Creation of universe
- Thread starter User46952
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Romans 1:20 says that God (truth) can be seen in creation. I don't believe God would create the universe in a way to fool us into thinking it's something it's not. That would be something that a liar would do.
I don't know very many people who believe that Adam was a real person. The Garden of Eden parable is intended to explain why man is separated from God by his very nature. You don't have to wonder how old the sower was in Jesus' parable of the sower to learn the lesson He was teaching. The only way you can conclude that Adam was a real person is if you use the Bible in a way it was not intended to be used; i.e., as a history book.
If you want to insist that the accounts in Genesis are historical, then which one do you consider to be inspired by God, and which one do you consider to be from the Father of Lies--Genesis 1, which basically parallels what we know about evolution (first there were swimmy things, then crawly and flying things, then animals, and then man) or Genesis 2 (in which God created man first, and then the animals)? They can't BOTH be historically accurate.
You're talking about miniscule changes in robust effects, which have contributed to the ongoing refinement of truth which is the hallmark of the scientific method--nothing that will invalidate everything that we already know.
Not to rational humans.
Like I said, science is constantly refining its approximations of truth. It was only within the past 100 years that we have been able to examine subatomic particles and phenomena with increasingly accurate methods of measurement. Science would not be a valuable method of determining truth if it was not willing to refine itself on the basis of better information. Although science will probably never know everything with absolute certainty, it's still the best method God gave us.
"The scientists"? Can you produce evidence of a consensus of environmental scientists who believed that the east coast was supposed to be under water by now?
I thought not...
That's because science is a method of determining truth, rather than a religion that won't adjust to better information. The goalposts don't move, but our understanding of them does. Scientists not only admit this, they embrace it and constantly seek better understandings. Pharisees put their fingers in their ears when presented with better information.
I don't know very many people who believe that Adam was a real person. The Garden of Eden parable is intended to explain why man is separated from God by his very nature. You don't have to wonder how old the sower was in Jesus' parable of the sower to learn the lesson He was teaching. The only way you can conclude that Adam was a real person is if you use the Bible in a way it was not intended to be used; i.e., as a history book.
If you want to insist that the accounts in Genesis are historical, then which one do you consider to be inspired by God, and which one do you consider to be from the Father of Lies--Genesis 1, which basically parallels what we know about evolution (first there were swimmy things, then crawly and flying things, then animals, and then man) or Genesis 2 (in which God created man first, and then the animals)? They can't BOTH be historically accurate.
You're talking about miniscule changes in robust effects, which have contributed to the ongoing refinement of truth which is the hallmark of the scientific method--nothing that will invalidate everything that we already know.
Not to rational humans.
Like I said, science is constantly refining its approximations of truth. It was only within the past 100 years that we have been able to examine subatomic particles and phenomena with increasingly accurate methods of measurement. Science would not be a valuable method of determining truth if it was not willing to refine itself on the basis of better information. Although science will probably never know everything with absolute certainty, it's still the best method God gave us.
"The scientists"? Can you produce evidence of a consensus of environmental scientists who believed that the east coast was supposed to be under water by now?
I thought not...
That's because science is a method of determining truth, rather than a religion that won't adjust to better information. The goalposts don't move, but our understanding of them does. Scientists not only admit this, they embrace it and constantly seek better understandings. Pharisees put their fingers in their ears when presented with better information.
Well, again, "from that moment onward" really has no meaning without something to compare it to--just as "silence" and "darkness" would have no meaning without the existence of sound and light to compare them to.
But yes, to the extent that sound and light exist, then the concepts of their absence can also exist.
But yes, to the extent that sound and light exist, then the concepts of their absence can also exist.
And this is where your theory and science flops and becomes another religion to be believed.
You want to define silence as complete absence of sound and darkness as complete absence of light but you also want to explain how they both (light & darkness/ silence & sound)came about at big bang.
Simple basics; silence and darkness amongst many other things are immaterial therefore can never be created or destroyed, yet they are part of reality of this universe and they don't depend on anything for them to be.
