Science help please, I'm not a scientist

I have this dude posting on my blog that the he has proof that God exists because God is the only answer for the time prior to the Big Bang.
Here is his comments on my blog (he starts with his philosophy April 21st as Anonymous: http://www.blogger.com/publish-comme...k&isPopup=true

Here is his argument:

[It is popular to think of the Big Bang Theory [BBT] to explain the creation of the universe. Is it a fact, theory or hypothesis? It is 99.99% fact and 0.01% hypothesis. Why the 0.001% doubt? It is because at this moment there are several unverified theories on the first micro second at the Big Bang [BB].

So what is the BBT about? It explains that after the BB, there is hot dense point that contains all the matter and energy that we now see in the universe, and that space expands and thus the universe expands to what we see today with galaxies and stars.

All matter today in the universe came from the one hot dense point immediately after the BB. In other words, scientifically and philosophically, we are one, at that point of time, 13.7 billion years ago, and we are one even now.

Between 1905-1915, Einstein discovered the theory of relativity and mathematically found that the universe was either expanding or decreasing; that it was not static. In 1922, the American astronomer Hubble was able to show that other galaxies were moving away from our galaxy, that is, the universe was expanding. With that, in 1930, Lemaitre [Jesuit] discovered the BBT.

Since then and more particularly in 1965, evidences for BB has been obtained. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astr....html#evidence . The discovery of the uniform long wavelength background radiation in 1965, proved the BBT. There could be no other explanation for this sort of background radiation but for the BBT.

So the development of the universe from the hot dense point, 13.7 billion years ago to today, is proven, and known, but the process of what happened at the BB is still unknown and subject to competing theories.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astr...open_questions

******************

You have very kindly and skillfully focused our attention to the zero point, the hot topic of scientific debate. The micro second before the BB, where scientists are still hypothesizing what happened at zero point. Scientists know all about 13.7 billion years development of the universe less the ‘zero point’.

The zero point question is the ‘origin of the universe’ question. The BBT has focused on the development of the universe after the zero point. The BBT has no proof or evidence for the zero point, that micro second. The BBT has ample proof and evidence for the 13.7 bi years developments that took place beyond the zero point.

I will read your referenced “A Brief History of Time”, but mean while, you mentioned “Hawking points out that if all of the matter in the universe were collected in one place, the gravity produced would produce an event horizon — a region from which no matter or energy could escape. Thus, it’s impossible for us to ever retrieve any data from that “time.”
This re-emphasizes the point that at that “singularity” as some call it [Scientific American: The Myth of the Beginning of Time] and ‘event horizon’ as Hawkings appears to call it, all matter was together WITHOUT any space between them. Thus if our body is part of the matter that came from the singularity or event horizon, then all matter from all our bodies, are packed tightly together without any space between our matter, for all matter are ONE at that zero point, and thus, we are scientifically and philosophically one at point zero, 13.7 billion years ago, and thus we are also one now, even when we appear to have separate selves, just that we are now separated by time and space.

The above cited Scientific American article “The Myth of the Beginning of Time” deals with String theory and suggests that the BB was not the origin of the universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state. As talk origins web site had clarified, there are currently three competing theories for the point zero, which is basically a micro second before the BB. The BBT covers the development of the universe from that micro second after the BB for 13.7 billion years. It is at the singularity, the event horizon or the point zero, that, scientists cannot agree on. But it is agreed that all matter was at one point together without space and time separating them. This scientific agreement confirms philosophically that we are one at point zero.

Time: To add to your definition, here is another cite, “Time is only a MEASURE of the transformation of the universe. Time has no existence by itself, it is only a measure. When I say that I am x years old, that means since my birth the earth has gone x times around the sun. And we know that a person of x has aged (transformed) so much that the person can now be a parent/ grand parent. The earth a 4.5 billion years since it was born and has changed (transformed) considerably during that time. The universe has 13.7 billion years and it has gone (transformed) from a point to what it is today.”
*************************
#

Other poster: As to what happened before the Big Bang, the fact is that there was no “before.” There was no time, and there was no space. Time and space, as you’ve said, are just ways of measuring a relationship between at least two objects.

