Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion
FRINGE SCIENCE
>
The Big Bang Theory - Debunked?
Krishna wrote: "I think as bomb explodes, the 1st superdense particle also exploded. But the difference is that many reactions occurred in bomb and in the particle....?"A super-dense particle = millions of internal particles squashed together. Still, these cannot explode because there is nowhere yet to explode to - namely no external components like space.
It is why the first 4 words of genesis is scientifically sound. By the process of elimination, if at one time nothing but a single nominated force existed, there is no alternatives to a pre-nothing force to create something from nothing. How else?
Harry wrote: "Ah, you're making something out of nothing..."Very funny Harry. You so make me laugh. Great after a day at work.
Joseph wrote: "Fay wrote: "And who clicks the juke box? The dinosaurs with their pencils of course!"This is given in the opening preamble, when one quotes the source that introduced creationism and the first re..."
Are we back to that "Book" again? I thought we had a very good argument that it was written so long ago and interpreted so many times that no-one can treat it as "The Word of God". However you are most entitled to your opinion, but I don't understand how it can be used as an argument about how our Universe began. I do believe in duality. Everything seems to have an opposite. Maybe we should start thinking about that?
IMHO, the BBT is an intelligent grasp with a bit of Brylcream polish. If the universe is expanding this-away, it must have come from that-away. It gained traction with the Hubble discovery of an expanding universe - which was a much greater feat of knowledge for mankind. But it became a major problem for atheistic science because it inclined with a finite universe - which is anathema. This despite two indicators that point to a finite realm: how can a beginning and expansion not point to a finite? Answer: invent some anti-science Start Trek theories like Parallel, MV & String!
But think about this: there can be no scientific alternatives to a universe maker based on an absolutely finite uni.
eg. nothing is the opposite of something? I don't know where I'm going with this but someone might enlighten me.
Krishna wrote: "How our universe began is a big mystery still now. But maybe tomorrow we will wake up and will see in newspapers that this mystery have been solved."If the newspaper told me that I'd just think to myself "scientific fact until next revision"
The definition of finite and infinite is 'CHANGE'. Whatever changes something is transcendent of what it changes. The notion of 'change of state' as a negation of finite only pushes the goal post further. An infinite cannot be changed by a finite, and a finite cannot contain an infinite.
The omni-force has performed an ingenious feat by barring all knowledge of our origins: we are left forever pondering of it like orphans. If anyone waits for a Messiah figure, then the only thing we are waiting for is the purpose of creation. No one knows the origins of anything, not even the closest to God, which was Moses - at least according to the scriptures: 40 years; 42 stops in the deserts; presence to presence; before an entire nation. No one will have the guts to fake such a reporting.
Krishna wrote: "Universe is still expanding, it still has no limits!! So we cannot yet decide whether it is finite or infinite!"Agreed there are only two probabilities here. Yet it is very rare if not unseen, to find a scientific view based on an absolutely finite universe. Even when the science is more indicative of a finite result. The reason for such absence is blatant:
There is no scientific alternatives to a universe maker based on a finite premise. Name one?
Living in a material world of Something means we can't even begin to comprehend Nothing. We can only see it as an opposite of Something, but not as anything in its own right.The dichotomy of such things has never been able to be explained by science, religion or philosophy because we simply can't begin to understand what Nothing is.
And yet it makes up the vast amount of this universe we inhabit.
James Morcan wrote: "Fay wrote: "And who clicks the juke box? The dinosaurs with their pencils of course!"Fay, you're some reporter!
More like stirrer...stirring trouble...Same as me :)"
Thank you, I pride myself in my work and stirring. :)
Joseph wrote: "Fay wrote: "And who clicks the juke box? The dinosaurs with their pencils of course!"This is given in the opening preamble, when one quotes the source that introduced creationism and the first re..."
Yeah Joseph... so like I said in my first comment on this thread which has caused a bunch of ruckus: "Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. It's the simple truth that I believe in." Bam, God was/is/and will be, He just always existed. He "created" everything from nothing because He has infinite power.
Fay wrote: "Joseph wrote: "Fay wrote: "And who clicks the juke box? The dinosaurs with their pencils of course!"This is given in the opening preamble, when one quotes the source that introduced creationism a..."
