what is god actually

[theblindferrengi]

In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion in forward time required that the universe contracted backwards in time, and would continue to do so until it could contract no further, bringing all the mass of the universe into a single point, a "primeval atom", at a point in time before which time and space did not exist. As such, at this point, the fabric of time and space had not yet come into existence.

In 1939, the big bang theory was based upon relativity, which does not as well model the space time continuum. The current version of the big bang theory that incorporates quantum mechanics, that more acurately model the space-time continuum.

In 1924, Edwin Hubble's measurement of the great distance to the nearest spiral nebulae showed that these systems were indeed other galaxies. Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, predicted that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe.

The wikiquote Adrian posted lacked context, just thought I'd add some, it is a very interesting and well-worth reading article. Big Bang - Wikipedia

Schools mostly teach the general relativity model of space-time, because it is easier to understand than some of the more up-to-date theorys like quantum loop gravity, or string theory. It is because of this that books about relativity are more common than books about the much newer theorys, even though the new unification theorys do exactly that, they provide a mathematical model for the entire space-time continuum, not just pieces of it as reletivity does.


The Big Bang singularity started the expansion of our universe, and in the process, destroyed and re-arranged what was before, that is why we cannot now and never will know of anything before it, it does not mean there was nothing before it; this misconception is simply the easiest way to simply explain the theory to people who's only intrest in it is novely.

In response to the last paragraph: I too can repeat what I already said without any supporting facts. This was an idea I had, that i thought might be interesting. It has served its purpose (to provoke conversation) quite well; it is not a belief by me or anyone that i know of, and should not be treated as such.