The Big Bang theory is equivalent to the belief in an omnipotent God.

Originally posted by Astyanax
We're not concerning ourselves with whether any of this matters – at least, most of us are not, and I don't think the OP is either.

It would be nice to see if the OP has any interest in what I have written.

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by Greylorn

 

There's a lot of very responsible work being done by good scientists that agree with what you're suggesting here. Personally, I see the Big Bang and the creator God as being two versions of the same theory. Good thoughts here. It'll take a while for any real progress to be made on this front, but both versions are being challenged in ways that would not have been possible only a handful of years ago.

I'm delighted to learn this. Thank you! I'd like to speed up the progress enough to see it on its way before my demise. Could you direct me to a few appropriate sources of information about the work you referenced?

I'd request this via a PM except that there seem to be others on this thread with a potential interest.

Originally posted by bloodreviara
I take issue with the title of your thread, the big bang theory is stated
as having a possibility of being incorrect, religion claims that it is correct
and tells its followers that if they believe anything else they will be
punished for all eternity, religion brain washes people, science gives
them a choice to think for themselves but it cannot guarantee it will always
be correct, but guess what when they learn how to correct the things
that are incorrect they do so.

Religion would love science to be considered equal, yet i do not see
any breakthroughs from religion, you know like buildings, computers,
cars, medical science, vaccines, water purification, increasing crop
yield, i could list a few hundred thousand, but hey you could be right
too, prayer has brought us hope, and um hope, and er hope......

I just love how one can literally change everything about our lives on
this planet and the other has been the same our entire lifetimes and
our parents and theirs and on and on, yet science is the failure here......

Right. Why is it that science MUST have the correct answer when you
demand it or its just worthless? it takes time to actually answer a question,
i know its quick to say god did it but that doesn't answer anything at all.
Last i checked god did it didn't build my car, or my house, or give me
electricity.....

I invite you to peruse the OP once again and consider it from a different perspective. It is not about religion, except that the God concept is kind of the super-massive black hole that various religions revolve around, like stars in a galaxy. The OP is about one belief that came out of scientific discovery, the Big Bang, vs. another belief that came from religion. In both cases, the beliefs were invented by intelligent men operating within their particular paradigms, with the same intention of explaining the beginnings.

I'm merely pointing out similarities between beliefs/theories that most people regard as entirely different, with a view to getting a few thoughtful people ready to consider a better theory.

I love science--- well, real science anyway. I've contributed to it back in an earlier time. Working from within I've seen many of its realities and flaws. Professors and priests may have a different knowledge base, but they share a common personality type.

Your point about religion brain-washing people and science giving them the ability to think for themselves deserves a comment. I was a brainwashed Catholic altar boy, and had no particular difficulty thinking for myself. Einstein was raised a Jew, believed in a God, and studied Madam Blavatsky's writings-- this did not seem to attenuate his intelligence.

Now look around the U.S. at the people who were not brainwashed by religion, instead raised in a secular environment with the ability to think for themselves. Could they be the ones who finance the trade in drugs and booze, and who cannot find jobs or hold the occasional jobs they get? Could they be the creators of fatherless welfare families? Could their malaise possibly have come about because they have no more sense of purpose than the family cat?

Half the population has an IQ lower than 100. None of them will be posting their thoughts here. The freedom to think for oneself is best exercised by those capable of independent thought.

Originally posted by Greylorn
Half the population has an IQ lower than 100. None of them will be posting their thoughts here. The freedom to think for oneself is best exercised by those capable of independent thought.

However - I assume you still agree that all man are created equal?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Astyanax

 

The only valid idea of God one can hold and argue, is what the idea of a God at its most basic means. An intelligent creator. Nothing more, nothing less (though a slew of discussion may be warranted discussing what it means to be intelligent, and what it means to create).

IMO this definition is too broad. As you pointed out yourself later in this post, it allows man to regard himself as a god.

The modern omnipotent God is employed as an entity who created the entire universe, so perhaps to avoid confusion we could use the term Creator.

Then, the word "intelligent" seems to have acquired an overly broad range of meanings. There are people who believe that their dog and cat are intelligent. The same people might not regard a cretin as intelligent, despite his having a higher measurable IQ than dogs and cats. (Go figure.) I often encounter nitwits who think that their smart phone is intelligent. The word, "intelligent," is insufficiently precise.

