All of these actions and reactions have to have an origin because each action is truly a reaction to another previous action.

There's the logic flaw. Nothing in the definition of reaction implies another action, i.e., reactions do not necessarily have their own reactions. As an example, if I kick a wall, the wall pushes back with the same amount of force, but this certainly does not always mean that my rebounding foot will hit someone's kneecap behind me. This may not have much effect on your thinking, however, because obviously there had to be a very first action. If we say that the reaction was the expansion of time and space, then what do you think the original action was?

Also, a few clarifications for you. In the "beginning of time" (really a misnomer, because there was no time), it was not a "small space". It was a singularity: an infinitely small, infinitely dense point, containing no space or time, but an infinite amount of matter. I'm not sure if this is right, but I don't think that there were no forces; I'm pretty sure physicists believe that the four major forces (gravitation, electromagnetic, strong, and weak) were unified into one force.

And one more: the beginning of time technically wasn't Planck time, but Planck time is the farthest back we can measure. Planck time is a natural unit of time, equal to 10^-43 seconds, and the smallest unit of time it is possible to measure. So, we cannot tell any difference between the time the universe started, and one Planck time after that. Information came from Link.

Not that I don't believe in God. I actually believe that science will one day prove the existence of God, but if this is going to happen, you have to go about your arguments and deductions scientifically and logically. Just helping out.

Thanks for the imput. This is free writing, and a lot of that stuff turns out to be garbage. This is just something I liked the idea of.

If you kick a wall, and it does nothing other than hurt your toe, then you already have a reaction. A reaction always causes another reaction, even if that reaction is miniscule. Don't think of it as a physics problem, but rather view it from a total and universal position.

What you mention in the second and third paragraphs are things I tried to say, but could not put into words. Thanks for "just helping out."

Peace,

Beebes

My faith is the only thing i need to believe in God.

Sorry i guess i'm not helping out at all!

I'll try to follow thru on the scientific implications of this thread. We don't know much about black holes and how these physical entities suck energy in that may lead to a different dimension (?) or world. Might not the energy from the present expansion of the universe summate to the energy being sucked in the black holes so that our present universe is rebirthed in another dimension - a sort of recycling, just so that it conforms to Newton's Law ? If you lost me somewhere, it's alright, 'coz this is all speculative. If I were to simplify everything I've just said, I'll just take Islandgurl's reply.

"A reaction always causes another reaction".
Can you elaborate?

so u say god exists...........or its just physics is god ..eh????????????

Since there were no forces at the beginning of time, and no beings to initiate the proposed expansion of space and time, a divine being, or some higher force that transcedes natural time and space must have initiated the initial motion of expansion

But what initiated the divine being's motions?

We can't prove God's existence, because our finite minds cannot comprehend the Infinite. (At least we won't be able to prove God in our present human state. I personally believe that we'll be able to prove God in the hereafter, where our perspective and awareness will be different.)

In the meantime, it's all a matter of faith. We can either believe that our existence is an accident and there is no purpose to anything; or we can believe that there is deeper meaning to life, and the cosmos has transcendent purpose.

The answer lies in our heart, as well as our head.

A minor flaw in your logic is the assumption that time is linear. Of course for us it is, but it's not guaranteed that time was linear at the beginning of the universe. And if it wasn't, then the action that started the universe might have been a reaction to something that's happening now. Or happened yesterday. Or happened both a hundred years ago and 10,000 years in the future. So the reason the universe began might be because you bought a loaf of bread at the supermarket yesterday. It's impossible to tell really.

Saint Thomas Aquinas called it the First Mover (http://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS%20Subjects/Philosophyofreligion/fiveways.htm). The problem with this logic is that the first mover must also have a first mover... and that first mover must have a first mover... and on to infinity.

If you look at the laws of physics, we see that you can't have something from nothing, and that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. No action then can have initiated on its own, it must simply be a reaction from some previous event, creating an endlessly nested sent of reactions that has to loop back on itself at some point or continue on deeper in iterations to infinity, meaning there is no beginning... with no beginning there is no end... without a beginning or an end, the measurement of time beyond our own finite understanding becomes absolutely meaningless since time requires points of reference to judge and measure.

