Do you Believe in the Big Bang Theory? Why?

Question

This is a question for Atheists, Christians, Agnostics, and all Religions. I'm just wondering if you believe the Big Bang Theory or not, and support your answer with why you do, or why you don't.

I'm not going to tell if I do until after I've chose the best answer. No I'm not going to Choose what I believe in as the best answer, I will choose the person who gave the best reasoning for their answer. I'm also hoping to not get answers like "No because I read the Bible" like I get for other questions.

Reported for Adult Content? Right... learn to read before you report.

Anyways can you guys please explain why? Otherwise I'm just going to thumbs down and not choose you for best answer since you are not answering the question fully. The big bang is a Thoery, not a scientific statement. You either Believe a theory or you do not, That is what I am asking. Believe in just looks weird because the english language is so messed up, but I hope you get what I mean when I say this. Don't play on my words and give me an answer trying to say I'm asking a question that can't be answered, Answer on and I look forward to reading some good reasons why or why not.

Answer 1

Yes, because there is plenty of scientific evidence to support it. The fleshing out of the Big Bang theory started from the evidence that the universe is expanding, and worked backwards to the conclusion that the universe must have started as an enormously dense, extremely hot and energetic, very small point, sometimes called a singularity. This point exploded out into what has become our universe, with the energy coalescing into matter that gravitated together to form stars and galaxies. Some of the major pieces of evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory are listed below.

Hubble’s Law

In 1929 Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason put forth what is now known as Hubble’s law. The law explains the redshift in the light arriving from distant stars. This redshift is similar to the well-known Doppler Effect, where an approaching train or ambulance has a higher-pitched sound than a receding one. Sound from a receding object like a train is stretched out into longer wavelengths and lower frequencies. Similarly, light from a receding star is stretched out into the longer wavelengths and lower frequencies of the red side of the spectrum. What Hubble’s Law states is that the redshift in light observable from faraway stars and galaxies is proportional to the distance of the object from the earth. This makes sense if the universe is expanding in all directions, because something twice as far away will be receding twice as fast. (Picture holding a long rubber band, with a pen mark on it one inch away from your hand and another mark two inches away. Now stretch it to twice its length. The closer mark moved slower, only one more inch, while the farther mark moved two inches, twice as fast.) Hubble’s Law showed cosmologists the true size and expansion of the universe, and led scientists to work backwards to the theory of a Big Bang.

Olbers’ Paradox

Olbers’ paradox can be most simply stated by saying, “Why is the night sky dark?” With infinite size, or even just extremely large size, every single point in the night sky should contain a star, and even though that star might be very distant, it should still give us light. So why isn’t the night sky as bright as the sun? The answer lies in the Big Bang, which gives two reasons why the sky is mostly dark. First, the universe is expanding, which will take faraway stars out of our “observable universe” so that no light from them will reach us. The expansion of the universe is pulling them away from us faster than their light is moving. (Yes, no things can move faster than the speed of light, but the expansion of the universe itself can be faster than light.) Second, the universe is not infinitely old, which means that some stars are young enough that their light hasn’t yet had a chance to reach us. Both limited age and expansion support the Big Bang theory.


Homogeneity/Isotropy (Sameness)

The Big Bang theory says that all of the part of the universe we can observe was compressed into an extremely small point back at the time of the Big Bang. Since everything was compressed into the same spot and arose from the same process, we should expect that the universe should be homogeneous, that is, it should look roughly the same in all directions. The homogeneousness, or isotropy, of the universe has been tested, and the universe has been shown to be isotropic on a scale as fine as 1 part in 100,000.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

In the 1940s, scientists predicted that the heat of the early stages of the Big Bang would have left an observable amount of background radiation in the form of microwaves. Equipment was not sophisticated to test this hypothesis until the 1960s, when evidence of the background radiation was detected. Further data regarding the specific nature and pattern of the background radiation was found in the 1990s, and again it matched up with the predictions of the Big Bang theory.

Answer 2

I am an agnostic and no, I do not believe the big bang theory. This is most likely because I don't have sufficient knowledge of the field. However, I believe that the big bang theory could not have happened because it defies so many rules and laws that I have learned through physics. There isn't any way I can see that everything in the universe could have been compacted into one point, one atom and without any external assistance, expand rapidly to the universe as it is today. I think that this "theory" was created in order to explain a happening (the beginning of the universe and time) that people can't figure out. People can't image the existence of a possibility that the universe could have been indefinite, without a beginning or an end and thus a theory was created with what I consider bogus evidence in order to satisfy the people's crave of an answer to a concept they refuse to grasp.

Answer 3

I do not believe in the Big Bang. The story of the big bang is the work of fiction and ultimately is an atheist view of origin. The big bang indicates that the universe was begun with a dramatic explosion and has and will continue to expand for billions of years - until it's 'heated death.' Scientifically there are problems, with this theory. For example, if matter was created by energy then where is the antimatter that was created as a byproduct of this reaction?

