Incompleteness Theorem
"Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory." In brief... our Theoretical Physics can't be both consistent and complete at the same time.
Of course Pure Mathematics can, but it's main "virtue" is no reference to the "real world".
The "big bang theory" is an example of "pure mathematics" main virtue in that it has no reference to the real world.
The real world explains the exisitance of GOD our Creator.
Mathematical theories like the "big bang" are created and "fine tuned" to lure the uninformed into believing the
universe was created from nothing, for no reason, at radom to explain their existance.
The fine tuning comes in the form of other theories that are created and "fine tuned" to explain the flaws in the original
"big bang theory".
In fact the "big bang theory" can be explained as a self created universe via mathematics whose main virtue
is that it has no reference to the real world.
The 'big bang theory" is SCIENCE FICTION.
The "big bang theory" defies the laws of physics.
Modern science can't stand being in the back seat when it comes to any (especially ultimate) questions – for them, there must be a physical explanation for everything.
They see the big bang and anthropic principle, just as the evolutionists saw the creation, complexity and apparent design of life, and have invented a similar slight-of-hand work-around. Just as life's adaptability is used to falsely explain its creation, muliverses are used to explain the universe's apparent design for life.
Evolutionists cannot explain life's creation and its adaptability any more than muliverses can explain their own existence. Scientists are just trying to push something unacceptable to them back another step. And they're only proving how wrong they are.
The theory of the "big bang" is in fact, religion masquerading as science, it is the science fiction story of Genesis, dressed up in the language of science.
The theory of the Big Bang has failed every major test. These failures are ignored or they are covered up with a patchwork of theoretical appendages such that failure retroactively becomes success.
The "big bang" is fraudulently promoted as accepted fact by the scientific, political, and media establishment. Nevertheless, this theory was not only rejected by Einstein, but is refuted by overwhelming scientific evidence.
Einstein rejected monsignor Georges Lemaître, creator of the original "big bang theory" to his face, saying that not all mathematics leads to correct theories and that "your physics is abominable" and your conclusions unjustifiable.
The denounciation by Einstein should have been a death sentence. Monsignor Lemaître claimed to have based his theory on Einstein's theory of general relativity.
For example, the big bang theory predicts that the universe is about 8 billion years old, which is 5 billion years younger than our own Milky Way Galaxy. Also, according to prediction, there should be no stars or galaxies more than 8 billion light years from Earth.
And yet, there are stars and more stars as far as the Hubble eye can see; old and fully formed galaxies which are not newly created as predicted by theory, but over 13 billion years in age and so incredibly distant that Astronomers and NASA refused to continue looking as the very existence of these stellar objects completely refutes the big bang.
Moreover, predications based on the Big Bang can account for less than 20% of the mass and density of the known, observable universe. Nor can this theory explain the discordant data on red shifts, galaxy distribution, colliding galaxies, the abundance of helium, and why the movement of galaxies appears to be speeding up, and so on.
To bridge the fatal discrepancies between observation and theory, and to account for acceleration, the greater than predicted gravitational influences, the missing 80% of the universe, and so on, the acolytes of this religion invent multiple universes, alternate realities, and hypothetical, invisible, undetectable substances, and supernatural constructs such as "inflation," "dark energy" and "dark matter." And yet, although proposed as a patchwork fix, to paper over the increasing number of holes in this theory, these constructs actually refute the "big bang" theory.
Inflation, for example, requires a density at least 20 times larger than that predicted by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. That density, like the missing matter, excessive gravity, expansion, the clumping of galaxies, the age of distant stars, etc., can be accounted for not by a big bang, but a infinite universe.
Not a single quantitative prediction made by the big bang theory has been validated by observation. Instead, the proponents of this religion engage in what is little more than card tricks and "slight of hand," where instead of dealing from the bottom of the deck, they insert and slip in new theoretical constructs and an increasing array of layer after layer of flexible fluctuating parameters that can be adjusted retroactively willy nilly, no reference to the "real world", and after the fact to explain away discrepant observations and to support a failed theory.
"The question of 'the beginning' is as inescapable for cosmologists as it is for theologians...there is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing." -George Smoot, 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics for discoveries related to the cosmic background radiation / big bang
"the universe was created out of nothing...and one which has an underlying, one might say 'supernatural' plan." -Arno Penzias Nobel Prize for Physics in 1978 for discovery of the cosmic background radiation of the 'big bang."
"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us." -Stephen Hawkins, a Brief History of Time.
Be it "nothingness" "pure energy" or all the mass of the universe bound in a totality of singularity, the foundations of the big bang theory, or any theory which proposes a beginning, completely collapse when we ask a few simple questions:
What exploded and why? Why then and not before? From where did this pre-big bang energy/mass/sinularity originate? Given, "relativity" is not the mass of a universe compacted to atom size still a universe?
If all mass/energy/singularity existed before the big bang, and since neither mass nor energy can be created or destroyed, the theory of the big bang explains nothing, has no basis, and must be rejected.
True science requires that a theory make accurate predictions and be constantly tested against observation.
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Psalm 19:1-3 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 19:2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 19:3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)."
We all see the evidence of God's creation. How we interpret what we see helps us make sense of this present world. The Bible, the “history book of the universe”, provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things. When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account. The universe is "fined tuned" for life, ie designed by a designer, creator, The Lord GOD Almighty.