Albert Einstein did not like The Big Bang Theory because, if true, it meant that the physical universe was not eternal, and probably not infinite either. He realized that this scientific discovery would lead to a plethora of philosophical and theological implications.
Since Newton's Laws were still in effect, Einstein realized that, if the physical universe was not eternal, then you could no longer postulate an infinite series of regression of cause and effect to explain its existence. Ergo, something or someone, even as detached and disinterested as Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, was necessary to kick start the entire affair.
If the physical universe is 13.8 billion years old (more or less) then what was there 13.9 billion years ago? And how could nothing produce something out of nothingness?
To put the question into more philosophical terms: That which is, is. That which is not, is not. How can existence spring forth from non-existence?
In addition, science tells us that the physical universe is expanding. But expanding into what? Expanding into the void? To infinity and beyond?
Plus, if the physical universe came into existence purely by chance, and its continuing existence is governed strictly by chaos, then there is no logical reason for universal absolutes or physical constants to exist. But science tells us that both absolutes and constants do exist. Or is science wrong?
And lastly, science tells us that the physical universe contains both dark energy and dark matter. The term dark is used because, while it is detectable, it is not measurable by any standard units of weights or measures. This energy and matter is otherwise unknown and unknowable. So then, this fact tells us that there is a limit as to what science can tell us; just as there are also absolutes and constants. Ergo, atheism is illogical.
Or as Albert Einstein is alleged to have said: Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.
