Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Ah... it all makes sense now. You don't actually read other people's posts, you read random words in it then make sentences in your head that don't make sense and assume we are the ones who said it.
How I actually defined the universe was the existence of matter and energy, which is very different. The universe is the sphere in which matter and energy exist. As light moves further and further from the stars, the universe expands more and more.
But, you assumed matter and energy are eternal. So? How can you know its limited to being confined to a single sphere? That it is all that 'always existed?" If space is eternal, it will have no end. No beginning. But, now we are getting into the nature of God, rather than inanimate matter and energy. If it has been always existing? Why is light still traveling? God is everywhere present. He is eternal. Light would have to be everywhere present if it were truly eternal, and not expanding outwardly. This is the problem when words are not defined and used improperly. Then, a secondary problem occurs when there is a refusal for correction. Then, we must drag on a debate that should have been corrected and definitions established that we can work with. But, no... now I must play a game of making believe what words mean, and I am the unreasonable one if I refuse. Its just a cosmic ploy to wear out the soul of the one who truly seeks truth. Take it or leave it. I make no pretense as to why I am here.
In a discussion on beginning, aging and time, I thought this to be a relevant definition, since time is relative to matter and energy, without which there would be no time.
Okay, then. Adam's body was formed and molded from matter. It was matter made of the elements found in earth. By your definition? Adam was as old as the earth (which existed long before Adam walked the earth.)
You don't even read what people say do you?
When I think they are not being disingenuous, yes.
Or maybe its that you really believe you are making sense. I thought this whole time you were just letting pride get the better of you...
God arranges circumstances so that we become our own judge before we face his judgment. "Judge not, lest ye be judged. As you judge another, it will be given to you"
Now? If you were in a position of authority to judge me? What would be my sentence?
Lets start here.. I think we have a definition problem.
Remove all objects? Do you still have the universe?
Cool pic Genez. To answer your question, if you took all the objects out of our universe you would end up with an empty universe. You would still have space time as you do even in the emptiest parts of deep space. You would still have virtual particles popping in and out of existence. Would it look the same as the universe as we know it? Of course not. Our universe has objects in it. Doesn't mean the objects always existed. We know the earth and sun have only been around for about a third of the the universe's existence. If the sun formed 4.57 billion years ago, what difference does it make if the universe existed 9 billion years before that, or if it existed an infinite length of time before?
What is the definition of "universe" when we speak of the universe as we know it?
Do an image search for the " the universe." They all have it all wrong? I am mislead by what all think is the definition? The universe image by SJG1126 on Photobucket
As of late. I have been feeling like I have walked in on a small scientific cult that created their own definition.
Let's start there.
According to the fount of all wisdom wiki, Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Universe is defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them.
Cool pic Genez. To answer your question, if you took all the objects out of our universe you would end up with an empty universe. You would still have space time as you do even in the emptiest parts of deep space.
There would be no time. We were born into an invention of God's called time. We may take it for granted as being universally accepted. But, that's only because all life we know has been placed into time.
If there were only constant daylight, or darkness? And, we never slept? If we never needed to work for out sustenance? We never needed shelter? Never had any need for survival? Would there be a need for time? It would be like fishes building a drinking fountain.
Time was an invention of God. Its to keep our soul temporarily out of experiencing eternity. For we first need to be tested to see if we are to be trusted with the powers that living in eternity will bring. That is why NOW is the time for God to test the souls of men. Not later. Time is an invention of God for a quality control check on our soul.
You would still have virtual particles popping in and out of existence.
Colossians 1:15-17
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over
all creation. For by him all things were created:
things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,
whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities;
all things were created by him and for him.
He is before all things, and in him
all things hold together."
These particles? They were never created? They are self producing? They co-existed eternally with God?
Would it look the same as the universe as we know it? Of course not. Our universe has objects in it.
With no objects? No light bearing objects? We would be oblivious to there being anything there to call a universe. For, nothing would be! So? The universe can be defined as "nothing" to you? Interesting concept.
Doesn't mean the objects always existed. We know the earth and sun have only been around for about a third of the the universe's existence. If the sun formed 4.57 billion years ago, what difference does it make if the universe existed 9 billion years before that, or if it existed an infinite length of time before?
So why are we even bothering to address the premise given in the OP of this thread? Its already been shown not to be the case.
