Well, I don't like the idea of a naked singularity, white hole, or anything of the sort. But, just because I don't like the idea doesn't meant it can't be. It lacks those grand terms used to self-justify old theories; grand, beauty, geometric... [edit to add] Besides the implications with Entropy such objects bring about...

The best the big bang can describe, IMO, is that very early on the universe whas much more dense, a lot smaller, and had a hellish amount of energy. The math that is used to describe these conditions just can't touch those sub-planck sized time frames (t<10e-43). Anything that claims to is just so much guessing. Maybe when the LHC gets up and running, and Maybe when we get verification of M-Theory, and Maybe when we come up with a quantum field theory for gravity, then just maybe we can probe those extreeme conditions that we think exist in and around what our math tells us (currently) is a singularity.

P.S.: The vote is still pending.

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.