JeSoul: My brother no wahala jare. Beef is with mr Mike Wall for a shoddily written article.

And no beef either with this "saying something didn't need god is very different from saying god didn't do it", the issue is commenting on God at all! in the context of a scientific discussion.

Fair enough.
Cheers.

Deep Sight:

Just how different, really? - When you consider the fact that a definitive phenomenon such as the big b@ng would likely have a definitive precursor in causality.

Yes.But does or must that precursor be an intelligent, conscious being. Could that precursor not be some kind of yet to be undestood energy threshold?

Our ancestors used to believe that thunder and lighting were caused or ignited by angry dieties. Today, we know that when atmospheric temperature, pressure and moisture mix to reach a critical threshold, thunder and lighting are ignited on their own [/b]without the design or direction of any intelligent or conscious entity.

In the vacuum of space before the big ba.ng(no such thing as a vacuum in the real sense), conditions yet to be understood could have equally set the stage for the initial spark for the big bang.

But what if, god, rather setting of the big ban.g, was actually the big ba.ng itself? This tallies with my onw personal take on this matter, vis-a-vis; that in the beginning, god, existing in the form pure electronmagnetic energy, simply imploded, or you can say, sacrificed itself, or better yet,tore off itself to beget his only begotten son, [b]The Universe, and in the process also became the universe itself.(father and son as one, does that sound familiar?)

That would mean that everything in the universe are peices of god and god is in everything as pure but latent energy.

Therefore, we are in him and he is in us.