This is where is disagree a bit, but thank you for bringing this point to light. Science is just a method for testing ideas. Anyone saying it is anything other than that is selling something. You should see and hear warnings. “Trust the science” goes against the scientific method. Ideas should be tested. If they aren’t you end up with Religions. The Universe had no beginning, much the same as believing god had no creator. Existince is a dance between density and entropy.
Discussion
"The universe had no beginning" what? Our current best theory says it does aka The Big Bang.
Best is relative. It’s not the beginning, it’s happened many times and will contiinue to happen. It’s not the only one either, just the only one we could percieve as creatures in this dimension.
Lmao you used the scientific method to determine all of this with certainty?
No, just an idea that hasn’t yet been tested.
I would add that the idea that there was a beginning is as ludacris as believing there wasn’t.
But there's evidence to support a beginning. There's no evidence to support infinite rebirths and multi verses. Those are only theories. There may not be a beginning, but at least there's evidence for it.
No one could fathom what you’ve just described when it was an idea, before the evidence was gathered to support it. There is evidence to suggest an event that no one can see past. Many would like to find a beginning, but I and many others believe that to be a flawed assumption. A beginning is very normalized, except when it comes to a creator. Time is a unique phenomenon, as creatures of a third dimension, we weren’t here for the beginning nor will we be here at the end. Perhaps there is neither, or the beginning and the end are the same thing and there are no real paradoxes. All of these ideas seem radical until they are normalized by pusuing the idea and gathering evidence, testing, etc.