The problems of big bang theory. What are they?

I quote Keith Mayes who uses info from Stephen Hawking:"I understand that many people have a problem with the idea of our universe being finite, that it has an 'end' to it, a boundary. They ask what this boundary would be physically like, as though it were some form of partition that we couldn't get through. However, there is not a particular direction that we could set off in our warp speed space craft that would lead us to a boundary, no matter how far or fast we travelled. The explanation for this seeming impossibility is that space-time is curved, thus you would be travelling in a circle that only appears to be a straight line. If it were possible to direct a laser beam from here through the centre of the universe it would not hit the other side of the universe, it would eventually hit the back of your head (metaphorically speaking). Einstein demonstrated how matter in the universe distorts the space-time continuum by accurately predicting how much our Sun distorted local space. He used a total eclipse of the Sun (as the only time that stars and the Sun can be seen at the same time in close proximity) to demonstrate that a star that was behind the Sun, and therefore not visible from our line of sight, would in fact be visible (in the darkness of totality) because the Sun warps the space-time around it and thus curves the light beam around the Sun, enabling us to see the star. Strictly speaking, the Sun does not actually curve the light around itself, the entire space-time continuum is curved, the light is still travelling in a 'straight' line.""I do not believe that infinity exists in our universe."END QUOTEThe last part is what it all comes down to. Even after this, there is still no way yet of explaining what created our "curved space-time universe" This is why infinity cannot be applied to the universe.
The question once again goes right back to "but how does this curved space-time universe" in which infinity does not exist relate to what could be outside of it. You cannot because it is curved and we are bounded by this.
We cannot yet explain how a universe that has no infinity could have come to existence in the first place because that would contradictorily require something to be infinite to create this finite universe.It is simple as that, an unresolved question, there truly is no answer yet to how the universe could come to be when it itself requires something infinite.On the other hand is a BELIEF in a Creator who is infinite.
This would not have any scientific boundaries because it is just that; a BELIEF

just because you do not agree with a BELIEF does not mean that person is wrong,because as of yet the scientific answer of the universe has not been answered either.This is the same as before we learned the earth was round.
Before the discovery people thought the earth was flat, the truth is someone could of believed it was in the shape of a star, square, rectangle
It did not matter because the answer had not been found yet.
Then came the day when all people had to accept that the earth was a sphere and they could not argue, because there had come a definite answer.We are not at the end yet, so there is no point in arguing
Just to go help and try to find the answer.Edited by TyberiusMax, : addingEdited by TyberiusMax, : No reason given.

Ok forget about matter, I just want you to understand that a infinite universe is simply as impossible as having a GodI quote Keith Mayes who uses info from Stephen Hawking:
"I understand that many people have a problem with the idea of our universe being finite, that it has an 'end' to it, a boundary. They ask what this boundary would be physically like, as though it were some form of partition that we couldn't get through. However, there is not a particular direction that we could set off in our warp speed space craft that would lead us to a boundary, no matter how far or fast we travelled. The explanation for this seeming impossibility is that space-time is curved, thus you would be travelling in a circle that only appears to be a straight line. If it were possible to direct a laser beam from here through the centre of the universe it would not hit the other side of the universe, it would eventually hit the back of your head (metaphorically speaking). Einstein demonstrated how matter in the universe distorts the space-time continuum by accurately predicting how much our Sun distorted local space. He used a total eclipse of the Sun (as the only time that stars and the Sun can be seen at the same time in close proximity) to demonstrate that a star that was behind the Sun, and therefore not visible from our line of sight, would in fact be visible (in the darkness of totality) because the Sun warps the space-time around it and thus curves the light beam around the Sun, enabling us to see the star. Strictly speaking, the Sun does not actually curve the light around itself, the entire space-time continuum is curved, the light is still travelling in a 'straight' line.""I do not believe that infinity exists in our universe."END QUOTEThe last part is what it all comes down to. Even after this, there is still no way yet of explaining what created our "curved space-time universe" This is why infinity cannot be applied to the universe.
The question once again goes right back to "but how does this curved space-time universe" in which infinity does not exist relate to what could be outside of it. You cannot because it is curved and we are bounded by this.
We cannot yet explain how a universe that has no infinity could have come to existence in the first place because that would contradictorily require something to be infinite to create this finite universe.It is simple as that, an unresolved question, there truly is no answer yet to how the universe could come to be when it itself requires something infinite.On the other hand is a BELIEF in a Creator who is infinite.
This would not have any scientific boundaries because it is just that; a BELIEF Edited by TyberiusMax, : spelling

Am I mistaken.. or do I not see you explaining anything that goes against anything I say?All you have done is reply with simple sentences that do not try to disprove anything I say, along with simply denying credit to the two quotes of Davies, and Mayes/Hawking.I don't know about you but it I find it hard to counter ideas that simply say "thats illogical". You must explain why a idea is illogical before you can claim that it is not.To say that someone's answer is wrong would mean that you yourself knew the answer. Otherwise what else does saying their answer is not logical mean.Edited by TyberiusMax, : spellingEdited by TyberiusMax, : spelling

I do not deny the hypothesis that the universe is finite yet somehow "just exists".
Because there is no evidence to go against or for itIn the same manner you cannot deny the hypothesis of a God who is independent of existence because he can niether be proven nor disproven because there is no evidence for either.Edited by TyberiusMax, : No reason given.