The deeper you go on this issue the more insanely complex it becomes. Just trying to trace back the motions of a soccer ball on a field becomes very hard to map out. You're only dealing with a single object within a set space over a very short period of time. Now, try and map all the reactions of every other entity on the field back to their origins (grass, players, the creation of the ball, the goal posts etc) and it instantly becomes an impossible problem to diagram.

Since it becomes so complex so quickly, the knee-jerk reaction is to say that it simply has to have been started at some point, that God did it.. end of story. If there is a "First Mover" then it breaks all of our known rules. If there is not, then we're all on a giant cosmic loop that takes aeons and aeons to cycle through, no rules, no higher influence. We don't have a strong enough understanding of time to really come to any good conclusion on this one. As it stands, despite everything everyone wants to believe to the contrary, science does not yet prove OR disprove the existence of God.

I think Zoomba says it best. Just for me, it's hard to see time as anything other than linear, and I know it is not.

I don't need science to prove that God exists. My faith is enough for me.

I just like the idea.

Peace,

Beebes

That's just it... no one will believe or disbelieve in God because of anything science says... they just want to be able to use it to back up their point of view... it makes for a convenient point in argument. Ultimately though it doesn't matter

The great thing about this universe is that it is far stranger than we might think. For example, the laws of physics as we know them break down when applied to the first few seconds of the universe. Time itself becomes broken, and calculations concerning the dimensions we know fall apart. This has aggrivated Stephen Hawking to the point that he has developed the concept of imaginary time, which does not actually travel from the past to the future (re: a state of active entropy) to define the origin of the universe.
Using Hawkings imaginary time model, you basically lose a universal beginning point. The universe itself has no beginning, forming not a line with a starting point (that is often conceived by the religious and cosmologists) but instead forms a bowl shape, never reaching a beginning, but instead just existing. While sounding some what far fetched, the concept of imaginary time solves many of the problems of the universe during its first few seconds of existance. It's hard to wrap your head around because we live in a progressive time line. And yet as hard as this is to imagine, God is even harder to understand.
Every single individual that has ever lived has a unique concept of God (gods). My God is not the same as yours even if, by chance, we worshipped the "same God" in the same religion. We are each unique, and even atheists have dissimilar concepts of how they view the god they do not believe in. This leads me to belive that God cannot be completely conceived in the imagination of humanity to the fullest extent. Instead, we each see a small portion of God, relative to our experiences and teachings. Our God is not the complete God, because God is beyond us.
This in itself leads to many, many arguements about who is the real God, what God means to us, and how God interacts with us. Some will claim that faith alone is enough, as they view some notion of an active mystical man in the heavens, watching over us. Some will claim that God cannot exist, because their limited view of God does not work within the realm of understanding they have.
I think God is all this and more. The fact we as a species can conceive of God exposes that we are aware of some greater mystery to existance. It is within this mystery that we will find God. Science, which strips away the mystery, reveals a very limited and small amount of Gods 'footprint', but it can never destroy God... only reveal the mystery of this universe in which we live. Science is the ultimate search for God, it is sciences very nature to admit to the mystery of the universe.

Good luck with your search... I need more coffee.

A friend of mine, who dabbles in physics stated it best.

"When you examine the universal background radiation there is a noticeable red shift, the obvious answer to this is that the universe is expanding, that's not truely strange, because if there was a big bang than obviously the universe would be expanding, what's strange is that the universe is speeding up, expanding at an ever accelerating rate.  This violates everything we know about entropy, the universe should be slowing down it's expansion, though in theory, it would never stop expanding.  So, based on the shift of the background radiation the universal expansion is speeding up, based on other thins which I can't remember because the math started to pass me, proved that the universe is curved and open.  So, the universe is accelerating, curved and open, what does that mean?  It means Newton was wrong on a universal level because somewhere out there in the whole entirety of the universe, spontaneous creation is occuring.

And if that's not humbling enough, take a look at the maps in the National Geographic's "Encyclopedia of Space" and see just how small our entire galaxy is in comparison to the local Supercluster.  And of course, feel bad for the potential inhabitants of the Sagitarius Dwarf Galaxy which is being slowly consumed by our own galaxy, we should feel the "shockwaves" from it in a few tens of thousands of years.

Cheers

I think we created the universe. And we made it so big because 15 billion years from now were going to need the space for all our stuff.