It is unsuspended though, “hangs on nothing” is a euphemism used to convey the concept of a large heavy object (the world) not falling. Centuries before any knowledge of Newton’s theory of gravitation we have a text acknowledging that the world isn’t suspended in any way, that’s a very unnatural idea for a bunch of uneducated hicks wandering around with their sheep five thousand years ago.
I don’t think that “there was no big bang” is a view held by many cosmologists though.
As you wish.
Is this some kind of argument from authority? Why is it odd too that people educated in a largely secular country will hold secular opinions? Why too would we expect a person educated in the sciences to have any grasp of spiritual matters?
Here’s the rub though, the definition of “plausible” is “something that’s consistent with an already held worldview”. So flight was plausible because a suitable structure could be envisaged that could leverage the airflow affect of a wing’s dihedral.
You cannot define plausible other than by reference to what you already believe and if you believe there’s no supernatural you will obviously see the supernatural as not plausible, it is just an exercise in conformation bias.
No, you can’t start using “plausibility” until you’ve chosen a worldview, it’s the worldview that’s key here, tell me, what process would you use to change your worldview? (You can’t use “plausibility” because that is tied to an existing worldview, we can’t use a worldview to justify a worldview).
See, none of this has anything to do with science, absolutely nothing, that’s a lie designed to make us choose between science and God, but there’s no basis for such a choice, there’s no incompatibility at all.