well the problem is is that it doesn't. And in science, if you find a contradicting fact in a theory, then that theory is totally abandoned. The problem with the big bang is that multiple facts have come up debunking the big bang theory, but it is still accepted as a science. I could give you a few facts debunking the big bang theory, but the real question is: If I could prove to you a fact that disagreed with the big bang, would you then abandon the theory or would you not accept my evidence, and believe in two contradicting facts at the same time? When two facts contradict in simultaneously in a scientific theory, it is no longer a science but religion. Therefore, the big bang is actually religion disguised as science.
I would like to know what you mean when you say "big bang theory". I think that would help ensure we're all talking about the same thing.
When I say "big bang theory", I mean the idea that the universe we live in was in a very hot, dense state roughly 13.7 billion years ago, along with some other details such as a brief period of cosmic inflation.
Uhhh, yes it is.
Did you not see the bit about Newtonian physics in the post you're replying to?
Every scientific theory gets revised as new information comes out. Our understanding of evolution, physics, biology, etc. have all changed drastically over the last few decades, but we didn't throw out the theories - we adjusted them were necessary to more accurately include new data.
Welcome to my killfile.
Sure I would! What are some of your facts?
We either don't exist - demonstrably false - or the universe's start doesn't necessarily abide by cause-and-effect as we humans understand it.
Seems a justified and tidy resolution to the supposed problem you refer to.
If the universe existed forever, you don't need to create a God to create the universe.
There's a lot we know we don't know of the Big Bang.
> The universe being started from nothing violates physical laws.
So does a God. Something has to be violating physical laws as we currently understand them (and we hardly know everything yet...), so adding God doesn't really get you anywhere.
No, that's a "theorem". A "theory" refers to a widely accepted idea, like gravity or evolution.
If something is a theory just because it is widely accepted, then that would make the idea that "lifting our arms is hard due to gravity" a theory, whereas the correct view is merely an idea that experts believe is correct.
Citation please.
There are a lot of theories in science. They vary greatly in how well accepted they are.
As for the source of the Big Bang, there is a wide variety of speculation on that. Including a previous universe collapsing (no coming from "nothing" and a quantum fluctuation. But until we have a theory that combined general relativity with quantum mechanics, we won't have a real idea how reasonable different theories are.
We know we don't know. That's not news. Nobody has anything better yet. But that's hardly an excuse to just throw our hands up and "abandon" what is currently the best we've got.
In other news, everybody knows the Standard Model of particle physics has to be broken; it is accepted not because it is right but because nobody has actually come up with anything uniformly better.