Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the ultimate black hole; nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that. Likewise for a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent God to suddenly determine that it would be a cool thing to do to create a universe (7000 or 17B years ago, it doesn't matter) while the idea had never occurred to him previously in the infinite expanse of time prior to that, is basically nonsensical.
The creation stories we see in the Bible and other antique literature almost certainly refer to the creation of our own living world and local environment and not to the entire universe. The universe, like God, is probably eternal.
That link I provided indicates that the list of physicists and other scientists who do not buy into "big bang" includes some of the people who run Las Alamos and other top physics labs.
Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the ultimate black hole; nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that.I know of no reputable scientist who now say "...the universe collapsed back to a point of singularity." That is not what science puts forth. Science does say from that singularity the universe ushered forth. Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning of collapse. The universe did not once expand then collapse. Science does not support this. Now it is true that Hoyl, prior to Einstein and Hubble, propounded the steady state universe, and it is true that some have put forth the multiverse theory, and some have put forth the oscillation-contration theory....but none are accepted. Whether you want your faith to fall in line with one of these theories, now on the asheap of history, is your buisness. I will not comment of your numbers of 7000 or 17 billion years....they mean nothing to me regarding this discussion.
The creation stories we see in the Bible and other antique literature almost certainly refer to the creation of our own living world and local environment and not to the entire universe. The universe, like God, is probably eternal. Now we have something new. You say the universe is eternal. Well, Einstein says you are wrong. Huybble says you are wrong. Wilson and Penzias say you are wrong. Entropy says you are wrong. The findings of COBE and WMAP say you are wrong. I think I will confine my understanding in the scientific realm with these fellows. Your science, and I suppose those you assert you agree with at Los Alamos, assume to state you know the mind of God yet do not even believe he exists or is omnipotent. That is an interesting juxtapostion of reason. But reason itself, not derivitive of Darwinian evolution, seems off limits to those who are materialist naturalists. How much does reason weigh? What is the molecular makeup of reason, logic, or truth. You asset a Darwinian universe through use of your logic and reason but cannot justify reason or logic by Darwinian evolution. I ask how do you justify believing anything at all. Reason, logic, and truth did not spring forth from the primordial, abiotic soup, did it? If it did, please tell me how inorganic chemicals gave rise to reason. Chemicals don't reason, they react.
...the infinite expanse of time prior to that....You might want to read Hawking and Einstein to understand that 'time' did not exist until the universe was created.
...nonsensical... the Bible and other antique literature almost certainly.... The universe, like God, is probably eternal...almost certitude.
The big bang idea is bad religion and bad physics rolled into a package; it's based on nothing more that the inability to visualize causes for redshift data other than an expanding universe.Wow! You just trashed, in one small sentence, most physists, astrophysists, Einstein, Hubble, Hawking, Eddington, Hoyl, Penzias, Smoot, and thousands of others. These are,...what did you say,.... men who have not the ability to visualize causes for a redshift data other than expanding universe.....Your scientific colors are shining through. Perhaps you might consider that they are following scientifc method and observation where physics takes them and not where their personal agendas take them. Eddingoton, Hoyl, and Einstein all found reproach in the notion of creation, but they could not, though Einstein tried through a fictitous cosmological constant, deny what they could see and measure. These men with lack of vision, as you say, are written into the history books as giants in their fields. On what page will your notions be memorialized? I wonder.