|
big-bang-puff All civilizations, including ours, have fashioned cosmologies of some sort that explain how everything out there is created, how it is now and how it will be forever. Practically all of them include some astronomy (as soon as the cave man saw few stars, he worked out a picture of the whole universe, his whole, and so do we, our whole), but all cosmologies are predominantly soaked into contemporary general societal beliefs and policies and they are a part of collective psychology. There is usually some science in there, too. Most of us believe (collective psychology) that our cosmology (cosmologies, to be more precise) is (are) science, probably because astrophysics is generally understood less than astronomy. And what is winning astrophysics’ contribution to the currently fashionable cosmology? It’s Big Bang hypothesis (hypothesis, I have to emphasize, it is not a theory in spite of several successful patches). I don’t subscribe to it. First of all, why there should be a beginning of everything? Just because we humans (and other living creatures) are born and die? And above all, if you reverse time in the Big Bang picture, then at time zero you have creation of everything from nothing. Well, science (if any is present to that moment) disappears here, you need a Creator (God). Take a look on the rollover image to see the objections of Jinasena, a ninth-century Indian teacher, just substitute Big Bang for Creator or God [quoted here from Lost Discoveries by Dick Teresi (Simon & Schuster, New York, 2002)]. |
 |
WEBSITE EDITOR:
Krešimir J. Adamić
