According to Ashok (2013) for zero dimensional space time 0-D ST, it is irrelevant to discuss elementary particles or their interactions because by definition 0-D corresponds to geometric and physical absolute 'nothingness'. He posits it to represent the situation "prior to the big bang" when neither space, time nor matter existed and let it represent a point at origin.
ASHOK K. SINHA, 2013, Xlibris, NEW DIMENSIONS IN ELEMENTARY PARTICLE PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY
I just read this very insightfull online commentary by Robert Brown from Duke University:
No fooling, and this is, sadly, not a joke. I wish I were fooling. If nothing else, I've learned that as soon as one discovers in a debate of any sort that your opponent/partner has different Prime Axioms ... the wisest thing to do is immediately terminate the discussion, back away slowly (possibly with one hand on your wallet and another on a small but powerful handgun), and go do something useful, like doing a crossword puzzle, or taking a nice long nap, or playing World of Warcraft until your mouse-hand is sore.
At least those things will improve your mind and are unlikely to get you beheaded, burned at the stake, pilloried, broken on the wheel, enslaved, or just plain beaten up and left for dead - all of which have happened at one time or another to the loser of what should have been an open-minded and fair philophical debate between holders of different axioms. Including repeatedly, religious axioms, where the ``debates'' were, for example, known as crusades.
The damnedest thing is, of course, that I can no more prove my axioms than they can prove theirs, and hence both our conclusions are in some deep sense equally irrational. Maybe the laws of physics have changed over time in a way that (precisely) cannot be detected now. Formulated this way, how can I prove otherwise by any experiment or experience, by definition?
Below is an extract and references regarding the philosophy of God and singularity.
The term Stosolus is used to represents the single final being, similar to what people call God, creator, etc.
Ray Kurzweil in The Singularity is Near end of chapter entitled "Ich Bin Ein Singularitarian"
"Evolution moves towards greater complexity, greater elegance, greater knowledge, greater intelligence, greater beauty, greater creativity, and greater levels of subtle attributes such as love. In every monotheistic tradition God is likewise described as all of these qualities, only without limitation: infinite knowledge, infinite intelligence, infinite beauty, infinite creativity, infinite love, and so on. Of course, even the accelerating growth of evolution never achieves an infinite level, but as it explodes exponentially it certainly moves rapidly in that direction. So evolution moves inexorably towards this conception of God, although never quite reaching this ideal. We can regard, therefore, the freeing of our thinking from the severe limitations of its biological form to be an essentially spiritual undertaking."
"The word "singularity" has several distinct meanings. P.B. is referring to a sudden and radical change in technology. But "singularity" also has a precise mathematical meaning" "points" where quantities diverge to infinity (or are otherwise not defined). The laws of physics tell us that the universe began in a singularity in this precise mathematical sense 13.7 billion years ago. This initial singularity is the Uncaused First Cause. Maimonides and Aquinas defined "God" to be the Uncaused First Cause. Hence, by definition, the Cosmological Singularity is God!" (Frank Tipler, 2006)
Several of those who responded to the original entry made similar comments, although without referencing Maimonides and Aquinas. Professor Tipler is correct to point out the referring to the predicted upcoming Technological Singularity as "The Singularity" is a subjective and arbitrary choice. However, at the risk of bandying cosmological ideas about with one of the authors of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, I would assert that it may be just as arbitrary to identify the singularity of 13.7 billion years ago as the Uncaused First Cause. If those who are now applying evo/devo concepts to cosmology are correct, the singularity that began this particular universe is just one of many in a developmental multiverse. As John Smart explains it:
In the simplest and most biological of these cosmological models, our universe’s genes self-organized, through many successive cycles in the multiverse, to produce the life-friendly and intelligence-friendly universe we live in today. This theory of intelligent self-organized design proposes that, analogous to living ecosystems, our universe's "genes, organisms, and environment" encode deep developmental intelligence on a macroscopic scale, while they use primarily evolutionary and chaotic mechanisms to unfold that intelligence on the scale that we normally observe it." (John Smart, 2005)
So our particular universe need not be the (direct) result of an Uncaused First Cause, and that singularity of 13.7 billion years ago may or may not be correctly identified with God. However, if there is a larger universe that evolves increasingly intelligence-supporting universes, we do face the question of how that ever came into being. The first and perhaps greatest singularity, maybe the one that really deserves to be called "the singularity" is at heart a conceptual one, having to do with the discontinuity between nothing existing and something existing. Stephen has called this singularity The Miracle, and about it he writes:
So here, then, is that Uncaused First Cause of Maimonides and Aquinas. Or maybe it would be better to say where, then, is that Uncaused First Cause?
Frank Tipler has responded
Video: Imagining the Omniverse
Video: God 2.0
God and the Singularity
God = Singularity?
A Big Bang Cosmological Argument For God's Nonexistence
Time Travel and Paradox
Turtles all the way down
The Bible was meant to be a book of faith, not one of science. I do not believe that every word of the Bible was written by God Himself as a "biblical literalist" would. Rather I believe it was written by men who were inspired by God to present a spiritual message and who explained that message with historical and poetic detail. They wrote what they believed was true, but since they were men of faith writing what essentially was a spiritual message. They used daily events, folklore, and mythology to fill out the message and help with the interpretation by anyone who may read it. As such, like Galileo, I am not surprised that the Bible is scientifically inaccurate because I look to the Bible for spiritual truths that only God can reveal, not for scientific truths that are best determined by the direct observation of nature.
This, in turn, leads me to the second reason why I agree with both creationist and evolutionist theories.
The purpose of science is to determine the mechanisms by which the universe operates, of which evolution is one, whereas the purpose of religion is to determine the meaning of the universe, its purpose for existence. As such, it is perfectly legitimate to believe that a supernatural entity created by supernatural means the foundation of space-time and the natural laws and forces that operate and control space-time, then used those very laws and forces to create the universe from the Big Bang onwards. I distinguish between the ultimate origin of space-time and the way space-time subsequently operated. Science may never be able to tell us where space-time came from, but it will be able to explain - from the moment of creation onward - where the universe came from and how it developed. Religion, on the other hand, can tell us that space-time was created by God, and offer reasons why He chose to do so.
It's also important to note that God is not bound by time, so although science may measure that it took 14 billion years for the universe to be created, God could have done that in an instant or over 6 earth days or 6 God days, whatever He wanted, and it may still look to us for all possible ways of measuring that it took 14 billion years.
Here are two great articles about Christian evolution philosophy.