I would not be so quick to judge the age of this earth in relation to what scientist concluded from mere human observation. After all?.. The wine Jesus made from water was only seconds old when it was drunk. Yet? It was the equivalent to a vintage of many years of careful cultivation. God is not limited to the same laws that govern our world. If God created the universe complete at the beginning? The time men sense is only to allow for them to get a handle on its vastness. As far as new planets appearing? That was created. Just like a computer virus may be sitting on your hard drive right now, but is set to execute on July 7th at 2pm. The virus did not produce itself.
It must PHYSICALLY exist. Your previous definition contradicts what you used as a reference.
Originally Posted by Assyrian
Cool pic Genez. To answer your question, if you took all the objects out of our universe you would end up with an empty universe. You would still have space time as you do even in the emptiest parts of deep space.
Again, you are not sticking with the definition used by others. One can not have an empty universe. For, a universe is defined and establishes its boundaries by means of what it does physically contain!
The Universe is defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them.
Why can't you just agree with what you quote from and then be CONSISTENT in your thinking?
Cool pic Genez. To answer your question, if you took all the objects out of our universe you would end up with an empty universe. You would still have space time as you do even in the emptiest parts of deep space.
There would be no means for space time if light did not exist in the universe? Without light we could have no concept of time. Unless God gave us all an everlasting watch build into our bodies and he instructed us on how to read the meaning of time.
Besides.. How could one measure distance of a universe that could not be detected? Does an empty universe have solid walls surrounding it?
It doesn't take millions of years for rock formations to come about. Mount St Helens formed a gorge/canyon about 1/14th the size of the Grand Canyon in a very short time indeed. Even all the rock strata were there. Millions of years is a joke and cannot be proven. The dating methods are flawed as there are certain things that can skew the results by removing more of the radioactive elements than normal rate. We also have to assume the rate of decay has always been the same. It is a GUESS. An unprovable one since noone was alive millions of years ago to study the decay rate of those elements at that time.
It is all conjecture based on assumptions. Not very good science (meta-science if you like). Out of the realms of normal, it would be classed as unnatural or even supernatural.
Conjecture and assuptions are not science and they are not even able to be accurately studied.
It doesn't take millions of years for rock formations to come about. Mount St Helens formed a gorge/canyon about 1/14th the size of the Grand Canyon in a very short time indeed. Even all the rock strata were there.
Yes, because there are all sorts of active volcanoes along every single other geological formations, and no POSSIBLE indications of the catastrophic event that created it that would distinguish it from gradual processes.
Take knife, cut sarcasm.
Millions of years is a joke and cannot be proven. The dating methods are flawed as there are certain things that can skew the results by removing more of the radioactive elements than normal rate. We also have to assume the rate of decay has always been the same. It is a GUESS. An unprovable one since noone was alive millions of years ago to study the decay rate of those elements at that time.
Go back and see my rant. Particularly the part about scientists not being morons, and especially the part about if someone outside the field can think of an problem, how they would have already thought of such things. It’s not like they, you know, do it for a living or anything after spending years learning it in a field with decades of experience and problem solving. Oh wait! They DO.
Also, you really don’t want to use the ‘nobody saw it argument.’ Or nobody was there. W/e. Because there’s really no difference between ‘you weren’t around millions of years ago to see X’ and ‘you weren’t around thousands of year ago to see X’. And if ‘you weren’t around to see X’ is a valid argument, well, you weren’t around to see God inspire the Scriptures, now, were you? So you don’t know they’re inspired because you didn’t see it, now, did you? Be careful, arguments are a double edged sword. Also, if they weren’t around to see it therefore we know it didn’t happen, why do we have detectives in police forces? After all, nobody was around to see the crimes so we can’t know what happened. Not being around 1,000,000 years ago and not being around 10 minutes ago are still not being around in the past, right?
And if things can radically change in such a way as to invalidate everything we know about science, well, how do you wake up in the morning? How do you know that today, something hasn’t changed to alter the laws of physics in the universe as we know it? And if something like that won’t happen, why MUST it have happened to invalidate everything science has found out?
It is all conjecture based on assumptions. Not very good science (meta-science if you like). Out of the realms of normal, it would be classed as unnatural or even supernatural.
This is actually an incredibly good description of YEC. Conjecture based on assumptions of a literal Genesis 1 or Bible is bust dichotomy, not very good science (not really science at all), classed as supernatural.
Conjecture and assuptions are not science and they are not even able to be accurately studied
Which is exactly why we have science. And people trained to answer questions even people not trained in their fields in internet forums can answer, and many more.
Metherion
__________________ Oh, for the love of Pete!
PETE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!!!!
And, because I won't write anything I'm not willing to attach my name to...