With this simple basics, i can perfectly describe the conditions before big bang (beginning); it was very dark and silent and very cold because the opposite of these requires material existence of substance- therefore light began to exist because its source is material, heat began to exist at some point because its source is material, sound began to exist at some point because its source is material and material and anything that is material began to exist at some point and will cease to exist at some point.
Defining silence as absence of sound and darkness as absence of light is also not correct, it is like defining a tree as an unprocessed furniture. because the tree came long time ago before man could make furniture from trees, darkness is un-created while light came into existence, you can not use light in the definition of darkness - it would mean that before light existed, darkness could not be defined or described.
You want to define silence as complete absence of sound and darkness as complete absence of light but you also want to explain how they both (light & darkness/ silence & sound)came about at big bang.
Simple basics; silence and darkness amongst many other things are immaterial therefore can never be created or destroyed, yet they are part of reality of this universe and they don't depend on anything for them to be.
With this simple basics, i can perfectly describe the conditions before big bang (beginning); it was very dark and silent and very cold because the opposite of these requires material existence of substance- therefore light began to exist because its source is material, heat began to exist at some point because its source is material, sound began to exist at some point because its source is material and material and anything that is material began to exist at some point and will cease to exist at some point.
Defining silence as absence of sound and darkness as absence of light is also not correct, it is like defining a tree as an unprocessed furniture. because the tree came long time ago before man could make furniture from trees, darkness is un-created while light came into existence, you can not use light in the definition of darkness - it would mean that before light existed, darkness could not be defined or described.
And now that you flop so badly at what you think are good at, i will tell you what reality is actually; Reality and what we call existence is in the mind (heart) of man, there's no reality outside a conscious mind. And to be precise, it is the contrast between two things as perceived by man.
Beauty is only beauty because is contrasted by ugly as a man sees
Light is only light because the mind contrasts it with darkness
Sound is sound because the mind contrasts it with silence
Sweet is only sweet after a man has tasted it and contrasted it with bitter
'A computer is on that table' only because my mind has contrasted it with 'that table has nothing'
The idea that light has been travelling for 9 billion years before the earth(clock) was fully formed in the mind of a man is erroneous. this is just a false perspective that man is creating.
If man lived in Jupiter and used Jupiter's rotation to make sense of time then the duration called a second would not be what we know it today and the rate called the speed of light would not be what we define today and the age of the universe would not be what we think it is today. So all reality is earth dependent and it is earth dependent because it is on earth that the conscious mind dwells.
Even common sense points to this fact. 'The universe is 13.8 billion years' but the term year is only referenced from the earth so that statement can actually be rephrased to 'The universe is 13.8 billion earth years'- then all reality is earth dependent.
Beauty is only beauty because is contrasted by ugly as a man sees
Light is only light because the mind contrasts it with darkness
Sound is sound because the mind contrasts it with silence
Sweet is only sweet after a man has tasted it and contrasted it with bitter
'A computer is on that table' only because my mind has contrasted it with 'that table has nothing'
The idea that light has been travelling for 9 billion years before the earth(clock) was fully formed in the mind of a man is erroneous. this is just a false perspective that man is creating.
If man lived in Jupiter and used Jupiter's rotation to make sense of time then the duration called a second would not be what we know it today and the rate called the speed of light would not be what we define today and the age of the universe would not be what we think it is today. So all reality is earth dependent and it is earth dependent because it is on earth that the conscious mind dwells.
Even common sense points to this fact. 'The universe is 13.8 billion years' but the term year is only referenced from the earth so that statement can actually be rephrased to 'The universe is 13.8 billion earth years'- then all reality is earth dependent.
On this point we agree.
Either the Bible is telling the truth when it says that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born, or it is telling a falsehood. While "historical" accounts may be selective in the information they convey, it is silly to conclude that they are completely ahistorical.
The supposed history of biological development is partly based on the relative depth of fossils, which is interpreted through the lens of pseudo-scientific assertions from anti-Christian writers, and partly on speculative presumptions such as, "it must have happened this way".
However, much of what constitutes "science" today assumes "facts" which are themselves unscientific or, at best, untested if not untestable. Ask any evolutionary biologist how life began, and you will get fairy tales, not science, in response.
