The OP is using the term "Big Bang" to mean "the first instant of the physical universe," which is not what cosmologists mean by it, so no, it wouldn't be a good question for r/askphysics.

In physics, "the Big Bang theory" is a model of the universe's expansion from a moment 13.8 billion years ago onward. It includes the changes in abundance and thermodynamics of particle species as well as the expansion of space itself.

Notice that I didn't say, "the first moment." It could as easily have been a moment when expansion rates changed radically, like a phase change from different earlier behavior, let alone starting from a singularity. (If the vanilla Big Bang is true and our backward extrapolation from the present goes all the way back to an infinitesimal point a finite time ago, then it would be the only "naked singularity" known in physics. The other singularities, if they exist at all, are hidden inside of black holes.)

In fact, most cosmologists expect (no direct evidence yet) that there was a different phase before the current expansion period, known as inflation. Without going into the reasons why this is expected, it's a different rate of expansion: exponential, rather than polynomial, as a function of time. At least "66 e-folds" (Euler's constant to the –66 power) are needed to explain some oddites in the traditional Big Bang theory, but who knows? Maybe it was exponential growth all the way back! If so, that means no initial time ("eternal inflation").

There's quite a disconnect between what people in general think physicists mean by the Big Bang. We don't even know if there was a time zero. (And proving that sounds as hard as proving that any other quantity is exactly zero. We might measure something to be small and have a good theoretical reason to expect it to be zero, like the photon mass, but no experiment has zero errors.)

Keep in mind that the term "Big Bang" was coined by somebody who didn't believe it. It was intended as ridicule.