How could a** metaphysical** explanation - for which there is overwhelming and verifiable evidence - be “functionally identical” with a** cosmological** theory?
I have no idea what you are talking about. I wrote nothing about any metaphysical explanation. I wrote, simply:
*The belief that an unknowable, unverifiable, non-physical creator suddenly decided to create the universe is, after all, functionally identical to the notion that a mysterious “physical singularity” suddenly appeared out of nowhere and exploded, thus forming the universe.
Thus, at their core level, the belief in an almighty but unknowable God is functionally identical to cosmology’s silly Big Bang theory. Neither is verifiable.*
I stated clearly that there is no evidence— no verification— for either possibility. Both the metaphysical core of monotheistic religions and the core of modern cosmology are functionally identical— in that they each depend upon the hypothetical existence of one thing which cannot be identified or verified.
The “one thing” for monotheism is an omnipotent, infinite God. The equivalent for cosmology is a physical singularity.
Religionists wrap words and biblical interpretations around their concept, which no real churchgoing people actually comprehend. Cosmologists run their own snow job behind arcane mathematics which none of them can really understand either. Both hide their mystical concepts behind a veil of intellectually contrived obfuscation.
Thus, both are functionally identical.
Who propounded this theory and by whom is it regarded as excellent?
I did. Of course I regard it as excellent, but that hardly counts.
My editor also liked it. She is a courageous and independent sort of person. It seems to have changed her life, but I cannot recall her ever using the word “excellent:” amid her many constructive criticisms.
There are reviews on
amazon.com by others who had good things to say about it, amid many interesting negative things. None of them used the term “excellent” either.
That leaves only myself. Of course, like most religionists you are looking for outside agreement, because that is the basis for religious beliefs. Alas. I have no help for you. I wrote the book for independent thinkers who have the courage to trust their own minds above the agreed-upon belief systems of their day.
BTW one reason why I prefer my own theories to those of others is that mine are verifiable. My core hypotheses involve components which still exist today, and therefore can be experimented upon— by anyone with the courage to consider genuinely new concepts.