The point of it all

My dear readers (I think there are about 3 or 4 of them) will know that I am both literate and a simpleton. In other words, I read a lot but understand very little. And what I understand, I understand in a simple way. Which is why I don't understand the Big Bang theory.

According to this theory, attributed to Edwin Hubble of the Hubble telescope fame, the universe started as a big bang because the current universe can be observed to be continuously expanding in all directions. The velocity of the galaxy is proportional to its distance. Galaxies that are twice as far from us move twice as fast. The thing is, this expansion can be observed in precisely the same way no matter where you are in the universe. In other words, seen from earth, the galaxies are seen as expanding away from earth. But seen from the moon, or some other extraterrestrial rock, the galaxies will be observed to be expanding away in exactly the same fashion. This uniformity of the universe is scientifically referred to as its homogeneity.

OK. Enough of big words and inadequate simplification. My question is this: where is the center of the universe? Any explosion must begin from a specific point. In fact, the big bang theory suggests precisely such a point. And if you look at the results of an explosion, you can backtrack to the source of the explosion - where the bang happened. In that sense, there must therefore be a center of the universe. There isn't one. At least none that we can identify. Why not?

As I see it, there are a few possible explanations, none of them satisfactory:
1. We can only backtrack an explosion in our universe because it occurs in an external time/space continuum. You cannot backtrack the explosion from within its own time/space continuum. While this is philosophically appealing, I don't know if you can prove this.
2. The expansion of the universe is a kind of optical illusion - something to do with the relationship between time and the speed of light. What we see of the universe is not as it exists at that moment but of the light that was emitted some time back given the time it takes for the light to travel to where we are.
3. The universe is expanding but there is no origin. Since the size of infinity is equal to the size of the universe, an expanding universe need not have an origin, since it can expand eternally in a space/time continuum that is infinite. Or to put it simply, the universe has always been expanding, but was what it is today.

Does any of this make any sense? Free lunch to anyone who can explain this to me. Judgement will be made collectively by all the esteemed readers of this blog.

PS: In researching this question, I looked up the size of the universe. It's unknown and disputed, of course. But one of the ways by which we measure its size is to look at how far away is the furthest star. And, I guess, multiply that number by two since we are presumably measuring the radius. All this is guesswork on my part, but I am just wondering, if we were in any other part of the universe, will all the stars seem equally far away like it is on earth? If so, does this tell us anything about the big bang?

PPS: There is, of course, a correct explanation - which I found out after I posted this blog. The above explanation also contains a lie, so don't trust everything you read.