Big Bang Theory: Science or Faith?

[seventil]

This was taken out of the "Explanation of the Universe" thread. Here is a short transcript:

As I said, the evidence points to expansion. Period. It is, indeed, interpretation that provides the theory of the big bang, just as interpretation of evidence provides the theory of the earth's orbit, which no one has observed. The question is, should we bother to interpret the evidence?

Believing in the big bang theory takes just as much faith as me believing in God; no scientific evidences here can support the theory because the theory breaks so many (thermodynamics, relativity).

It takes faith? I suppose one must have some degree of confidence in the ability of human thought to make sense of information. Beyond that, there's no "faith" required. You know, it might be helpful if you were to explain this last bit...how is this theory incompatible with thermodynamics and relativity? I bet the astrophysicists have thought about this, and wouldn't have bothered to suggest the idea if it were patently absurd.

[mamamaha]

Actually if there has to have been a big bang in masculine terms & orgasmic ideation, it would be more like a Big Bloom in feminine ideation & terms.

However, neither is true. The universe implodes & explodes 250,000 times per second.

Now think on that one for a while & discuss it.

[QED]

Mathematics can supply a solution to the paradox of the singularity - the model of spacetime formulated by Hawking using complex numbers can be compared to lines of lattitude on the globe:

If spacetime is seen as moving from the pole to the equator, the change in circumference of the lines of lattitude represents the expansion of the universe. But at the north pole, for example, all directions lead south. There is no 'edge' to our globe and neither need there be an edge to the universe.