Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 1 month ago

Scientists now admit that the Big Bang is VERY unlikely to have been "the" beginning & that existence existed before that.?

How did they get their initial conclusions so wrong?

Update:

To the science deniers, the Big Bang came form something. Something existed before the Big Bang, it formed from "previous" existing substances. It did NOT come from "nothing" and was therefore NOT "the" beginning. Scientists now know this.

14 Answers

Relevance
  • Mike
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    There are several cosmological models being studied and tested, the cyclical model is just one.

  • User
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    The Big Bang Theory itself

    originally

    proposes that something existed "before" the Big Bang.

    Scientists have been admitting that since the theory was first published.

  • 1 month ago

    Obvious troll obviously exists.

  • Misty
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    I could explain it to you but you aren't bright enough to understand it.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Cowboy
    Lv 6
    1 month ago

    horse s h i t................................!

  • 1 month ago

    You seem really confused, but granted when talking about the Big Bang and what occurred before it is a very difficult thing to grasp. Basically, time, as we know and understand it, does not exist outside of our "space", i,.e. the three dimensions that we live in, so if there was something before the "Big Bang" it would have no relationship to our presuppositions or definitions of time and realistically, we have to consider time as an artificial construct and a by product or relativity rather than a component.

    Basically, if you had half a clue about what you were trying to talk about, you would realize how childish and petulant your question is. It comes down to nothing more than "I;m completely ignorant and I sort of read an article that I really did not understand or had a clue about the context and I assume that I know way more than I actually do".

    I really hate to point to the Dunning-Kruger effect as a user on R&S misuses it extensively, but this question is a classic demonstration of it

  • 1 month ago

    Minuscule mathematical errors.

  • 1 month ago

    Of course existence would have had to be there before such a thing. There had to be something for things to exist. Nothing bring forth nothing. 

  • 1 month ago

    I know of no published papers in peer reviewed journals to make such a claim. Please provide a source. Science deals in evidence and the evidence we have at the moment points towards the Big Bang. There is strong evidence in support of it. If evidence has appeared that counters the current theory then the theory will need to be reexamined and changed if necessary. That is how science works.

    The problem with religion is that if evidence appears that shows the religion to be wrong, the evidence is rejected and the religion stays the same. That is why religion is not science.

  • 1 month ago

    Give us a source that says the scientific community now claims the Big Bang is very unlikely.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.