The Big Bang and the visible past.

I'll say it again so that it's clear:We do not restrict ourselves from not exploring "before" the Big Bang. We are restricted from exploring "before" the Big Bang by definition of what it is.And, also the fact that there was no "before" the Big Bang; there is no way to extrapolate data beyond the apparent singularity because no such data exists to use. As somebody earlier mentioned, people do try it. But they recognise that it is just speculation with little or no basis in reality.It is not an atheist failing any more than it is a Christian or Buddhist or Daoist failing. Religion has nothing to do with it. It is a simple fact of our universe. No. Anyone with an "open mind" would acknowledge that there is simply no way for us to currently do it, because of the universe we exist in and the very nature of the phenomenon itself that we are trying to study.But if your outside-the-box intelligence has figured a way of getting around this blockage, we would very much like to know what it is. After all, science is about learning new things and sharing them with everyone. Not pretending you have something and snobbing anybody who can't find it on their own.

Actually, no, thermodynamics does shake that position along with the rest of physics.
This is a property of our universe. Time has been finite; there's not much ability to change that outside rewriting the (science-y) definition of time. Because our mathematical extrapolation models converge to one. 1. It DID NOT explode!
2. It very well could have been unstable; no evidence is available to suggest either way. Because the transfer from instability to stability often requires passing through an even more unstable phase. That metastability -- even though it is not a global stable point, it is a local stable point -- means that not everything goes immediately to the point of maximum stability. We can't. Why? Because we know the universe is dynamic. We know it is metastable. It's actually a 46 billion lightyear horizon (give or take); inflation happened since then and all that stuff.
Second, we don't know. It's entirely possible that space keeps going "exactly the same" forever in every direction; this is certainly supported by the apparent lack of an universal gravitational centre.
Third, whether it's a new universe or the same one depends on a couple of things like your own semantic ideas and whether our universe is truly a closed system (which would mean nothing can leave and thereby making it impossible to "stumble upon" another one) and other things like that.
Fourth, "another universe" is not simply another cluster of galaxies. The two are two separate objects and ideas, not necessarily mutually inclusive. Natural philosophy does; you know, the whole basis of science?You're asking questions that a decent basic background knowledge can provide a good answer to. And making a couple of statements that just aren't correct at all.Care to try serious discussion instead of setting up apologeticist targets?

There's no evidence that it was "created", only formed.
There's no evidence -- quite the opposite -- that it is or will be immortal. E = mc² states that mass is energy, not that it possesses energy.
Matter can indeed be exactly static. I think there's a rather large nonzero probablity that at least one particle in the universe is static at any point in time. Links or quotes please. I have yet to see any religious text discuss the concept of inertia, nor was it ever mentioned in my science history lessons. Because something is not scientific simply for accepting a scientific conclusion. Because that's not evidenced at all by anything. You state as fact something which is inherently unknowable as such. No, not everything explained by a Big Bang can be explained by a cyclic universe.
Second, neither is considered more scientific than the other. But invoking cyclic universe involves more entites than a single one. Because there wasn't a bang at all. That means you basically believe in something that is impossible. Because simply believing something after the fact is not enough to make something scientific.
Christians, Sikhs, pagans all accept science. That doesn't make them scientific either. Because there's evidence of the phenomenon we call the Big Bang.Rather a complete failure, I think.Edited by Nij, : Fix coding.