Either the Bible is telling the truth when it says that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born, or it is telling a falsehood. While "historical" accounts may be selective in the information they convey, it is silly to conclude that they are completely ahistorical.
The supposed history of biological development is partly based on the relative depth of fossils, which is interpreted through the lens of pseudo-scientific assertions from anti-Christian writers, and partly on speculative presumptions such as, "it must have happened this way".
However, much of what constitutes "science" today assumes "facts" which are themselves unscientific or, at best, untested if not untestable. Ask any evolutionary biologist how life began, and you will get fairy tales, not science, in response.
-
1
- Show all
E
Amen
Science is based on the thought that all things continue as they were from the begining of time.
For this reason. All science can even attempt to state as fact is from a time not long after the flood until today. It can go no further from that.. Only Speculate.
And fact peter said in the last day men will be mockers. based on this very same fact And in fact, Warns us not to fall for this,, remembering the flood.
2 peter 3: 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Speculation is not science.
Science is based on the thought that all things continue as they were from the begining of time.
For this reason. All science can even attempt to state as fact is from a time not long after the flood until today. It can go no further from that.. Only Speculate.
And fact peter said in the last day men will be mockers. based on this very same fact And in fact, Warns us not to fall for this,, remembering the flood.
2 peter 3: 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Speculation is not science.
Whatever may be our concept of *light-years* it cannot nullify or undermine divine revelation. "...Because it includes the word "year", the term light-year is sometimes misinterpreted as a unit of time..." It is only a measure of astronomical distances, not time.
Time began to be measured from the first day of creation (Gen 1:5), and "evening and morning" was another way of saying 24-hours. So the universe was indeed created in six literal 24 hour days. This was primarily to set a pattern for man's work-week of six days, with one day of rest (Exodus 20:8-11). God did not need those six days, but mankind did. Also God's sabbath rest has an eternal and spiritual meaning in Christ.
Time began to be measured from the first day of creation (Gen 1:5), and "evening and morning" was another way of saying 24-hours. So the universe was indeed created in six literal 24 hour days. This was primarily to set a pattern for man's work-week of six days, with one day of rest (Exodus 20:8-11). God did not need those six days, but mankind did. Also God's sabbath rest has an eternal and spiritual meaning in Christ.
LOL!
What exactly is "my theory"? That silence and darkness are the absence of sound and light? 'Fraid that's not "my theory"; that is the definition of the terms. And if you think that science fails because silence and darkness are the absence of sound and light, then you have another think coming.
I don't "want" to define them in those terms, that is how they are defined, regardless of my desires. The fact that they only exist in contrast to sound and light is basically what you said yourself in your next post about how things only exist in contrast to their negation. Without the concepts of "sound" and "light," the concepts of "silence" and "darkness" are meaningless, so yes, they are dependent upon the existence of a universe in which sound and light exist.
Like I said, silence and darkness are realities in the same way that the absence of leprechauns in your bathroom is a reality--but they do depend on the existence of sound and light for them to have meaning.
No, you can't, because there is no "before" the beginning. That's what "the beginning" means. Are you even listening to yourself?
It wasn't ANYTHING, because before there was SOMETHING, there was nothing. There was no darkness, because there was no light to be absent. There was no silence, because there was no sound to be absent. There was no cold, because there was no heat to be absent. There was no time nor space in which anything could happen.
I know this is a difficult concept for our spacetime-bound brains to grasp--but there could be NOTHING before creation, because there was nothing and no time for it to happen.
Well, you can argue with Merriam-Webster on that one. Whether you like them or not, those ARE the definitions of "silence" and "darkness."
It would be more accurate to say that the concept of darkness came into existence when light was created.
You can't? lol
You pretty much HAVE to... but I'm curious. Please define the concept darkness for me, without any reference to the concept of light.
Please define the concept of silence for me, without any reference to the concept of sound.
BINGO!!!
My point exactly...
What exactly is "my theory"? That silence and darkness are the absence of sound and light? 'Fraid that's not "my theory"; that is the definition of the terms. And if you think that science fails because silence and darkness are the absence of sound and light, then you have another think coming.
