Origin Of The Universe Explained By Science And Philosophy

Everything we know had to start somewhere, and that thought alone has haunted both science and philosophy for centuries. It’s not just about atoms or evolution — though sure, when we talk about where humans came from, we point to genetic mutations, recombination, natural selection, and all that — but before all that, there was nothing. Then somehow, there was something. We went from zero to one, from silence to spark, and honestly, even with all the theories laid out, the fact that we’re here at all still feels like the wildest thing of all.

But how did the first DNA or RNA molecule form?

Why did the first cell, composed of lipids, amino acids, and a variety of other things, form in the first place?

Because Earth was formed. And because of the conditions present at that time on Earth, the formation of that first cell became possible. Earth was formed due to the solar system. The solar system was formed because of the Big Bang.

"Where science ends and philosophy begins is often the question about the origin of the universe. Scientists explore how the Big Bang led to everything we see today, but philosophy asks what came before it all."

But What Existed Before the Big Bang?

Now, there’s something called the Theory of Everything that tries to answer this. It includes supercharged membranes, hyperspace, and such concepts. But what was before that?

Eventually, this question hits a dead end in science too. What was before all of this? Some people argue that only religion can answer this—that God created everything. But even then, the question remains: if everything is created, who created the Creator?

This becomes an impossible navigation through causality. So, is it really impossible? Or do we need to think from a completely different perspective—perhaps one where we say goodbye to logic and start believing in some axioms of the universe? That maybe the actual nature of reality is just like that.

Is Randomness the Axiom of Reality?

Take, for example, quantum randomness. According to quantum field theory, particles constantly come in and out of existence. Their wave functions appear everywhere. They become quantized when they interact with other fields. But ultimately, it’s like a random dance.

Could this be an axiom? That in hyperspace too, the same thing is happening—that whatever is possible is happening—and reality is just a manifestation of that.

Breaking the Causality Loop: Can Data Save Us?

How can we break out of this causality loop? We’ll need to rely on data because science is all about empirical evidence, observational evidence, and data. If you don’t have data, you don’t have a theory.

Now, how far does our data go? It goes up to the aftermath of the Big Bang. After inflation, we have the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). We know the characteristics of this radiation—it tells us about the conditions of the very early universe after the Big Bang. But we have no data from before that.

So, without data, we can only speculate theories about what might have happened. 

So much energy—where did it come from? 

Possibly, yes. But if you cannot falsify a theory, it’s not a theory—it’s not science; it’s philosophy.

Falsifiability: The Test of a Scientific Theory

Yes, if you cannot falsify a theory, I can give you a theory too. Suppose there’s a Hawking’s Pressure Cooker orbiting the Sun between Uranus and Neptune. That could be a theory—a scientific theory, even. I mean, it’s definitely a good theory, okay. But can you falsify it? You can’t prove it wrong. You can’t prove it right. Just like saying unicorns exist in this universe.

We don’t have evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But we also cannot falsify it. So, a theory that cannot be falsified is not a scientific theory—even if it’s mathematically rigorous.

We have lots of theories like this—string theory, loop quantum gravity, and various classes of theories that cannot be falsified. If it can’t be falsified, it’s not scientific.

What Came Before the Beginning? A Philosophical Question

So, the point is: the question of what came before the beginning, before the Big Bang, can only be answered through philosophy.

Now, you spoke about religion—that if we don’t have an answer, we turn to religion. See, the thing is, you cannot mix science and religion. These two things don’t mix.

Let me explain why.

Science vs. Religion: Can They Coexist?

Any good religion has a philosophical background or at least a rigorous philosophical base. Some religions are purely about faith. Others are about inquiry and philosophy.

Philosophy has logic. Philosophy has a very strong logical underpinning. Philosophical theories are still theories—just like scientific theories. There is logic in philosophical theories. But in science, theories are grounded in data—empirical and observational evidence—and the phenomena are all physical.

In philosophy, you can have things like non-physical objects or non-physical phenomena—metaphysics and such—and still prove something.

Non-Physical Realities: Soul, Ethics, and More

So imagine that something like the soul exists. Using that, you can create a whole logical theory—with proper properties of the soul—and then it becomes a complete philosophical theory. But it’s not a scientific theory because it’s a non-physical entity.

Nobody has ever proven the existence of the soul—because it’s a non-physical object. A soul, by definition, is a non-physical object. It has no weight, no mass, no size, right?

So, you cannot mix something non-physical with something physical. Any theory or system that includes non-physical objects or concepts—like ethics, morality—all those things fall into the class of philosophical and religious theories, not scientific ones.

Religion Deserves Respect—but Science Is Different

So when someone cannot explain something and turns to God—that’s fine. But that is not science. That doesn’t mean it’s good or bad, right or wrong. It is completely wrong for a scientist to make fun of philosophical or religious theories—and vice versa.

It is completely wrong for a religious person to mock science just because they don’t understand it. Similarly, most scientists don’t understand religion or philosophy.

These two are like oil and water—they don’t mix.

Some people may be able to straddle both domains. But even in their minds, they’re very clear—this is different, that is different.

Scientists Who Were Also Religious

There are lots of scientists who are religious. For example, one of the pioneers in cosmology was a Catholic priest. Galileo also believed in religion—maybe he did, I’m not very familiar with his religious history.

But Georges Lemaître was definitely a Catholic priest, came up with very significant contributions to the Big Bang theory—you already know, physical cosmology—which were completely against his religion’s beliefs.

So, it’s possible to hold both views.

For example, Ramanujan—one of the greatest mathematicians ever- he was a deeply religious person. He said the equations came from his goddess.

So yes, you can reconcile these two things in your mind. But at the end of the day, they are separate things.

The quest for understanding our origins is a journey through science, philosophy, and faith — each offering unique insights. True wisdom lies in respecting their differences, embracing the mystery, and humbly acknowledging that some questions may forever transcend human reason.

Vibe Motive