It has never been recorded that there is an effect without a cause... It blows my mind that you would think such a thing. If you do believe it, I am wasting my time here.
Let me first agree with you. This is precisely what I said when it was proposed to me. In fact, this is precisely what almost everyone says when they hear of it. In fact, Einstein not only said that, but fiercely opposed the idea for the rest of his life. However, I must advise you that there has been a literal ton of effects without causes, its just that you didn't know about them, which is fine. Our brain is wired up to instinctively understand cause and effect, and we are educated at high school in Newtonian physics which quantizes such a relationship (every action has an opposite and equal reaction).
I suggest you read this about quantum effects without causes in the context of the big bang. Have a read around about radioactive decay. You will find that there is no way to predict when a given nucleus will decay, this is because there is no cause for their decaying at any given time. For example, we know that there is a 50% chance of a given nucleus in Uranium-238 having decayed after 4.5 billion years. However, it might take 30 seconds to decay or it might take 12 billion years. There is nothing which actually causes it to decay after 30 seconds that doesn't happen to make it decay after 12 billion years when that thing actaully happens. Confusing? Yes. Read around though.
I'm not saying that the big bang did not have a cause (quantum fluctuations in a quantum vacuum, or two branes colliding and more have all be put forwards as hypotheses), but that you might have to accept that there might just not be one. Even if there is a cause, there is probably never going to be a way of finding out what that cause is - it is outside of our observational ability (ie outside of our universe).
I am sorry, I copied the wrong link. Here is the correct one. Our Galaxy is the center of the universe, 'quantized' red shifts show
I'll give it a look over - though I think I've already read it, or something very much like it. [edit - A quick scan reveals I have read it. And it is the based on the same things as the other report: in 1997, an independent study of 250 galaxy redshifts by William Napier and Bruce Guthrie confirmed TifftÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s basic observations. Which I replied was a tiny sample size, and that if you look at the more recent red shift survey with a sample size about a thousand times larger, their effects seem to vanish.]
Oh, but they do explain if you notice the little 8 and the little 9.
I did notice the little 8s and 9s. I even read some of the sources they linked to (though not all of them, naturally). That wasn't my point, my point was that they didn't even spare a paragraph or even a sentence to explaining to the reader what they mean, they just make an assertion and provide some source.