To start: I'm no expert. In anything. I claim no special status in the world, I'm just a lowly electronics student trying to get good grades so I can land a decent job as a technician.
But anybody that knows me knows that I have one of the most curious minds ever- I love to think, i love to read, learn, find out how the world around me works and why. I love to bend my mind in strange ways for the sake of learning.
This question is for the Academic hard hitters out there- the people that have spent their entire lives studying their special areas of interest and have attained levels of wisdom and insight that I will likely never enjoy.
The most widely accepted theory in the scientific community as to the origin of the universe is the Big Bang. We're all familiar with it- that there was a volume of mass that was the total mass of the entire universe that exploded, causing the expanding universe of galaxies, stars and planets we all know and love.
There seems to be a logical problem to this idea- mass doesnt spontaneously explode on such a massive level.
The way i see it, this object that blew up had to be incredibly unstable to blow up and casue the universe- if it were stable, then there would be no explosion, right? So either this object appeared out of nowhere in a very unstable condition, found itself in an existence that only made its instability worse, then blew up, OR there was an object that had existed forever in an apparently perfectly stable condition that suddenly and for no reason became unstable.
thus it seems to mean that you either had an object appear from nowhere or you had an explosion with no cause. It seems that the Big Bang is a giant "getting something from nothing" idea.
I want a REASONABLE, RATIONAL, LOGICAL, SCIENTIFIC answer to this supposed discrepancy in the idea of the big bang, or I want someone to give an even more REASONABLE, RATIONAL, LOGICAL, SCIENTIFIC alternative to why the universe exists. is anybody up to the challenge?