Why does there have to be a belief in the Big Bang theory with scientists?

Anyone who thinks they are a scientist, and tries to say your a wacko for not believing in the big bang, needs to rethink their position as a scientist. The essence of science is discovery. And you, mr./ms. "I know it all" are an insult to the essence of science. At this point in history, we do not have the means to even know if the universe is infinite VS. finite. THERE ISN'T ENOUGH DATA!!!

I think I understand your question. Your asking why scientists "believe" in the big bang, your asking what emotion or thoughts support the theory.

Your also asking why religion is in the Big Bang

Well, for an ideal scientists logic and a desire for unbiased knowledge form their "beliefs". Currently, there is a lot of objective evidence that points to the big bang. The evidence is based on observable, testable facts that are undoubtedly true, and scientists believe that these facts point to the big bang theory. For example, we know for sure that the universe is full of microwave radiation. Well, all that radiation came from somewhere. Perhaps it is the afterglow of some early cosmic event, perhaps the photons expanded in an expanding universe... Add a lot more solid evidence which I'm not going to post and you have the reason for belief in the big bang. Cyromancer provided a pretty good summary for such a complex idea.

Ideally, emotions should have nothing to do with the big bang. Simple logical conclusions drawn from facts created the big bang theory.

However, no-one is an ideal scientist. A few scientists (some of which have already posted) tend to emotionally favor science over religion (cough, atheists, cough cough). So, whenever some scientists are asked if they "believe" in a theory, they react violently, saying that belief is wrong and that believers are not logical, and shouldn't be asking such a stupid question (GwocBwunk, I'm talking about you). These so called scientists believe in the big bang only because they hate religion, not because they support Christianity. The religion like "belief" you mentioned is the product of hate. That's not science at all.

I'm sorry about the violent reactions, but I'm happy to say that the Big Bang Theory itself has nothing to do with Christian Genesis. They are unrelated but compatible nonetheless.

Long explanation:

At the time the Bible was written, the "heavens" were not the heavens known today. At that time, most scientists (and the Christian priests who funded them) believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that all of the stars in the sky were fixed on a dome around the Earth, and that planets, the moon, and the sun orbited Earth (of course, this does not apply to Buddhist scientists). Therefore, Christian genesis only applies to our solar system and the space near it. The big bang theory never mentions the solar system and never rules out god. Genesis is about the solar system, the big bang is about the universe as a whole. Therefore, the two theories are unrelated, and completely compatible with each other.

I have a Buddhist friend, and from what he tells me, the Buddhist idea of creation seems to be compatible with the Big Bang too.

EDIT:

Yes, I know the Big Bang term was coined by a Christian priest.

By your interpretation of the Bible, Genesis and The Big Bang theory seem similar. The creation of the Big Bang Theory had nothing to do with Christian Genesis. The Big Bang Theory just happens to appease many modern Christians who want scientific support for Christianity. The support confuses many people, leading them to believe that belief and the Big Bang are directly related. They aren't, the link is just an illusion.

I agree with other answerers. The Big Bang is far from being proven (that is why it isn't a law). But it isn't necessarily wrong either. Today, the majority of scientific evidence suggests that our universe is finite, so I guess that means we are making some pretty big assumptions.

Anyone who calls Big Bang skeptics unscientific is a hippocrit. The amount of evidence doesn't matter, all theories need opposition. Opposition tests theories, to seperate the true from the false. That is a fundamental part of science.

Man of ideas: General Relativity disproved Newtonian gravity. Part of Newton's LAWs. Laws were challenged.

Theories are meant to be challenged, just like gravity.

And its Moose, not Mosse.

You should "believe" in the Big Bang because there is evidence that it happened. End of story.

Karma is not a law of physics, and, contrary to pop culture and eastern religion, does not exist. Newton's third law of actions and reactions only pertains to actual materials, not intentions or thoughts or some innate justice of the universe that rights wrongs.

The Big Bang is not "just like Genesis". The similarities they do share are vague and meaningless, and the differences overwhelm any superficial resemblance. If Genesis has said that light and gravity were one at the beginning of time and the beginning was very hot and small and dense, you might have been able to make a case. That, and the actual age of the universe is no minor issue. Just as it matters a lot that World War II happened in the 1940s, not last week, it matters a lot that the universe (as we know it) is 13.7 billion years old as astronomers have calculated, not 6,000 years old as Bishop Usher calculated from adding up all the "begots" in Genesis.

Based on my insights, it seems plausible to scientists because of how clusters of galaxies and stars lay scattered or clumped in the universe, but never uniform. This suggests that a sudden cosmic force have a hand for the alleged "scattering" of elements, otherwise, they would form uniformly, or else, have the same composition and structure. However, during the course of the Big Bang, some are thrown very far away, pressure changing its nature, while some are not forcefully thrown enough, thus, resulting in different properties. The prospect of a closed, yet constantly expanding universe might also be related to the theory of a superheated sphere that exploded to summon the universe (Big Bang) which reinforces the said theory, just like how a bomb explodes into a wide, expanding mass composed of oxygen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen and others.

And ... are you still beating your wife?

Not only is this a poorly phrased question, which shows that they dude is intellectually challenged, it's also a typical

LOADED question

In short: there is NO need for BELIEVE of anything to do with the Big BANG, it's science, you don't need to believe it, it can be proven

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_quest...

Loaded question, also known as complex question, presupposition, "trick question", or plurium interrogationum (Latin, "of many questions"), is an informal fallacy or logical fallacy.[1] It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.

PS

Geneses? What's Geneses, you blasphemer! Desecrating the holy word of God???

Scientists don't have to believe in the Big Bang theory, it's just the most likely explanation we have at the moment

It's a religious establishment disguised as "good science". They can't admit that it is religion because, then, the First Amendment would get in their way. The underlying belief is that the universe is finite, and presently the finitists are in control of the government's purse strings. Einstein was the high priest of the finitist movement, and the great success of his relativity theory propelled it to the status it enjoys today. The big bang model just happens to be the only model which seems to work for a finite universe.

Anyone who seeks to investigate alternatives that might support an infinite universe theory or model gets branded as a crackpot, pseudo-scientist and heretic. They are denied government grants and barred from publishing in peer-review journals. In effect, they are excommunicated from the community of "respectable scientists". That is how the religious establishment perpetuates its status.

Genesis has no evidence supporting it, whereas the BB theory has stacks of it.

actually, it was a priest that first though of the big bang theory... just sayin'

aw not 2 worry...its just a theory

like gravity...just a theory

GL