Question for the YECs

[GenemZ]

Sounds like you are confusing eternal, which is outside time and space, with time (or space) simply not having a beginning as the OP asked.

So, we have a new definition to create? What do we call something that always has existed? But can age?

You just created a new concept... "God can die."

It is an understandable mistake to make, when the only example we know of that has always existed is God, you think anything else that has always existed must be like God too.

You can go play with that one, sir. I will not. For what you are juggling will hit you on the head. Its now getting to the point where its being dragged on and into quicksand of illogic. God is eternal because of how he exists. Eternal is a means to define existence, not simply God. One can not "always exist" without being eternal in nature.

But it just doesn't follow, especially when as AiH and I have pointed out, a universe that has always existed can have objects that have only formed recently and are subject to ageing and destruction while the universe itself is not.

But that will not be the case. After all, the universe is the universe? He did not say the elements that now the universe consists of.

Only God can destroy matter as we know it. God will destroy all what we presently call time and space. What will replace this universe (and the earth) as we know it will have a matching quality to the life believers will receive. It will be called the "Home of Righteousness." It will be as if what we now see never was. And what we will live in, as it always had been.

2 Peter 3:10-13
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which
the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements
will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and
its works will be burned up.

Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way,
what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct
and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of
the day of God, because of which the heavens will be
destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt
with intense heat!

But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward
to a new heaven and a new earth,
the home of righteousness."​

"The elements will melt" refers to what we now can understand will be atomic fusion or fission. "Elements" is the same Greek word used for the Periodic Table used in chemistry.

Take it or leave it. All I can see from all of you is a squirming and your spin mechanism oscillating in unbelief to the fact that you have painted yourselves into a corner and do not have the integrity to admit someone made a mistake. You are trying to cover each other's back. And, this is a characteristic that manifests itself in almost all debates. It is telling of how truth gets suppressed by those who deem themselves too clever for ever needing real faith.

Lets see.. One might as well debate the Deity of Christ. Eternal security. Homosexuality is condemned by God, etc. There will be a never ending supply of spin until the Lord returns. That is why I had taken a hiatus from this forum for some time. For every condemned man on death row swears he's innocent.

Eternal = eternal. Right?

Universe = universe. Right?

OP = Question for the YECs In reference to apologetics, do you ever tell people, such as friends or coworkers, that the universe had a beginning, and that God is the cause for the beginning? If you do think that, then how do you answer someone who asks you how we know the universe has a beginning?
​

If the universe (not matter that might have been used to construct the universe) was having *no* beginning? Then it would have to be eternal in nature. Its slips right into the definition of "eternal" by default.

" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
​

The Hebrew word translated 'created' is a word that has a unique meaning when used in conjunction only in reference God. The word is "bara." It means to 'create out from nothing.' That is why it can only hold that meaning when used in relation to God Himself.

Bara,was never used by the Jews (unless one is writing fantasy) when its in relation to man or angels. Jewish scholars always knew this factor. We only get to see the word 'created' in English and can assume other meanings according to our frame of reference. Bara can hold other meanings. But, ONLY when used in relation to God can it mean to create 'out from nothing.'


Three distinctly different Hebrew words for “creating” are used in the Creation account:

(1) bara - created. bara means to “create something out of nothing”; furthermore, the “something created” is not necessarily visibile or observed.

(2) jatsar - formed. This word is used folr fashioning something on the exterior, as a sculptor molding an object.

(3) asah - made. This word has the concept of building out of something already in existence.
​

If the universe was to be made at a point of time from matter that had been eternally existing? Then 'bara' would not be the word of choice. So, the Bible tells us that matter was not eternally existing. For example, the Bible states that the body of Adam was formed and molded from matter that was already existing. The Bible does make such distinctions in the Hebrew.


Have a nice Day..







.

 

[Assyrian]

So, we have a new definition to create? What do we call something that always has existed? But can age?

