Oh please, that’s like any tv movie “based on a true story” – there’s some tiny nugget of truth in some event that occurred and some of the names, but everything else is fiction. Heck, let’s take a case study, the movie “Black Hawk Down”. This is based upon a real event, where there is tons of documentation of the people who were there, what really happened, who did what, etc. Yet the movie by necessity makes composite characters, generates dialogue that wasn’t recorded and couldn’t be specifically remembered any more than any random conversation anyone has daily. The major facts are correct, but the characters are as much a creation of the actors portraying them as the actual people whom they represent. And that’s something we KNOW is real.

Dan Brown has taken a few historical facts, much speculation and debate, and a rather different interpretation of some events and generated a fictional story with fictional characters to carry out his plot meant for entertainment. But what parts are real and what are from Dan Brown’s head are not identified – you have to figure that out for yourself.

As for the existence of a god or gods, the arguments for and against stand indepent and prior to that book, and that book offers nothing new. If you wish to interpret the Big Bang as a sign of God’s handiwork, that’s your perogative, but stating that is a fact is an abuse of the word “fact”.

And your declaration “theres only 1 god and the bibles true” is pure opinion that has little justification based upon evidence.

Keith Douglas Said:
>To say that the Big Bang marks the beginning of the universe in the original sense of universe is unscientific …

We’re stuck in a perpetual chase for adequate terminology. Used to be that the word “world” was lare enough to encompass “everything that exists”. Then we figured out there was a Solar System. Then we discovered that there was a galaxy – the Milky Way. Then we figured out that some of those fuzzy nebula were other galaxies, all part of some larger entity we termed “universe”. Now we’re figuring out that what we’ve been calling the “universe” to mean “everything that exists” isn’t a complete picture. There could be something beyond/outside it – we don’t really know, and can only speculate. That demands another term, though.

There is this alternate word for “everything that exists” that is common enough in astronomy circles – Cosmos. We could talk about the Cosmos, and our Universe within it. Or we could polish up some words for our pocket of reality that is our “observable universe”, our “Hubble Volume”, or whatever and try to separate that from the “actual Universe”. But the common use of the term Universe to apply to the zone of being where our laws of nature run consistent and fundamental constants appear constant is equivalent to the Hubble Volume, or whatever words you wish to use. Ergo, the confusion in terminology. Of course, we try to reserve Cosmos to mean everything, and then we’ll find some suggestive reason why what we’ve been referring to as everything is incomplete, and we’ll need a new word.