An infinite progress

[vulcanlogician]

I tend to like a scientific view of the cosmos. Because science strives toward accuracy. And if science ever finds itself to be inaccurate, it modifies its theories. It improves over time, corrects its own mistakes.

Granted, however, "science" has no way to gather ANY information before the Planck time. However, "science" has, almost by definition, an infinite amount of data that can be discovered after the Plank time. Answers, then, must depend on the future, not the past. Quantam theory has no problem postulating that effect can proceed cause, Therefore, would not an infinitely powerful and complex "being" in the future trump (pardon the expression) and almost infinitely simple, first-order cause in the past?

I mean, sure. You have a point. Science can only trace the history of the universe so far. But (who knows?) better theories and it may be able to trace things back further. But you are correct. It's unlikely that they have (or ever will) trace it all the way back. The Big Bang is a history of the universe (not a theory of why it exists in the first place). And it's pretty accurate.

The point is, science doesn't just accept a given theoretical history of the universe because "it works." There is more to the big bang theory than "it works." There's good evidence for it too. Tons of evidence.

Your history of the beginning of the universe (namely "God did it") "works." Sure... So what?

So does, "before the big bang, the energy required to create the universe was spat out by the great Nordic serpent." But scientists don't entertain the Nordic serpent hypothesis (or yours) because there isn't good evidence backing it up... they aim for a degree of accuracy. A good scientific theory must "work" too, in the sense that it conforms with logic and evidence. Adding layers of accuracy, correcting errors and misconceptions (in a rinse/repeat fashion) is what science does next.

Religion doesn't really do this. Some theologians try to create plausible theories when problems arise, yes. But they never doubt the truth of their holy book. They never want to stop and ask, "Maybe the book is wrong?" Scientists are. Sure, scientists have their books too. But you win a Nobel Prize if you prove their books wrong. End every scientist worth his salt will applaud you for it.