[Credendovidis]

One theory not mentioned in the previous responses is the oscillating theory of the universe-that the big bang happens over and over as the universe expands to a certain point and then is pulled in by gravity to a point where it contracts and "bangs" again. Currently there does not appear to be enough matter in the universe for this to happen and the notion of "dark matter" is advanced to explain how there might be enough.

The reason for that is that both the static and the oscillating thesi (note : NOT theories *) have been dumped in view of the latest OSE. They are replaced by the expanding universe thesis, as the latest findings indicate that the speed of expansion is no longer decreasing but actually increasing. (As if there is a sort of anti-gravity force present, overtaking the effect of the decreasing gravitational force - due to the actual expansion).

Note : the thesis of dark matter and dark energy seems to explain the expansion, but there is still no OSE for the existence of either.

Personally, I don't think the universe can be explained without the presence of God. But the big bang certainly doesn't prove that there is a God-there are obviously other possibilities.

That first part you may believe, of course.
On the second part you are spot-on. The suggestion made here too often by creationists as if rejection of one possibility has to result in accepting the other possibility is preposterous, and shows the creationist's lack of scientific understanding. Apparently they can not accept that we simply do not know the correct answer yet.

Good points !

:)

* In science : a thesis is a scientific proposal. And a theory is a thesis that is confirmed by OSE (Objective Supported Evidence). Some theories are confirmed with so much OSE that they are called Theory (with a capital T). They represent near-facts - though still open (as anything in science) to scrutiny and review.
The correction to Newton's Theory of gravity due to Einstein's Theory of relativity is an example of that.

:)