I don't "want" to define them in those terms, that is how they are defined, regardless of my desires. The fact that they only exist in contrast to sound and light is basically what you said yourself in your next post about how things only exist in contrast to their negation. Without the concepts of "sound" and "light," the concepts of "silence" and "darkness" are meaningless, so yes, they are dependent upon the existence of a universe in which sound and light exist.
Like I said, silence and darkness are realities in the same way that the absence of leprechauns in your bathroom is a reality--but they do depend on the existence of sound and light for them to have meaning.
No, you can't, because there is no "before" the beginning. That's what "the beginning" means. Are you even listening to yourself?
It wasn't ANYTHING, because before there was SOMETHING, there was nothing. There was no darkness, because there was no light to be absent. There was no silence, because there was no sound to be absent. There was no cold, because there was no heat to be absent. There was no time nor space in which anything could happen.
I know this is a difficult concept for our spacetime-bound brains to grasp--but there could be NOTHING before creation, because there was nothing and no time for it to happen.
Well, you can argue with Merriam-Webster on that one. Whether you like them or not, those ARE the definitions of "silence" and "darkness."
It would be more accurate to say that the concept of darkness came into existence when light was created.
You can't? lol
You pretty much HAVE to... but I'm curious. Please define the concept darkness for me, without any reference to the concept of light.
Please define the concept of silence for me, without any reference to the concept of sound.
BINGO!!!
My point exactly...
The Bible is not a buffet. You don't get to pick and choose what you like and discard or change what you don't believe. When you do that, you make YOURSELF out to be god.
So there was no literal Adam & Eve? You don't like that so you tossed it.
We can work with your error with a lot of this stuff, but I need to ask you. Do you believe that Jesus Christ, an actual, real person, is God come in the flesh, born of a virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit, suffered, was crucified, and died to pay for YOUR sin debt, and that He rose from the grave on the 3rd day?
So there was no literal Adam & Eve? You don't like that so you tossed it.
We can work with your error with a lot of this stuff, but I need to ask you. Do you believe that Jesus Christ, an actual, real person, is God come in the flesh, born of a virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit, suffered, was crucified, and died to pay for YOUR sin debt, and that He rose from the grave on the 3rd day?
-
1
- Show all
And you cannot conflate God's divine understanding of time with the actual measurement of time as stated in the Bible, and as noted in the genealogies of the patriarchs. Generally, a day is an ordinary day, a week is a week, a month is a month, an year is an year. And that was also the reason for the heavenly bodies to be created:
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years... (Gen 1:14)
When the Bible says that a thousand years are as one day, and one day is as a thousand years to God, what it really means is that to the eternal God TIME MEANS NOTHING. But to mankind it does mean a great deal, so God condescended to create in six literal 24 hour days.
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years... (Gen 1:14)
When the Bible says that a thousand years are as one day, and one day is as a thousand years to God, what it really means is that to the eternal God TIME MEANS NOTHING. But to mankind it does mean a great deal, so God condescended to create in six literal 24 hour days.
Ok, so like I said, for you, God does not exist unless you believe in Him. Many Christians would disagree with you, but you're entitled to your opinion.
Yay! You have finally come around to understanding what I have been telling you for three posts now.
Tell me again how you can't use light to define darkness and how you can't use sound to define silence...
Incorrect. What you call the period of time that light has been traveling may be defined by the consciousness of man, but to paraphrase Shakespeare, 9 billion years by any other name would take just as long.
Again, the reality is not dependent upon our consciousness of it, only the way that reality is described. If the speed of light was 27 bleefarks per second instead of 186,000 miles per second, it would still take just as long for the light from the sun to reach Earth--it just would't be defined in the same terms.
A universe that is 287 norprinks old is the same age as a universe that is 13.8 billion years old.
Yay! You have finally come around to understanding what I have been telling you for three posts now.
Tell me again how you can't use light to define darkness and how you can't use sound to define silence...
Incorrect. What you call the period of time that light has been traveling may be defined by the consciousness of man, but to paraphrase Shakespeare, 9 billion years by any other name would take just as long.
Again, the reality is not dependent upon our consciousness of it, only the way that reality is described. If the speed of light was 27 bleefarks per second instead of 186,000 miles per second, it would still take just as long for the light from the sun to reach Earth--it just would't be defined in the same terms.
