Strange

Maybe you should read up on fields and, in particular, quantum field theory. Science can explain these forces without resorting to magic or gods. So your "logic" violates Occam's razor.

A series of random unconnected assertions does not constitute a "logical proof". Your argument seems to be: the universe can be described mathematically therefore god. That makes zero sense.

The Big Bang occurred everywhere(if there was any such event, something for which there is no real evidence). Anyway, it isn't an explosion with everything flying away from a central point. Rather, all of space was once much closer together. The easiest way to visualise this might be to "run the clock backwards". All the galaxies that are currently billions of light years apart gradually get closer and closer. Eventually, they are all the same place.

1. It is not a theory because it has no evidence supporting it. 2. It contradicts much of current cosmology (e.g. there is no reason to think there is a centre of the universe) 3. You don't say where the mass comes from that allows this black hole to be so large 4. You say it "retracts" but also gets bigger. How does that work. So, sound? No. Not at all.

Citation needed.

The Big Bang theory describes the ongoing expansion and cooling of the universe. As it is a continuous process it would be, by your inane definition, "female". But why assign the loaded gender terms to continuous and discrete processes? And why that way round? It seems completely arbitrary. And as gender is not binary, anyway, the whole thing is pretty meangless. I would suggest taking an introductory course in philosophy some time. It might help you develop your critical thinking skills.

What language is this? Certainly not English, even though some of the words look familiar.

It is readily comprehensible, unoriginal and apparently worthless. Still waiting for you to get to the point.

Say the universe grew according to the tan function, for example. That goes to infinity in finite time. There is no cosmology based on this idea, but you can't just say it is impossible.

There is no such theory. I don't care about your religious beliefs. Except the math does work.

I am waiting for you to say something novel and/or interesting. I don't know why you are taking so long to get to the point....

They are similar but there are significant differences. Most bodies are electrically neutral so any attraction between their charged particles is cancelled out by the equal repulsive forces. Also, electromagnetic forces can be attractive and repulsive while gravity is only attractive. We can block electromagnetic force but you can't block gravity. In Newtonian physics it is a force associated with mass in a similar way that electromagnetic force is associated with charge (and the nuclear force is associated with "color"). In Einstein's theory, gravity is the change in the geometry of space-time caused by the presence of mass or energy.

Believability is a very poor basis for judging theories, because it is purely subjective and not necessarily related to the real world.

And others don't. And yet others teach the opposite. So that seems a massively pointless comment.

I wish you would start a thread on this so that we can (a) find out WTF you are talking about and (b) discuss it sensibly (i.e. non religiously).

There are many, many thousands of "dots" that make up the red-shift data. I don't know how you can just dismiss that. There are also many other lines of evidence that are consistent with the theory. Then there is all the indirect evidence (for example, the fact that GR is extremely well-tested and appears to be correct). On the one hand we have an overwhelming amount of evidence and on the other we have your beliefs. So, again, who is being "religious"? It looks like it's you. You keep saying this but have provided zero evidence. As such, I see no reason to believe you. After all, the only reason for believing someone with no evidence is ... religion. I am not joining your church. I reject your claims about it because you have given no reason to accept them. No theory. No evidence. Nothing. Just empty claims about what you believe. I see no reason to accept your religious beliefs. And, in the case of GR, the math does fit the facts. Your religious beliefs might or might not fit the facts but we can't tell because all you have is some vague claims and math. Newton's equations still work and are still used. Einstein's equations will be superseded when someone comes up with a better model. Your religious beliefs do not constitute a better model. You are, of course, entitled to your religious beliefs but the rest of us will stick with the science, thanks.

I thought you meant the simplistic thingy.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ambiguous-genitalia/basics/definition/con-20026345

Gravity is an effect of the curvature of space and time That curvature is caused by the presence of mass or energy. It causes masses to move towards one another, which we perceive as a force (as described by Newton's law of gravity). Electrons are attracted to protons by the electromagnetic force (caused by the presence of electric charge). There is another force holding the protons together (the strong nuclear force).

You could point out that some people are born with both male and female sexual features. And some (I think) are born with none. So his simplistic view doesn't really work.

That seems fair.

Gravity is an effect of the curvature of space and time. That curvature is caused by the presence of mass or energy. As to where that comes from; that is just the way the universe works. I don't know that we can ever say "why" the universe is the way it is. That is more a question for philosophy or religion. (And I'm not sure that everything does have a source.)

It wasn't formed during the big bang. It was formed by the collapse of a cloud of gas and dust. (Same as all stars.) The big bang model does not describe the creation of the universe, it just says that it is expanding and cooling from an early hot, dense state.

The "speed limit" only applies locally to objects moving past each other. It is not relevant to distances increasing because of the expansion of space. The speed of expansion is proportional to distance. So (even without inflation) there are points which are sufficiently far apart that they are moving apart faster than the speed of light. Also, the speed of light being a limit on relative motion and the expansion of space both come from the same theory so, by definition, they cannot be contradictory (as the theory is mathematically consistent). What this means is that you cannot apply results from the simplified theory (special relativity) to cosmology (which requires the more general theory).

There have been some interesting scientific studies of good and bad luck. It is a fascinating subject. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-luck-would-have-it/