same arguments, just with different names.
The understanding of God is more essentially flawed than that of the big bang - one is explained with evidence and observation, the other appeals to faith.
Assuming an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent god is also logically impossible as I understand it:
if all powerful, and omniscient, he knows suffering occurs, has the power to stop it, but doesn't - which isn't benevolent.
perhaps he's benevolent, but doesn't have the power. Perhaps he's benevolent but doesn't know we exist. In all cases a pretty lousy god.
If your bringing up god in a philosophical sense, then you should really justify yourself by destroying the argument from evil:
"If God is omni-benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent, there should be no unnecessary evil in the world. There is unnecessary evil in the world, so there is no omni-benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent god."
What is your understanding of what god is? and why is it anymore relevant than the big bang?
***
"If there was no big bang, modern physics would die"
I don't agree with that - if the big bang was debunked, then science would develop a new explanation based on the available data:
There *should* be no dogma in science.
If the big bang was debunked, it wouldn't stop scanning tunneling microscopes from working, satellites wouldn't instantly fall out of orbit, astronomers wouldn't suddenly see mile high letters on the moon saying "God Woz Ere 0/0/0000" (although that'd be pretty cool).