THERE IS NO "ONE" IN THE UNIVERSE.
"ONE" - an absolute one, irreducible and indivisible, aka a singularity. This cannot exist in the universe. Lets examine the most primal example - the Big Bang. Assume this as the first entity in the universe - the term atom can be impractical here because this may infer a nucleus and electrons, which violates the technicality of an absolute ONE; thus entity instead.
Q: Can an action occur here? E.g. an 'EXPANSION" or a "BANG"?
A: Negative. There is nothing to interact with - not by an internal or external impact. At this phase, there is only the one entity existing - no space, no time, no environment, light, energy, forces, etc, etc. Otherwise, the term BEGINNING cannot apply to the BBT. Now, the universe could not have emerged - the Bang could not have occured by an internal impact: there are no devisible components in the first entity [else it would not be the first]; the same applies for an external impact. Thus there could not have been any bang, nor any expansion or contraction with ONE. No action could occur here - the first entity would remain just that forever. No rust could occur because there is again nothing to interact with to cause decay.
Of course, this is based on a 'FINITE' universe, an absolutely finite kind [how many kinds are there?]. This says everything in the universe never existed at one time, and that everything evolved from one another. Of course, to raise the temps, I got this from a theological writings, namely Genesis, the first recording of the universe being finite [there was a BEGINNING - opening verse], and a deceptively simple entry therein: "MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM". The latter entry, IMHO, has no alternative:
Analogy: if a red marble came from a green marble, then the green marble also had to contain some red. How else? So, if an offspring can be male or female - then the original life form host also had to contain both male and female - the first life had to be a dual-gendered entity! How else, male Adam discovers an exacting female Eve roaming around in the exacting same space-time!? By extension, all things, even inanimate stuff, stones, pineapples, stars and hydrogen, also had to have originated as a duality - not a singularity.
Consider: All actions are based on an interaction; and all interactions must have a minimum duality factor, be this positive/negative; male/female; hot/cold; etc.
If this is agreed upon, it raises fundamental negations of a host of accepted premises of how the universe emerged. If all interactions are based on this duality factor, as opposed a singularity of ONE, it affirms extending paradigms:
1. An interaction cannot be random: both entties have to recognise each other; that the interaction has beneficial potentials and that there is a receptivity facility for the interaction to occur. Multiple, specific programs are applicable for both parts.
2. Recognising refers to a pre-directed program of both parts of the interaction - more so than not so. At least, a program of complexity having a programmer, is not an unscientific premise; one can opt for another scenario, but this does not render a negative to the program/programmer premise. The substantive complexity at issue does not give much credibility to randomity even with the large time factor: the complexity began at the initiation, graduating as time progressed. Nor can we say the laws of science pre-dated the universe - it violates the finite factor.
3. We know that interactions do not always occur and are subject to given results only: H2+O =water; N2+O does not result in water. Again, this indicators specificity, the antithesis of random.
CONCLUSION: There is no scientific alternative to Creationism; based on a finite universe; and there is no other kind than the finite kind. The MV and parallel universe scenarios do not change this premise - it only pushes the goal post further on.
It takes two to tango applies.