There would be no time. We were born into an invention of God's called time. We may take it for granted as being universally accepted. But, that's only because all life we know has been placed into time.
If there were only constant daylight, or darkness? And, we never slept? If we never needed to work for out sustenance? We never needed shelter? Never had any need for survival? Would there be a need for time? It would be like fishes building a drinking fountain.
Time was an invention of God. Its to keep our soul temporarily out of experiencing eternity. For we first need to be tested to see if we are to be trusted with the powers that living in eternity will bring. That is why NOW is the time for God to test the souls of men. Not later. Time is an invention of God for a quality control check on our soul.
We certainly were born into the universe God created of which time is an intrinsic part. But as for God's reason for creating time, time which existed for billions of year before anyone had any need it, it sounds to me like the reasons you give God are your own philosophical musings. Fine in themselves, or to ponder over a bottle of wine, but I am not sure their use in this discussion.
You would still have virtual particles popping in and out of existence.
Colossians 1:15-17
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over
all creation. For by him all things were created:
things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,
whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities;
all things were created by him and for him.
He is before all things, and in him
all things hold together."
These particles? They were never created? They are self producing? They co-existed eternally with God?
What makes you think they aren't part of God's work of creation? He created and upholds the cosmos that produces them. How do you think a virtual particle that pops into existence and disappears again immediately "co-existed eternally with God"? Honestly genez you say the strangest things.
Would it look the same as the universe as we know it? Of course not. Our universe has objects in it.
With no objects? No light bearing objects? We would be oblivious to there being anything there to call a universe. For, nothing would be! So? The universe can be defined as "nothing" to you? Interesting concept.
How can you have 'nothing' with a radius of 13.7 billion light years or more? Space time is not nothing. It is space time.
So why are we even bothering to address the premise given in the OP of this thread? Its already been shown not to be the case.
I would not be so quick to judge the age of this earth in relation to what scientist concluded from mere human observation. After all?.. The wine Jesus made from water was only seconds old when it was drunk. Yet? It was the equivalent to a vintage of many years of careful cultivation. God is not limited to the same laws that govern our world. If God created the universe complete at the beginning? The time men sense is only to allow for them to get a handle on its vastness. As far as new planets appearing? That was created. Just like a computer virus may be sitting on your hard drive right now, but is set to execute on July 7th at 2pm. The virus did not produce itself.
I think philadiddle was looking for a better apologetic than Omphalos. "Don't worry about the universe, it is all an illusion."
According to the fount of all wisdom wiki, Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Universe is defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them. However, the term universe may be used in slightly different contextual senses, denoting such concepts as the cosmos, the world or Nature.
It must PHYSICALLY exist. Your previous definition contradicts what you used as a reference.
If space and time are not physically real how does physics measure them? Why does it take light real time to cross space if space is not real? How does gravity bend space if there is no such thing? How does gravity dilate time if time does not exist? Do you think gravity is not real too? Your concept of real seems to be limited to what you can hold in your hand.
Anyway, you are making the mistake of thinking you can argue physics on the basis of a half understood definition, when they definition itself includes the very things like space and time you are trying to argue against.
Again, you are not sticking with the definition used by others. One can not have an empty universe. For, a universe is defined and establishes its boundaries by means of what it does physically contain!
Like space and time.
Why can't you just agree with what you quote from and then be CONSISTENT in your thinking?
See, it is the space that contains all the matter and energy as well as the matter and energy.
Try to learn some physics and get a grasp of the concepts rather than arguing from definitions.
There would be no means for space time if light did not exist in the universe? Without light we could have no concept of time. Unless God gave us all an everlasting watch build into our bodies and he instructed us on how to read the meaning of time.
Besides.. How could one measure distance of a universe that could not be detected?
You are arguing an completely artificial situation where all matter was removed from the universe. But just because we would not have light to measure the distance or a watch to measure time does not mean space and time would have ceased to exist. Point a telescope at a point in space that is empty and dark, does time and space cease to exist there? Or start to empty the universe of matter and energy. At what stage does space and time collapse? Does an entire universe cease to exist when you remove the past photon? It does not make sense. And of course you still have the problem that space time is seething with virtual particles appearing and disappearing whether there are any atoms there or not.
Does an empty universe have solid walls surrounding it? GeneZ
Why would it need solid walls? If nothing exists, not even space time if there is no matter present, it should not matter whether there are walls around this nothing or not. So take a vacuum flask and pump the air out. Are the opposite walls touching because there are no atoms inside? No wait, there are still photons of light passing through, so switch the light off, or paint the outside black, do the opposite walls touch?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by Assyrian; 5th May 2009 at 02:24 PM.
