For ages religions have served 2 primary functions in human society. To explain things that primitive people could not explain by reason, observation, or understanding. Also to control the masses, through ambiguous future rewards, and eternal punishment for those unwilling to full comply with that control.
By design and by need religion has been confusing and contradictary, and that is no accident. It thrives on limitation. Absolutes are keys to the success of religion. The ONLY way that this can exist is because divinity _____ did it. The only way you will reap rewards is by following this path. If you wish to know about life, the only real answer is in our book, or scrolls, or teachings, etc.
It is the use of ambiguity, unquestioning faith, and the promotion of limited thinking that has been the mainstay of most organized religions for centuries. Let's face it, it is NOT in the best interest of religions to have their followers using their minds to think in open terms and objectively view the world. If they did this, pretty soon the religion would be out of business, and they are ALL in business when you talk about organized religion.
But oddly science does have a parallel and it is disturbing. The way that I see science minded people and rational intelligent atheists also adhering to a nonsense theory that was dis-proven decades ago, and yet has somehow crept back into the scientific community as a sort of pseudo fact. Now it is the subject of much debate and erroneous thinking between Christian and other fundamentalist religious and pseudo-science or soft thinking atheists.
That is the idea of the so called "Big Bang" theory. Utter nonsense! There is a whole industry devoted to this garbage and otherwise intelligent people who support the postulation and the idea as some sort of fact. Many quasi-quantum physicists, and other almost scientists thrive on not only the idea of the big bang, but also this time zero concept. In essence that time and space began at a single point.
Not only is this illogical and improbable, it is an avoidance of the one concept that seems to drive most of the limited thinkers among humanity absolutely nuts! That is the idea of infinity. The idea that there is no start point to time and space. Logically one can easily see that if all of space existed in a singular point then it would still have been surrounded by what in all directions? SPACE! And I wont even dignify the time concept because that is beyond stupid. It is so laughable that it makes me wince to even hear that some of my fellow scientists will on occasion speculate or even postulate this time zero crap. So what was happening before time began? In those moments that the universe was waiting to fill in the space all around it while it incubated in its point of origin? The fact that gases and other matter are moving in an expansive trajectory does not prove nor does it even definitively support a point of origin. It does support the idea that perhaps there is a greater kinetic cosmology than we are aware of, but that is because we are tiny. We think tiny. We see in great limitation, and for all of our imagination, let's face it, we are not that creative when it comes to most of our unsubstantiated speculation about the universe. Inverse planes of existence. Black holes and all sorts of other anomalies which are far more easily studied.
Now my memory is not "photographic" or perfect. I will be the first to admit this, but it is strong. I can recall things quite clearly back to age 2. I have a very high IQ and try to use it as much as possible. I am not bragging either just quantifying what I am about to share. As a scientist and an author my fields of expertise are biological in nature, however I recall having read a very interesting article in national geographic. I want to say it was 1977or 1978 in which the travelling waves and direction of gas and space particulate matter had been measured and remeasured and provided definitive proof that the big bang could not happen as it would have had to have been several bangs and they would be from several areas of the cosmos. In fact for a while anyone continuing to speculate about or support the big bang theory in the scientific community was seen as a raving loon.
News flash. Just because some scientists are now courting this theory once again, their mental status has not changed to those with a mind and a memory. As far as the universe is concerned, why is it so darn hard for folks to grasp the concept of eternity? Always has been. Always will be. And always present in all directions for infinity. Time and space are not just abstract principles, they are measurable affects, even though we are so obsessed with linear time and with the universe that it seems to hurt our tiny brains to conceive that there are 2 truly infinite things in nature.
The universe was not created. Not by God, not by Nor, not by Aliens, not by anything cognitive, and most of all not by some explosion in a fictitious or after a fictitious starting point to time. Any notion to the contrary while certainly imaginative bears no logic, nothing substantive, and is quite frankly arrogant and insulting. WE have limited thinking! That is all that there is to it! And no amount of debating theories that are backward, nonsensical, and irrational is going to change that fact.
If you believe in the Big Bang, or the origin of time, you likely do not have the mental capacity to push beyond your comfort zone and see the plain easily assessed truth. Infinity applies to time and space in all directions. There ARE some things without a beginning or an end, and no amount of your need to give everything a start and end point is going to make that any more true.
It is extremely possible. I may be too narrow minded in my own conviction. Or it could be that in stating a disdain for absolutes by using absolutes and exclusionary statements that it creates a bigger friction and pulls in more contributors to challenge the flawed reasoning of the person making the statement (in this case me). After all it is rather like stating>
"I have no tolerance for intolerant people!"
;o) Thanks Neal! Great point and observation.
Outstanding points! You are correct. The refutation of "utter nonsense", and various other conjectural expressions of disagreement are not convincing or strong posts and are based on opinion and old scientific data.
I would ask you to study some of my recent responses however before discounting the logic behind the premise of my stance.
I will have a look at the links. Thank you very much for posting them and for your observations. Very well stated and rational.