Sybe,
Please allow me to state my view:
Science comes up with theories. Sometimes those theories are confirmed as fact, at other times they are refuted by science itself. But in the long run. Scientists can be as dogmatic as medieval Christianity in defending views that have become accepted by the orthodox scientific community – the Big Bang is one of them.
You do not need Buddhadhamma to see that space cannot be created. Nor can time.Bot are eternal and infinite. But the Big Bang theorists, supported by their own equations,insist that both were effects of the Big Bang. As I once asked an ‘expert’ online: ‘Well then, where did the Big Bang take place if not in space? ‘ And as an aside: ‘ Into what is the Universe expanding if not into Space?’ But this ‘expert’ could make no distinction between the space within the universe (where the forces generated by the supposed Big Bang give rise, among other things, to the ‘curvature of space’ and, wait for it, the ‘expansion (!!) of space’, both of which may possibly be effects only on the space contained WITHIN the big-bang universe) and the infinite Space beyond. To his mind space was created by the Big Bang. Full stop. Any opposing view is treated with ridicule, ‘unscientific’.
What deserves ridicule is in fact the idea that, when space is already infinite, where will the expansion take place? How can Infinite Space expand? Into what? Where? Or are we to imagine space with different grades of tenuousness, layer upon layer, different ‘densities of space’, space folding onto itself (in the absence of expansion without). Or how absurd can it get?
Common sense, Buddhadhamma and science itself will in time deal a big bang to the Big Bang.