using special relativity (as far as we can) and the concept of big bang.
Before the creation (big bang) of the universe there would of been nothing, at least as we know it. So if there wasnt anything what went bang?
From what I can find the general opinion of the singularity seems the most common, but where did that come from?
Its just a view but I am more inline with a universe that was eaten alive by black holes! we know they exist and we know there is no escape of anything from them, so if you had a universe full of black holes that had almost swallowed up the entire universe, what would happen if a smaller one was so full it became unstable?
Personally I think if special relativity is correct and applicable to this scenario then the big bang would likely of been a full black hole, still trying to swallow matter which would of tore it apart.
I cant remember the name for the theory this is based on but I am more inclined to believe this version rather than some of the others.
At school in ethical studies I debated if God and science were compatible, I won the round stating that God and science are completely compatible for the following reason.
Both religion and science agree on the universe being being created, religion calls this god and science calls it the singularity, neither actually knows what it was or consisted of, therefore I conclude both are the same but different terminology is used. It was slightly longer argument than that but makes my point