Science has found proof of God in the Big Bang?

First of all we have to know why 'science' 'proves' there was a Big Bang?

Hubble interpreted red-shifts in the light of distant galaxies as an expanding universe. They then assumed by extrapolation that an initial explosion must have caused this expansion.

Had any of them Read Copernicus's book they would have seen him speculate that if the universe was geocentric then it would expand like a carnival swing ride.

So the Big Bang theory as portrayed today proves nothing, certainly not the Trinity.

‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith?
My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not of philosophers and scientists. To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he [or it] should be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriously,” cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’[1]

---

[1] Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.

Science cannot prove God exists. If it did then faith would be unnecessary.

Yes, we can KNOW God exists by reason alone. Probably the only 'proofs' of God's existence known to man were those who witnessed Jesus's miracles.

Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!

.
Minute 9:45 -- It all brings us to one question: The Universe... Is the earth flat?
.
And 11:20 -- Someone behind the scenes designed and created the Universe with a Flat Earth!
.

.
Gwaredd,
I didn't' reply but I read your "losing the faith" thread.  I didn't reply because it sounded to me that a better way to phrase the problem was that you were "out of touch with" (or perhaps never in touch with) the philosophical foundations of theism.  And I think your reply here shows that.
.
Science certainly can point to God, but not as powerfully as philosophy.  The reason is that science comes after philosophy.  I mean this logically.  The very existence of any natural science presupposes (that is, it depends upon) certain truths which science is unable, of its very nature, to prove.  These are metaphysical truths, certain axioms about the very nature of radical and ontological reality as such.  They include (for instance) the fact that things exist, the principle of non-contradiction (i.e., that a thing cannot both be and not be at once), the fact that change or motion "is a thing" (which science purports to measure), and at least the theoretical possibility of causality (though as we know, many scientists today will attempt to cast doubt on this).  Without these philosophical presuppositions, there is no science.  They all come before science.  And science is incoherent without granting them as true.
.
None of these things have anything at all to do with religion as such.  That's why we find the ancient Greeks discussing them, despite the fact that their religious views were not only wrong, but were highly primitive, imaginative, and anthropomorphic.  
.
One of the greatest mistakes of Christian philosophers and apologists (including Catholic ones) today is that they've given away the store to materialism.  They've ceded science's ultimate blunder, mainly, the idea that the only real knowledge that can be had is empirical knowledge.  Of course, empirical knowledge can't even prove this claim, so it's a non-starter, but that hasn't stopped loads of Christian apologists from making ultimately failing arguments against atheism because they are content to argue God as a probability rather than to demonstrate his metaphysical necessity.  You can prove God, not as a hypothesis which is more likely than any other, but as a necessary logical conclusion given a certain set of non-religious philosophical premises.  That is what St. Thomas did-- so his proofs are not "good for Catholics", they're good for atheists.  They're good for people who wouldn't give religion the time of day, because they don't rely on religion in the slightest to make their case.  They rely on the philosophical axioms mentioned above-- non-contradiction, the fact of change, and the rest.  
.
What I would recommend is looking into Dr. Ed Feser.  He is a contemporary Thomistic philosopher.  He talks about this all the time-- the fact that St. Thomas' proofs (which are really Aristotle's proofs perfected) have never been overcome; not by philosophy, and certainly not by science.  He has several books (and a blog). I would recommend The Last Superstition especially, since it is entirely devoted to exactly what we're talking about here: how neither philosophy nor science has ever answered St. Thomas's completely nonreligious arguments for the existence of God, and that atheism has made strawmen out of those arguments and not engaged what they actually say.  I actually think all Catholics should read that book, because there is a very noticeable popular misunderstanding even among Catholics about what these arguments actually say.  For instance, the argument from motion is not that God had to "push over the first domino," and the argument from cause is not that an infinite regress is impossible (because it isn't, depending on the type of causality we're considering), the argument from design is not that "things look complicated so they must have been designed by a higher intelligence", etc.
.
Anyways, I'm glad that you think that these videos are useful.  I think that modern science does have some very interesting things to say about the existence of God, and those arguments do have their place, but their place is entirely subordinate to philosophical arguments for the existence of God from reason.  Because at best, a scientific argument for God can only prove that he's likely as a percentage, which can never overcome atheism, since there's always the real possibility that God doesn't exist.  The Aristotelian-Thomist proofs avoid this dilemma completely: if their premises are true, then God exists as a matter of logical demonstration, not merely as the most likely hypothesis among several.

ETA: Here's Dr. Feser's blog to get your feet wet: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/

Gwaredd,

It was my mistake to make things personal-- I didn't mean to imply that, and I suppose I didn't need to start the way I did (by bringing up the earlier thread).  My apologies, and you're right-- "end of story."
.
I don't think you're a philosophical nincompoop.  I was replying mainly to your reply to Clemens Maria.  Clemens mentioned St. Thomas' proofs, and you replied that they were good for Catholics.  I took that to mean that you found something about St. Thomas' proofs to be insufficient for dealing with naturalists and materialists, so my reply was written in response to that impression that I got from your post.
.
But even that being said, I don't retract anything that I said regarding the superiority of philosophical proofs over scientific ones.  Now I'm speaking mainly for myself, and my own experience.  I think that we often need help in traversing what the older philosophers (like Aquinas) have to say.  One thing that's become crystallized for me over time (as I've read more and more Thomistic philosophers) is how scholasticism really has its own language.  Not Latin, I mean it presupposes familiarity with a very rich and intricate network of jargonic items terms and concepts which are totally unique to it (act and potency, the simultaneity of essentially ordered causal series vs. the chronology of accidentally ordered series, etc.).  Understanding those concepts and understanding how Aquinas and Aristotle view them is the foundation to the five proofs.  The five proofs themselves are merely summaries written in a textbook (keep in mind that that's what the Summa is: a textbook for seminarians), and they're emptied of all their force when they are approached without a really firm understanding of the concepts which support them.  This is, incidentally, why atheist philosophers, materialists, and Humean skeptics have so utterly failed to even engage Aristotle and Aquinas's arguments, because they are completely ignorant of those concepts.  So, when they attempt to engage them, they cannot help but erect strawmen because they fundamentally mistake the proofs as saying something that they just aren't saying.  This is an understanding that I personally lacked for quite a while, and it's really only been over the last three years or so that it's become clearer to me how completely avoidant atheists and the rest are of what Aristotle and Aquinas actually have to say.  We can actually grant the big bang, evolution, and all the rest if we want-- and St. Thomas' proofs would be completely undisturbed.  Completely.  Because nothing he has to say involves the universe having a beginning-- he even goes out of his way to say that it's stupid to presume the universe had a beginning when making a philosophical argument for God.  
.
Anyways, sorry if I come across as long-winded.  I myself am always personally very excited about the rich philosophical tradition we've inherited, and how it's something that really stands on its own, supported by the weight of reason.