If by Jan 1, 2025 evidence of a 2nd "Big Bang" (different than the one that all observable matter as of 7/2007 seems to have come from) is published in a respectable peer reviewed scientific journal, and as of Jan 1, 2025 it is generally viewed as convincing evidence then this claim pays off.
This claim also pays off if as of Jan 1, 2025 the dominant theory of Big Bangs predicts that there are the remnants of multiple big bangs at different places in space at the same time.
If as of Jan 1, 2025 we are able to see galaxies or other objects in space that are generally accepted as being clearly further away in light-years than the number of years since our big bang, this claim pays off.
If as of Jan 1, 2025 the generally accepted theory is that space has been around forever, is infinite in size, and not created by a single big bang, then this claim pays off.
That currently accepted theory predicts we will never see evidence of any other big bangs and that the universe was created by the Big Bang, is never a valid reason to judge this claim false. It is only to be judged false if all 4 of the above ways to pay off have failed as of Jan 1, 2025. This claim should not be judged either way till Jan 1, 2025.
More info on topic:
The combination of 10 meter telescope and a gravitational lens that gives another 20x magnification has let us see galaxies that existed 500 million years after the big bang. The universe is estimated to be 13.7 billion years old and these galaxies are about 13.2 billion light-years away.
So current technology is close to being able to see things as far away in light-years as the time since our big bang. As we get telescopes that can see further, the standard theory says we won't see anything.
Here are a few other links on topic of "multiple big bangs":
I wrote about this in 1989: http://groups.google.com.ai/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/2cf3d8ebd00ca11/51e69a3434a9ff37?lnk=st&q=%22big+bangs%22+vince+cate+black+hole&rnum=1&hl=en#51e69a3434a9ff37
I predicted in 1990 that we would have evidence of a second big-bang in 10 years, but was wrong.
In cases of ambuguity, I intend to judge this claim strictly according to its wording.