Such is conditional to Genesis' finite universe premise. Its also the only given condition that aligns with science & logic. An infinite universe requires no God or science - it was always existing regardless.
Joseph wrote: "Fay wrote: "Joseph wrote: "Fay wrote: "And who clicks the juke box? The dinosaurs with their pencils of course!"This is given in the opening preamble, when one quotes the source that introduced c..."
I am confused on your opinion now, do you think that God created the universe? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Yes.Its the opening preamble in Genesis' first 4 words. Even a big bang needs an external triggering.
If the beginning of the universe was caused by God, we're still left not knowing as to whether there was a beginning to God, and if there was or wasn't, it's still incomprehensible to us, so I don't feel any clearer on these dichotic issues.Yes, we can say God always existed, is infinite and all the rest, but words like that just dress up the problem of Something and Nothing (as has been alluded to previously).
I second what Harry just wrote.Genesis provides many possible interpretations of its text but is definitely not cut and dried on the creation of the Universe from what I can see after multiple readings.
If it said explicitly "the universe is finite" that would be different, but that book like the entire bible is very cryptic.
Then you need to factor in all the contradictions in this book probably stemming from the fact that (according to historians) Genesis is an amalgamation of 3 earlier Pagan books...
James Morcan wrote: "I second what Harry just wrote.Genesis provides many possible interpretations of its text but is definitely not cut and dried on the creation of the Universe from what I can see after multiple rea..."
I consider the matter thusly and saw logic based on the text:
V.1. First 4 words: That in the beginning there was only a God [Supreme Force/First Cause/Etc] and nothing else. Namely, Genesis is saying the uni is finite, that once nothing else existed aside from God, including the universe and all things it contained [this includes Light and darkness, space and matter].
V1. 5TH WORD: 'CREATE'. The antithesis of this word is that a 'finite' universe emerged by itself. Not even the most atheistic scientists will agree with such a position. Contrastingly, there is no alternative to a Creator based on a finite premise.
Therefore, when based on the actual texts of Genesis, it is logical and science based. Genesis can only be assessed on its own textual premise of a finite universe.
James, what part of the Genesis creationism do you find as unacceptable? It must be based on the text if Genesis is assessed.
Joseph wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "I second what Harry just wrote.Genesis provides many possible interpretations of its text but is definitely not cut and dried on the creation of the Universe from what I can s..."
Hi Joseph - I never said I find Genesis creationism unacceptable...you're putting words in my mouth there, my friend (chaver) ;)
Also, I greatly appreciate all the insights you've shared so far on the Hebrew Bible and find it all fascinating. And it's providing balance to this forum also as the vast majority of the religious members in the group are Christians I believe. I've always felt Judaism provides the missing link with a lot of the mysteries surrounding early Bible history (that goes for the Old and New Testaments).
What I am saying is I believe you're presenting one interpretation of an ancient text. And it's a valid interpretation. But it's just that, an interpretation. And it could very well be the correct interpretation for all I know.
But allow me to play the Devil's Advocate, for the sake of a fair argument, and present one of possibly a million other interpretations you could make from the cryptic and vaguely written Genesis:
"In the beginning" could be metaphorical because God (possibly) exists beyond space and more importantly beyond time. Time is an illusion of man in this counter-interpretation. I believe this is hinted at in Peter 3:8 where he writes: "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." That Biblical passage could imply in the Lord's realm there is no time. Interestingly, I believe the ancient Hindu texts talk about time being illusory and part of Maya (correct me if I'm wrong Hindu members). I think Quantum physics has also put forward similar theories of time possibly not existing at the deepest levels.
The fifth word of Genesis "create" could also be taken literally (as you have) or more symbolically as I choose to view it. Creation wouldn't be necessary if God is beyond time and the Universe always existed. If say for the sake of argument there is no time in the grand scheme of things (which cannot be proven or disproven at this stage) then nothing could ever begin or end.
So instead of viewing this linearly, and saying in the beginning (before the universe was made) there was only God and no universe, what it could have meant is that God was the root of everything else. Maybe it meant there could be no Universe without God as God is the root or true essence of the Universe. But of course, the Bible was written by mortal men (with limited perspectives) and not God and those men could probably not conceive of there being a dimension where there is no time.
