The comical size of stars is unexpected. Imagine, for a moment, you're just a few spins of the earth in lightspeed away from your neighbors, who emit such amounts of light that with just a few more spins, the entire universe can see you. Feel small yet? The stars are relatively large in relation to the size of galaxies, and galaxies cluster in dense groups throughout the universe, with one apparent end, the edge of the observable universe, 80 billion light years away. 80 billion spins of the Earth around the sun would allow light to travel (successfully) across the entire universe.

Of course, it's full of stars, but the immediate question I find myself asking is, Why do the stars hang in the sky? It's not obvious they should, as solutions of water dissolve and sand sinks to the bottom. It's a complete mystery, really, and it should be no surprise we don't have an answer. Gravity doesn't explain itself, after all. It's not keeping stars suspended in nothing. That's not what gravity is, and as such, there is no explanation.

I doubt the Higgs boson exists. I doubt the Big Bang theory.

Imagine this. I relate a tautological argument for proving a negative example of the Big Bang theory. According to this example, it shouldn't be considered true, as anything that isn't observed isn't true. I start with words, and connect the words with lines, and I examine the connections and use the meaning of the words to create logical symbols that can be understood.

Big Bang.

You can't add "accepted theory" to this because that's not part of the structure of my proof, yet. You can't begin questioning me, or refuting anything I've said, because all I've said are the words Big Bang, and we all know what that means.

Observable universe.

Unobserved universe.

Now we may make a connection to the observable universe to the Big Bang and add this to both relationships:

Universe.

So, when we connect the Big Bang and the observable universe, we have an obvious discrepancy. The observable universe is different than the universe, but the big bang theory proposes to explain the entire universe. We may connect the unobserved universe to the universe, and add this to the unobserved universe:

Unknown.

We may add this now to Big Bang:

Apparent.

And our graph should look like this:

Big Bang > Universe, Observable universe, apparent
Unobserved universe > Universe, unknown.

Now, we know what all of these words mean. The Big Bang is the theory for the beginning of the universe, where a large explosion created all the matter in everything. The universe is everything. The observable universe is everything we have ever seen (specifically, the 80 billion light years distance spanning the universe). Apparent means something visible.

The unobserved universe is everything in the universe we haven't observed. This is thought to include things further away than the age of the universe has given light time to reach us. Unknown simply means we do not know.

To make my proof, all you need to do is connect the word Universe to itself. The Big Bang does not explain the universe, because while it includes the universe, it only includes the observable universe, and is an apparent solution. The unobserved universe is unknown, and something unknown has not truly been validated. The Big Bang theory is objectively not true, because when you notice the universe includes the unobserved universe, it only appears to be true. It is one possibility in an infinite list of possibilities to explain the existence of the universe.

But I have heard Neil Degrasse Tyson explain this idea. He said the Big Bang theory may not explain a multiverse. But, of course, I could dissuade anyone from believing in a multiverse the same way I worked out a solution for the Big Bang theory.

Multiverse > multiple, separate
Universe > everything, whole

It should be obvious that the multiverse isn't the universe, because it has nothing to do with the universe. Once we understand the beginning of the universe, including the things we cannot observe, I think our limited reasoning will be able to understand a solution that would explain why we thought our universe began with a Big Bang.

In my opinion, and this opinion is made of the same words that astrophysicists use to write papers (and not the formulas that Einstein attempted to measure light), we believe there was a Big Bang because we want to live inside a black hole. We want there to be multiple black holes with similar universes. But the Big Bang is simply a symbolic representation of our observable universe that is as likely to be true as the notion that galaxies are held together by gravity.