The BBT uses the idea that 'time itself started' as a mathematical construct in order to make the model work.
All that is said here
Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning
Is that Vilenkin urges research – he makes no assumption that something began. The problem lies in the verb “to begin” this is semantics, not physics.
If there were a volume of emptiness how would you know anything of time. Time is an artefact of things happening – things changing. This is how time is measured.
We must make the distinction between the universe and the contents of the universe.
I don’t think there is much objection to the original singularity being finite in energy, whilst being massive and energetic. Once the sudden expansion of the singularity occurs, the expansion will continue unless another force acts upon it. The universe consists of energy of which mass is the most visible component.
As there is no other force, then it will continue expanding for eternity. At the moment, it appears that the gravitational forces working against expansion are reduced by the increase in distance at which masses find themselves from other masses.
So whilst the universe is potentially infinite, the total energy within it is not.
Your friend at the keyboard link spends a lot of time explaining ‘infinity’ to himself. He should have asked me – infinity is an abstract concept.
Anyhow, all this, in no way shows anything about any gods. To suppose that some being (coincidentally the one whose folktales are told in the Bible) is the causer of the universe would require that being to be capable of producing something from nothing – but you say that the universe could not have come from nothing.