The Big Bang cosmological model is in trouble, but its adherents, reluctant to abandon the theory, are busily attempting to shore it up. – “All Effect and No Cause”: Colliding Branes, Bouncing Universes, Promiscuous Singularities, and Fashionable Nothings — Five Versions of How It All Began.
I'm a much too simple man. I figured out long ago that this day was coming. See, even before that, the young fool in me thought of the question, 'Well if you think the answer is simply that God created the universe, who created God?'
As I got older and a little bit wiser, the words recorded by a shepherd who claimed to have spoken with God had rattled around in my little head long enough.
It occurred to me that there was a simple way to align current axiomatic cosmological physics to Judeo-Christian theology, and it also answered the question of which that juvenile thought was only a quip.
The axiomatic portion was that it all started with a big bang. That would be the beginning of recorded time if records could have been kept.
But just like that juvenile quipster who asked who created God, these great minds are troubled that time could actually have a beginning, even though they'd never be satisfied with the answer. (Sounds like rent-seeking cosmologists if you ask me, but who would bother asking, and what do I really know of what sort of character would hide out in the sciences?)
Anyway, just for the record, here is how what Moses told us fits the Big Bang.
Moses recorded that God told him His name was I Am.
"I Am that I am."That is He Is, but in the first person singular.
Now this is at that time in history, right? And -- well I'm talking to the non-religious to anti-religious now -- it's all come out of the mind of a poor goat herder; right? Nothing really of significance could possibly be there, right?
YET? Yet that goat herder seems to have arrived at the same place so many brainy scientists have taken (you should forgive the phrase) as gospel for the last 50 years or so. How's that? Here's how.
Recognize that the infinitive of is is to be.
For those who insist on a single word to be a name, let's choose the French Etre.
- Theologically we have God on one hand, where Etre has yet to complete and implement His plan.
- On the other hand we have, in cosmological physics, The Great Potential to be the Universe.
- Theologically, Etre would ponder a move from the infinite infinitive.
- Cosmologically, the Universe, it says nothing.
- Etre's ponders are essentially splitting the infinitive into the interrogative:
- OTOH: The Universe -- it says nothing.
- Etre stops pondering, and converts the interrogative into the imperative:
- The Universe -- it bangs biggly.
Universe: It Is.
Let's face it folks. The big bang was in trouble with the secular anti-theists from the very beginning. But it was propounded in the day when Statism was hardly a word ever spoken or understood, let alone about to burst upon the scene openly.
Since the philosophical environment in which the Big Bang theory was introduced is no longer the case, well – the Big Bang just has to go. QED
Someone once avered: Liberty will be lost not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Thanks to a comment from the above link's author, Mike Gray, I have an ***Update*** after the break.
The author of your link, Don Batten, goes much deeper than needed for anyone who isn’t avoiding seeing evidence of the divine. I tried to keep it simple for a reason.
How is it possible for an insignificant shepherd to have stumbled upon such a powerful answer without some help? I don't see it as likely that he could choose a name for God that is so tied to the infinitive for existence itself. Looking back it may seem easy. But think of all the progress since that time that grew from the notion of Him and the study of His physics? With a Creator there might be a pattern to learn from. How much harder is that task if an inquisitive mind lacks the CONCEPT that the universe has an architect?
With the “Progressives” so worried about sustainability, it has become their goal to abandon the concept of God. To them it is a paramount moral calling: ‘We have no concrete proof of God. Therefore we cannot be sure that God is there to provide (as written in Genesis 22:8) so that we don't have to sacrifice child-bearing. Hence we must limit human growth, and that requires eliminating the notion that human life is sacred and the moral code associated with it.’ Ergo any scientific theories that coincided in any way with the concept of a Creator needs to be eliminated.
The concept of God needs to be eliminated so that the myth of an infinite CYCLE (common in ancient pagan theologies) can replace it as the religion of a secular, all powerful, global state.
It’s a huge moral difference that underpins this battle. Those who value the traditional morals of the West better comprehend this paradigm shift or they will lose. Maybe even divine intervention won’t stop that loss, because once we abandon moral protections for innocent individuals (in favor of utilitarian morals) we won’t be worthy of His protection.