I simply need to doubt the accuracy of our mathematics as a means of measuring and calculating the nature of the real universe.

So, in other words, you haven't ACTUALLY examined Hawking's proof, and therefore, you have no basis for doubting its integrity, except as it exists within the category of mathematical proofs generally, which you generally disbelieve. So, in other words, you can't actually identify any particular problem with THIS mathematical proof. Since you

understand it so well, though, would you mind, for the benefit of others that aren't as familiar with Hawking's "evidence" (aka Hawking's mathematical proof), just going over the broad strokes of the approach of his proof and maybe touching on a few spots that you feel might exhibit some of the deviation from real, physical world that you claim runs throughout the mathematical world? Let's pretend for a moment that you wanted to go a step above mindlessly running your mouth and actually back your shit up. Since you

understand these sorts of things so well, surely, you would have no problem elaborating on the specifics of the problems with Hawking's proof, right? Please, let us glory in your

understanding for a few precious moments, hideousmonster. Let's pretend that someone here actually believed for so much as a single nanosecond that you weren't just utterly full of shit and actually believed that you

understood the evidence for the Big Bang well enough to develop a coherent critique of it. Can you, using Hawking's proof as the background, sort of give them some talking points of where to begin on dismantling this mathematical proof?

And ultimately proof is observer-dependent.

Actually, it isn't. That's the difference between proof and evidence. Proof is proof. We establish the assumption (that general relativity as described by Einstein holds) and the proof follows inexorably from there. But you

understand the evidence, and are prepared to, here and now, demonstrate your

understanding and fluency with the state of the science of cosmology by explaining the jist of the problems with the proof in terms accessible to a person of above-average intelligence and some familiarity with the field, right?