Unexplained gaps in the big bang theory

The big bang theory, a human concept to explain; creation's expansion, how life came to be.

Though just a theory, still does not explain much of what is within the universe and how things "work" inside of it.

For those who have digressed to put faith in such a theory, an unknown and spontaneous bang (of what forces?), producing creation, I make this thread for those, to kindly fill in the questions I have about this simple and unexplainable theory.

So let's get crackin' this debate shall we?

The very first flaw I have with this theory; is the fact that it would assume nature came after spontaneous production.. then nature goes on to create things from nothing, for no reason.

How and Why is nature all of a sudden creating things; and what faculty would nature have that allows it to create miraculously flawless geography, designs, and numerical consistencies?

In human logic, it would take quite a large brain to process all this information/knowledge, especially coming from nothing.

How would nature get the information to be so flawless in sciences, mathematics, geometry down to the MICRO and up to the MACRO scale?
Where is the knowledge and information coming from, if from nothing at all... surely nature doesn't think like the things it created, right?

Secondly; how does nothing create everything is ONE side of this debate.The other side is; how did nature (which apparently came from nothing) create things that can think on their own.
Said creations can think about anything and everything. Things that exist and things that don't our brain/mind can create things (mentally) that don't even exist within the universe.

How did nothing give the ability to THINK of anything or everything, just out of prima materia?

Thirdly; why did nature decide to create bodies, that think and feel, but also have TWO counter parts?
If nothing (represented by 0) created everything (represented by 1), why would it then create a counter part (like eve from Adams rib story) for further reproduction of that created body (represented by 1+1=2)?

Now we have to back up again and go for the first point again; how is nature intelligent and creating flawless creations from primal material? Where is the information coming from to create TWO counterparts?

With that in mind, and everything coming from one thing, why would nature not make self replicating bodies like divided itself or something? Simply efficient and conservative, right?

It would seem unnecessary to create counter parts of original creations, nature created, following the big bang theory.

Fourthly; this is the last point I have to bring up for denying the big bang. The fact that nature created bodies that can now think and be self aware and externally aware, they can feel emotions.

The thoughts that the created body has, change how that body feels and goes about its "life". Thoughts, that come only when the body awareness exercises thought, actually changes its emotions and perspective of the external universe it was unwillingly born into.

My main points against the Big Bang theory; how did nature get its program to create flawless designs, mathematics, sciences, chemical reactions, biological systems and the REASON TO CREATE in the first place?

Also how did nature go on to create things that now think for themselves, and feel emotions (where and why did emotions come from?), as well as are self aware creations?

Why did nature create two counter parts that must have one and the other to reproduce? If it was spontaneous with no consciousness (nature's), how did it create two sides that biological, chemically and systemically fit flawlessly together to reproduce? Doesn't seem random.

Seems like a bit much for random nothingness to go out and do all this and now we live self aware experiences for a short time trying to understand why nature did what it did/does.

For those who hold faith of big bang, explain some of these points in your POV please, this is an honest debate to further educate myself how others understand creation and life.

All comments and questions are welcome, don't let emotion lead your partake within this light debate.

Play nice , thanks for reading

It's just a theory. An equally good theory is that time is non-linear to begin with, and there was/is no "big bang," and matter and energy are constantly zooming "forward" and "backward" holographically in time for all eternity, with the only thing keeping it coherent being the living things perceiving it, whether it's us or aliens or whoever. Not "God," of course, because such a supernatural superbeing really isn't necessary at that point.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Of course it's just a theory, the only favored theory in the scientific realm of thought.

Which makes it more then the other theories. .

Your theory also holds the realm of thought I have on thus subject. There was no initial bang as the whole of universe already had the "tools" to create, but what was it's reason to do so...

Another weird thing; all creations happen in depth of darkness, the absence of light; the universe is a dark womb, that cultivates and incubates matter to further create. The depth of the ocean, the female vaginal is the dark womb a new born comes from.

Darkness creates.

Science can explain what happens when I slap you( just an example) but not why I slapped you.

Same applies for the universe which is why the Big bang theory is a theory.

a reply to: Elementalist

Back in the 50s and 60s I was rooting for Hoyle's steady state concept. It was getting fair traction in the race with the big bang. Then the results of experiments began mounting up that pointed to the BB as the answer, and the steady state idea took a back burner.

I have followed the progress of the BB now for 50 years as the preeminent cosmological theory for our origins but lately I have been having problems with it as it stands. One thing that stands out to me is the sheer amount of 'stuff' that is supposed to have come out of it. Back then, in the 60s we thought that the universe was really big. But since then we have come to see just how really freeking out of our conceptions HUGE this sucker really is. And how far far far away it stretches. I'm just finding it harder and harder to wrap my aging brain around it.

Now, I am leaning back more to the steady state idea. That existence is really a perpetual never beginning never ending thing and that all the indications of a Big Bang are really indications of something else that has happened within that steady state universe. A localized singularity within an already existent universe that effects only a localized region of the universe.

First of all , the science that tries to predict this is called Theoretical Physics for a reason. That contains standard physics , quantum mechanics and physics, string or M-theory physics ,the 21 dimensions of the multiverse and so on and so forth. It would take a very large or multiple very large posts to go through all the information to be able to explain how all this came about using science . Not only that , but also a great deal of biology ,psychology,and the natural sciences to explain the rest.

a reply to: Elementalist

The Big Bang Theory doesn't hold water, but the Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams wrote a novella in 2001 that I like very much. He calls it a "thought experiment" and calls the Big Bang God's Debris.

