Things I Do Not Understand About the Big Bang

To be fair, I am not a scientist. I am instead attempting to be a student and come to an understanding on the science behind the Big Bang. These are the questions that I am at the moment working to decipher. I have questions that I cannot answer without bringing in God to be a guiding hand. Personally, I do believe that God created everything. I once heard a Christian scientist say, "I believe in the Big Bang. I just know who banged it." If there is a bang, there has to be a banger. I am not saying I believe in the Big Bang, but I don't see creation of nature without a supernatural being. If there is proof otherwise, I would enjoy hearing what that proof is in the form of a comment. Either way, I need people to explain these questions to me with answers that make sense. That said, please keep the comments kind and void of offensive language or derogatory name calling. Those comments will be removed regardless of the side they support!

1. What happened before the Big Bang? Did time and space exist?
2. How did everything that exists at one time fit into one tiny spot? When I see millions of stars and billions of planets, I cannot believe that they all came from one infinitely dense area. Where did the matter come from?
3. I do not as yet understand how it occurred at all. This would be the Cosmological Theory or the uncaused cause. I will talk about this at some point when I write a blog on the the Cosmological Theory. There had to be a reason that the Big Bang occurred to begin with. What caused that natural event to occur? The only thing that I know would be a supernatural being. All things natural have a cause.
4. How do we explain the disappearance of the law (not theory but law) of conservation of energy?  I thought that energy could neither be created or destroyed based on the first law of thermodynamics. Where did the energy necessary to cause the Big Bang come from?
5. How did the stars form to begin with. I have heard that gas clouds had to collapse under gravity in order to create stars. Yet physicists report that the clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent collapse. In order for that not to happen, they would have to cool down. But the Big Bang created hydrogen and a little helium, with the other elements forming inside the stars themselves. The only thing to cool the hydrogen would be helium, which would instead increase the temperature, making the clouds too hot to collapse.
6. If a tornado were to rip through a forest, I would not find a two story log cabin standing in the aftermath and imagine that the tornado constructed it. Yet in the Big Bang theory, we are basically believing that could happen. The universe is infinitely more complex than the log cabin, yet this destructive expulsion and expansion is said to have created the order that we see. That is what a galaxy is from where I stand, a complex unit of order. So, how did galaxies come into existence from the Big Bang? Since when does a chaotic occurrence bring about order and structure in nature?
7. If it was not so much a Big Bang as an expansion, there should be an even distribution of matter that exists. What we see is random clumping of galaxies and planets here and there. Why are there clusters then vast expanses of empty space then more clusters?
8. How are there galaxy walls, voids and globular clusters in space that appear older than the age of the universe itself? I guess another way to look at this question would be to ask, "How can I be older than my father?"
9. How do we now know that dark matter exists, when the collision witnessed in space contained team members who said that "We've closed this loophole about gravity, and we've come closer than ever to seeing this invisible matter." If it is invisible and you have not seen it, that is pretty hard to imagine it exists. I know we have wind, but I can feel it and see its affects. The collision did not truly display dark matter and it was not felt, but only a reaction was seen that could make it a possibility. I even looked at pictures that were supposed to represent "invisible" dark matter, and I could see nothing. Am I missing something?
10. How is the volume of space larger than the Big Bang? Is space infinite or finite?
11. How do galaxies collide when they should be flying away from each other, with those furthest away from the epicenter (the first galaxies formed) accelerating faster than those which are closer to the epicenter (the last galaxies formed)?
12. Why do all planets not spin the same way if we were created by expansion, there should be uniformity but there isn't. Why is this?
13. How did globular clusters form at the beginning of the Big Bang? Could there be clusters of  100,000 stars that were able to bind together in the turbulence that occurred at the inception of the Big Bang?
14. What is Hawking's principle of ignorance? How is saying that singularities are chaotic and unpredictable a valid argument for the uncaused cause to have occurred?
15. Why is it that any time that I see an equation explaining the Big Bang do I see i, which is an imaginary number. If this is considered to be fact, it should not require an imaginary number to explain it. The scientific method is made up of multiple steps. You ask a question, then research the existing information. Next you form a hypothesis, conduct research and you either validate or invalidate your hypothesis. If you are wrong you then reconstruct your hypothesis and conduct new research, not invent fake numbers to validate it.
16. If the open universe we see today is estimated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just one part in 10⁵⁹. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated. How can that and all of the other anomalies that had to occur for the Big Bang to have created what we see have happened without the guidance of a Higher Power?
17. As I understand it, some of my questions above may be invalid since I have learned that Big Bang Theory is not about the creation of the universe, but the origin of the universe over time. That means that not only can we not agree on how the universe developed over time, we have no idea how the universe began at all. Is that me correctly identifying the Big Bang Theory, no idea about origin but instead attempting to explain development? If so, than what was before the Big Bang, because it obviously was not the birth of space and time?
18. What are imaginary numbers and imaginary time? It does not seem scientific to invent things that do not exist to explain things that are not understood. How is that part of the scientific method.