Now I am not saying my interpretation is right and that yours is wrong. I just wanted to provide another example of an interpretation one could easily make which cannot be refuted without knowing what or who God is (or who G-d is) and also what the writers of Genesis (and the earlier Pagan texts that it appears to have been lifted from) were thinking at the time.
I personally think both science (with the Big Bang Theory) and religion (with ambiguously written creation stories) require you to make a leap of "blind faith" between their theories and precisely what did happen to form the universe (if there even was a beginning). There are massive gaps between theory and absolute proof to me and for anyone to say ALL the answers can be provided by either scientific theories or religious texts (or even a combination of both) seems naïve.
But like I say, just my opinions on the matter and keep in mind I'm also the guy that makes dinosaur jokes so what do I know? :)
James Morcan wrote: "Joseph wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "I second what Harry just wrote.Genesis provides many possible interpretations of its text but is definitely not cut and dried on the creation of the Universe fr..."
Your opinion is important to me. Yes, God is saying God is beyond time: the 'in the beginning does not/cannot refer to God but the universe. The extension of the verse clarifies this, as referring to the Heavens and the Earth. That God is infinite is clarified with 'I am God I have not changed' elsewhere.
The premise of 10K years for a day is not by Peter but by David's psalms, and refers to a creationism psalm. It is used to calculate the age of the universe - a complicated process of deep math.
I suggest the issue of text being read biased should consider how it must be correctly read. The rule is that science yet did not emerge in the ancient world, and the scripture has to speak in the language of all generations' understanding.
Terms such as finite yet never entered the vocab. This renders the text both contemporaneous of its time and for future generations. How would you define finite 3,500 years ago? At this time no scripture or thought imagined Creationism or knew the size of the universe or the distances of stars: Genesis first alluded to this here, well before the term Billion was concepted, in a mode the people would understand:
“Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.”
Another verse says God knows all the stars by their names [attributes]. Thus God would know of every cell in every being, because the stars are unaccountable. This is better understand with our recent cyber knowledge and how a single chip can store billions of items.
Harry wrote: "Living in a material world of Something means we can't even begin to comprehend Nothing. We can only see it as an opposite of Something, but not as anything in its own right.The dichotomy of such..."
True. Equally, the essence of everything is a mystery. We really do not know what we are.
Joseph wrote: "Yes.Its the opening preamble in Genesis' first 4 words. Even a big bang needs an external triggering."
Okay then...
This enlightening comment (unabridged) from a sessional biology/science lecturer (name withheld), recently posted in a parallel and equally lively discussion running in the Science Teacher Network group on LinkedIn.com…“Just looking at the stars makes me realise how wonderful our universe is and all the people in it. I am a scientist and I have studied Physics and astronomy. I am no professor but I have a firm belief in God and in we people, as spiritual beings. As spirits or souls we are outside the physical universe and out side of time. Now that could be a whole new discussion. I still think spirits have an affect on the world and God could have effected the Universe, I am not sure whether big bang or multi verse, but so pleased to be part of the discussion. So much to learn of God's creation! I so love all the biological beauty. If you used Maths to discuss music, could you describe the emotion. So do not use physical means to measure or prove God or spirit.. Use the effect that they have and be happy have faith.”
Lance Morcan wrote: "This enlightening comment (unabridged) from a sessional biology/science lecturer (name withheld), recently posted in a parallel and equally lively discussion running in the Science Teacher Network ..."“Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.”
Joseph wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote: "This enlightening comment (unabridged) from a sessional biology/science lecturer (name withheld), recently posted in a parallel and equally lively discussion running in the Sci..."Genesis 15:5, Joseph? I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure that's the correct reference. I love that one.
This comment just in from a science educator (name withheld) posted in a parallel discussion thread running in the Science Teacher Network group on LinkedIn.com:"Well, there is no absolute truth, even in religion because one person's truth is another's lie.
"It bothers me when people attempt to put a religious or philosophical spin on science. Just look what happened with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Suddenly, every field was trumpeting its version of this principle, mostly without understanding it well at all.
"The upshot of the uncertainty principle does have profound philosophical implications. After Newton, people thought of the universe as a clockwork machine. The idea was that if you could just record the position and velocity of every particle in the universe, then you could predict its complete state at any time in the future and even look into the past. This flies in the face of intuition, of course.
