Or C) the answer is something you or I are completely unaware of. I think it would be a mistake to limit the possibilities of the physical world to what you currently know of it.
The problem with that answer is, it offers nothing but imaginative speculation. AND, A) it denies that, what came into existence has characteristics that reveal their necessity for an intelligent Cause and B) the fact that non-intelligent things cannot produce physical things where none previously existed, and C) nor could they create things of astonishing complexity and functionality that are so precisely interactive that some Intelligence clearly has set into motion how they are to function, both individually and comprehensively, with each other. The parameters of ANY first Cause - at least that could have produced the Big Bang - MUST be D) immensely intelligent, E) supremely powerful, and F) eternal - because only a Source with such attributes could have produced the results and things that had and have the attributes these many wonders instantly contained and continue to. And so the ONLY characteristics that could have collectively produced the Big Bang and what instantly emerged within moments of it beginning must combine the attributes of D, E and F.
So, one can speculate all day long about the identity of the Cause of the universe, but they cannot rationally get around the characteristics which that causative Source MUST contain, in order to be able to produce what appeared. That's just logic 101. Yes, we can speculate - but we need to do so logically - or else it's just irrelevant speculation that gives us no reason to actually believe it, OTHER THAN, because one WANTS to believe it. I can speculate that it's possible to win the lottery a million times in a row - but it won't be LOGICAL specuation.
Oxford University Professor of Mathematics John Lennox' quoting of renowned Oxford University mathematical physicist Roger Penrose:
“Try to imagine phase space… of the entire universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’ — which is to be placed at some point in phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy — so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics — the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?”
Lennox goes on to cite Penrose’s answer:
“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros
As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job
For what Ken asserts to be possible, much less true
, he'd have to be able to believe in an uncaused universe that would be possible of approaching this statistically impossible number noted by Penrose! But let's not let Ken's unreasonable logic in what might be possible stop him. Because once a person' is prepared to embrace the absurd and illogical - well, NO well-reasoned logic or statistical improbability will ever deter one so determined to believe otherwise!