The problems of big bang theory. What are they?

We will start this point by point, if I miss any I, or someone else with come back and fill in... Patently incorrect. ANTI-MATTER also exists, anti-matter also composes part of EVERYTHING. Everything that follows is pointless, but I will continue. Lets examine virtual particles for the sake of this discussion. These virtual particle didn't always exist in some place. They are produced. The problem with this is, there is no 'first particle' instead there was likely the first pair of particles. One of matter and the other of antimatter. Which then likely recombined and annihilated each other. This idea doesn't require any sum total energy or matter being created from nothing since they are opposites in charge, spin, properties (generally). Their sum total canceling out to zero. This is a false dichotomy and a poor one at that, added to that is the straw man over simplification of big bang theory. Also god is conveniently placed "outside all boundaries of LAWS and NATURE and TIME". (whatever that is supposed to mean)The false dichotomy stems from the idea that there can only be two options to choose from and you get to choose which two options we get to choose from, then you choose an option that misrepresents the scientific consensus on the big bang as one of the two options. Do you see the problem yet?

---

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

You didn't bother to read did you?You should try learning this subject by reading rather than having the members of this board spend their time teaching you things you will never allow yourself to believe.Leaving out antimatter isn't a small thing as you seem to imply, that only demonstrates further the point that you are disbelieving things you haven't made the effort to understand.Lets start here First thing, notice it says like a black hole, that doesn't mean = to a blackhole. Experiments have been conducted to create pairs of particle/anti-particles. This isn't just limited to the big bang.-x

---

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

Since you keep adding things after I have started my response I then have to respond multiple times. Show me this law, in its entirety. You are over simplifying things again. Only your version of 'logic'.You are stuck on your conclusion and simply playing a shell game to try and reach the same conclusion, regardless of how many times you are shown that your basic assumptions are incorrect. The sure sign of a locked mind, unwilling to bend to the evidence, and a waste of time for those of us posting in response.P.S. Can I recommend that since you are in all likelihood using internet explorer(from the state of your posts), you try FireFox web Browser, it would make your posts more comprehensible since it includes a spell check option. Its not perfect as my posts will show, but it will vastly improve them.-x

I have already told you that something can in fact come from 'pure nothing'. And I have already told you that there is no such thing as 'pure nothing' in the realm of physics. You simply aren't paying attention. We know they are there because they affect the physical world we inhabit. But you will continue to ignore this...-x

---

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

You need to decide what you are and aren't saying. if you want to talk about 'before the universe' then you are saying there was a 'pure nothingness'.Particles do have beginnings. I have not claimed otherwise. Particles/Matter/Anti-matter originated(had a beginning) with the big bang, which is a singularity extending through all space at a single instant. I do not, in the remotest sense believe in a creator with no beginning, nor in a creator with a beginning, I don't believe in any creator entities/creatures/beings.-x

No. virtual particles aren't a thing of the past. Do you think god is the one still making them to this day? Because you do realize this is a part of everyday physics? Why do you see the need of a god to create something that still pops into and out of existence to this day? The difference is that the matter of the universe and the gravitational conditions existent today do not provide for a new big bang.And nothing 'brings it about'.-x

---

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

no, Chiroptera didn't say that, I did.And no the universe doesn't require a cause. Its simply a leap on your part, supported by nothing more than your misunderstanding of the topic. This does not mean something already existed, why should it mean that? because you have declared it?-x

You refuse to pay attention.Virtual particles do not require a cause, they aren't part of the existence you are trying to fabricate and redefine here.Just because you word a statement to claim that something "cannot come before they are created", doesn't make it any more true.You keep ignoring that all your premises to get to this point have been shown false, you never bothered to change your conclusion though. This is as ignorant as asking "what energy powers gravity" since no energy is required to 'power gravity' yet gravity was shown to you as the 'power source' for the original big bang separating the virtual particle into their respective particles and antiparticles. And these virtual particles require no cause, no energy, and create a sum total of zero energy and matter.

Big Bang, t = 0To talk about negative time is as meaningfull as talking about negative water.There is no t = -1That's the most simple way to put what you don't seem to understand.-x

I think the idea is that at t