Again you forget the OP. This is a discussion about apologetics, where non Christians ask how we know the universe has a beginning. They are hardly postulating a created universe that has always existed are they? At the same time IIRC it was a question raised in Medieval philosophy whether God could have created a universe that has always existed. Given that God exists outside time I am not sure any infinite dimensions are impossible for him to create, whether space that is infinitely broad or time that has been infinitely long.

And you still confuse the concept of a universe that has always existed, with the objects in it which can be formed, age and decay inside an everlasting universe.

You just created a new concept... "God can die."

No that is your wishful thinking, not that you wish God can die, of course but that this is my concept. As I said in my post you are confusing an eternal God outside space time with an everlasting universe of space time, and confusing that with the objects inside the everlasting universe which can age and die.

You can go play with that one, sir. I will not. For what you are juggling will hit you on the head. Its now getting to the point where its being dragged on and into quicksand of illogic. God is eternal because of how he exists. Eternal is a means to define existence, not simply God. One can not "always exist" without being eternal in nature.

You already described eternal as existing outside space time, do you want to change your definition?

genez Eternal life knows no beginning and no end. Age will not be a part of the landscape in eternity. Age is a relative term, one that only applies while living in time and space. Angels do not age. Their home is in Heaven. They only commute to earth andenter into time when need be. For angels it must be like men who go deep sea diving. Not one's natural habitat, but able to adjust as to adapt to an otherwise unnatural environment for one's design.​

But that will not be the case. After all, the universe is the universe? He did not say the elements that now the universe consists of.

Space and time are not elements are they? You still can't seem to grasp that you could have a universe that existed forever while objects in the universe form, age and decay.

Only God can destroy matter as we know it.

Oppenheimer wasn't God.

God will destroy all what we presently call time and space. What will replace this universe (and the earth) as we know it will have a matching quality to the life believers will receive. It will be called the "Home of Righteousness." It will be as if what we now see never was. And what we will live in, as it always had been.

2 Peter 3:10-13
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which
the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements
will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and
its works will be burned up.
Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way,
what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct
and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of
the day of God, because of which the heavens will be
destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt
with intense heat!
But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward
to a new heaven and a new earth,
the home of righteousness."​

"The elements will melt" refers to what we now can understand will be atomic fusion or fission. "Elements" is the same Greek word used for the Periodic Table used in chemistry.

You seem to forget that this is a question about apologetics when non believers say the universe has always existed, trying to convince them the universe exists because God created it. Quoting 2 Peter will hardly help, especially when it is talking about the end of the universe instead of it beginning.

Take it or leave it. All I can see from all of you is a squirming and your spin mechanism oscillating in unbelief to the fact that you have painted yourselves into a corner and do not have the integrity to admit someone made a mistake. You are trying to cover each other's back. And, this is a characteristic that manifests itself in almost all debates. It is telling of how truth gets suppressed by those who deem themselves too clever for ever needing real faith.

Lets see.. One might as well debate the Deity of Christ. Eternal security. Homosexuality is condemned by God, etc. There will be a never ending supply of spin until the Lord returns. That is why I had taken a hiatus from this forum for some time. For every condemned man on death row swears he's innocent.

And you accused siyha of diverting from the OP

Eternal = eternal. Right?

Universe = universe. Right?

OP = Question for the YECs In reference to apologetics, do you ever tell people, such as friends or coworkers, that the universe had a beginning, and that God is the cause for the beginning? If you do think that, then how do you answer someone who asks you how we know the universe has a beginning?
​

If the universe (not matter that might have been used to construct the universe) was having *no* beginning? Then it would have to be eternal in nature. Its slips right into the definition of "eternal" by default.

So you are changing you definition of eternal.

" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
​

Yeah that verse is a tricky one for your new definition of eternal. How can God have existed forever if time had a beginning. No, I much prefer your previous understanding of eternity that says it is outside time.