Perhaps we should be discussing a "conscious Creator?"

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
reply to post by EasyPleaseMe

 

There is the simulation hypothesis and other "out there" theories like multiverses/string theory, etc. It's sort of what I was hinting at with my post about how Atheists are so opposed to the idea of God that they attempt to dream up equally ridiculous theories to explain the origins of the universe. The "anything but God" attitude. It's like they are so desperate to adhere to what almost seems to be a personal vendetta , that they have even gone so far as to claim the universe is a simulation (which indicates it had a creator) but whoever created that simulation cannot be "God". Why can't it? Why is the idea of God being the source of the big bang so ridiculous, but our entire reality, every emotion ever felt by every person through out the history of mankind being part of a massive simulation on a universal scale, somehow not ridiculous?

This is why I find agnosticism far more palatable. At least it's intellectually honest.

edit on 16-8-2013 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

Your comments are right on. We need you on the Dr. Caca shows, tearing the "simulation" proponents a new mental sphincter.

Originally posted by ForteanOrg

Originally posted by Greylorn
[...] creation by an omnipotent God is no different from creation via a Big Bang. Omitted from each concept is the cause. What caused an entity that has always existed to change its status?

Gnostics have struggled with that question too. They see our Universe, planet and species as created by a lower god. The universe should not exist at all, it is superfluous.

Viewing the character of the deity of Genesis with a sober, critical eye, the Gnostics concluded that this God was neither good nor wise. He was envious, genocidal, unjust, and, moreover, had created a world full of bizarre and unpleasant things and conditions. In their visionary explorations of secret mysteries, the Gnostics felt that they had discovered that this deity was not the only God, as had been claimed, and that certainly there was a God above him.

This true God above was the real father of humanity, and, moreover, there was a true mother as well, Sophia, the emanation of the true God. Somewhere in the course of the lengthy process of pre-creational manifestation, Sophia mistakenly gave life to a spiritual being, whose wisdom was greatly exceeded by his size and power. This being, whose true names are Yaldabaoth (child of the chaos), Samael (blind god), and also Saclas (foolish one), then proceeded to create a world, and eventually also a human being called Adam. Neither the world nor the man thus created was very serviceable as created, so Sophia and other high spiritual agencies contributed their light and power to them. The creator thus came to deserve the name "demiurge" (half maker), a Greek term employed in a slightly different sense by philosophers, including Plato.

To what extent various Gnostics took these mythologies literally is difficult to discern. What is certain is that behind the myths there are important metaphysical postulates which have not lost their relevance. The personal creator who appears in Genesis does not possess the characteristics of the ultimate, transcendental "ground of being" of which mystics of many religions speak. If the God of Genesis has any reality at all, it must be a severely limited reality, one characterized by at least some measure of foolishness and blindness. While the concept of two Gods is horrifying to the monotheistically conditioned mind, it is not illogical or improbable. Modem theologians, particularly Paul Tillich, have boldly referred to "the God above God." Tillich introduced the term "ground of being" as alternative language to express the divine. The ideas of the old Gnostics seem not so outdated after all.

So, according to the Gnostics, Sophia created the creator - by accident. An our Universe was created by him. And then improved by the real God.

Now, of course, we're back to business: who then, in the name of god, God, Sophia or mephistopheles created Sophia.. ah, the God above god did. But then, oh my, oh my, who or what created the God above god?

In the end but one thing is certain: I am. All other things are uncertain. We can fool ourselves that we have found answers, but then immediately discover new questions to be answered. The more we learn, the more we know we have no real use for this technical, low-level knowledge. It's the knowledge of the lower god, the blind god.

We will never know. Which does not say we are not going to die trying, of course.

edit on 16-8-2013 by ForteanOrg because: (no reason given)

Who better to analyze and summarize Gnostic theories than a student of Charles Fort? Previous incarnations as a Gnostic would have uniquely prepared him to explain cascades of frogs. You'd have made him proud.

Originally posted by Em2013
I think the most important question we must ask is that who in the world has a last name "Caca"? Like, why in the world? I feel bad for the Caca family. It must really stink to have that name.

