The Big Bang Theory! Do you believe it? Poll!

[Insuperable]

The point of zero volume and infinite density that you are describing is called the singularity. Science does not yet consider the singularity to be a fact. What is understood is the nearly 14 billion years of cosmic evolution after the Planck time, 10^-43 seconds. Before the Planck time, the current laws of physics as we know them break down because there was only one fundamental force then (now there are four: electromagnetism, gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces). The singularity is not a sure thing.

I have never said it is a sure thing, but that it is a part of the standard model along with the (although not 100% verified) standard theory of inflation

[Svipdag]

Whether anyone BELIEVES a scientific hypothesis or theory is completely irrelevant. The validity of a scientific hypothesis or theory is not a matter of belief but of success in accounting for observational and experimental FACTS ! The evolutionary cosmology, a.k.a. "Big Bang" theory accounts for the observed expansion of the universe better than any of the alternative, now mostly discarded, explanations. This is true whether Svipdag or Hawking, or Joe Blow believes it or not. If it works, it is accepted, at least faute de mieux.

The major rival hypothesis, Fred Hoyle's "Steady State universe" has been disproved by radio astronomy observations.
The "Pulsating Universe" hypothesis is not scientific in that it is unprovable. At best, it is a fascinating speculation. In
accounting for the facts of observational astronomy, then, the evolutionary cosmology has no serious rivals. Let those who disbelieve in the "Big Bang" theory offer an alternative explanation which better accounts for the facts of astronomical observation.

SCIENTIA NON HABET INIMICVM NISI IGNORANTEM

Anonymous

[Iloko]

I'm more inclined to believe in Biocentrism instead:

[Journeyman26]

Whether anyone BELIEVES a scientific hypothesis or theory is completely irrelevant. The validity of a scientific hypothesis or theory is not a matter of belief but of success in accounting for observational and experimental FACTS ! The evolutionary cosmology, a.k.a. "Big Bang" theory accounts for the observed expansion of the universe better than any of the alternative, now mostly discarded, explanations. This is true whether Svipdag or Hawking, or Joe Blow believes it or not. If it works, it is accepted, at least faute de mieux.

The major rival hypothesis, Fred Hoyle's "Steady State universe" has been disproved by radio astronomy observations.
The "Pulsating Universe" hypothesis is not scientific in that it is unprovable. At best, it is a fascinating speculation. In
accounting for the facts of observational astronomy, then, the evolutionary cosmology has no serious rivals. Let those who disbelieve in the "Big Bang" theory offer an alternative explanation which better accounts for the facts of astronomical observation.

SCIENTIA NON HABET INIMICVM NISI IGNORANTEM

Anonymous

Preach!

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

I believe in a new version of the Cyclic model. It's a dash of sexy, a pinch of swag, and a whole lot of charm.

[hedonist]

Do you think the Big Bang Theory implies the beginning of our universe is accidental?

Do you think the Big Bang is a proper scientific theory that is supported by the evidence or do you just regard it as a plausible hypothesis?

my own personal belief is there is a subconscious intelligence that is not necessarily sentient but connected and acting in concert in all things, even the void. So no I don't believe it was entirely by chance.