Maggie's Farm

Yep. Secularist/Aethist/Leftist/Neo-Darwinian Rightist: The Bible itself accounts a Big Bang therefore evolution is Science!.

Yet the Big Bang is obviously the greatest, from-nothing creation myth yet devised, one from which all other relativistic Science! flows even while it violates the purported Laws of Nature. Somehow teaching this line of complete speculation is not bullshit, however.

Rightist social Christians especially disappoint. Suddenly it's all fashionable to be as secular and hedonistic and contemporary and therefore as worldly cool as possibly while invoking G-d in vague snippets just to make the important distinction.

The alternative is to speculate...

You mean an, not the.

On its very face the Big Bang raises as many questions as it purportedly answers. It's an obvious article of faith and as if to prove it its believers are as likely as not full-on dogmatists who humblebrag that they know little scientifically while refusing to let anyone else to see through the metaphoric, metaphysical glass darkly. That misses about nine-tenths of the bigger picture right off which tends to throw its premise for a loop it can never recover from.

About this instantaneous creation myth of theirs they know nothing; this we all know because its both incumbent and admitted, even boasted. Rather they know the appearances of some effects they claim derive from their generous endowment of their own creation myth. And they do this locked inside a "Universe" the inherent property thereof All simply because uni = one. Being cramped there, they, just as faithfully and speculatively, write themselves an escape logical wormhole from it that instead invokes a polyverse where they can handily ascribe Origin any number of unknowable impetuses outside of reality.

Add in this ironic but acceptably scientific quantum nature - where existence is a state and probability and not a material construct - and interestingly the Genesis account is as philosophically or allegorically fitting as anything. In the end the Big Banger is faced with the essential Dancing Wu Li Master, not material reality and not an origin at all. The Big Bang may never be an origin explanation but it is forever a creation myth.

But that's just not scientific. However if you ask them about it surely all this may not be ascribed purpose either, which is the fundamental problem with Big Bang believers: Their central tenet is an insistence on passive accidentalism in a system that's nothing but active purpose. Yet that's their whole premise, really, and it makes them philosophers who've somehow rejected all philosophy because they insist they're really strict materialists, and materialists who reject the physical beyond a certain point because there they are admittedly faithful about it instead! It's a whole set of delicious contradictions.

Where that leaves you, actually, is wrestling with two completely unknown and unknowable alternatives, which I think is what you may mean to say: That in the "beginning" G-d, by intent, created from nothing a purpose and caused it to be conveyed on entities that came to be called material and compose a discipline called "science". Since to exist is to eventually reason and to reason is to prove or be Mind, Mind is inextricably bound to a trajectory in which you are an active quality because that's its central, evident purpose.

Hence purpose is the purpose of everything, so to put it, and with purpose, necessarily choice arises. Wham, right back to Mind we go, like it or not.

Then, to deny that G-d = Mind is not a tenable position. Since the Universe can't but invoke Mind - even the Big Banging Scientist realizes that at worst Mind is the Universe's work product - the Universe by definition contains G-d at the same time as it literally cannot be defined by material science or even one of its practitioners. It's a bit of a problem.

We don't even know what gravity is. To think we know origins is folly.

You can no more riddle that by way of a magical, spontaneous eruption of existence in complete violation of its own incumbent "laws" than you cannot attribute it to a G-d anyone can identify the ways and means of and whose properties cannot but include Unknowingness.

And vice versa. If this magical Big Bang is real, so is its G-d.

So even that dynamic involves choice, hence Mind. Or, the Big Bang is just another dumb placeholder for not knowing. Either way it explains nothing it purports to explain.