You got it! Finally, someone with a sense of humor. No need to worry about the Caca family. They've patented the scent and it has become almost mandatory for people behind the scenes of TV documentary productions.

Originally posted by cosmicexplorer
reply to post by Greylorn

 

Science goes like this.....observation, hypothesis, theory, law. The Big Bang Theory is a theory...they aren't quite sure but evidence leads them to think that.

You are describing conventional science as conducted by trained researchers, leaving out the often out-of-the-blue and purely inductive thought methods employed by exceptional thinkers, (Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Planck, and of course, Big Al)

You are also omitting what is perhaps the most important component of a scientific theory-- its predictive value. Not only were Big Al's theoretical insights brilliant, but look at their predictive value. No one would have thought to perform a mid-solar eclipse experiment to verify that light is bent by gravity without his prediction. Had the first fission bomb been a dud, you'd not know Einstein's name.

Big Bang theory has not predicted squat.

While at first the WMAP results were hailed as a triumphant validation of the theory, the theory had predicted a uniform radiation field. The spottiness and obvious anomalies in the observed data are explained by a variety of inconsistent, often hand-waving kludges.

Had Big Bang theory predicted something really interesting and important, such as dark energy and dark matter, I would be compelled to accept it. However, BB theory has not even provided an after-fact explanation. Therefore, IMO, it pretty much sucks.

Originally posted by cosmicexplorer
In religion it goes right to law skipping the first 3 critical elements often having no evidence what so ever and told to just have "faith".

Not so fast, there. Even a casual student of the paranormal knows that one out of 30 individuals report having had an OOB (out of body) experience, often of a life-changing nature. Some of these occur under extreme duress-- torture, battlefield wounds, or failed anesthetic. Others occur spontaneously, seemingly for no reason at all.

Because I am open to such information, many friends and even acquaintances have shared such experiences with me, often requesting that I keep it to myself, for fear of ridicule from others. From this, I'm inclined to double the real incidence of OOBs.

Even if the experimentally determined 1 in 30 estimate is correct, it provides an excellent base of empirical evidence, plenty enough to have demanded answers. From such evidence the soul-concept can have naturally and easily arisen by way of explanation. From those who dared to wonder about the origin of the soul, various concepts have been invented. The Buddha's original theory is the oldest. The omnipotent-God theory more recent and more popular.

My point here is that these theories were devised as thoughtful explanations to broadly-experienced empirical information.

Then ask yourself if you are well qualified to object to humans having faith in the ideas of others. Have you ever peered through a telescope, night after cold and lonely night, measuring redshifts? How many variations on the double-slit experiment have you performed and analyzed?

These questions are not insults. I've been studying various aspects of hard science for a half century, and know how much fun it is to peer at stars, planets, and star clusters in an observatory dome with a fan blowing 0-degree air from the outside in. Yep, the objects I found were exactly where the charts said they'd be, and looked just like the pictures. While photos and numerical data did not reproduce the interesting little chill that went down my spine amid my first real observation, they matched what I saw.

So I have faith in hard-won, hard science, as do you. Should we disparage the legitimacy of faith, as a natural and essential property shared by productive members of a complex society, simply because some people have faith in different beliefs?

Originally posted by cosmicexplorer
I dont know if God or god or whatever exists...i just dont know...logically i think its possible. But I certainly don't believe in any book that was found here on this planet.

Nor do I. If there is a Creator, why not look to his creations as a measure of intent and purpose? The physical universe is the only Bible certain to have been written by any Creator. IMO physics is a lot easier to learn than ancient Hebrew.

Originally posted by ForteanOrg
However - I assume you still agree that all man are created equal?

Do you mean that all people literally have the same potential, or that all people should have the same basic rights and should be subject to the same laws?

reply to post by Greylorn

I invite you to peruse the OP once again and consider it from a different perspective. It is not about religion, except that the God concept is kind of the super-massive black hole that various religions revolve around, like stars in a galaxy. The OP is about one belief that came out of scientific discovery, the Big Bang, vs. another belief that came from religion.

I'm merely pointing out similarities between beliefs/theories that most people regard as entirely different, with a view to getting a few thoughtful people ready to consider a better theory.

