Quote:

I don't not care about astronomy because it offends my beliefs. I just don't care because its not that interesting to me.



Ah, ok. Sometimes I misunderstand people because it's hard to imagine for me how someone could not be interested in astronomy .

Quote:

I don't agree. If God could be observed, then that would automatically place Him within the realm of science in which case scientists would care. Since He cannot be observed, scientists don't care. The way I see it.



Yes, that's exactly what I meant to say. Natural science is about the observable.

Quote:

Can you clarify what in my position involves supserstition? I believe that God created the universe, probably without the big bang, please tell me what he would hate about this.



Ok. Of course this is a speculation, but you do not necessarily need to believe in god for speculating about him.

First, the Big Bang is an observable fact (background radiation). Thus god can not have created the universe without the Big Bang... unless under a certain assumption that I'll come to later.

I will first assume that our observations about nature are true. They are not artificially created by a God in order to deceive us. Under this assumption, at a certain time in the past - probably much earlier than 13.7 billion years ago - God created the mechanism that we call "laws of nature". The mere existence of this mechanism then led some undefined time later to the spontaneous creation of our and possibly other universes - precisely following God's plan. The following history of our universe is then descibed by the Big Bang model. The "nature's laws" mechanism led consequently to the evolution of life not only on our, but also on millions - or infinite many - other planets in the universe.

Christians (not your sect, but mainstream Christianity) normally assume that Genesis does not describe the literal creation of the world, but maybe God's fine tuning of the nature mechanism. Earth, sky, animals, Adam etc. existed not in flesh, but as models in God's mind, long before they really came into existence. Much later, the nature mechnanism then produced the desired results just in the way that God had in mind.

God gave Adam a curious, questioning brain, and at the same time gave him lots of things to observe in nature - background radiation, red shift, DNA proofs of a common ancestor etc. Thus we got everything that we need for deriving the mechanism that God originally designed - nature's laws. Obviously, God meant us to completely understand his design. We can then assume that he hates every obstacles in our way of understanding. Those obstacles are superstition: The attempts to explain nature not by His designed natural laws, but by supernatural events. If he wanted us to believe in creationism, he had certainly not given us the possibility to directly observe the evolutional relation of all species in their DNA record.

Ok, but what if our observations of nature are not true but misleading? This would be the other possibility: God has directly created the universe, not billions of years ago but much later, at an undefined date in the past, like 4000 BC. Maybe he was in a hurry.

In that case he has intentionally created our world in a way as if it were billions of years old. There is no other explanation for all astronomical observations. You have dismissed the possibility that he placed fossils in the earth, but I see absolutely no reason why this should be "nonsense" and on the other hand believe in that he placed photons in space so that we can see far-away stars.

Obviously, there's an intention behind all of this. God wants us to use our brains, and derive the laws of nature even if, as in this case, nature didn't come into existence according to those laws. Maybe he has some plan with us humans that requires our understanding of those laws of nature. In this case however he would hate even more everything that diverts us from our understanding.

This is the reason why I think that no matter how and when God created the world, he hates superstition, and especially creationism.

Quote:

Well, the universe is expanding is it not? Would this not continually lead the universe on a path towards absolute zero? As stars burn up their fuel, energy is being turned into something relatively 'unusable'.



Yes, but that's not an argument against the infinity of the universe. In fact it will happen no matter whether the universe is finite or infinite. More details in this thread:

http://www.coniserver.net/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/5/Number/618564/an/0/page/3#Post618564