Question

1. So I’ll ask politely: in your view, as someone who does have training in physics, do you classify the Big Bang theory among those theories that are a necessary conclusion from experiments, or among those that are a reasonable way of filling a gap in our knowledge, asserted confidently only because there is nothing better?
2. The God of Israel in my question is not necessarily the point. Let it be Aristotle’s God, or Einstein’s, or Rabbi Michael Abraham’s—does that constitute something more plausible than multiple universes or infinite time?
3. I would be very grateful if the Rabbi would nevertheless trouble himself to answer my question about the distinction between probabilistic considerations from everyday life, where there is a familiar alternative to statistical anomalies—human beings, for example—and the world as it is prior to human action. I also didn’t understand what the Rabbi wrote, that God is not an alternative to science. Obviously not; I didn’t think that. He is a planning alternative to random emergence.