It is reasonable to believe the Big Bang Theory is correct

(character limit reached, I haven't even got to address your arguments, sorry, I needed to do my intro first. Will continue) ------- Introduction -------- Ok I have left this reply for the last hours so I hope I'll be able to compile my stuff. I will start by saying thar I am a little rough, please don't take it personal, it's just the way I am when it comes to absurdities. In our case, the absurdity is not so much the idea of a "big bang" , more then the idea that I ( and anybody else, for that matter), should accept this theory as truth , because a bunch of guys in scientist costumes say so, when the theory claims very counterintuitive or impossible to imagine states of being (timeless state of universe) I am against the text so, keep this in mind. Before presenting my arguments against what is called "big bang"(bb) or big bang theory (bbt) I want to also draw awareness upon the abovemention issue. 99.99% of people living on this planet ( including me and I'm sure you too, if not, please tell) don't have access to the tehnology required to study such advanced science like cosmology. Most of us don't have quick access to a simple telescope. We should all be reasonable and recognize that when you say that there is evidence that bb is true you are in fact accepting as authority the guys who say so. As a logical, critical, thinker, philosopher and brilliant intelectual, the most innate ability that I now possess is defaulting to challange any authority when authority related issues are discussed. To give you a taste of this same medicine , I will use optional arguments from authority (I don't need these to present my case but what the heel :) . I challange you to debunk them , given that you can't even test what the source will speak about which is mainly the same issue from another perspective that is not the mainstream one. To sum up, this debate isn't even between me and you, it's between your authorities on the matter and my skeptical brain that refuses to accept unproved or unprovable facts. But big bang is not just unproven it is impossible. Another thing that I want to say now is that I accepted your statement from round 1 "By "Big Bang" I mean a rapid expansion in the very early universe which gave rise to everything we see today." , but from what I can tell , you are not consistent with this definition because your arguments are for another definition of Big Bang. Look. I know you took the wikipedia entrance for this subject, but in the end, if I have to say it, I'll say it, wikipedia can be edited by basement dwellers [1], and I hope we will agree upon the fact that when you discuss how the "universe began" (as if this expression even makes sense) , you can't rely on this. Big Bang isn't what you propose and argue for. I will therefore use the most common and most widely accepted definition of Big Bang and Big Bang Theory, which should be no problem for you if you are honest. Your argumentes is for this Big Bang as defined by [2] : (cosmology) the cosmic explosion that is hypothesized to have marked the origin of the universe. Of course along the way there are some details like " the universe was originally extremely hot and dense at some finite time in the past and has since cooled by expanding to a currently diluted state that continues to expand today." Regardless, I'll do my part and write why I think that it is unreasonable for any person ( especially one of those 99.99% who can't test anything by themselves) to believe that : the universe had a beggining, that there was a big bang, and that the universe is expanding, etcetera. end of introduction -------------------------------------------------------------- Definitions: universe: everything that exists anywhere [2] -------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments. There are some problems with the idea of big bang relating to the universe. 1. "Expanding universe" . What is this supposed to mean? Expanding into what? The universe must expand into something, and that something is supposed to be some kind of "empty space". However all empty space already belongs to the definition of universe, that includes everything that exists, including space, energy, and all the stuff. Let's say that we are at the edge where the "universe defining light" is speeding its way out. Here's a simple question: Is the area 5 meters ahead of the light wave part of the universe? Well it is. It's just as much a part of this universe as the space between any two planets is. Empty space is also a part of "everything that exists anywhere". What about a mile? What about a million miles? It's all empty space according to the theory. Or is it? Remember, the current Big Bang theory is an expanding theory, not a static theory. If there's anything to expand into, that space must, as shown above, belong in the universe. 2. Time. What happened before BB? If BB is an event that lead to the existence of the universe, the logical questions that comes to mind is why it happened and what happened before it. As you force a healthy brain to think to these question it should eventally reach the conclusion that it is absurd to think of concepts such as "beginning of time" . Beginning is a term that is meaningless in abscence of a time-scale. Time , by any stretch of immagination, cannot have a beginning. Time requires change in the state of the universe. For time itself to have a beginning, a state of total stabiltiy is needed. A place where all things that exist never change or more or age or die or you get the point. For an event that marks the "beginning of time" to be possible , it needs a primary "trigger" ( Theists could refer to this trigger as God, of course this would only lead to greater problems) Conditions for BB to happen at a random X point means that stuff happened before it, which demolishes the idea that BB created time. The most reasonable assumption that can be made, which is also most probably the truth on the matter, is that the universe always existed and it is infinite in size. This is neither an explanation it itself, but a more reasonable way to imagine the universe, one that does not automatically run into very insolvable problems. 3. Authorities such as Stephen Hawking stated on a documentary that in the end the most simple "explantion" for him is BB brough our universe into existance spontaneously and for no reason.(i don't have source at hand, will provide later) Also asked in October 2005 on the British daytime chat show Richard & Judy, to explain his assertion that the question "What came before the Big Bang?" was meaningless, he compared it to asking "What lies north of the North Pole?" No in fact this only shows how clueless this guy is. The question is not meaningless but on the contrary, and even more so when authorities give "explanations" similar to those of the theists, "God did it" , "Big Bang did it" Why does this matter? Matters, because when you use authorities as your arguments, and those authorities speak nonsense publicly about the given issue, it means you'll also speak nonsense when you try to convince others how right your authorities are. 4. Argument from religious authorities. Hawking takes an agnostic position on matters of religion. He has repeatedly used the word "God" (in metaphorical meanings) to illustrate points made in his books and public speeches. This is similar to argument 3 , only stronger. How am I supposed to believe the word of an idiot who doesn't exclude outright the possibility of existance of deities?! That would be really stupid of me because I know better then to listen to crazy people. [3] 5. optional argment [4] Debunk this please :) Sorry character limit!! 1] http://encyclopediadramatica.com... 2] wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/web 3] http://en.wikipedia.org... 4] http://www.angelfire.com...