It's fascinating that when evidence is called for to back up the nonsense taught to students as 'fact,' the old strawman excuse comes forward.
I bring up the strawman argument simply because, well, you DID bring up a strawman. Naturalistic methods of testing cannot explain what happened before the laws of physics began.
You ask for an explanation of what happened before the Big Bang - and you know very well that physics cannot yet explain that - and you claim that if it cannot be explained, well, then the whole theory is bunk and should be thrown out and not be taught or attempted to be understood. This is the very definition of a strawman argument.
Your position seems to be that if something is not 100% explainable and demonstrable by empirical evidence that it should not be taught at all.