Oh dear …
I told you. If you bother to read actual peer reviewed scientific papers from the cosmological physics literature, you’ll learn what the authors thereof postulate on this matter. Two papers I’m particularly familiar with are these:
Colliding Branes In Heterotic M-Theory
Generating Ekpyrotic Curvature Perturbations Before The Big Bang
Now, these two papers propose an elegant mechanism for the instantiation of the observable universe and its contents, via braneworld collisions. The mechanism in question possesses three elegant features, namely;
[1] It eliminates the singularity problem from standard Big Bang cosmology (which unlike you I can spell);
[2] It provides a mechanism for donation of energy to the newly instantiated universe, to facilitate matter synthesis;
[3] It provides a testable prediction, in the form of the power spectrum of primordial gravitational waves left in the wake of the collision process.
Indeed, [3] above is one of the reasons scientists have been busy building gravitational wave detectors, so that they can perform this test. The moment that power spectrum shows up in the data, Steinhardt & Turok pick up a Nobel Prize.
Of course, there are plenty of other papers on this topic, arXiv lists 208 of them if you want some bedtime reading matter covering the ekpyrotic postulate.
Oh, by the way, the branes in question are regarded [1] as having existed eternally, and [2] by implication, as being the source of the multiverse, courtesy of the fact that said collisions need not be restricted to one instance.
That’s the “how” dealt with. As for “why”, well every time I see a mythology fanboy use the word “why”, this is usually the lead-in to some apologetic fabrications to the effect that a teleology is in place (for which genuine evidence has never been provided), and that said teleology purportedly requires his favourite species of cartoon magic man, for which again no genuine evidence has ever been provided.
So, let’s move on to some of your other hilarious offerings, shall we?
This is implicit in my statement about suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions. Or did your reading comprehension fail you at this point?
WRONG. All I have to do, in accordance with the proper rules of discourse, is sit back and watch mythology fanboys FAIL to support their assertions. And in case you’re unaware of those proper rules of discourse, important pertinent ones are:
[1] Every assertion, when first presented, possesses the status “truth value unknown”;
[2] Every assertion remains in this epistemological limbo, until proper test of the requisite assertions is both devised and conducted;
[3] Every assertion remaining in this epistemological limbo is safely discardable, until the test mentioned above is devised and conducted
Oh, and the reason I don’t have to jump through duplicitous hoops put in front of me by mythology fanboys, is because [1] THEY are the ones required to support their assertions, and [2] suspicion of said assertions does NOT imply asserting the contrary, another of those elementary concepts mythology fanboys fail to understand.
Actually, my position is more sophisticated than that, but I don’t expect a mythology fanboy to understand this.
Quite simply, I recognise the elementary fact that the existence of a god type entity in its most general form is an unanswered question, not least because if a genuine answer has been provided in the past, this answer would now be a part of our body of knowledge. However, I can be certain that the cartoon magic men asserted to exist in pre-scientific mythologies are incompetent candidates for the role, and can be dismissed on that basis, as well as the basis that they are constructed in a manner involving absurdity, contradiction and paradox.
This, of course, does not eliminate any non-mythological candidate for an actual existing god, but mythology fanboys don’t want that, they want a magic man in the sky that shits on people they don’t like.
Oh, and I’ve covered possibilities that mythology fanboys are frequently incapable of even fantasising about. Such as the possibility that the above braneworld collision scenario might permit scientists in the future to launch their own brand new universe experimentally, and by doing so, become the “god” of that universe. But do keep pretending that you’ve thought more about this than I have.
The authors of those scientific papers are laughing at you.
Dealt with that. On what basis does there need to be a “why”, other than to satisfy mythology fanboy wishful thinking?
Once again, there doesn’t need to BE a “why”. There is NO evidence for a teleology, and NO evidence for any entity imposing a teleology.
Bollocks. Variables conforming to a probability distribution and Markov chain processes do NOT support the “fine tuning” myth, which IS a myth. I have two papers in my collection destroying this myth.
You’re nolt anywhere, sunshine. Except floundering in the quicksand of your own fabrications.
Once again, there doesn’t need to BE a “why”. There is NO evidence for a teleology, and NO evidence for any entity imposing a teleology.
And the obvious response to the end of your post is “grow up”.