The Hebrew word translated 'created' is a word that has a unique meaning when used in conjunction only in reference God. The word is "bara." It means to 'create out from nothing.' That is why it can only hold that meaning when used in relation to God Himself.

Oh dear, did God create man from nothing? Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Even if you read Genesis literally it does not say that. Did God create the smith out of nothing? Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon for its purpose. I have also created the ravager to destroy. Or did God use Mr and Mrs Smith?

Bara,was never used by the Jews (unless one is writing fantasy) when its in relation to man or angels. Jewish scholars always knew this factor. We only get to see the word 'created' in English and can assume other meanings according to our frame of reference. Bara can hold other meanings. But, ONLY when used in relation to God can it mean to create 'out from nothing.'

Three distinctly different Hebrew words for “creating” are used in the Creation account:

(1) bara - created. bara means to “create something out of nothing”; furthermore, the “something created” is not necessarily visibile or observed.

(2) jatsar - formed. This word is used folr fashioning something on the exterior, as a sculptor molding an object.

(3) asah - made. This word has the concept of building out of something already in existence.
​

If the universe was to be made at a point of time from matter that had been eternally existing? Then 'bara' would not be the word of choice. So, the Bible tells us that matter was not eternally existing. For example, the Bible states that the body of Adam was formed and molded from matter that was already existing. The Bible does make such distinctions in the Hebrew.

Have a nice Day..

And as I pointed out Genesis uses bara as well as formed and moulded to describe the creation of Adam. A lot depends too on how you translate Gen 1:1 Some translations (eg NLT footnotes) say In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. Or When God began to create the heavens and the earth, 2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. That would mean Genesis is describing creation from a formless and void chaos. Don't get me wrong I believe in ex nihilo creation, it just isn't a topic Genesis goes into. It tells us God created everything it just doesn't say how he created it or that he created it from nothing.

As someone into the Gap theory you think Gen 1:1 occurred some considerable time before the six day creation that began in 1:2. Is there a limit to how long before 1:2 God created the universe? Is there any reason it could not have been infinitely long before? I suppose 'beginning' suggests a beginning of time rather than infinity, but is that talking about the beginning of time or the beginning of God's act of creation, is beginning measured from the start of time inside the universe, or from God's perspective outside the universe? Augustine certainly asks about what stage in Gen 1 does time exist and what is before it, if for example time even existed yet when God said let there be light.

 

[GenemZ]

And you still confuse the concept of a universe that has always existed, with the objects in it which can be formed, age and decay inside an everlasting universe.

It would be quite helpful for your position if I did have that problem. I do not.

I even asked for a definition of universe that we can work with, and all I got was some comment about matter being eternal. Matter is matter. The universe is organized matter and energy being manifested in specific forms and space.

As I said in my post you are confusing an eternal God outside space time with an everlasting universe of space time, and confusing that with the objects inside the everlasting universe which can age and die

.

Self contradiction. Everlasting in the true sense means can not die. That it can not end. Age would therefore become irrelevant. Dates could only be used to show how long something everlasting has remained the same. It would be like saying how long God has been dealing with mankind is how old he is. It could never reflect His age.

Everlasting in the truest sense, is what? Everlasting. Everlasting in itself had a beginning, but it has no end. So, it can have no real age. For if something is truly everlasting? It would have to outlast the concept of time. Then what? It temporarily aged? Then it no longer has age?



Thinking outside of the blog.





.

 

[Siyha]

I even asked for a definition of universe that we can work with, and all I got was some comment about matter being eternal.
.

When I asked you that, all I got was, "You are insulting me by asking that question."

Seems you have painted yourself into a corner and are spinning things any way you can to wash your hands of it.

 

[GenemZ]

When I asked you that, all I got was, "You are insulting me by asking that question."

Seems you have painted yourself into a corner and are spinning things any way you can to wash your hands of it.

LOL... Looking for a writer for your material?

Oh boy. ...

What will they say next (again).. after I have said it?



.

