I’m going with the Big Bounce theory. Mainly because the history of cosmological discovery is replete with discoveries that make us seem smaller and smaller. The Big Bang theory purports that we have an inkling of how everything started. The Big Bounce, I take it, would mean that we are not even close to actually understanding how everything started. Since scientific discovery tends to show us how ignorant we were before the discovery, I go with the theory that is best in line with that. And besides, as related in Kkwan’s post :
“The flatness and horizon problems are naturally solved in the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory of gravity, without needing an exotic form of matter and introducing free parameters.This theory extends general relativity by removing a constraint of the symmetry of the affine connection and regarding its antisymmetric part, the torsion tensor, as a dynamical variable. The minimal coupling between torsion and Dirac spinors generates a spin-spin interaction that is significant in fermionic matter at extremely high densities. Such an interaction averts the unphysical Big Bang singularity, replacing it with a cusp-like bounce at a finite minimum scale factor, before which the Universe was contracting. The rapid expansion immediately after the Big Bounce explains why the present Universe at largest scales appears spatially flat, homogeneous and isotropic. As the density of the Universe decreases, the effects of torsion weaken and the Universe smoothly enters the radiation-dominated era.”
So there.