Even from a scientific perspective, I find the Big-Bang thing pretty hard to believe. Either the Universe itself is God, or it was created by that God. I don't really believe that "something" can spawn out of "nothing", unless it wasn't bounded by any laws of the world like an Omnipotent God. If you put Omnipotence in the equation you can just say that even if a Gods existence is a contradiction or doesn't make sense, it doesn't matter since beings on that level don't have to follow any level of Logic. And I say this as someone who's not religious anymore... Science feels only useful to find out information that you can measure and study, but the world genuinely feels supernatural.
The consensus for more than 40 years is that inflation happened before the Big Bang. There was this rapid expansion of space-time but the Big Bang is more actually like the dumping of energy into this place. Plank-order seconds after the Big Bang all of this was happening. The Big Bang doesn't have much to do with the expansion of the universe. It has a lot more to do with the dumping of energy. Mass and energy are fundamentally related and they come from quantum fields. The expansion was already happening and we know the universe is expanding due to dark energy. The Big Bang is just the moment of creation in the sense of the stuff in this place that we know of. Before the Big Bang we know there was only inflation. We can only say from what we currently understand, what happened at the end stages of inflation. Before those final stages of inflation we don't know what happened. Some people think the universe might have started in a singularity. Before those final stages of inflation the universe was very small so people just jump to the logical conclusion of maybe it started in a singularity. Presumably quantum fields also existed before the Big Bang, so we don't know where they came from. It makes sense to say that outside of space-time itself there may not be time because time is part of this thing and its interwoven with space in some weird way. But that would be looking at General Relativity and taking what it says very seriously so it all gets very tricky.
The Big Bang is an extremely dense state of high energy and its an event on the smallest possible scale at the highest possible energy. The whole idea is as the universe cools you get broken symmetries. If you regress going back towards the instant of time, those symmetries actually arise.
The universe could just be eternal perpetual. Or it could be the rubber band theory that it infinitely expands and contracts. Or it could be the multiverse theory. Or it could be the membrane theory. Or it could have been an eternal ocean of potential energy.
We don't know.
And I think thats really the position of cosmic humility. It's looking at the universe and saying, I don't really know how this got here but I'm not going to jump to a conclusion of a god of the gaps.
A supreme
being - how can being come from nonbeing?
if the being is eternal then Occam's Razor
would suggest that the universe is eternal and remove the superfluous part which adds needless complexity.
Anything that's natural is governed by laws. Physics is governed by laws, the way that your body works, different chemicals interact within it is governed by laws. Everything in nature is governed by laws even these weird things about physics like uncaused appearance of particles whatever anything that happens in physics either has been explained by law or can and will be explained by a law. Everything is oart of nature. From humans to quasars, blackholes, dark matters, galaxies, penguins. There is no "un-nature" or "non-nature."
The supernatural obviously is the exact opposite in this situation. The supernatural does not have the same laws apply to it as everything else in our world. And if anything "supernatural" exists it wouldn't really matter because we couldn't apply the scientific method to it because being supernatural it wouldn't be governed by the same laws that we have to know in order to know how things work in order to apply the scientific method. So we wouldn't even be able to I don't know "research" ghosts or whatever in the same way that we could understand how a star works or something like that. There's no reason for there to be a supernatural, there's no reason to believe that. There's no reason that you should feel close-minded about this. That's like, most of us 99.9% of us can agree that there is not a secret society of fairies that live under the ground. If you're not willing to accept that possibility that doesn't make you close-minded, that makes you rational. There's no reason to throw out everything you know about how the world works to indulge whimsical ideas about ghosts and whatnot. It's amazing all the things people used to think were supernatural that can be explained by natural reasons. Possessions for example, most of these turned out to be seizures. People being tormented by demons or whatever is symptoms of things like schizophrenia. So considering how much we've already been able to explain away I think it's foolish to assume that something like ghosts doesn't have a naturalistic explanation.
I think it's also historically questionable to declare, "Man will never know!" I mean, we've come a long way… and
if we're still around, probably a long way more to go.
Idk what do you think?