His reply: I would have failed you as well as myself, if I did not try to clarify what I meant. Science is agreed that that about 0.000000000001 second after the Big Bang [BB] there was matter energy at a hot dense point. The universe expanded from that hot dense point. The transformation through time and movement through space from this hot dense point to the universe now, is the “development of the universe” This “development of the universe from the hot dense point is the BBT. This is found at the talk origins link. I have just put it in lay fashion.

Therefore the BBT is NOT about the origin of the universe at point zero. Thus the BBT is about the development of the universe the micro second after the BB to what it is today. BBT does not cover the origin of the universe. There are hypothesis to cover the point zero or the origin of the universe.

[a] origin of the universe = something or nothing , not capable of proof
[b] micro second after the origin of the universe = hot dense point

# BBT = micro second after origin of universe for next 13.7 billion years to today.
# BBT = NOT origin of universe

The origin of the universe can EITHER be ‘nothing’ or ‘something’. You are also right to assume it is probably ‘nothing’. You draw that assumption from the Relativity Theory. If Einstein who lived from 1879 to 1955 were alive, he might have been able to take his Relativity theory further and demonstrate it was ‘nothing’ at point zero.

Point Zero is thus ‘fair game’ at this moment, with different mathematical models. The recent models seem to indicate, there was ‘something’ at point zero. These are models invented by physicists who take a view point that something cannot come out of nothing and that something must come out of something. With this view in mind, they invent the model to suit their view. These models are not capable of proof.

Likewise, if we take the relativity theory we can say, something can come out of nothing. We also cannot prove it, too.

But we can make a hypothesis that something did come out of nothing, and thus it must come from God. Just as the atheists can make a hypothesis that something came out of something and thus it can be infinite and thus it was not caused by God. Thus God does NOT exist. It is their hypothesis.

Which hypothesis is a better hypothesis would depend on our everyday observation.

A philosopher friend suggested to me, that if we can measure and calculate the universe in its parts, then we can measure and calculate the universe in all its totality. For if we can measure and calculate the universe in its parts but not in its totality, then it is like we would have a human who is half human subject to law of physics and other half as angel not subject to laws of physic. That would be impossible. Thus a universe that can measured and calculated in all its parts would be measurable and calculable in all its totality and would therefore be a finite universe.

I am pretty sure, gordo, if you had to choose your career again, and if you understood all this, you would have chosen to be a physicist to invent a mathematical model that coincides with your view that something came out of nothing, and just looking at the depth of your learning here, where I have to run hettle skettle to understand, verify cross check or determine what you say, you would have been able to come up with a wonderful mathematical model that shows that something did come out of nothing.

Einstein would have been real glad of the way you made use of his relativity theory at point zero. It would have been likely given your inclination for you to invent a mathematical model that something comes out of nothing. This shows the human predisposition in choosing the type of models depending on one’s perception of life or rather of God. If you can be an example it is possible for the physicist to be another converse example.

Thus at the level of hypothesis, each of these models not capable of proof, should not conclusively determine our determination of existence of God or otherwise.

I have an additional way of looking at it. One is that, it is still an uncontested scientific fact that the micro second 0.000000000000000001 second after the BB, there was this hot dense point of matter and energy. From this hot dense point, we have the ‘same’ matter and energy in the universe. The matter and energy in the universe at this point is the SAME as the matter and energy at the hot dense point. If we are made of matter and energy, then, at the historical time of 13.7 billion years ago, we are ALL one.

For me this is very profound that WE ARE ONE, because then if I hurt you, I am hurting myself. If I malign you, I am maligning myself. If I kill you, I am killing myself. The moral implications of ‘we are one’ are very intense and far reaching for me. Thus I am humbled and awed by the scientific fact that all of us came TOGETHER from that tiny little grain of sand at high temperature, ‘the hot dense point’ some 13.7 billion years ago.

This awareness alone would have tremendous impact on our life if properly understood, for even without religion, or belief in God, this itself will make us realize why we treat others as ourselves and also prompt us to treat others as ourselves because the truth is ‘we are one’. : -)))))

what to you would be the moral implications of ‘we are one’?

Thanks to anyone who helps me here.