Scientists don't "believe" in the Big Bang Theory, they recognize that it most accurately accounts for the evidence they observe.

If you have evidence that refutes it, there's a Nobel Prize waiting if you can construct a theory with more explanatory power and that describes what came before.

A black hole takes in matter,,, a white hole , maybe, expells matter. A continously cycling of energy and matter. Now impossible to tell a true beginning because of the constant feeding of another?

Are you willing to agree that the evidence suggests that all objects in the universe seem to be accelerating away from each other? Can you imagine why this suggests that in the past they were closer together?

You might have to be much more specific to make it possible to meaningfully agree or disagree with your hypothesis.

[removed]

The beauty if science is that belief isn't required. I'm not a physicist, but if you're coming out and saying "I believe the big bang theory is BS" I expect at the absolute very least some kind of reasoning or evidence of why you hold that position, and pointing out the flaws in the well established body of research and evidence that supports the theory. Ideally you'd also show how your alternative theory holds up in the context of all the other things the big bang theory helps explain.

Having said that, from your question I gather you seem to think the big bang somehow explains what happened before the start of the universe. Which, AFAIK beyond suggesting it will be extremely challenging to figure that out, it doesn't (make claims about what came before the big bang).

I'm sure there are many here who are way more knowledgeable on this than I. I look forward to reading their replies.

I believe Earth is too meticulous and perfect (prior to human interference) to be merely coincidental/accidental. Not saying a 'big bang' never happened, but there has to be more to it than that. Something as simple as growing a plant is almost magical -- must be the perfect climate, right soil, right amount of light (Sun v Moon), right amount of fresh water (how does a plant in the middle of a forest get water? Oh, right, rain - water that magically falls from the sky on occasion.) And, oh yea, all plants require different amounts of these things in different climates and areas. And then those plants provide food so that other life can thrive.

However, I'm also not religious, so I do not believe everything was created by one being, definitely not a being of the human image. I believe the truth lies somewhere in between. I believe it all has to do with energy, biology, and maybe a small amount of creation/interference to some degree-- we just don't understand much more than that, yet, but we so desperately want to, so we try to fit these unknown things into boxes that we do understand and it just doesn't fit...yet. I'm comfortable NOT believing any of the existing theories (at least as "complete" theories) and I find it funny when people argue or get heated about one or the other as though they are 100% certain.

My theory (just for fun, obviously not a scientist) is that Earth was likely discovered and developed by several different advanced races originally wanting to inhabit it for resources.
At some point, for some reason, it didn't go as planned (maybe floods? (Atlantis) maybe climate? maybe war? maybe they just found a better place?) and all of those civilizations abandoned it, leaving humans here to fend for themselves with the existing flora and fauna. Created, or maybe brought here, as a slave race to help with development, they didn't really care what happened to us humans, left behind like abandoned pets. Being slightly more intelligent than the rest of life on Earth, we found a way... and here we are constantly looking for this higher meaning, the how and why.

Theory sponsored by too much Rick & Morty, History channel, and blue mushrooms.

It doesn't matter if I believe it, or not.

People MUCH smarter than me have "proven" it with math that I don't understand, so I'll take their word for it.

Well your "belief" remains irrelevant until you can give an alternative reason for the clearly measured Red Shift of the light from ALL Galaxies relative to the Milky Way that increases the further out in Light years and the past one observes. It has remained consistent since Hubble discovered it by everyone around the world who has used telescopes (both optical and radio) to measure it. All observed wavelengths are Red Shifted or increased in wavelength the further out one observes, and in every direction. Hence the misnamed Big Bang (Newspaper people never get anything correct when it comes to scientific announcements). Big Inflation is more apt. The rate of inflation has also been observed to increase in spurts every 4 Billion years/4 Billion light years. So go ahead offer a mathematically consistent and repeatable explanation based upon the many, many observations made by thousands of observatories around the world (repeatable experiments) by tens of thousands of Astronomers since Hubble's time. You should receive a Novel Prize easily.