Announced at Forbes: The Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe

At a certain point this becomes tiresome. The singularity and cosmic inflation are not even competing theories. If inflation happened, it happened after the singularity. If the singularity happened, it happened before inflation. Inflation, if it happened, does not replace the singularity. The singularity just remains a different step to establish. That said, presenting cosmic inflation as though it has been demonstrated or proved and as though scientists have KNOWN it was true for 40 years is ridiculous. It remains unproven. That it "predicts" the facts described in the article should come as no surprise when the theory was developed to account for those specific facts. They are just some of the earliest discoveries of fine-tuning and inflation was proposed as a way to try to eliminate that apparent fine-tuning, but it has not in any way been confirmed. Furthermore, as I recall, a few years back, Sean Carroll (who would very much like the universe to be past eternal) wrote a paper showing that the chance of inflation producing a realistic cosmology was something like 1 in 10^650,000,000 or 10^660,000,000. Its not for nothing that when it comes to trying to solve cases of fine-tuning, inflation has been described as a cure that is worse than the disease. HeKS

The big bang is not the beginning of the universe. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made." John 1:1-3 (ESV) Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries: The term “Word” (Greek logos) designates God the Son with respect to His deity; “Jesus” and “Christ” refer to His incarnation and saving work. During the first three centuries, doctrines of the Person of Christ focused intensely on His position as the Logos. In Greek philosophy, the Logos was “reason” or “logic” as an abstract force that brought order and harmony to the universe. But in John’s writings such qualities of the Logos are gathered in the Person of Christ. In Neo-Platonic philosophy and the Gnostic heresy (second and third centuries a.d.), the Logos was seen as one of many intermediate powers between God and the world. Such notions are far removed from the simplicity of John’s Gospel. In this verse the Word is expressly affirmed to be God. The Word existed already “in the beginning” (a clear reference to the opening words of the Bible), which is a way of denoting the eternity that is unique to God. John states clearly, “the Word was God.” Some have observed that the word translated “God” here has no definite article, and argued on this basis that it means “a god” rather than “God.” This is a misunderstanding; the article is omitted because of the word order in the Greek sentence (the predicate “God” has been placed first for emphasis). The New Testament never endorses the idea of “a god,” an expression that implies polytheism and is in sharp conflict with the consistent monotheism of the Bible. In the New Testament, the Greek word for “God” occurs often without the definite article, depending on the requirements of Greek grammar. That “the Word was with God,” indicates a distinction of Persons within the unity of the Godhead. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not successive forms of appearance of one Person, but are eternal Persons present from “the beginning” (v. 2). “With” suggests a relationship of close personal intimacy. See “One and Three: The Trinity” at Is. 44:6. All things were made through him. This verse also emphasizes the deity of the Word, since creation belongs to God alone. See also v. 10; Col. 1:16–17; “God the Creator” at Ps. 148:5. Dionisio

They have a video of what happened before the big bang, but can't watch it because it's recorded in Betamax format and there's no player for it. :) Dionisio

Is Forbes a pop-sci mag ? :) Dionisio

News - If you read that post carefully, you'll see that it's all about appealing to the evidence, and saying what they have concluded. That's why Siegel ends by saying " What happened prior to inflation — or whether inflation was eternal to the past — is still an open question,". Because they don't have evidence for what happened. Bob O'H

The author concludes thusly:

That period, known as cosmic inflation, came to an end and gave rise to the hot Big Bang, but never created an arbitrarily hot, dense state, nor did it create a singularity. What happened prior to inflation — or whether inflation was eternal to the past — is still an open question, but one thing is for certain: the Big Bang is not the beginning of the Universe!

The problem, you see, is that the whole notion of "cosmic inflation" is now contraverted. Personally, I believe that it will turn out to be wrong. Why do we need "cosmic inflation"? Why did it develop? Because the prevailing quantum field theories could not explain the utter uniformity seen, e.g., in the cosmic background radiation. So, a 'solution' to one problem is now being invoked to sort of get around another problem: there was a Beginning. Hawkings employs a somewhat similar strategy in that he uses, as best I understand his argument, the limitations of quantum theory---the 'infinities' that this theory produces---to turn a 'beginning' into an 'infinite series,' if you will. Problems, solutions, really tentative solutions, unsatisfactory solutions, and then used to 'arrive' at the desired 'starting point': that is, that there is NO 'starting point'! PaV

An infinite stillness followed by impossible fine tuning. Thank you OMG. ppolish

Bob O'H at 2, they are not so much going wrong as going in all directions, including out of science: Question for multiverse theorists: To what can science appeal, if not evidence? News

Actually, they do not know that. It is the latest contestable cosmology fad.

I hope, then, that you will explain this to cosmologists, and perhaps go so far as to explain, in specifics, where they are going wrong. Bob O'H

This is just another faith-based idea built on atheistic philosophy and wishful thinking. I have no trouble with the faith, nor with the wishful thinking. Just don't call it science. Truth Will Set You Free