 

[Siyha]

LOL... Looking for a writer for your material?

Oh boy. ...

What will they say next (again).. after I have said it?



.

That's it? I'm sad. This thread has been so amusing to me but it seems you're losing your gusto.

 

[GenemZ]

That's it? I'm sad. This thread has been so amusing to me but it seems you're losing your gusto.

Gusto? And, interest? Are not the same things.




I am not surprised that you would think that.. After all, 'matter' and 'universe,' were seen by you to be synonymous terms. I began to wonder at that point that if you ever agreed with me, that if you really knew what you agreed with.. or disagreed for that matter, and may not be disagreeing. Its silly at that point to try to reason.

Why should I want to continue to amuse someone who comes up with such thinking? One can not shake hands with a hologram.

2 Peter 3:10-12
"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the
heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will
be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and
its works will be burned up.


Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what

sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,

looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God,

because of which the heavens will be destroyed by

burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!






​

Well, there went your idea of a quasi, eternal, matter / universe. Gone! Not eternal. Not even everlasting.





And, as far as this being an apologetics section?


Apologetics is not a system that is to make the truth palatable to the unbeliever. Its a system of communication that is designed to make sure that the unbeliever - if he so chooses - will be resenting the truth which was presented without distortion, and not for something other than the truth.



Apologetics, when done right, is making sure that lies and distortions of men who wish to obfuscate a clear view of the truth are eliminated. That way, when some unbeliever wants to mock? At least it is mocked because of the truth, and not for some lie he can grasp. Grasp, and clearly see its worthy of mocking because its been so distorted. Men mock what they do not understand. And, they mock what they can understand for being foolishness. Apologetics done right, leaves the mocker mocking what he does not understand. It also helps strengthen the faith of those who have ears to hear.


The typical unbeliever when hearing an apologist? He will want to preserve the lie. For, it makes it easier for him feel superior to what he resents about faith.. That is why he will desire to wander off on diversions in attempt to hold down the apologist's communication. Happens all the time in forums. The apologist is then to move on if no one listening in is interested in truth. Why pour fresh water into a bucket with holes in it? But, when others listening in are interested they can always drink from what comes out of the holes.





Have a nice Day... take two. Go on. They're really delicious.





Why didn't I think of that?











.
​

 

[Assyrian]

And you still confuse the concept of a universe that has always existed, with the objects in it which can be formed, age and decay inside an everlasting universe.

It would be quite helpful for your position if I did have that problem. I do not.

So are you saying objects could age and decay even if the universe had always existed, or just that you don't think it is a problem?

I even asked for a definition of universe that we can work with, and all I got was some comment about matter being eternal. Matter is matter. The universe is organized matter and energy being manifested in specific forms and space.

You got a comments from Siyha saying that even if we assume the universe is the existence of matter, your argument still would not hold because there is a difference between the matter which could be eternal and the objects composed from the matter which can form and age. It was also pointed out that the universe we are talking about is hypothetical, we are after all talking about some unknown non-Christian's view of the universe and its origin or otherwise.

Personally I think the universe is more than simply the matter it contains, which is continually popping into existence and disappearing again on the subatomic scale, which is annihilated and changed to energy in matter antimatter collisions, lost in the mass of atoms and changed into energy in nuclear explosions and can disappear into black holes. The cosmological model before the Big Bang was Steady State model with the universe continually expanding and more matter being formed. So it is quite possible to have a model of the universe that has always existed where much of the matter in it has been around a finite amount of time.

Self contradiction. Everlasting in the true sense means can not die. That it can not end. Age would therefore become irrelevant. Dates could only be used to show how long something everlasting has remained the same. It would be like saying how long God has been dealing with mankind is how old he is. It could never reflect His age.

Everlasting in the truest sense, is what? Everlasting. Everlasting in itself had a beginning, but it has no end. So, it can have no real age. For if something is truly everlasting? It would have to outlast the concept of time. Then what? It temporarily aged? Then it no longer has age?