I think the similar form of such theories – I prefer to call them hypotheses or postulates – is easily explained. We are evolved organisms, and that goes for our brains as well as every other part of us. Our brains and the organs of our senses have evolved for the purpose of taking in and interpreting, in ways useful to us, information about our environment. Like any other computer – and its peripherals – the brain and the senses are constructed in a particular way and, it is safe to conjecture, operate in a particular way as well. We interpret the world using processes and parameters that are innate. We interpret it the way our minds have evolved to interpret it: via our native operating systems.

Data that does not compute within these parameters – this framework – is very hard for us to deal with. Hence our difficulties with the realities of quantum mechanics.

Thus it is no accident that different hypotheses regarding the origins of things should exhibit a broad similiarity of development and form. This merely reflects the inner workings of our brains. Our conceptual freedom is restricted by biology. In no wise can we undersand the world as it is – whatever that means – but can only understand it translated into terms we have evolved to be able to understand.

Originally posted by Greylorn

Since the micropea/singularity and an omnipotent God are inherently complex entities, we would expect a creator. The micropea had to be at Entropy 0 at the point of the Bang--- so who, or what process, squeezed all that energy, matter, and physics into something smaller than a neutrino? A similar point can be made about God.

Yes, which for me begs the question- who, or what process defined the laws for universal existence. Clearly, a very specific checklist of events- governed by very specific laws and rules of interaction- had to occur in specific dimensions (time, place, order) so that life as we know it could develop and proliferate and evolve. Not only life, like a tree or a fish, but life with a level of consciousness that allows for the awareness, observation, and reflection necessary to consider its origins in the first place. "Who" (what) wrote the software package for our universe, and then downloaded it into a neutrino sized hard drive before double clicking 'bigbang.exe'?

(sorry if I strayed a little off topic with that)

But what if we begin with an entirely different process for the beginnings? Two independently existing spaces, each defined by an unstructured substance, each capable of exerting a single internal force, both contained in a superspace, both uncreated, existing in a perfectly static state at Entropy 1.

The basis for this idea seems as good as any right now. While there's a fair chance I won't be able to wrap my mind around the more complex version of it, I'd still be interested to read more about how this process could give rise to a God/BB.

Originally posted by vind21
The big bang as a theory is dead. It was thrown out in the late 1980s.

The only reason it still perpetuates is that there is nothing to replace it with. Just about anyone at CERN or Planck would agree with that statement.

IMO the omnipotent God theory persists for the same reason. Your observation fits nicely with Thomas Kuhn's, "Theory of Scientific Revolutions." My current job is to market the replacement theory, which also resolves the consciousness problem. It is a tough sell. Young people are not interested, while pills and implants are keeping the old guys in power well past their time.

Originally posted by vind21
How many news articles in the last 3 years have we heard coming out of the mainstream quietly confirming this? At least 3 last week. Arguing about the validity of the big bang is a waste of time.

I don't know many working theorists that still do work on the BBT, infact I don't know any. The top researchers are mostly working on theories involving plasma and electromagnetism as the new driving forces in the cosmos.

75% of experiments running right now at the ISS involve plasma science in some way.

Of course then you get comments like these:

One intriguing alternative to inflation is the ekpyrotic cyclic universe. In this model, the big bang is the result of a collision of two branes in a cyclic universe. Such models can reproduce all the characteristics of a standard big bang universe in a natural way, without the extra premise of inflation and its special initial conditions. As a bonus, the postulate of a big bang in the context of a cyclic universe is very attractive because it sidesteps difficult philosophical questions such as ‘when did the laws of physics become the laws of physics?’ or ‘when did spacetime become spacetime?’ During his presentation at Cambridge last week (see last post), Professor Paul Shellard mentioned that the new Planck data render many cyclic models, including the ekpyrotic universe, a lot less likely. At question time, I asked him what aspect of the new data disfavours the cyclic theories; it seems the lack of non-Gaussianities in the CMB spectrum rules out the conversion mechanism required by most cyclic models.

Coming right out of planck.....talking about how M-theory supports the bigbang model...but it doesn't.

Just about everything we thought we knew over the last 100yrs is really up in the air right now. Not the basic workings of physics, but creation theory and the formation of the universe is something quite beyond the human ability to understand at the moment.