And if things can radically change in such a way as to invalidate everything we know about science, well, how do you wake up in the morning? How do you know that today, something hasn’t changed to alter the laws of physics in the universe as we know it?
That is why some folk get absolutely upset to read that God parted the Red Sea so the Jews could walk through to safety. Or, how God made the sun stand still several hours during a battle.
Its not the Law of Physics. Its God's Law.
God reveals his faithfulness by means of his laws not changing. Yet, that also means He does not change when it comes to judgment. His Righteousness will not change. His Mercy are the times the sea parts for us. But, His Righteousness judged the Jews who rejected His Mercy.
Colossians 1:15-17 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all
creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven
and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers
or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for
him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Does an empty universe have solid walls surrounding it? GeneZ
Originally Posted by Assyrian
Why would it need solid walls? If nothing exists, not even space time if there is no matter present, is should not matter whether there are walls around this nothing or not. So take a vacuum flask and pump the air out. Are the opposite walls touching because there are no atoms inside? No wait, there are still photons of light passing through, or switch the light off, or paint the outside black, do the opposite walls touch?
You ask, why would it need solid walls? You were saying we would still have a universe even if it contained nothing! ????? I said a universe could not exist that way, for it would be nothingness and could not be detected nor measured to reveal any size (form) to know it exists.
Lets say ... If there is empty space with nothing inside it? How can one measure the size of emptiness if there is nothing like walls around it? The emptiness by itself could not be measured! It would be an infinite space. You can measure infinity? Be my guest. You need something to do!
So take a vacuum flask and pump the air out.
Yes? But, a flask has walls! The size of that tiny universe can be determined by what surrounds it and can be measured. This tiny universe of nothingness could be classified by the substance around it.
Yet, at that point we would be working with a frame of reference knowing about time and space. Now, if the universe as we know it were completely empty? We would not know it exists.
Can you measure the size of a thought? Even though the thought just pictured the size of the state of California? Might as well start there. Now, if your hypothetical universe were totally empty? Emptiness = no universe. For the universe must be defined by what it contains, or at least, by something that contains it.
You ask, why would it need solid walls? You were saying we would still have a universe even if it contained nothing! ????? I said a universe could not exist that way, for it would be nothingness and could not be detected nor measured to reveal any size (form) to know it exists.
Lets say ... If there is empty space with nothing inside it? How can one measure the size of emptiness if there is nothing like walls around it? The emptiness by itself could not be measured! It would be an infinite space. You can measure infinity? Be my guest. You need something to do!
Firstly who said the universe was infinite? It might be, but we only know about a radius of about 13.7 billion light years. And secondly why do you consider infinity nothing?
Yes? But, a flask has walls! The size of that tiny universe can be determined by what surrounds it and can be measured. This tiny universe of nothingness could be classified by the substance around it.
The walls are outside the vacuum. You say the space exists because we can measure it from the outside? But what does the inside of the flask have to do with out outside? Are you saying that by measuring the space inside the vacuum we make the space exist? Pretty god-like that.
I had a friend who used to object to people saying "move over and make some space".
Yet, at that point we would be working with a frame of reference knowing about time and space. Now, if the universe as we know it were completely empty? We would not know it exists.
Does that mean it would not exist? How do you know? Where would the vast stretch of distances disappear to simply we remove the contents? Does the burglar disappear if you switch the lights off and can't see him? Things don't disappear simply because you don't see them, whether they are burglars or the space time continuuum.
Can you measure the size of a thought? Even though the thought just pictured the size of the state of California? Might as well start there. Now, if your hypothetical universe were totally empty? Emptiness = no universe. For the universe must be defined by what it contains, or at least, by something that contains it. .
The universe is defined by the space it takes up too. Hey, you asked for the definition, I don't see why you are still arguing about this. There is still space time even if it is empty space, and even if you cannot observe it, unless you have a better reason for thinking space time would suddenly cease to exist, other than "you can't see it any more it must be gone".
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Firstly who said the universe was infinite? It might be, but we only know about a radius of about 13.7 billion light years. And secondly why do you consider infinity nothing?
You are not getting a word I have said. Now, you want me to continue to say more of what you will not grasp I know you will not because you are not getting what was already said.
Careful, now! 
GeneZ 
You ask, why would it need solid walls? You were saying we would still have a universe even if it contained nothing! ????? I said a universe could not exist that way, for it would be nothingness and could not be detected nor measured to reveal any size (form) to know it exists. 
Linear Mode
