If we wish to draw philosophical conclusions about our own existence, our significance, and the significance of the universe itself, our conclusions should be based on empirical knowledge. A truly open mind means forcing our imaginations to conform to the evidence of reality, and not vice versa, whether or not we like the implications.
I consider string theory to be the leading candidate for a theory of quantum gravity, although that does not mean I think it is likely to be the correct theory. I remain somewhat agnostic on this issue.
Feynman once said, ‘Science is imagination in a straitjacket.’ It is ironic that in the case of quantum mechanics, the people without the straitjackets are generally the nuts.
As I have often said, not understanding something is not evidence for God or human frailty. It is just evidence of not understanding. And it should be an invitation to explore and learn.
To me, what philosophy does best is reflect on knowledge that’s generated in other areas.
Having only indirect evidence is a less than satisfactory way of accepting new realities, but it has a noble tradition in science. Consider atoms.
Of course, supernatural acts are what miracles are all about. They are, after all, precisely those things that circumvent the laws of nature. A god who can create the laws of nature can presumably also circumvent them at will. Although why they would have been circumvented so liberally thousands of years ago, before the invention of modern communication instruments that could have recorded them, and not today, is still something to wonder about.
Metaphysical speculation is independent of the physical validity of the Big Bang itself and is irrelevant to our understanding of it.