Quote

"The Big Bang" in Science is the ongoing accepted theory (or paradigm) to explain transformations of the universe based on existing evidence--even though it makes no sense. It overthrew an earlier, more intuitive, model, and it's likely to crash as well--if it hasn't already.

You are, of corse, kidding yourself, because you cannot let your belief in a God/god/whatever-it-is not be in something real, and actually existing.
Darryl is right about the non-random event. The Prof Brian Cox books, and that one, 'Living With The Stars' by Karel and Iris Schrijver, cite the best evidence. I think it is a pity that Darryl still seems to want a wedge to keep the gap open wideenough for some kind of *other* to fit in - i.e. not random or determined - perhaps he feels that to have the gap open only for the faint possibility of something *other* fulfils a romantic yearning, but if so, I can absolutely assure him that such a human need is met more resoundingly by the knowledge that that possibility is as near zero as makes no difference. To have been on the side of belief and then outside brings a depth of focus, clarity and the magic of reality (as RD put it) which I would not now relinquish.

But, as I have said, this month has been one of the most interesting on this board.

Susan