The existence of God & The Big Bang

There isn’t a shred of proof that God or Jesus or the Holy Mary or any other Biblical Character exists or existed …
(with the exception of Pontius Pilate who’s existence was apparently proved in 1961 based on a stone slab and some coins found near a Roman Theatre near Caesarea during an excavation) ...

... thus proving more that the scriptures were written, and as an epic, perhaps by a citizen of Rome who witnessed and / or was a part of its tragedy … or perhaps written by a slave of the Romans (mainly a Christian or a Jew) who lived long enough to express the *better-man* as faith of the *ethical* man …
Then at some point simply called the Biblical Canon because it’s commonly accepted that it was written by a (persecuted) Christian who’s idea may have come from a Jew (perhaps a sympathetic Roman house-keeper or orderly of the army) …
(however see Textual criticism with regards to the absence of originals which if ever found if they exist would desecrate and annihilate all that is Biblical belief … )

However, any *respectable* physicist / scientist (such as Hawking and Einstein) spent their entire lives proving and disproving God … or that super-natural being that looks and *acts* and exists nothing like the Bible depicts … that is, in the image of man as a contemporary-looking homo-sapien …

Cosmologists have been able to reconstruct the history of the early universe to reveal how energy and matter interacted as the universe began.

When we look at this history we must remember that the Big Bang did not occur in a specific place.
The BB filled the entire volume of the universe from the first moment.
The Big Bang happened here, there, everywhere.
Thus, there is no center to the universe.
Do not think of the Big Bang as a grenade exploding into a previously unoccupied room.
Think of it as the room being contained within the grenade, and the room was created in the explosion.

We cannot look at the BB from time zero because we do not understand the physics of matter and energy under such extreme conditions, but we can come close.

If we could look at the universe when it was extremely young, perhaps at only 10 millionths of a second old, we would find it filled with high-energy photons that had a temperature of well over 1 trillion (10^12) K and a density greater than 5 x 10^13 g/cm^3, nearly the density of an atomic nucleus.

When we say that photons had a given temperature, we mean that the photons were the same as black body radiation emitted by an object of that temperature.
Thus, the photons in the early universe were gamma rays of very short wavelength and therefore very high energy.

When we say that the radiation had a certain density, we refer to Einstein's equation E = mc^2.
We can express a given amount of energy in the form of radiation as if it were matter of a given density.

If a photon has enough energy, it can decay and convert its energy into a pair of particles--a particle of normal matter and a particle of antimatter.
When an antimatter particle meets its matching particle of normal matter (when an antiproton meets a normal proton) the two particles will annihilate each other and convert their mass into energy in the form of gamma rays.

In the early universe, the photons had enough energy to produce proton-antiproton pairs; but when the particles collided they converted their mass back into energy.
Thus, the early universe was a dynamic soup of energy flickering from photons into particles and back again.
While all of this went on, the universe was expanding and the wavelengths of the photons were lengthened by the expansion.
This lowered the energy of the gamma rays (red shifting them) and the universe cooled.

By the time the universe was 0.0001 second old, its temperature had dropped to 10^12 K.
By this time, the average energy of the gamma rays had fallen below the energy equivalent to the mass of a proton or neutron, so the gamma rays could no longer produce such particles.

Despite the lower energy levels, the particles continued to pair with their antiparticles and quickly converted most of the mass back into photons.
This is when the Quantum symmetry broke.

It would seem that all the protons and neutrons should have annihilated with their antiparticles, but for Quantum-mechanical reasons a small excess of normal particles existed. For every billion protons destroyed, one remained.

Thus, we live in a world of normal matter, and antimatter is quite rare.

As the expansion continued to cool the universe (stretch the EM radiation), the gamma rays could no longer produce positrons nor neutrons, however, this radiation was still above the energy of an electron, so electrons and positrons continued to be formed and thus annihilated.

Again, the break in symmetry that already occurred allowed more electrons than positrons to be created.
This continued for about the first four seconds of the universe, thus, all the matter we call Baryonic matter (normal matter) was created within the first four seconds after the Big Bang.
According to this theory, time was also created and expanded with the universe.
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity shows that time is directly proportional to velocity.
Thus, in the early universe, time was created and destroyed along with all matter.

Time did not appear as a dimension of space until the symmetry broke.

There is no way to know what occurred before the symmetry was broken, thus, time may well have existed as another dimension in another "universe" prior to the Big Bang.

However, other theories such as String Theory, Superstring Theory, the Ekpyrotic model, and the Pyrotechnic models … where, after their disproval’s ... were *reinvented* or *revamped* to rely on a supernatural or a (supreme being) ...
... and this comes based on the Hawking observance of radiation-belts swirling around quasars and star nurseries that have no apparent reason for being there, and even better, Hubbles’ *accidental* collection of 13 billion year-old photons from scientific instrumentation developed specifically for the purpose as a *gamble* …

So you see, it will be science that proves or dispels the existence of God … let alone someone or *something* with the power to create the universe looks like you and me ...

… and the impending 2012 Armageddon will be man-made or an internal implosion (fissures and volcanism and tectonic movements all happening at the same time as believed to have happened several times millions of years ago … or of course an earth-killing asteroid) ...

So forget about all that crap with regards to the 7 seals & Horsemen of the Apocalypse … it’s a conjuration from that persecuted Christian based on his experience and thus depiction of the capability of evil of man … longing to be saved and for revenge from *God* … biblically known as salvation …

Again, God simply exists as something else other than that described in a book of scriptures, and again, most likely written by a citizen of Rome or a slave of the Romans, who simply found *epic* faith, to stay alive ...

