Not all science. You assume that the Big Bang singularity is a past boundary to the entire universe, one that must somehow be smoothed out to make sense of the pre-Bang universe. But the Bang isn’t all that different from future singularities, of the type we’re familiar with from black holes. We don’t really know what’s going on at black-hole singularities, either, but that doesn’t stop us from making sense of what happens from the outside. A black hole forms, settles down, Hawking-radiates, and eventually disappears entirely. Something quasi-singular goes on inside, but it’s just a passing phase, with the outside world going on its merry way.
The Big Bang could have very well been like that, but backwards in time. In other words, our observable patch of expanding universe could be some local region that has a singularity (or whatever quantum effects may resolve it) in the past, but is part of a larger space in which many past-going paths don’t hit that singularity.
There was some early work on the idea by Farhi, Guth and Guven, as well as Fischler, Morgan and Polchinski, which has been followed up more recently by Aguirre and Johnson.
Actually, I've questioned modern science for many of the reasons you've brought up. Though, I think you might not have brought it back to why it fails us in this regards. Obviously appealing to a host of unseen universes and a set of unexplained meta-laws is scarcely any better than the intelligent designer argument. Not to mention that it completely falls short of a complete explanation of existence. For a start, there has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and allocate bylaws to them. This process demands its own laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the 'meta-laws' of the multiverse.
I beileve that science in this regards, actually fails us. Because in this area, it seems that both religion and science appeal to some sort of agency outside the universe to explain things.
This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical law has its origins in theology. The idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws comes straight out of monotheism, which was the dominant influence in Europe at the time science as we know it was being formulated by Isaac Newton and his buddies. Just another way religion has held back scientific progress. Just as you present God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, physicists envisage their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships. Furthermore, you believe the world depends utterly on God for its existence, while the converse is not the case. Correspondingly, physicists declare that the universe is governed by eternal laws, but the laws remain impervious to events in the universe.
I think this entire line of reasoning is now outdated and simplistic. We will never fully explain the world by appealing to something outside it that must simply be accepted on faith, be it an unexplained God or an unexplained set of mathematical laws. Can we do better? Yes, but only by relinquishing the traditional idea of physical laws as fixed, perfect relationships.
You mean, because its easier.
Your verbal sophistry continues to amaze me.
