Many if not all human societies have origin myths and they differ greatly.
Several years ago a San Francisco-born-and-raised woman told me she is a materialist.
An hour ago a woman who was raised a Jehovah Witness and has left that faith told me the Big Bang story grew from a human need for a beginning. I agreed.
Can you wholeheartedly accept that the universe had no beginning, that it has always existed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
That being said, unless or until our best scientists find a better theory, I'll have to side with them, that the best theory at this time is The Big Bang.
I meant to say the most respected.
I'm not an expert at anything, but I can't go along with the 'Big Bang" theory. That would mean that someone would have pushed a button to get it going. (I meant that as a figure of speech.) To say that the entire universe fit into the period at the end of this sentence, and then exploded into what we can see, or sense, it is beyond my ability to comprehend. It's easier to imagine that it had no beginning. I posted an entry somewhere on A/N that I think showed a better theory than the Big Bang. I can post it again if anyone is interested.
Wikipedia says "While the scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different expanding universe theories, the Big Bang and the Steady State theory, empirical evidence provides strong support for the former. In 1929, from analysis of galactic redshifts, Edwin Hubble concluded that galaxies are drifting apart; this is important observational evidence consistent with the hypothesis of an expanding universe. In 1965 the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered, which was crucial evidence in favor of the Big Bang model, since that theory predicted the existence of background radiation throughout the universe before it was discovered. More recently, measurements of the redshifts of supernovae indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, an observation attributed to dark energy's existence. The known physical laws of nature can be used to calculate the characteristics of the universe in detail back in time to an initial state of extreme density and temperature."
I take it you don't consider any of these evidences as real evidence, even though the most respected scientists do.
Tom, I was using that donut to show that there are other ways for the universe to appear to be expanding. The "donut" represents a universe that is "roiling" much like a smoke ring, I used the donut to "freeze" the smoke ring so I could illustrate my point. The Bangers use math to show that the Big Bang occurred, and that is why the galaxies are spreading out. I'm saying they are going back too far with the math. I'm saying that it only shrinks back to the horizontal axis of that donut, and then it spreads out again in physical dimension. In the lower part of that donut, the galaxies would be coming together, and the collisions that would result from that is what is causing the background radiation noise. This is easier for me to accept than the Big Bang.
I thought I was suspending judgment when I said "unless or until our best (most respected) scientists find a better theory, I'll have to side with them, that the best theory at this time is The Big Bang."
I've read your very strong opinions many times, that sound like you know the big bang is false.
Of course I have an opinion. Why shouldn't I? But my opinion is not even close to as strong as yours. I'm not wedded to the big bang theory. I just say the odds are that the most respected scientists are right. If the big bang is disproven, great. No skin off my nose. What theory is right has almost zero affect on my life.