Interesting. Not in touch with the "mainstream," whatever that is, I've only read a few murmurings of Big Bang hypocrisy. If you are correct, the time should be ripe for a highly alternative theory. Stick around.

Originally posted by vind21
I don't see how anyone could disagree with the point the OP makes, or the idea that "All beliefs are equivalent"

If you subscribe to the big bang theory and the fact that information can not be destroyed, then any "singularity" will also be conscious, in-fact every particle of matter should be conscious because it contains all the necessary information. Therefore there is obviously some form of greater consciousness and any singularity that "created" the universe would also have contained consciousness and would therefore be a god creating all things. It's not just that the big bang and god equate, it's that any creation idea equates, how is this hard to follow?

edit on 16-8-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)

I was about to leave this thread to initiate another, until this post. Your comment offers one of those remarkable insights that distresses my brain, which imagines that it could possibly have thought of that first. I've been trying to come up with a solid argument against the silly "conservation of information" belief without success. Your argument does the job. It seems intuitively correct. I wonder if it can be made rigorous, and will run it by a mathematician in a few days. Perhaps you know some mathematicians who are not viewing the universe through a lucite navel, and might do the same.

My objection to conservation of information is less elegant. How can something that can be created, not be destroyed?

Given that many new agers believe that rocks are conscious, the conservation of info belief looks like the new age version of theoretical physics. Thank you for an enlightening post.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by lostgirl

 

EXACTLY. No one can agree what constitutes as a 'god'. The part that gets me is how even those limited parameters have changed since the idea of a deity was first introduced. Where did the first parameters come from? What were they? Why did they change? Who changed them? Should they have been changed? How do the original parameters compare with the modern parameters?

These are questions I would love to have answered. They would give us a clearer understanding all around.

The OP used a short, simple, and specific God-concept. Perhaps you might want to go back and actually peruse it. Anyone willing to read a few books, or kill a day or two researching the history of God-concepts on Wikipedia could answer your question. Hey! What the heck! You could actually be the one reading and researching!

For both you and "Lostgirl,"

Perhaps nit-picking about the definition of God would be more appropriate on a thread that was trying to defend or promote the modern God-concept. Why not go there, both of you?

Originally posted by s3cz0ne
Hello ATS,
Though this is my first post I have been visiting and reading for a while now. I must say I'm a bit baffled by these "science vs religion" type threads lately. My personal belief is that someday, perhaps not likely in my lifetime, the two will intersect. While this may be widening the scope of the op consider the following: recently a thread appeared arguing that the theory of evolution was bunk and that the chances of life appearing from the primordial soup was so low that it was utterly impossible. Next we get into a discussion about the singularity. Isn't it possible that an all powerful being/god was responsible for all of this? That said being created the universe and that said being started life out of the primordial soup knowing that it would one day evolve into man? Is it not possible that evolution was part of that plan? Do we hold ourselves in such high regard that we must have literally and directly have been created through divine intervention? What if there are higher and more intelligent life forms than us? Couldn't they also be part of gods plan, and while I have a bone to pick with most organized religion even the Vatican acknowledges that "aliens" could very well exist and be part of gods creation.

I should point out that while I oppose most organized religion I am spiritual and do believe in a higher being. My personal beliefs extend from the known gnostic teachings, eastern spirituality and the like. I honestly feel that when one takes scripture literally it can be very negative and damaging in some cases. Why is it that science cannot simply explain the mechanisms through which creation works? IE: physics, evolution, etc. I really feel that in the case of the bible, for example, as with most scripture, the reader is presented with allegory and allusion. As its been said; it was written for those with eyes to see and with ears to hear. That's just my two cents but from my point of view both spirituality and science can easily coexist. Spirituality can provide a great philosophy for life and allegory to illustrate creation and reality. Science can explain the workings of said creation and reality.

Thanks so much for telling us about your personal problems and sharing insightful opinions that no one has ever heard of before, without contributing a single useful thought to the thread. That is called "hijacking." Had this thread not already put its moderator to sleep, you might have been officially called on it.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by MamaJ

 

What is meant by "good"? How can photons be found to be "good"?