"However, it also contradicts the concept of free will. Therein lies the rub. Heisenberg showed that you cannot have that knowledge -- ever, not even for one particle. Later on, chaos theory (the "butterfly effect") added another monkey wrench into the works of predestination (the mechanical version anyway). So, Heisenberg was a big deal. He gave us back our free will, in theory anyway. Then, completely unrelated fields jumped in inaccurately claiming Heisenberg parentage.
"So it is that theological meaning to something Hawking wrote makes no sense to me. It may to you, and that's just fine if you choose to go that way, but science and theology do not go together anymore than cookie recipes and jet plane engines do."
Surely Absolute Truth is beyond a person's subjective opinion?And isn't stating: 'there's no absolute truth' an absolute truth?
Harry wrote: "Surely Absolute Truth is beyond a person's subjective opinion?And isn't stating: 'there's no absolute truth' an absolute truth?"
I agree on both counts Harry. Merely added his comments to the discussion to help balance this thread with a scientific perspective. Not saying I agree with them.
You mean this thread actually has a topic? ....oh yeah, I almost forgot!(I know you're only the messenger Lance!)
Harry wrote: "You mean this thread actually has a topic? ....oh yeah, I almost forgot!(I know you're only the messenger Lance!)"
Yep...only the messenger...yet I seem to be full of bullet holes! Now why is that?
Harry wrote: "Surely Absolute Truth is beyond a person's subjective opinion?And isn't stating: 'there's no absolute truth' an absolute truth?"
Now that's an absolute truth!
Lance Morcan wrote: "This comment just in from a science educator (name withheld) posted in a parallel discussion thread running in the Science Teacher Network group on LinkedIn.com:"Well, there is no absolute truth,..."
I don't see past theories as redundant or useless; these must be measured on the knowledge status of its time - namely these were correct for their times. It says in the coming decades all our state of art's may likewise be overturned.
I don't see Quantum as inferring random. Who can say if the white quarks that emerge from nowhere are not programmed to do so - they rather appear to align with different existing components to form predictable outcomes; it is similar to billions of sperm cells whereby only one will connect to form a life. Such a system guarantees surety of a design.
Quantum appears designed to show the origins of things without disclosing the origins of anything; this in itself is not random. Random is not random because this too is a provision that requires to be programmed: if you PC does not perform random actions, it was not programmed to do so.
Otherwise, it is an anomaly that try as we may, the true origin of anything is so fastidiously barred. There is very deep and hidden engineering and math here.
Joseph wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote: "This comment just in from a science educator (name withheld) posted in a parallel discussion thread running in the Science Teacher Network group on LinkedIn.com:"Well, there ..."
Joseph – I put your comments to my science educator contact who responded thus:
"1. Past theories: " I see farther because I stand on the shoulders of giants." Without past hypotheses, today's theories may not exist. I did not say they were useless.
2. What is random? If you don't know or cannot know the program, then it's random.
3. PC's are not random.
4. "Fastidiously barred" -- what does that mean?
5. Quantum mechanics had to be invented to explain real phenomena. Like all scientific hypotheses and theories, it's a model that works. Whether the underlying system matches the model is irrelevant.
6. Origins: Entering into metaphysics here, which I'd just as soon avoid. We can know an origin. Then, the question arises of the origin of whatever spurred the original origin. It becomes an infinite regress. If that's what's meant by "true origin," then any such discussion quickly loses any meaning."
Your thoughts?
Lance Morcan wrote: "Joseph wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote: "This comment just in from a science educator (name withheld) posted in a parallel discussion thread running in the Science Teacher Network group on LinkedIn.com:..."2 & 3. How is it random if it exhibits repeatable patterns and intelligent products? A PC does not exhibit random only because it is not programmed to. If sperm contains billions of cells is it random or condoning surety of an outcome?
4. Fastidious, as in absolute.
5. Quantum works only by devising an acceptance of what is unaccountable or knowable. We do not know where quarks come from, why they act as they do. It does not appear random but programmed.
6. We do not know the origins of a pineapple or anything else. Such is not a provable premise for infinity but that the origins are barred from knowing. It does not mean there is no intelligent program here, or that things happen on their own by jitterbugging quarks smashing their heads together - and vallah! Science.
