from the glacier

Modern science cannot escape the problem of causality in the creation of the universe. There are three possible solutions to the "origin" of the universe commonly proposed. First, the universe goes back to a certain point in time, and that is the beginning (the big bang et al.). Second, the universe had no beginning (either the infinite regress, or the cyclical universe). Thirdly, there is the "strange loop" where the latter determines the former, but the former causes the latter (a quantum cosmology). There are severe difficulties with all three.

Ad primum: Red shift is pretty well studied and documented. While there is disagreement as to what Hubble's constant should be, this school of thought usually says that about fifteen to twenty billion years ago BANG the universe started. What caused the bang? This would be outside of science. Some propose the theory of "bootstrapping" - that is, because of quantum fluctuations there is a probability of something springing out of nothing and starting the whole thing going. (aside - Poincare actually worked out the numbers. The odds, though, have way too many zeros for me to write out.) But even the bootstrapping argument has the difficulty as to why the universe came to be with the laws, regularities and so forth that it has. This cause also lies outside of the science.

Ad secundum: Human knowledge [of physics-] is thus unattainable if there is not any beginning. All further questioning of nature resolves into this infinite regress, and the understanding of the "initial conditions" is thrown out. Even if it were somehow proved that the universe extended infinitely in time backwards and had no beginning, there would still be the problem of why the laws and regularities are the way they are. These can be explained in a way by the first hypothesis, but that, as said, has its own problems.

Ad tertium: Again, the strange loop has the same problems as the infinite regress: why is the universe ordered how it is ordered? How does it come to be that there is suitable conditions for stars, planets, and, finally, life? These questions (of order, which science is based on) cannot be answered by the strange loop.

What are we to do? Invent a deus ex machina to save ourselves? Have the clockmaker god wind up the world? Perhaps we say "fuck it - life is absurd anyway". Maybe we move to Arkansas and say "physics don't exist - it ain't in Genesis". Maybe we follow some scientists into "superstring theory" and try to find a theory that mathematically unites all four forces, explaining them all simply and elegantly [while ignoring, in the pit of our stomachs, the unease at not being able to explain why that should be the way it is. . .]. Drink heavily?

Or perhaps

just perhaps

we rediscover metaphysics. . .