The problems of big bang theory. What are they?

The "problem" would be what caused the universe to come into existence. We now know that the universe is not eternal and uncaused but had a beginning. Before the beginning of the universe there was no time, matter, physics, energy etc. So what caused the universe to pop into existence. British physicist Edmund Whittaker says, "There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action. For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity?".Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Anyway, it appears that you believe that one of the problems with the Big Bang theory is that it doesn't tell us what came before. I doubt that Whittaker, had he not died over a half century ago, would agree with you that this is a problem for the Big Bang, if by that you mean that it calls into question whether the Big Bang really happened. But the question about what came before the Big Bang is a serious question that is receiving increasing attention from cosmologists these days.

---

Yes of course I mean what came before and caused the big bang not whether the big bang actually happened.

The universe could have come into existence with no cause, with a cause or it is eternal. Most of the evidence is pointing to the universe having a beginning at the big bang. But what caused it to come into existence. We know that every event has a cause and if the universe came to be then it is rational to believe that the universe had a cause.So you can conclude that the universe came into existence from nothing and by nothing. Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

Are you saying that we shouldnt study how or why the universe came into existence? What existed before the big bang? Many scientists say that nothing existed. No time, matter, energy, chemicals. Nothing. Therefore nothing created the universe.

Everything that comes to be has a cause. Ill give you an example. 2 people are walking in the woods and they see a translucent ball. He looks to his friend and says where did that ball come from. The other person says I dont know, but it didnt just pop into existence out of nothing.He then says, so you agree that this ball needs a cause? The other person says yes. But what if the ball is the size of a house does it still need a cause? He says yes. What if the ball is the size of the earth, does it need a cause? He says yes. Finally he says, what if the ball is the size of the universe, does it need a cause? He says, no its just there.Thats not rational.

Everything that comes to be has a cause. God didnt come to be so he doesnt need a cause. The scientific evidence points to the universe having a beginning. Evidence from scientists such as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking have pointed to the universe having a beginning. Some atheists believe that the universe did not have a beginning and is eternal and uncaused. If the atheist can have an eternal uncaused universe, why cant a theist have an eternal uncaused God? Why is it rational to believe that the universe is uncaused and irrational to believe that God is uncaused?

I never said that every atheist believes that the universe is eternal. Many people do and by doing so they are going against all the scientific evidence pointing to the big bang. Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

I used the word atheist for lack of a better word. The point I was trying to make is that many people refuse to believe in the scientific evidence for the big bang because it doesnt fit in with their worldview.

The big bang actually fits with theism, since theists have long since believed that the universe had a beginning. Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

There seems to be alot of people here who arent creationists and dont believe in the big bang.

Just looking at previous pages it seems as though some people are not willing to accept that the big bang theory is scientific fact. Its a hypothesis but its backed up by solid scientific evidence. Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

What I want to know is do people reject the big bang theory because the scientific evidence does not point towards it or because they dont agree with the view that the universe had a beginning.

You say that only creationists reject the big bang. But the cosmologystatement.org which was signed by many non-creationist scientists have suggested that the big bang is not a good explanation of how the universe began.The statement says:"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed -- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory."In 1989 the editor for Nature magazine, John Maddox, wrote an editorial called "Down with the Big Bang". He wrote, "Creationists and those of similar persuasion, seeking support for their opinions, have ample justification in the doctrine of the big bang. That, they might say, is when and how the universe was created." He then declared the big bang "philosophically unacceptable".

quote:

---

No, I certainly did not. I said the overwhelming majority of people who reject the BB are creationists. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

---

Yeah but plenty of non-creation scientists also reject the big bang or are uncomfortable with the theory. Einstein said that it "irritates me", Arthur Eddington called it "repugnant", Phillip Morrison said "I would like to reject it", Robert Jastrow said "it was distasteful to the scientific mind."

quote:

---

That's why we only allow trained, qualified medical doctors to be medical doctors. That's why we allow only trained, qualified geologists to work as geologists. MD's and geologists still would know just as much as chemists, engineers and janitors about the BBT. Not much.

---

Charles Darwin was trained in medicine and theology. Charles Lyell was a lawyer. I dont think that just because you study one subject that you will not know much about another.