So, what do you think everlasting destruction (2Thess 1:9) means?

Are we talking about the 'true sense' of everlasting? The discussion is only about the universe always having existed not that it always will, that it has been here forever, not that it will continue to do do so. Maybe everlasting is the wrong term, but that is irrelevant, we are talking about a universe that has always existed. Which does not imply that matter has always existed, and even if matter has always existed, it does not mean people or things formed from that matter last forever or never die.

Why shouldn't something that has been created have an age? Whether it was created and goes on to exist forever, as long as it exists within time it has an age. And we are not talking of things going on to last forever, but of the being created or formed in a universe that has lasted forever.

...It would be like saying how long God has been dealing with mankind is how old he is. It could never reflect His age...

It may not reflect God's age, but as our creator, why wouldn't it reflect the age of mankind?

Thinking outside of the blog. .

 

[Siyha]

I am not surprised that you would think that.. After all, 'matter' and 'universe,' were seen by you to be synonymous terms. I began to wonder at that point that if you ever agreed with me, that if you really knew what you agreed with.. or disagreed for that matter, and may not be disagreeing. Its silly at that point to try to reason.

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.

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.

Well, there went your idea of a quasi, eternal, matter / universe. Gone! Not eternal. Not even everlasting.
​

You don't even read what people say do you?

And, as far as this being an apologetics section?

Apologetics is not a system that is to make the truth palatable to the unbeliever. Its a system of communication that is designed to make sure that the unbeliever - if he so chooses - will be resenting the truth which was presented without distortion, and not for something other than the truth.

Apologetics, when done right, is making sure that lies and distortions of men who wish to obfuscate a clear view of the truth are eliminated. That way, when some unbeliever wants to mock? At least it is mocked because of the truth, and not for some lie he can grasp. Grasp, and clearly see its worthy of mocking because its been so distorted. Men mock what they do not understand. And, they mock what they can understand for being foolishness. Apologetics done right, leaves the mocker mocking what he does not understand. It also helps strengthen the faith of those who have ears to hear.

The typical unbeliever when hearing an apologist? He will want to preserve the lie. For, it makes it easier for him feel superior to what he resents about faith.. That is why he will desire to wander off on diversions in attempt to hold down the apologist's communication. Happens all the time in forums. The apologist is then to move on if no one listening in is interested in truth. Why pour fresh water into a bucket with holes in it? But, when others listening in are interested they can always drink from what comes out of the holes.

Have a nice Day... take two. Go on. They're really delicious.

Why didn't I think of that?
.

In other words, "Crap... I can't explain my thoughts, and they can. I'd better write something quick to make it look like that's their problem!"

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...

 

[GenemZ]

So are you saying objects could age and decay even if the universe had always existed, or just that you don't think it is a problem?

Lets start here.. I think we have a definition problem.

Remove all objects? Do you still have the universe?

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.

 

[GenemZ]

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?


Careful, now!

 

[Assyrian]

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.

Universe - Space and Astronomy Definition - Online Dictionary and Glossary Definition of Universe
Definition: Universe: The huge space which contains all of the matter and energy in existence.

 

[GenemZ]

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.

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.

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?

Universe - Space and Astronomy Definition - Online Dictionary and Glossary Definition of Universe
Definition: Universe: The huge space which contains all of the matter and energy in existence.

But? You said?

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?





GeneZ

 

[radlad72]

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.

 

[metherion]

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

 

[Assyrian]

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?

lol

Universe - Space and Astronomy Definition - Online Dictionary and Glossary Definition of Universe
Definition: Universe: The huge space which contains all of the matter and energy in existence.

But? You said?

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?

 

[GenemZ]

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.

.
​

 

[GenemZ]

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, 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.


.


.

 

[Assyrian]

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".

 

[GenemZ]

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.

Let someone else explain it to you.


Wishing you a nice day...


GeneZ