We can approach it on that basis, but something must still account for the transformation of potential energy into kinetic, and, once again, there's nothing to do so in the Big Bang. And yes, the "multi-verse" (which I agree is an awful term; the whole point of the term "universe" is that it's all encompassing, so there's only one, by definition) does simply dodge the issue. We can assign the Big Bang to the result of some a priori action in a larger realm, but at some point explaining THAT hypothetical realm is still reduced to an enigma.

It might, but then it's just a special case of a larger phenomenon; the Big Bang isn't as "big" as we presume. We still need a First Cause, whether in this "universe" or another of which it's only part. This is also the kind of thing that REALLY pisses me off at physicists who know better; you don't assert a COMPLETELY unobservable, unverifiable and unreproducible theorem and call it "science" just to avoid the supernatural, because it doesn't avoid the supernatural at all, nor is it science. Likewise, just because saying, "the pulled-out-of-my-button particle explains this force" resulted in that particle being experimentally observed the first few times doesn't mean it always will. Give me a better REASON than "because my theory requires it. " Or start conducing experiments in search of the Flying Spaghetti Monster; one mans conjecture is as good as anothers....