Ooou I love 'Starts with a Bang' and all those other SB blogs.
I think you are over-extrapolating. This is a good example why science 'facts' like the Big Bang are subject to change as more evidence is collected. I don't know which of the two theories will end up being the accepted one. I'm happy to have more than one theory. When the static universe theory was discarded, the evidence was overwhelming. Here it isn't so clear and I don't know about 40 years out of date, but unless you are an astrophysicist, you should be content waiting for them to sort it out.
As for explaining why there is a limit to knowledge, that's not what the article is talking about. They are saying we cannot see what happened before space-time started, the same way we can't see outside the Universe. Essentially what is being said is there is no way to observe those things.
You might want to note that you substituted "knowledge" when only specific knowledge was actually said. It's an example of misreading or misstating what was said.
Yes, what is "beyond" time and space is unknown. Either for "nothing" or a "multiverse" or any other version, yet it is science in exactly the same sense as all other science.
The joke is that is not science as say the observation of cheating among group-living birds.
And the problem of all those claims "beyond" time and space, is that only one is non-false as the rest are false as contradictions, yet there are no way of knowing, which is true, because they are all based reason and logic. All the claims are reasonable, so that is not enough.
It ends with Kant and "das Ding an sich".
Or if you like:
... In everyday life, practically everyone is skeptical about some knowledge claims; but philosophical skeptics have doubted the possibility of any knowledge beyond that of the contents of directly felt experience. ...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/skepticism#ref560239
I doubt any claim, which has no direct experience.
All these theories only have reasonable inferences about "beyond" time and space and have no observable effect "beyond" time and space.
All claims of metaphysics are not based on observation, but reason and logic. Kant was a lot of things, but he was also a skeptic of sorts when it came to metaphysics.
All these theories are a form of metaphysics, because they go beyond the observable(physics) and use reason and logic.
There is a reason for the fact, that we have phenomenology. In practice all claims of metaphysics are first person of accounts of how to make sense of the universe and can have an effect on how other humans are treated.
You can observe that not just in this forum.
A link:
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_inflation.html
End of article:
Linde's work, and that of fellow Russian Alex Vilenkin, has also given rise to the idea of "eternal inflation", where the inflation as a whole actually never stops, but small localized energy discharges within the overall energy field - almost like sparks of static electricity, but on on a cosmic scale - create small points of matter in the form of tiny particles. Such a process may represent the birth of a new universe, such as our own. Beginning in this way with what we have called a Big Bang, this new universe then itself proceeds to expand, although at a much slower rate than the continuing inflation outside of it. The rest of space outside of that universe is still full of undischarged energy, still expanding at enormous speed, and new universes, new Big Bangs, are occurring all the time.
The theory of cosmic inflation, then, supports the scenario in which our universe is just one among many parallel universes in a multiverse. As we will see in later sections, some corroborating evidence for such a scenario also arises from work on dark energy, on superstring theory and on quantum theory. However, the idea of a hypothetical multiverse, which we can never see or prove, is anathema to many physicists, and many critics still remain.
In practice all claims of metaphysics work in the first person sense, but none are based on observation. They are all cases of first person cognition.
Now for me methodological naturalism makes sense, but I can also observe that other humans do it differently.
In practice there are 4 kinds of knowledge:
No knowledge - metaphysics, always reason and logic about that which is independent of reason and logic.
Physical knowledge - observation, objective as independent of the observer.
Rational knowledge - reason and logic, objective as abstract cognition.
Ethical and practical knowledge - how someone evaluates worth and so on, subjective as dependent on feelings and emotions.
There are some combinations possible, but no system is based on reason, logic and evidence alone.
For you:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.[
There is a variation in human behavior(fact), therefore we ought to use statical analysis. You simply think, it is better.
That is the core of your claim, but you have given no observations to make up your conclusion.
I.e. you have hit the is-ought problem. The solution is to state your beliefs about morality and leave evidence out of it, because it is a fact that there is a variation in human behavior.
Yeah, it is old. So are the 3 classical laws of logic. But they still apply.
It works both ways. 
