how does what follow?
I am simply going off what I was taught in school. Two particles smashed together and created everything. Since there was nothing before the bang, they were two particles of nothing.
Well that's terrible. If you were led to believe that (two particles smashed together), you were done a grave disservice by your science instructors.
Yikes.
The very beginning, what actually happened, down to the greatest detail, is still unknown. It is known there was at least a beginning, or at least one beginning (if it happens repeatedly, or has only happened once in this universe... hasn't been determined - strong theories are out there for both).
The shape of the early universe and spread of matter (including the theorized spread of "dark matter" in a similar but different way, more "clumpy", yes that's a technical description
😛) which helped gravity establish the early protogalaxies and gas blobs that led to the "first round" of supermassive stars that, in their race to burn through all of their fuel (the larger the star, the faster it burns through available fuel and thus it is a star for far less time than smaller stars), ended up also, through nuclear fusion on an impressive scale hardly imaginable, created much of/the entirety of the periodic table of elements.
Most stars today can only produce helium - some of the larger ones will go on to produce the first 8 elements on the table (up to Oxygen, that is) during their end of life stages. Available Hydrogen becomes too low to sustain fusion, but there's enough mass above to start early H-He and He-He fusion. IIRC, that's when a star is hitting the last phases (ours might not even get this far), like Red Giant and then White Dwarf.
The supermassive stars, none of which are around any longer (the largest star today should pale in comparison to the first stars - though, physically, they shouldn't be dwarfed in the same way our Sun is dwarfed by the largest star seen today), were basically the initial feeder stars, that, in their supermassive supernovae, seeded the early cosmos with the majority, or all, of the elements we have today. Some massive stars continued to be able to produce the heavier elements as time wound on, but generally, the expansion began to limit the potential size of stars as the spread of H and He (mostly H) prevented massive, single clumps from forming and condensing.
It's theorized that the first supermassive clumps (and stars) came quite a bit before the first galaxies. It's highly likely that the supermassive black holes at the center of almost every galaxy, is the collapsed remnants of the first supermassive stars that seeded the cosmos. Heck, much of initial material probably created the galaxies that formed around the dead stars/black holes.
Of course, gas clouds were still out there that hadn't condensed, and they got pulled into the protogalaxies. And of course, there are either free-floating galaxy remnants (galaxies colliding and perhaps multi-directional gravity tugging tore apart a few - it's possible), or there were gas clouds that managed to condense into stars and either brown dwarfs (failed stars) or gas giant planets outside of any galaxy that have been discovered in recent years.
The point, however, is everything we know and have is not a direct result of the "big bang" itself (it wasn't from nothing to everything, in other words). Many stages of evolution in the cosmos itself, the shape of the universe and interaction of first gas clouds and initial physics, had to then work with the initial slate and, through fusion and gravity, create what we see.
What happened right before, and during, we can't see. The early moments (hundreds of thousands of years) were such a visual mess and everything was still sort of a soupy mess of raw energy spreading rapidly. Our evidence really doesn't start until a couple hundred thousand years, if not a million or more years after T-0 (that being the exact moment of "the big bang").
Much of what is currently theorized is that, particles didn't even exist during that "soupy energy" period (super "hot", no complete atoms, etc), and most of the physical constants ("laws") were still not finalized. One link I just quickly pulled up for reference, says it wasn't until roughly 3 minutes after T-0 that primordial protons and neutrons began to condense into atomic particles, mostly Helium.
At the very beginning, right before it happened, one might say it was simply the generation of the first physical rule. The universe may have simply been a cloud of pure energy, or perhaps a mess of primordial atomic components without any physical rules like mass, gravity, radiation, etc. Something happened, and then the rest is relatively well understood.
I don't really get the argument anyway. What, do people want to disprove the big bang happened? Well, good luck on that one - the evidence that can be collected, and the experiments that can be conducted, all produce results that line up with the basic notion of the big bang and early cosmos. Again, some of the details, like what came before, if it was a collapsed galaxy or this is the first time, and whether this universe is within another universe... those still are more up in the air. That what we see today is a product of a beginning without much order or structure, is basically fully demonstrated and accepted.
If you want to have your cake and eat it to, you basically have to accept that there is a multiverse, and that our universe is within another universe. I say that, because, as it is now, any Deities out there cannot be a product of our Universe, not if they were/are responsible for the creation of our universe.
So if there are any Gods, I'd say it's pretty much concluded that said being(s) is/are a natural being from another universe. Maybe there are gates between universes, or with the knowledge/ability you can simply melt between them... I don't know, and these ideas (multiverse), are some of the youngest/newest theories. There is much science and math that lines up, but I think definitive answers are some time away. Practical application of any of this knowledge, probably thousands of years away.
🙁
note: I cannot guarantee something I've said is either grossly inaccurate, long dismissed and/or replaced with new information or theories, or so terribly summed up and simplified that I butchered the message entirely.
Some of this is remembered from previous education on the subject, and much is from quickly reading (the parts I can make sense of) journal articles, research results, or other scientific media/publications. I'm intensely interested in astronomy, but obviously I'm no astrophysicist, nor do I have the mathematical education relating to these studies.