God's Debris: A Thought Experiment
www.amazon.com...

God's Debris espouses a philosophy based on the idea that the simplest explanation tends to be the best (a corruption of Occam's Razor). It surmises that an omnipotent God annihilated himself in the Big Bang, because an omniscient God would already know everything possible except his own lack of existence, and exists now as the smallest units of matter and the law of probability, or "God's debris", hence the title.

Maybe God just blew Himself up...
...that would make us all his rematrix.

a reply to: Elementalist

I think the why of it is that there was an accidental creation of life that had coherrant thought. It started to think of things, and that it would be nice to have someone else to think with. The original thinker was a forward thinker, thinking of reproduction, so he created a woman! Good thinking on his part though, because if he had created another guy, well we all know how that turned out, there would be no you and me. Two of the same cannot reproduice... Plain and simple... Just some random, and probably useless silly thoughts...... Syx.

originally posted by: Boeing777
Science can explain what happens when I slap you( just an example) but not why I slapped you.

Same applies for the universe which is why the Big bang theory is a theory.

Are you trying to say they know what the BB is and what it's doing, etc. but they don't know why it happened or still happening?
A bit of a problem don't you think.
If you have full knowledge of what something is, explaining why it is shouldn't be too hard.

a reply to: Elementalist

Those are just stories to scare kids in the dark

But what is darkness, the shadows? That all depends on who is looking.
There is more light outside our visible spectrum.

a reply to: Elementalist

You missed one of the big ones LOL. The entire universe is a NET zero sum energy construct, therefore it can exist or not. Of course that has nothing to do with the big bang, except that would also mean that the big bang was NET sum zero energy. How do you get a mathematically correct and reasonably stable universe from zero?

Cheers - Dave

The big bang theory is no longer a theory:

No Big Bang?

a reply to: Elementalist

How would nature get the information to be so flawless in sciences, mathematics, geometry down to the MICRO and up to the MACRO scale? Where is the knowledge and information coming from, if from nothing at all... surely nature doesn't think like the things it created, right?

4 Basic Forces govern from the micro to the macro.

Secondly; how does nothing create everything is ONE side of this debate.The other side is; how did nature (which apparently came from nothing) create things that can think on their own.

Since that happened after the Big Bang, it's not really a hole in the Big Bang theory, just a hole in scientific theory.

a reply to: gravitized

If you read your link you will see the big bang is still alive and well. It is included in their hypothesis they are just replacing the singularity.

a reply to: Elementalist

First it would be pertinent for you to click on the second link in my signature.

Second you should actually use that computer to look up The Big Bang Theory and read what it says.

You have attributed so many things to the theory that I am afraid that you need to start from the beginning I am sorry your schooling failed you, but it seems to have done just that.


You are actually asking about the Big Bang Theory, Abiogenesis (hypothesis), and Evolutionary Theory. I am not a teacher and considering you need to realize all you think you know is mostly wrong before progress could be made you would need to come to terms with that and be ready and willing to relearn everything.

I don't think I am up to the task of walking you through it.

You can educate yourself though as long as you can read which it seems you can. All the information is available online. If you need a list of sources or online courses I could help with that.

a reply to: gravitized
Just another theory in a long list of Quantum Physics theories. Will we ever know for sure ? Probably not as some Quantum physics accounts for that as well . There is an infinite amount of "stuff" to learn that keeps increasing in difficulty as the layers are discovered , therefore the time to research grows exponentially with each layer.

a reply to: here4this

Just another theory in a long list of Quantum Physics theories.

NO...now if you said "just another hypothesis" then you would be correct.

Using laymen definitions of theory on scientific matters is a big NO.

I'm not much for the Big Bang theory. It is nearly impossible for us, being a molecule within a drop in a massive ocean of stars, to be able to conclude anything of how the Universe was formed. They are trying to convince us something is real that probably is not real. What is wrong with believing that we do not know how the universe was made? It really doesn't matter, knowing I have toilet paper in the bathroom is much more important. I don't care other than the fact they are teaching people to believe in something that probably is not real. That is deception not true science. Sooner or later if they convince most people that the Big Bang theory is real, it will become real in our reality. It is just as bad as the old theory that the world was flat that most people were conditioned to believe. Before it was flat it was a sphere.

So let me sum this up. There is no way in hell that we, from this point in space, can definitely say how the universe was formed. There could be many reasons that the universe is giving us this evidence. Now at the same time, it is also hard for anyone to disprove some theories because consensus of the time dictates what evidence is allowed to apply.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Elementalist

Those are just stories to scare kids in the dark

But what is darkness, the shadows? That all depends on who is looking.
There is more light outside our visible spectrum.

I'm very much aware if this friend, thanks

originally posted by: Elementalist

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Elementalist

Those are just stories to scare kids in the dark

But what is darkness, the shadows? That all depends on who is looking.
There is more light outside our visible spectrum.

I'm very much aware if this friend, thanks

If I read thst the big bang is a theory one more time, when my title explains it all.... I'm gonna altF4 lol.

I'm ASKING those who BELIEVE the theory, to explain their View point of the POINTS in the OP.

How did this get confusing for people... I'm aware the thread is of a theory, you would think yourself I was aware when you read the title.