A universe that is 287 norprinks old is the same age as a universe that is 13.8 billion years old.
Yay!
True or false: Did Cinderella leave a glass slipper behind when she rushed out of the ballroom?
We can learn a lot from Aesop's fables, even though they are not strictly "true"--they illustrate true principles. The parables of Jesus did not always reflect actual events, but they illustrated important spiritual truths. The parables of God (such as the Garden of Eden) are no different--they illustrate important spiritual truths, even if the truths are couched in descriptions that are not reflective of reality.
The history of biological development is a well-established and well-integrated theory that is based on a variety of evidence in a variety of disciplines, examined by scientists from a variety of backgrounds with a variety of beliefs. The major tenets of biological development are no longer in question by any rational observer.
The only thing that is assumed about the beginning of life is that it happened--and that's a pretty safe assumption, given that we're here now. Science may eventually unravel how life began, or it may not, but without question, any hypothesis will be thoroughly tested before it is accepted as a theory. That's what you might get if you ask an evolutionary biologist how life began--a hypothesis--but none would claim that they are offering "science" (or facts) in response, and most would probably just say, "I don't know."
One of the most scientific of all observations in the history of ever is that nothing that is not alive has ever been observed to come to life spontaneously, by itself, and that leaves room for me to think that God was probably involved in making that step from inanimate matter to living matter happen. We also don't really know WHY certain mutations occur. We understand how the mutations are selected for reproduction once they occur, but again, science leaves the door open for God to have had a hand in determining what mutations led one species to evolve into another.
I think it's pretty awesome that the first few verses of Genesis basically mirror what we know about evolution, though--first there were swimmy things, then crawly and flying things, then animals, and then man--PRESTO! Evolution!
True or false: Did Cinderella leave a glass slipper behind when she rushed out of the ballroom?
We can learn a lot from Aesop's fables, even though they are not strictly "true"--they illustrate true principles. The parables of Jesus did not always reflect actual events, but they illustrated important spiritual truths. The parables of God (such as the Garden of Eden) are no different--they illustrate important spiritual truths, even if the truths are couched in descriptions that are not reflective of reality.
The history of biological development is a well-established and well-integrated theory that is based on a variety of evidence in a variety of disciplines, examined by scientists from a variety of backgrounds with a variety of beliefs. The major tenets of biological development are no longer in question by any rational observer.
The only thing that is assumed about the beginning of life is that it happened--and that's a pretty safe assumption, given that we're here now. Science may eventually unravel how life began, or it may not, but without question, any hypothesis will be thoroughly tested before it is accepted as a theory. That's what you might get if you ask an evolutionary biologist how life began--a hypothesis--but none would claim that they are offering "science" (or facts) in response, and most would probably just say, "I don't know."
One of the most scientific of all observations in the history of ever is that nothing that is not alive has ever been observed to come to life spontaneously, by itself, and that leaves room for me to think that God was probably involved in making that step from inanimate matter to living matter happen. We also don't really know WHY certain mutations occur. We understand how the mutations are selected for reproduction once they occur, but again, science leaves the door open for God to have had a hand in determining what mutations led one species to evolve into another.
I think it's pretty awesome that the first few verses of Genesis basically mirror what we know about evolution, though--first there were swimmy things, then crawly and flying things, then animals, and then man--PRESTO! Evolution!
No, sorry, Adam was not a real person. This is understood by anyone who understands how human beings developed on planet Earth.
But it's not important. The Bible isn't supposed to be a history book or a science book, it's supposed to be a book of spiritual truth. The spiritual truth imparted by the parable of the Garden of Eden is that man is fundamentally separated from God by his very nature. I could go into a whole lesson on this parable itself, but I don't know if it's appropriate for this thread.
But it's not important. The Bible isn't supposed to be a history book or a science book, it's supposed to be a book of spiritual truth. The spiritual truth imparted by the parable of the Garden of Eden is that man is fundamentally separated from God by his very nature. I could go into a whole lesson on this parable itself, but I don't know if it's appropriate for this thread.