Many atheistic scientists have asserted that a complexity cannot result from a random; such is the absolute negation of all science. There is an ingenious design here, one that bars ultimate knowledge of origin so we will always pursue it. Just like any orphan would, seeking its parents. Its not any lacking in our ability to fathom; we can fathom 1 millionth of a nano second - we are intelligent beings. It appears more like a fastidious barring.
Harry,You fall foul of Goedel's theorem in your statement:
Isn't "there's no absolute truth" an absolute truth?
Strictly, the statement
"There is no absolute truth."
is an unverifiable statement according to the laws of mathematical logic proven by Goedel about 85 years ago.
So mathematical logic can be applied to language?
John wrote: "Logically, yes!"Wow, that's interesting.
I plan to read about Goedel's theorem when I get time.
Thanks again for explaining science to the layman.
John wrote: "Harry,You fall foul of Goedel's theorem in your statement:
Isn't "there's no absolute truth" an absolute truth?
Strictly, the statement
"There is no absolute truth."
is an unverifiable statement..."
That was kinda the point I was trying to make John! Thanks for putting it into logical terms.
Lance Morcan wrote: "Harry wrote: "You mean this thread actually has a topic? ....oh yeah, I almost forgot!(I know you're only the messenger Lance!)"
Yep...only the messenger...yet I seem to be full of bullet holes!..."
Maybe you're holy....
Jeez, my jokes are getting worse...
Harry wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote: "Harry wrote: "You mean this thread actually has a topic? ....oh yeah, I almost forgot!(I know you're only the messenger Lance!)"
Yep...only the messenger...yet I seem to be ..."
I disagree mate. I thought that one was an improvement...
John wrote: "Harry,You fall foul of Goedel's theorem in your statement:
Isn't "there's no absolute truth" an absolute truth?
Strictly, the statement
"There is no absolute truth."
is an unverifiable statement..."
Absolute and incidental truths are not the same. Absolute refers to knowing the original source of something; we do not. Once math never existed. Why is 1+1 = 2? How did 1 and 2 acquire their values & attributes? In fact, I can assuredly tell you, there is no true '1' [one/lone singular entity] in the universe; such could not exist because it cannot perform any action and would never be subject to 'change'.
Harry,Glad to hear we are on common grounds regarding the unverifiable nature of the statement "There is no absolute truth"!
Unverifiable statements are all over the place. This is a fun one that many of us learnt at school:
This statement is a lie.
Joseph,Most of what you say about mathematics is not true. If you did maths at university (as I did) you would have learnt in pure maths that 1 has an absolute identity and that we can prove that 1 + 1 = 2. Amongst other things, you have to realise that "1" and "2" are symbols.
Mathematics is there to be discovered. We only invent the symbolism.
The remarkable thing about mathematics is not that it was invented, but rather that it has any relevance to the real world.
Think of the equations of quantum mechanics, general relativity, Maxwell's equations and so on. They are all quite abstract and quite simple. Yet they have profound consequences. Pure mathematics has its moments as well.
How about the Euler equation:
e^(pi.i) + 1 = 0
Amazing!
John wrote: "Harry,Glad to hear we are on common grounds regarding the unverifiable nature of the statement "There is no absolute truth"!
Unverifiable statements are all over the place. This is a fun one that..."
This statement is not a lie. :)
James Morcan wrote: "So mathematical logic can be applied to language?"These are inter-twined applications. All life inherently understands math and their lives depend on it - a mouse knows a cat's dimensions and will retreat into a hole it knows the cat cannot enter.
The language is an expression of the math. The word is the most powerful force of all and correctly given to those nominated to have dominion of the world. Speech is aligned with the creation or origin of the universe and all the sciences, which are both mathematically designed. We find the origins given via math [heaven & earth = two factors] and speech [the Lord "SAID" - which is speech] and it was so. This is quite logical considering that no earthly components were yet existing when those words & maths were first spoken or written, or metaphorically presented in such a mode.
IMHO, there is no greater science projector than a statement appearing in Genesis. Consider it's import carefully - it is the first alluding to the size of the universe, incorporating both math and language, stated without infringing the period's knowledge status. Now humanity was fully unaware of the enormity of the universe, and the stars were seen as tiny dots on a canopy above a stationary, centered earth. What kind of early human could devise such a thought at this time:
'Look now toward heaven, and count the stars, if thou be able to count them.' [Gen. 15:5]
Since valid science must be proven in person, then we must conclude this: Every one of us will think differently depending on our worldview.
