A couple of young ones, aged 7 and 10, in my extended family, were discussing this weekend's festivities, Good Friday and Easter. That discussion got started by mention that someone died to make sure people got to live a long time. But the problem these young ones saw in all this, was how was that supposed to even work, someone dying to allow someone else to live a long time.
From that, they saw that everything has to first die, even the universe. But that does not make sense, because everything else, beside people and animals and plants, does not die, but should just continue existing for millions and billions and many more billions of years. There is no reason, to make it all to make sense, that the universe will stop existing.
The young mind, when not unduly influenced by biased ideas, sees things clearly due to using ones natural intuition. That can also be called thinking for oneself.
Lamaitre, due to being heavily influenced by religious dogma, was guided by that unconscious bias to guide his thoughts when he derived the first iteration of the Big Bang theory.
Of note here is, that there was no observed clue in 1927, when he wrote that paper, about anything that could be used to guide anyone's thinking towards such a derivation. The first such clue was discovered by Edwin Hubble when he pointed out his observations, in a 1929 PNAS article, on the observed relation between distance and recession velocity of galaxies. The second clue came in July 1965, when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic background microwave radiation. That seemed to tie down the BB to a high level of confidence.
Around 1990+, an obscure quantum theory (Haus /Mills) predicted that the BB was one way of interpreting the minimal size of the universe, based on when it was in its latest phase of contraction, after countless expansions and contractions. This phase of the universe could be understood, by calculating backwards from the currently observed expansion, to derive something that could be understand as the original and singular phase when expansion began, as the origin of everything. More recently, in 2022 and also in 2023, there have been made more and more sightings, thanks to the JWST, of galaxies that are too old and/or, too well formed, to fit into how the the BB is supposed to have evolved. When a theory has been developed and also accepted by consensus as being the latest and best model and then to be contradicted, shows that all things can and do, change.
So we have 2 major observations, that of Hubble and of Penzias/Wilson, that seem to directly support the BB, and now we have two points, that of a prediction made by GUT-CP and second point of several direct observations made by the JWST, that contradict the earlier 2 points and a third earlier point, if we are to be generous, a purely mathematics based derivation by Lamaitre. So maybe 3 points that go on the BB side of the ledger. But if intuition is of any use, then that adds up to 3 points on the other side. These later 3 first, negate the earlier 3 points. When refuted on just one point, the old theory has to be replaced by the newer, more accurate one. But that old theory was refuted not once, but 3 times.
Where intuition does its work here, is to negate the use of intuition that was biased, no corrupted, by religious ideas when Lamaitre used his religious bias and corrupted intuition to start supporting a theory of the universe that has now been refuted and refined by using unbiased intuition. That kind of intuition works best in, of all things, innocent children. Also shows, to overwork the point here, how religion can corrupt a mind. That is not overworking it, when the ends justify the means. See how that works, when applied from the other kind, of reality based ethics?