Poirot, I'll third that vote of thanks.

OUG, I'd also like to thank you. At times you are impenetrable (aren't we all?), but in the last you've been very clear. I'll have to think about what you're saying.

you are spot-on antiseptic
everytime i re-read ..my words..even i find basic errors
that can/does upset methodical minds..[eg the chaos]..

re the statement
pre the big bang..[gods creation moment]..

simply speaking..there was nothing..[we could see ..with material eyes/ears]..and the unseen 'spirit form-ative essence'.. equates to the sciences new brane theory..

science has yet again..co-opted..lol..
without naming these..[polar opposites of the material/spi-ritual human condition]...heaven/hell

[science used to agree
but recently favors chaos..
[ie something before god began.*making everything..from nothing..spontaneously..forming/collapsing..[ie..chaos]

logic says something..[perhaps dark-matter]..
was set in motion..by say gods 'speaking'..[as in]..the words;..'let there be light'

or as mahamoudians say
that he spake,,the word :..'be' [and it was]..

or as john says
the word..[god]..became flesh..[material]

my theory is..there is an infinite big bangs
FOLLOWED by infinite..big collapses..

[as the constituent parts of matter..
*disperse into 'nuthing-ness'..[relatively speaking]..ie cyclic

then re-formed ..yet again..
as the collective good ..[united godhead]
yet again speaks his creation/vibe..into realization..of the next big-bang..

[each new bang i refer to mentally as a godhead 'breath']
but its all..subjective..as opposed to by objective..for me

some of the insane music programing on radio national..indicates the big collapse will;..yet again..occur soon..

as the insanity of hell
yet again subverts goodness[thus god]..into going away..yet again

when all logic says
no god needed or wanted etc..god goes away yet again

if its godlessness we want..he must give it to us
and does..every time..[we are already past due..for the final meltdown

to those who have faith..more will be a given
regardless of what we chose to have trust/faith..in*

I was watching a science show the other day, about some research facility in Canada....full to the brim with top-notch physicists.

The amazing thing is that "now" most don't go with the Big bang theory...that is they think there was something before it that seeded our universe's existence. Of course, they are looking scientifically at it and there are a number of theories, but the general consensus seemed to be that the Big bang was not "the beginning".

Poirot,

The Big Ban model of our universe incorporates time, so if one accepts this model, the question what was “before the Big Bang” does not make sense. It is like asking what is to the north of the North pole, as Hawking put it. In particular, the Big Bang was not the beginning of anything (meaning a point on the time scale that separates the non-existence in time of the “thing” from its existence), only the Einstein theory gave a mathematical model of our universe, which physicists/cosmologists could explain only up to 10^(-43) of second after what the model would indicate as zero time.

If our universe is just one of many (making up for a multiverse) then it still does not make sense to ask which one came before which one, since there is no time independent of the observer (apparently sitting inside one of the universes).

This was not the case with the Newtonian or Kantian understanding of ABSOLUTE time (and space) that Einstein ditched.

However, even this Big Bang geometric model of the universe is now under attack as you mention. This challenge is apparently Roger Penrose’s new geometric model that extends the Big Bang model into that of a succession of phases “so that the remote future of one phase of the universe becomes the Big Bang of the next. This suggestion is my ‘outrageous’ conformal cyclic cosmology” (see http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/e06/papers/thespa01.pdf or his book Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe, Vintage 2011. A good explanation of conformal cyclic cosmology is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology.

The mathematics of this construction is not easy to understand, the physical justification even less so (at least for me). See also criticism at http://thuban.spruz.com/forums/?page=post&id=6E1EE5E0-5883-41CE-964C-46B649051073&sedit=0F9FACA4-5790-495B-8364-B7306DBBF900

Thank you, George.

will look at your links.

I found this on Penrose's theory.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101210/full/news.2010.665.html

Dear George and Poirot,

Unless one has the view that the Creation story in the Bible is literally true I don't see that however the earth, solar system and universe originated has anything to do with belief in God. I used to believe in God, but I never believed, unless I don't remember what I thought as a very small child, that the Creation story was at all true.

If there is a God I see no reason that he is to be found in the Bible or in any other sacred book.