... and perhaps pass it on as rules for mankind to live by ... since there were none and to this day … are none ...

 

Calm down. These are matters of belief and faith. Certainly you have beliefs. You have expressed one here.

 

great point.

perhaps ask it, if it knows what virial theorem is to the big bang and perhaps it could understand that its post was combining a whole bunch on contradictions

 

Why do people argue about how The Universe was created. God simply spoke it in to existence with his voice. If you want to know the details about it wait until you meet him in Heaven, and He will tell you every thing you want to know.

 

That fails to answer any questions.

"God did it" is not an answer.

 

DONT ASK QUESTIONS

They expose the massive holes in any religious theory and erode our power base

 

Just at this moment, perhaps.

It is an answer--it just doesn't satisfy you currently.

 

Granny says it don't matter to her...

Antimatter results emerge at LHC - but puzzle abides
24 April 2013 - The quest to understand why our Universe is made of matter rather than antimatter has received a boost at the Large Hadron Collider.

 

your lack of an answer is noted

 

did you write that yourself?

 

The Big Bang Theory is garbage. Anyone with any reasoning ability should be able to see that. BTW, there's no magical invisible supernatural being either.

 

feel free to advance your own theory

 

Everything originates from quantum foam. It starts with the most basic particle that continues to become more and more complex. When the stuff forms hydrogen atoms things really start to happen. The hydrogen clumps together and forms stars. The stars create new and denser elements. When those elements are spewed out they clump together and form planets. Some planets are capable of creating life forms. Everything becomes more complex with the passage of time so eventually life forms and elements become more complex and varied.

http://scaleofuniverse.com/

It's estimated that the size of the observable universe is comparable to the size of a ping pong ball to the Sun, if not smaller.

 

and what makes you think your theory is any better than the others?

 

Because I can think.

 

but you cant prove

 

Use your own mind and create your own reality.

 

no thanks

 

Um, how do you explain background radiation?
If quantum foam existed prior to our version of the universe, then some other reality preceeded our universe.
How could this quantum foam create space and time? Where did the required energy to Unleash this quantum foam originate?

I fail to see how you can use "reason" to debunk the BB theory.

 

I took the time to read this book back in December of 2012 and I have to admit that this greatly changed my view of Christianity.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=kbi...a=X&ei=DNHAUbmzLcrkyAHTlYHwBw&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBQ

The Thomas Book Near Death, a Quest and a New Gospel by the Twin Brother of ...
By Ph D Bruce Fraser MacDonald

The author had an amazing NDE in 1966 in which he was shown that Christianity in its present form was very little like what Rabbi Jesus/Yehoshua actually taught!

http://www.thomastwin.com/3 A Autobio.html

 

Your theory does certainly seem to basically fit with what people are being shown during near death experiences.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/reincarnation04.html#a05

 

If you are going to steal stuff you should be a little more careful. Posting material as if you wrote it is considered rather naughty in some places

 

to me penmenship is not as necessary as before

math comprehension far exceeds, and a kid can find that a 'creation from nothing' to be stupid, even without pen in hand


I had a 15 yr old come to me and her Mother and say, "now I get it, we are the lives of our previous generations" She said to her mother, that "I am you and your are me."


Her biggest fear as of yesterday was to have to be honest with her father about not only the issue but to have to ask that he needs to lean more.


I told her, I will stand by her side

 

There isn't a shred of proof of whatever historical characters you can ever name. Try to name one and show your proof......and you can't. That's basically the nature of history. History (including whatever characters you can name of) can hardly be proven. You have to believer what is said by your favorite historian. For example, Jesus Christ is documented in Flavius Josephus (a Jew historian) works. If you choose to discredit Flavius Josephus, I can do the same to the historians you trust such that you can never get your so-called proof.

On the other hand, whatever you said about the Big Bang remains your own faith. The nature of science is that something must repeat for it to be proven scientifically. In nature science is a precise way to detect a truth (of a repeating pattern). You detect this kind of truth by repeatedly making predictions while your predictions would certainly come to pass for you to know that it's a truth. Big Bang however is a one time event, it's history. It's considered as a science because it is assumed to be a repeatable phenomenon. But in reality, it never repeat itself in front of humans. Which means, you don't need to stick to the BBT, you can have your own theory about how this universe was originated. In the end, it's matter of faith instead of science.

Basically, the OP doesn't actually know what he himself is talking about, as he doesn't seem to have a full understanding of the nature of both history and science. To get to know history by relying on what was written by the historians is actually a process of human witnessing. Human witnessing is by far the most efficient way and the most employed way for humans to get to a truth (whether it's historical or scientific). This is the nature of human witnessing. An example is, 99% humans don't actually have the proof or evidence that planet earth is actually revolving around the sun. You need an extremely good telescope and years of time to make this evidenced to you. You however can choose to trust (with faith) what the scientists said. It's just yet another form of human witnessing.

 

I found some old works " ......20 Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ. '

cool approach.

So no one that you know, has seen the beginning or ending and are just speculating.

I read this book that suggested ' 25 “These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. '

It is really interesting because Jesus is talking about someone else


“And now I have told you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe. 30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me.


Since I read a lot, I ended up seeing something that made the claims clear


4 They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads.

many dont