The light only shows what is revealed. It revealed to be good by the observer of/in the first cause. That was it's purpose. In the image we share a same purpose which is to see what is revealed and name it... is it good or bad? Is that the will to "know" from the first fruit/seed?

You and I only see what is revealed TO US by the light ... or... photons. Is there a veil? Like little children we are in the wilderness trying to be raised. Like Egypt we are trying to make it out of the refinery.

Who raises you? The wolf? The Eagle? Jesus? Your mama? Where is the root of your raising?

Where or who is the root of all raising into existence?

Is this Earth.. one life... is that ALL there is?

The Big Bang and a belief in an omnipotent God/Creator is found at the core of a singularity which we all became split of and a part of. A spect of dust... but never the less we are a part of the whole shi BANG!

It's evident ALL around!

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by lostgirl

 

I'm sorry, AfterInfinity (honestly), I assumed you were being sardonic and expressing your opinion that such an intersection would be negative (fracturing), because the OP seemed, clearly to me, to intend a positive meaning - that science and 'spirituality' would intersect and fuse (perhaps even enhancing each other)...

It's okay. You're new here, I understand how difficult it can be to interpret the subtleties of two-dimensional text. And I look forward to the day such an intersection occurs...when the observers of the coin are able to reconcile its two faces and appreciate the synergetic nature of the twin values. I hesitate to hope that it will be in my lifetime though. It may be a thousand years before we reach that mountain peak. Better late than never, I suppose.

edit on 16-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I hate it when some new chick shows up on a thread, all decked out in her unabashed naivety. Next event, some guy absent a social life sucks up to her, and between them hijack the thread. Where's our moderator?

Originally posted by Greylorn
I hate it when some new chick shows up on a thread, all decked out in her unabashed naivety. Next event, some guy absent a social life sucks up to her, and between them hijack the thread. Where's our moderator?

Whine much? The moderator? YOU bored them to sleep. And you're quite rude.

Doesn't seem any reason for a MOD to step in, imo. I actually thought their discussion was much more interesting than your long-winded opinionated posts that you (though apparently not much of anyone else) seem to think are brilliant.

Maybe you're a tad ticked because you're not receiving the attention you think you deserve? Where's the Yawn icon? This will have to do I guess:

It seems there is much confusion around the Big Bang Theory and/or the creation of the universe. The BBT does not attempt to describe the origins of the universe, however, it does describe how the universe expanded. This is a common misconception. The BBT has more to do with how the universe developed, not how it came to be. I believe this should effectively remove the omnipotent god equivalent.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

I believe Steven Crothers is a member of Above Top Secret, so you can probably ask him yourself. I can't remember his screen name, but he was championed on these boards by AnarchoCapitalist, the last of the diehard electric-universalists. Drop AC a u2u and he'll probably put you on to Crothers.

But before you do any of that: A Paper Illustrating More of Crothers' Relativity Errors

Thanks Astyanax.

I remember when Crothers was here. He was actually invited to these forums by another member here, who is a personal friend of his. He is very approachable. Here is his rebuttal.....and on it goes.

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/REPLY.pdf

My point really, is that IMO whether he is right or wrong, it is not a bad thing to have people question and scrutinize science. It's a necessary part of science. The name of the page of your link seems to illustrate my point ie. "Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy". Unless something has changed recently, Crothers is not religious in any way.

Back to the topic. Scientific theories (whether right or wrong) are explanations based on observation and must have the possibility of being falsified. In this instance the notion the universe had a beginning and expanded (is expanding) led to a theory based on observation, supported by facts and has withstood scrutiny. Though it has always had critics, as it should and if someone can falsify it, all the better. We learn and move on. For those that dislike it, there is always that opportunity.

The claim "god made it" is not reasonable, not testable/ falsifiable nor can it be based on observation. It is simply putting an extra imaginary being into the mix and there is no reason to even suppose such a thing (re scientific explanations), until we can make an observation of god in some way.

It's fair enough to base it simply on personal belief or story books, but that isn't science. In no way are Cosmology Theory and "god made it" equals.

edit on 16-8-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.

Given the information developed in this thread by "vind21" who clearly knows more about the state of modern cosmological theory than either of us ever will, you could get way ahead of your own time by admitting that cosmological theory is at least on the same par as "God made it," and perhaps a few ticks lower on the intellectual scale.