Big Bang From What?

[Theland]

Regarding the beginning of the universe 13.8 billion years ago, what is the latest theory for how it began?
Any links I could look at?

[Old_Geezer]

It tells us that believing that the Big Bang itself required a cause is too simplistic. The Big Bang is a possibility so at some point it just happens.

[Theland]

Andy - I was actually hoping for the explanation held by the scientific community.
But if you want to bait me on this thread, go ahead and I'll leave you to it.

[andy-hughes]

Theland - // Andy - I was actually hoping for the explanation held by the scientific community.
But if you want to bait me on this thread, go ahead and I'll leave you to it. //

I don't do 'baiting' - I simply offered you the answer that you actually seek, since no other answers ever have or ever will satisfy you.

[Zacs-Master]

How many times can one person ask the same question? Albeit in a different way. Credit to you big T.

[douglas9401]

If the universe began with the Big Bang then the Big Bang itself required a cause.

What created your creator? Go on, I dare you.

[Zacs-Master]

Theland. The ABer who gets more bang for his buck.

[Zacs-Master]

Same question. Same Premis. Different presentation.
https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Society-and-Culture/Religion-and-Spirituality/Question1669694.html

You should have been in advertising Theland.

[Hopkirk]

OK, but who made God?

[Zacs-Master]

Theland?

[jim360]

The Universe is perfectly capable of causing itself. Because, after all, at least one thing had to be.

[Zacs-Master]

Had to be what?

[woofgang]

Can both not be right?

[Bazile]

What did the 'nothing ' look like before the BG?

[Bazile]

What created the chicken / egg ?

[Zacs-Master]

Crumpsall.

[Bazile]

BG?
BB

[jim360]

Well I suppose strictly speaking there could also have been "something" "forever", whatever either of those two things means. But if you take the argument from first cause even remotely seriously, then all it establishes is that something exists that is capable of creating itself. There's no particular reason to suppose that this something isn't the Universe.

But anyway. The real mistake in the question is in assuming that there has to be an answer, or at least that there has to be an answer *now*. Barely a century ago, we had no certainty that atoms even existed; now we have already begun to probe and understand the building blocks of the building blocks of *those* building blocks. In the other direction, the "Universe" was the same thing as our own Galaxy, and now we know of billions and billions of others. Our understanding of the very large and very small has grown by several orders of magnitude in barely 100 years. Who's to say what will happen in the next 100? And beyond that? There's loads of time left to figure out even partial answers to these questions, as opposed to giving up and assuming that God did it.

I would never pretend that Scientific endeavour truly touches upon the religious. By definition, a supernatural being who created the Universe and who wields ultimate control over its rules is immune to testing. But the reverse is also more or less true; Religion has nothing meaningful to say on questions scientific, much as it may wish to pretend otherwise.

[Zacs-Master]

Religion is just waiting for science to catch up with it.

[naomi24]

There's nothing wrong in saying we don't know - because we don't. Try it Theland. It's not difficult.

[douglas9401]

The atomic world with small things circling larger things, either tightly packed together or more sparsely spaced could just be what we call the universe on a tiny scale and our reality, incomprehensible as it is to mere mortals, is the same thing to an unimaginably bigger version where we exist on an electron whizzing round a nucleus that mind-bogglingly large creatures are curious about and so on and so on.

It could all just be a matter of scale.