There is no way such a story can be harmonized with the Bible. God through His servant Moses, wrote the book of Genesis, where it is indicated that in six days God created the earth, the seas and all living creatures. The Bible also tells us a different end for our universe. That there will be a judgement at the end of time (which will not be billions of years away) when people will stand accountable for their sins.

Answer 4

Yes, I believe in the Big Bang theory. There are three main reasons why I believe in it.

1. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation: No matter where one looks, there is always a background radiation of approximately 2.73 K. If a Big Bang had occurred, we would expect to see CMBR. A rapid expansion from a highly energetic state would cause decoupling that should be apparent today. The CMBR is the evidence of such decoupling.

2. The abundance of Hydrogen and Helium. A rapid expansion from a highly energetic state would have caused a rapid relative cooling. (The energy density would have decreased.) The faster the cooling rate, the more light atoms we would expect to see. Since nearly 80% of atomic matter in the universe is Hydrogen and Helium, it seems logical that the universe expanded rapidly from an energetic state. (i.e. The Big Bang happened.)

3. Red Shift: All observed galaxies (in every direction) are moving away from us (exhibit red shift). This suggests that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe is another prediction of the Big Bang theory.

The existence of a big bang predicts that we would find each of these three pieces of evidence. Since we have found them, each one incrementally confirms the Big Bang. Taken together, the confirmation is adequate to adopt the Big Bang as the best available theory to explain the origin of the universe.

Answer 5

In the spirit of the question, i am answering before i know how others have responded.

The Big Bang is supported by evidence -- none of which i have actually witnessed, but i believe in the sincerity of those who report this evidence. The very first time i heard of this theory, i believed it even without knowing any evidence because it just made sense to me, almost as though a "small bang" went off in my mind.

Every argument i read about whether God created the Universe from a piece of himself or out of nothing just convinces me that it all began SOMEwhere. Furthermore, this creation is on-going and so is the Bang. Evolution is a small segment in this continuum. The whole of creation is evolving from that explosive instant.

Theists who deny the truth of the Big Bang are putting limits on the Creator, like they can tell him what he can and cannot do.

edit after reading others:

Muslimah and others, i am thrilled by Your quotes from the Qu'ran! Thank You.

Spartacus, You wrote "since I can only observe this universe I'll never be able to prove my belief." You sound like a theist who is asked to prove God.

Answer 6

No, the origin of the universe as explained by the Big Bang theory does not explain where all the matter in the universe came from to begin with or how the laws of nature came into being...How does something exploding or expanding create a law by itself? What caused it to explode? Many other problems with it. The universe had to be created and is finite according to the laws of entropy. It cannot go on forever or have always been...it had a beginning which is what the Bible states in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
http://www.biblelife.org/bigbang.htm

Answer 7

As a working theory, it seems to be the best one we have. Conceptually, I lean towards the steady-state hypothesis, but it seems plausible in my view to posit that the expansion of the universe (red-shifting observed by astronomers) may not be universal but regional, as with the regional shifting of geological strata on Earth. With an observation of this sort, it is natural to assume the universe is expanding and theorize this in a linear fashion back to the beginning with a singularity. I suspect it is not a straight line back to this one-point, however. It simply doesn't make sense to me that the universe could have a beginning in time, unless there are other universes from which it had been formed. The mirror-infinity regression problem of "which came first?" can be carried to absurdity.

So the Big Bang may be true to a point, but I lean toward a cyclic explanation, Big Bang/Big Chill cycle or some sort of universal assymetry (more than one "original" event).

Answer 8

The Big Bang makes sense to me.
Pretty simple logic really.

The universe is either expanding, contraction or is in a steady state.

I'm reticent to believe in steady state because everything is in motion and stars appear to have limited lifespan.

Astronomers say most things in the sky are red shifted, i.e. moving away, which suggests the universe is expanding.
Which leads to the question from where? Which leads to the notion of the Big Bang.

But even the notion of contraction leads to the concept of the Big Crunch. Which in turn suggests a prior and subsequent Big Bang.

This is obviously speculation since no one's old enough to have seen any of this. Still, when virtually everything you see is cyclic, it's not hard to believe the universe is cyclic as well.

Answer 9

There are several theories about the begining of the universe. Most delve into highly complex mathematical equations dealing with constants I can barely fathom. The key to remember is that all these are "theories" based on "observed data." As time goes along and new data comes to light, new deducements will be made and old ideas will be thrown out as being unsupportable.

Currently, all observable data support the big bang as a start of the "observable" universe with an exponential expansion that cooled off to provide the conditions we have now. If the conditions we have are constant, we will be looking at a fragmenting universe within a period of time that will exceed the Earth's ability to support life.

Scientists are now looking as to what models of the universe can be extrapolated to see what the endstate will be, but .... As always, its speculation.

Answer 10

I do,because it is the best theory that has been put forward so far.A sudden convergence/implosion resulting in an enormous explosion best explains everything.Also why else but for the light traveling away from it would our universe be expanding?We can only see to the limits of where light has traveled since the big bang and this distance is increasing at the speed of light in all directions,so it kinda follows that the light came from a source at the center of our known universe.