A ‘cause’ can be just simply the interaction of sub-atomic particles in physics or molecules in chemistry.
No outside supernatural magical agent is necessary.
Thomas Aquinas and his first cause argument was a long, long time ago, and well before the age of science. It is superstitious and ignorant to still think in those terms.
I would simply question the originator of the “scientific proof of creation” with another premise . . . If space and time came into being with the existence of the universe, it is not possible to posit it’s (previous) “non-existence” in any way according to current/relevant scientific processes.
IOW, if space and time did not exist (no such thing as “smaller than a molecule of water” ?????) “prior?” to the universe itself, then even to talk about “beginnings” and “ends” is just a load of crap because you NEED space and time in order to make those sorts of generative/fatalist statements.
If you want to refer to this “timeless” and “spaceless” existence (anything prior to the universe), then you cannot speak in language or use any other form of communication to refer to it, if this is the supernatural . . . who gives a shit about it?
Perception is indeed key.
The universe is expanding, so that inclines most people to think that it is finite. That is that it starting expanding at some point and thus had a singularity (origin) and will have an end.
Not necessarily so. Just the universe that we now have, with space time, as we understand it, but not necessarily what existed prior to TBB.
Perhaps there have been many big bangs or expansions, and slow downs. Who knows? We do not, but it seems to me to be a quantum leap to interject supernaturality just because we do not yet understand it.
The argument from incredulity.
So, the universe “began” at the beginning of time (so to speak) . . . does that mean it has ALWAYS been here? Will it last FOREVER?
Jefe is right of course, as we do not know exactly. We do have some ideas however. Our Universe as we now understand it is thought to have originated with the Big Bang event, about 14 billion years ago.
The Cosmos could be a different thing, and it could have existed prior to the big bang. Obviously something did, as the elements that caused the BB were already present.
rays, the Big Bang was not an instantaneous explosion. It was an expansion. It was actually the evolution of our universe into it’s present state, not necessarily the beginning of the Cosmos. The Cosmos could have existed for billions of years or even infintely before the Big Bang, we just do not know.
Actually I got the word ‘evolution’ from this at Talk Origins-
Before beginning the examination of the evidence surrounding current cosmology, it is important to understand what Big Bang Theory (BBT) is and is not. Contrary to the common perception, BBT is not a theory about the origin of the universe. Rather, it describes the development of the universe over time. This process is often called “cosmic evolution” or “cosmological evolution”; while the terms are used by those both inside and outside the astronomical community, it is important to bear in mind that BBT is completely independent of biological evolution.
However, transformation or development are probably better words, for clarity as you and this paragraph both mention.