The Great Debunk of The Bing Band Theory

As any academically developed being knows, the most complicated, thought-provoking, yet ultimately unfulfilling part of sharing one's thoughts is the introduction - a part I had willed myself to sophisticate, until I sat down and began writing. Nothing worked…

In my prologue, it is essential to clarify that this article is not intended as a poetic extravaganza, but rather as a rough analysis of one of the most entangled scientific hypotheses: the Big Bang Theory. A theory which, in its essence, proposes to explain the genesis of the universe. A theory which asserts that from the void - an absolute absence of matter, space, and time - an inexplicable, cataclysmic explosion occurred, birthing not merely something, but the existence itself. A theory which, despite its grand claims, is extolled and, one might argue, verges on being religiously revered by a considerable portion of the atheistic community, even though it remains starved of comprehensive empirical evidence. In the pages that follow, I won’t refute the Big Bang Theory with blind denial, nor will I avoid using metaphysical ideas where they are needed. Instead, I will carefully examine the logic behind the theory, point out the weak spots in its foundation, and question the uncertain evidence that supports it. Because if we truly want to understand how the universe began, we must first separate science from schizophrenical guesswork, I would say - and real insight from popular belief. I must also mention that my religious beliefs do not influence the critical attitude I hold toward this theory. I will play a role of a neutral observer, therefore the following will be hardcore objective matter. First and foremost, let’s split the general idea of theory and use Wikipedia as a source: The Big Bang is a physical theory that describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature. Various cosmological models based on the Big Bang concept explain a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and large-scale structure. Alright, what an immense nonsense, we are about to destroy!

Let’s think about this for a moment. The theory says that the universe started from an extremely small point with a high density and temperature, then suddenly exploded and expanded. But here’s the problem: how can something come from nothing? The theory doesn’t fully explain how that first "point" came to existence. It simply assumes that everything started from nothing, which seems more like a leap of faith than a scientific explanation. Then, we’re told that this explosion created everything: galaxies, stars, and all the elements we have today. But how can one big explosion create such order and structure? Explosions tend to cause chaos, not the organized universe we see now. If we take a closer look, we find that the so-called evidence for this explosion, like the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, can be explained in other ways, too. It’s not as clear-cut as the theory suggests. Moreover, the theory relies heavily on assumptions that have not been fully proven. Things like dark matter and dark energy, which are meant to fill in the gaps in our understanding, only add more mystery and less certainty. They are called "dark" for a reason - we can’t even see or measure them directly. Okay, enough of the general representation. Now let’s see what the most influential scientists suggest, starting from Stephen Hawking, and I’m quoting: “The Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, and it was the start of time itself. Time and space are both created at the moment of the Big Bang.” I have to be honest, it is complicated to debunk this statement, as time is not an easy topic to discuss and furthermore argue about. But what he means in the statement is: according to our current understanding of physics, the Big Bang marks the point where both space and time as we know them began. Astonishing, Mr. Hawking, but where’re the arguments about HOW it was the start of time itself? Even your field, in which you had some magnificent works, suggests that time is a parameter, not an entity, and its role in the very early universe is unclear. Unfortunately, because of my lack of knowledge in this particular field, I’m unable to continue. But one thing is clear: even Hawking didn’t satisfy us. Plus, time is NOT a theme of science, but a theme of philosophy, about which I will share my thoughts later.

Moving on to Neil Tyson, nothing but a good source of factual information. Being a reader of his books and respecting him, I wouldn’t recommend taking any of his perspectives as a worldview. BUT, Tyson made a really impressive statement in a book of his, “Astrophysics For People In A Hurry.” Tyson’s view of the Big Bang aligns with the idea that it represents the beginning of the observable universe - the point when space and time as we understand them began. However, he also highlights the mystery of the true origin and suggests that we still have much to learn about what came before or how time itself functions at the deepest levels of the cosmos. And he is somehow generating an idea better than Hawking’s or, as I said earlier, a considerable portion of atheists’.

Now, I think I have finished the discussion in a scientific way, and have to concentrate on the true way of regarding the creation of the universe: philosophy. Science might explain the how of the universe’s creation, but philosophy addresses the why - a question that science can’t quite answer, no matter how many experiments are conducted. Philosophy has long tackled the mysteries of existence, often questioning the nature of time, space, and causality in ways science cannot. From the ancient Greeks to modern-day thinkers, the question of the universe’s origins has sparked debate, but the answers are often far from scientific formulas. Instead, they rely on reason, logic, and sometimes faith, considering the universe as not just a collection of physical events, but a greater, interconnected whole. Again, because of my limitations in the field I’m currently talking about, I’ll stay demure and try to express myself succinctly.

First of all, if an atheist believes that the universe has a starting point, they may inadvertently adopt concepts reminiscent of Abrahamic frameworks, without even realizing it. This is a fundamental flaw in their argument. By asserting that the universe had a beginning, they unwittingly adopt a concept of creation, which is inherently tied to religious thought - specifically the Abrahamic faiths. In these belief systems, the universe is created by a divine being, which implies a clear beginning, a cause, and a purpose.

However, the atheist, in their attempt to reject religious beliefs, also rejects the very foundation of metaphysical reasoning that is required to understand the nature of existence. If they accept a universe with a defined starting point, they are forced into the same metaphysical trap as the theist, for they must ask: what caused this beginning? What brought this starting point into existence? The answer to such questions is rarely satisfying without invoking an external, often unprovable, cause - and in doing so, the atheist unknowingly falls back into metaphysical reasoning that they otherwise dismiss. If an atheist is a rational thinker capable of abstract reasoning, they might embrace Heraclitus's Eternity Doctrine. Heraclitus believed that everything is in constant flux, with no true beginning or end - time and the universe are eternal and cyclical. Nietzsche later expanded this idea with his concept of eternal recurrence, suggesting that the universe, and everything within it, endlessly repeats itself.

By accepting this, the atheist avoids the paradox of a universe with a defined starting point. Instead of a creation event, the universe becomes a continuous, self-sustaining process, always in a state of becoming, with no origin or end. Fortunately or vice versa, I have arrived at a deduction. I admit that nothing is impeccable, even theists grapple with profound paradigms they must resolve, and also I may be Doubting Thomas, but one thing is obvious: The Big Bang is a fascinating yet controversial idea, despite being an ambiguous oddity.

P.S. To those who follow the proofs of influential scientists, in other words - the atheists, before claiming that something contradicts the fallacy of the Big Bang theory, take a moment to analyze. It may be worth reconsidering in light of philosophical perspectives. The creation of the universe is not a subject for science alone, but philosophy. It’s time to correct your metaphysics and epistemology.