> "So many dumb hypotheses about the " Big Bang" model -(with everything coming out of nothing) so how do you explain the converse,that nothingness is able to produce somethingness?"
If I understand you correctly, you are effectively asking "what made the Big Bang; from where did it originate?"
Firstly, the Big Bang theory doesn't explain the origin of the universe - it merely describes how the universe expanded (and continues to expand) from an *already-existing* singularity. Where that singularity came from is outside the bounds of the theory.
BUT:
- the idea that everything has a cause (so *something* must have caused the Big Bang) is called the Law of Causality. This is an aspect of the laws of physics of our universe, and therefore does not necessarily apply "before" or "outside" the universe. So it is perfect conceivable that the singularity which was the "seed" of the Big Bang sprung into existence with no cause.
- also, even if we suppose that the physics of our universe does indeed apply "outside" its bounds, we know that causality does not always apply. On a subatomic scale, events can and do happen "just because"; particles are constantly springing into being from nothing and then disappearing again. Since the singularity that was the "seed" for the Big Bang was just such a subatomic phenomenon (a point of zero volume), it could still have sprung into being with no causation.
> "Just question how materialist minds can be so authoratative about pre -bang science when it could well be non material or super material science."
Oh we cannot.
My suggestions above were only possibilities.
BUT - if we are to remain within the realm of "science", then we must chose the most parsimonious explanation until further evidence suggests a more complicated one must be a better fit.
And invoking the intervention of an external agency (which must prsumably be at least as complex as the thing created) at least doubles the complexity of the situation, and is therefor not parsimonious.
Occam's razor therefore dictates that science insist on an explanation which does not involve any creator or "cosmic universe-creating engine" or similar.
_______________________________________________
Edit:
> "Griblin has interesting points"
Thanks ;-)
> "Well it may be conceivable to some people but not on the basis of human experience."
Quantum physics rarely matches-up with normal human experience. As Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynmann once said "If you think you understand quantum mechanics you don't understand quantum mechanics."
> "So many things in recorded history defy material explanation so why is it untenable to consider doubling the complexity ,whether in genetic terms or cosmological?"
It is not that science/parsimony says "A more complex explanation is not possible"; it is that it says "We should not consider a more complex explanation until we have eliminated the simplest one."
It's a tool to provide a systematic approach to problem solving and scientific investigation.
> "Nobody considers external agency do they?"
Of course they do - either a theistic or deistic approach would obviously consider such an agency. But these approaches are not scientific.
> "Must check out the "causeless" particles as it seems to defy just about all the other scientific disciplines including common sense"
A good place to start is Hawking Radiation and Virtual Particles.