When you get to the roots of physics, how do you get it without a push? This doesn’t seem so complicated. Why is there this two sides to the coin debate? How does the Big Bang even work according to atheism? Once nothing existed within absolute nothingness? Time was or wasn’t eternal? An energy formed within the inside nothing? It morphed into the potential for space and on the first try, with one in 1.5 trillion odds, worked perfectly? The math on the Bang is just as unbelievable as G-d? Come on. Please explain where the universe is and how nothing existed at once. Mods please move this if it isn’t the right place. Ty.
I don't know where you get those odds, but it certainly isn't from any scientific treatment I have seen.
So, I am going to describe the *standard* Big Bang scenario. There are other variants that have been proposed, but this is the basic model most cosmologists use.
First, time is part of the universe. In fact, the BB model takes the universe to be *all* of space and *all* of time.
Second, time itself started at the Big Bang. So there was literally no 'before the Big Bang'.
This is different than saying there was 'nothing' before. There was no 'before' at all: time *began* at the BB. So, in the standard BB model, time is NOT 'eternal'.
Third, by considering the universe throughout *both* space and time, the notion of causality is eliminated: causes require time. So the notion of a cause only makes sense *within the universe*.
So, no the idea is NOT that there was 'nothing' in 'absolute nothingness' and that 'energy' did anything. That is a *complete* misunderstanding of what the model says.
Fourth, no 'push' is required. Once again, you have to consider all of space and all of time as a single geometric entity. And that entity simply exists. Causality and time only exist *inside* of it.
Just to let you know: there are a LOT of really, really bad popular treatments of the Big Bang scenario. Most simply don't help in understanding what the actual model says or discuss the evidence we have for that model. If you want to discuss evidence, I can do that as well.
Fifth: it is quite possible the model is wrong, even likely. But the solution isn't to assume some intelligence. The solution is to follow the evidence and see where it leads us.