It is an imaginary construct that is only a "scientific possibility" because it is impossible to falsify. It was dreamed up solely to provide some response to the unmistakable theistic implications of the anthropic principle and the beginning of the universe itself.
Spot on.
“It was dreamed up solely to provide some response to the unmistakable theistic implications of the anthropic principle and the beginning of the universe itself.”
Yep. The supposedly objective scientists are not at all objective when it comes to those implications. This is similar to one of the reasons Darwin’s writings became popular. The most exciting thing about the Theory of Evolution to many 19th century scientists was how it laid the foundation for atheism based on science.
The_Reader_David: "...an intellectual exercise in trying to avoid the logical consequence of Big-Bang cosmology, that the first cause can’t be physical...It is popular not because it is scientifically compelling, but because it provides committed atheistic naturalists with a way of avoiding the simpler explanation for the Big-Bang."
webstersII: "Yep. The supposedly objective scientists are not at all objective when it comes to those implications. This is similar to one of the reasons Darwin’s writings became popular. The most exciting thing about the Theory of Evolution to many 19th century scientists was how it laid the foundation for atheism based on science.
Insightful and incisive comments all. They suggest to me that you might enjoy, if you're not already aware of it, a group and website that is Christian/Old Earth Creationist/scientific headed by astronomer/apologist Dr. Hugh Ross: Reasons to Believe, at Reasons.org. On point, another astronomer on-staff has a booklet, Who's Afraid of the Multiverse?, and the website's search engine brings up numerous related articles.