How come we invent imaginary things in science (which is supposed to be based on fact) but as Christians are ridiculed by many in the scientific community for having faith in something. I propose a theory of God, just like you propose a theory that involves imaginary numbers, imaginary time, singularities, principles of ignorance, black matter and black energy. I operate, just like a scientist, as though my theory is fact.

Youtube Atheist.........Why So Serious?

I watched a video on youtube that stated it had questions for Christians. I figured that I would watch the video. The video ended by saying that God is 100% imaginary and stated that people who believe in imaginary people are delusional. It stated that we live with fantasies and that relying on faith was a childish thing to do. People of faith needed to grow up and think rationally. After it was over I left a comment.

The comment was as follows, "I would say that due to the breaking of laws of physics and thermodynamics as well as the statistical "miracles" that had to occur in order for the Big Bang to be successful that this route is also delusional. So how are we here? That is the question that you have to answer? I would argue that both Christians and scientific answers rely on faith. The only difference is that the Christian will truthfully tell you that faith is part of their answer. There are proofs, but faith is needed."

I immediately got a reply, "You would say that, you expletive expletive." I asked why the profanity, and the reply was, "It's how I talk to retards, morons, cretins, idiots, imbeciles, deluded losers and mental spastics."

By this time, I was of course impressed by the intellect of my speaker, so I replied in kind, "Oh, so it was self-directed. At first I thought that it was directed at me, but I am the one talking intelligently. Or is vulgarity what passes for intelligence with you?"

To which he retorted, " It's obviously directed at you, you lying expletive expletive expletive."

I replied, "Wow, I have to stop replying. I refuse to stoop to your intellectual level. Food for thought: Why is it when someone disagrees with the view point of the unschooled/unintelligent, they automatically resort to profanities and insults? Is it the lack of vocabulary that stops you from being able to elucidate your view without them?"

His reply was, " I have a 2:1 honours degree in English Literature, but I found that theists are too stupid to understand complex arguments so I have to gear down to your level just to be understood, and even then you won't get it, as you have sold out to a superstition/delusion that is inherently irrational. I could tell you are an idiot by your assumption that science requires 'faith' which is trying to pretend that everyone is really just as deluded as you are, which is wrong and offensive."

My reply was, "So there is proof of evolution.........let me have it. Show where we have ever seen a species evolve into another species. We can adapt to enviroment, but never change into another species. Nonliving matter has never created living matter. The universe creating itself refutes the first two laws of thermodynamics. And if believing in God makes me stupid, than I will proudly sit in the company of Einstein, Hawking and Schrodinger who believe that there is a God and are "stupid."

He says,  Christians love "authority" figures within Christianity so you should really check out the work of FRANCIS COLLINS, Director of the National Center for Human Genome Research. He is openly Christian and his work in the field of Human Genomes has led him to conclusively accept that evolution is real."

My turn, "And Francis believes in God. If you want to use him as an example, he is a Christian. I have read his book. So are you arguing that he is right because he is a Christian, or because he believes in evolution? He says that statistically it is impossible for evolution to occur without the hand of God to stir the pot. I disagree with what he says. My point was that if I am stupid for my beliefs, then I share that title with some people that changed the face of science."

His reply, " "So are you arguing that he is right because he's a Christian or because he believes in evolution?"

"No, I am just suggesting him because Christians pander to other Christians as authority figures.
Personally, I couldn't care less what he "BELIEVES IN". Evolution is a fact. It doesn't require belief."

I replied, "If evolution is a fact, then you are right. It does not require belief. A fact is verified through observation or experience. When has nonliving matter been observed turning into living matter? Where is the link between bird and reptile? What did the platypus evolve from? When have we observed something, especially infinite something (galaxies and planets), created from nothing?"

His reply, "You know what, I can't even expletive talk to you. Evolution is a fact and I am done here."

Why so serious? I only figured that since evolution was a fact that he would have a lot of evidence to back it up. I have factual basis for my beliefs. They are backed up by extreme faith, but I have facts to back it up. I know that I am right, but I can also have an intelligent discussion with someone who believes otherwise. I just find it sad that there are those out there that cannot have a discussion that goes against their beliefs without anger and expletives.

What is an atheist? I had one tell me that an atheist was the default position for rational thinkers not to believe the unbelievable.Yet he believed evolution and did not feel that evolution was unbelievable. How is that rational? I do not know what to think about other people sometimes. I just wish that they would rely on reasoning and honesty instead of their emotions.

I do know that I have faith that God is real. I have this faith based on rational thoughts, factual evidence and being intellectually honest with myself. If my beliefs were based on blind, emotional faith than I would get angry, cuss and shout names at the people who disagreed with me. But I do not.

Why so serious? I am not serious, I am simply right!