Abigail wrote: "Since valid science must be proven in person, then we must conclude this: Every one of us will think differently depending on our worldview."
True. And it is best when a worldview is vindicated.
Looks like the popular saying of Undergrounders "scientific fact (until next revision)" could possibly be true with the Big Bang Theory as well...Seems like it may be revised in time, at least according to the debate implied in this recent article 'What Came Before the Big Bang?' written by leading US astrophysicist and physics professor Brian Koberlein.What Came Before the Big Bang?
by Brian Koberlein on December 1, 2014 http://www.universetoday.com/116835/w...
Astronomers are pretty sure what happened after the Big Bang, but what came before? What are the leading theories for the causes of the Big Bang?
About 13.8 billion years ago the Universe started with a bang, kicked the doors in, brought fancy cheeses and a bag of ice, spiked the punch bowl and invited the new neighbors over for all-nighter to encompass all all-nighters from that point forward.
But what happened before that?
What was going on before the Big Bang? Usually, we tell the story of the Universe by starting at the Big Bang and then talking about what happened after. Similarly and completely opposite to how astronomers view the Universe… by standing in the present and looking backwards. From here, the furthest we can look back is to the cosmic microwave background, which is about 380,000 years after the big bang.
Before that we couldn’t hope to see a thing, the Universe was just too hot and dense to be transparent. Like pea soup. Soup made of delicious face burning high energy everything.
In traditional stupid earth-bound no-Tardis life unsatisfactory fashion, we can’t actually observe the origin of the Universe from our place in time and space.
Damn you… place in time and space.
Fortunately, the thinky types have come up with some ideas, and they’re all one part crazy, one part mind bendy, and 100% bananas. The first idea is that it all began as a kind of quantum fluctuation that inflated to our present universe.
Something very, very subtle expanding over time resulting in, as an accidental byproduct, our existence. The alternate idea is that our universe began within a black hole of an older universe.
I’m gonna let you think about that one. Just let your brain simmer there.
There was universe “here”, that isn’t our universe, then that universe became a black hole… and from that black hole formed us and EVERYTHING around us. Literally, everything around us. In every direction we look, and even the stuff we just assume to be out there.
Here’s another one. We see particles popping into existence here in our Universe. What if, after an immense amount of time, a whole Universe’s worth of particles all popped into existence at the same time. Seriously… an immense amount of time, with lots and lots of “almost” universes that didn’t make the cut.
More recently, the BICEP2 team observed what may be evidence of inflation in the early Universe.
Like any claim of this gravity, the result is hotly debated. If the idea of inflation is correct, it is possible that our universe is part of a much larger multiverse. And the most popular form would produce a kind of eternal inflation, where universes are springing up all the time. Ours would just happen to be one of them.
It is also possible that asking what came before the big bang is much like asking what is north of the North Pole. What looks like a beginning in need of a cause may just be due to our own perspective. We like to think of effects always having a cause, but the Universe might be an exception. The Universe might simply be. Because.
You tell us. What was going on before the party started?
Underground Knowledge — A discussion group
Books mentioned in this topic
The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe (other topics)STOPP (Stop the Organized Pill Pushers) Now (other topics)
STOPP (Stop the Organized Pill Pushers) Now (other topics)
Before the Big Bang: The Prehistory of Our Universe (other topics)
The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Richard Dawkins (other topics)Takaaki Musha (other topics)
This is given in the opening preamble, when one quotes the source that introduced creationism and the first record of the origins of the universe:
1. IN THE BEGINNING GOD.
This says that the Uni is finite, it never existed at one time, that once only a supreme being existed - aka God.
2. IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED.
That 5th word is a verb.
And the plot gets thicker. That 5th word is not your ordinary verb. The word CREATE appears only in the first creation chapter; in the rest of the 5 books that word never appears again - it is replaced with the word FORMED. The former denotes 'something from nothing' while the latter refers to 'something from something else'.
The opening verse of Genesis anticipates the question we all have. Who created the juke box, and was the creater around when nothing else was, and also able to create something from nothing.
Its a damn site more scientific than hiding behind an infinite universe - which requires no science.