The problems of big bang theory. What are they?

yes, you are right. I don't know what the meaning could be with the model I have.

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.

Very few atheists would even think of the Big Bang. Atheists are atheists because there is absolutely no evidence for any kind of god. That's it.
You still are confusing the words "atheism" and "science". They are two different things. If a person doesn't know what the Big Bang Theory actually is, is it their fault. Not the fault of science.I, for example, find the physics and maths behind the Big Bang way to difficult to comprehend. I wouldn't have a clue whether or not the Big Bang Theory relates to "eternity" or "non-eternity" at all. My fault, not the fault of science.There still is absolutely no objective evidence for any kind of god at all. None. Even if the whole Big Bang Theory somehow is wrong, there still is no objective evidence for any kind of god. Your logical fallacies (special pleading and straw-man arguments) would still be very bad arguments.Edited by Pressie, : Fixed spelling mistakes and added a sentence.

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.

Yeah. They're called "creationists". This would be a much, much better word than "atheists", what with creationists not being atheists.

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.

And yet the people who deny it are in fact by an overwhelming majority creationists.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The Big Bang is an 'interpretation' of the facts. It's a theory to explain the measured facts.
God is just a name, a word. That's all. There is no definition for it (or many different ones).
Thests can't see that there can be an eternel universe.
It's very illogic to think that there can be an eternal god, but not an eternal universe. Very strange thinking.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

In my theory I start with a whole (set of) different postulate(s):Spacestretch is the gravitational equivalent of lengthcontraction of an object (= spacestretch for observer).
Because of a timedifference.Or even better:If spacestretch for the observer is involved, timedifference must be involved too. (and motion)(lengtcontraction of object can also be seen as spacestretch for the observer)It's the observer-triangleWhen you see motion, you see timedifference and spacestretch.
When you see timedifference, you see motion ans spacestretch
When you see spacestretch, you see motion and timedifferenceA second postulate:your time ticks always normal for you.
your clock is the norm, the criterium for distortions elsewhere.AndYou ARE a clock.So space, time and motion will change, given your postion, given your clock. (relativistically spoken).That's relativity.The curvature of spacetime from the universe as a wholeI know, it's a bit an abstract concept.I talked about 'the curvature of the universe as a whole'.
This curvature can only be seen from a distance.Can you see the curvature of spacetime caused by our galaxy?
No, not at all. Because you are a part of it.So, distance make you see 'a whole' and its influence on other 'wholes'.
galaxies on other galaxies, clusters on clusters, local groups on eachother etc.These are, what I call: emergent systems. Wholons.
These systems curve spacetime too, as whole 'objects'.So, at a certain point, you will see the influence of the curvature of the universe as such a whole on the objects in it. That causes the perception of 'an expanding universe'. Spacestretch.But, that's just a relativistic perception - given your position, given your clock.
Space does strange things because of this curvature. (motion and timedifference will be involved too)So: it's not about the facts. It's about the interpretation of the facts. (the theory)
Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.

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

Who exactly are you referring to?

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.

That statement is very different to saying: You have changed the word 'Alot' for 'Some' and have abandoned the 'non-creationist' aspect of your claim.But your new statement is kinda self-evident.
If there weren't 'some' people that don't accept the BBT then this thread would be very short:
"The problems of big bang theory. What are they?" followed by silence.Edited by Panda, : 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.

from what I can see, they reject it because it doesn't agree with their creation myths.