A new theory for the creation of the universe.

[Polymath257]

Can you answer the following questions? No one else seems to have an answer, at least a logical, verifiable one.

"micro seconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, light years" What is required to be in place before those can be measured? IF, there is no intelligence to measure it, is it really there and if so, how can you prove it? Can you provide a link(s) that explains about "time" when it is not in the context of measuring it or explaining how to measure it?

“I recently went to the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder,” says Lloyd. (NIST is the government lab that houses the atomic clock that standardizes time for the nation.) “I said something like, ‘Your clocks measure time very accurately.’ They told me, ‘Our clocks do not measure time.’ I thought, Wow, that’s very humble of these guys. But they said, ‘No, time is defined to be what our clocks measure.’"

So, what if there are no clocks, can you prove there is time?

If there is change, there is time. We can use any regular process to measure time: radioactive decay, motion at a constant velocity, cyclic motion, etc.

BTW, do you realize why the NIST is the definition of time these days? For the same reason that a certain platinum bar defines a meter.

 

[DavidFirth]

I can't help but like Curious George. Why? Because he ain't bashful, he's curious!

 

[blü 2]

True, but the NT does.

“to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.” (Acts 1:3, NKJV)

A moment's reconsideration will tell you that this isn't a claim that the Tanakh is infallible. Nor is it a claim that the NT is infallible (and anyway no NT exists at this time).

Instead it's a claim that an unbelievable yarn is believable, made by adding great emphasis: "and there on the marge of Lake Labarge, honestly, there was Sam McGee, sitting in the middle of the blazing furnace with this big smile on his face. I swear it was the dangest thing I ever saw!"

And at least my example is by a purported eyewitness. Acts makes no such pretense. At very best it's just hearsay.

By the way, as you know, there are six resurrection accounts in the NT (four gospels, Paul at 1 Cor 15, and Acts 1:3 as you mention). None is by an eyewitness, none is by a contemporary witness, none is by an independent witness, and every single one of them contradicts the other five in major ways. With evidence of that standard, you couldn't renew a dog license, let alone win a civil case. I'll start a thread on it at some point and go into detail.

 

[DavidFirth]

A moment's reconsideration will tell you that this isn't a claim that the Tanakh is infallible. Nor is it a claim that the NT is infallible (and anyway no NT exists at this time).

Instead it's a claim that an unbelievable yarn is believable, made by adding great emphasis: "and there on the marge of Lake Labarge, honestly, there was Sam McGee, sitting in the middle of the blazing furnace with this big smile on his face. I swear it was the dangest thing I ever saw!"

And at least my example is by a purported eyewitness. Acts makes no such pretense. At very best it's just hearsay.

By the way, as you know, there are six resurrection accounts in the NT (four gospels, Paul at 1 Cor 15, and Acts 1:3 as you mention). None is by an eyewitness, none is by a contemporary witness, none is by an independent witness, and every single one of them contradicts the other five in major ways. With evidence of that standard, you couldn't renew a dog license, let alone win a civil case. I'll start a thread on it at some point and go into detail.

Makes me wonder why 2.2 billion people would believe in Jesus. But surely you know so much better than all of them. Surely.

 

[MonkeyFire]

The universe is singular.

 

[blü 2]

Makes me wonder why 2.2 billion people would believe in Jesus. But surely you know so much better than all of them. Surely.

I'd guess it was because their parents taught them to.

Certainly it isn't because they ran a thoughtful, dispassionate eye over the documents and said, "Yes, that all adds up, I'll take out a trial subscription."

(It surprises me how many believers don't read the bible much at all, let alone in order to understand what it says. The wishing of their preconceptions, of what they've been told, onto the text is very usual, and no one's ever taught them to interrogate it instead.)
.

 

[Skwim]

Makes me wonder why 2.2 billion people would believe in Jesus. But surely you know so much better than all of them. Surely.

And why it's not making any strides and even declining in the western societies.

.

 

[DavidFirth]

And why it's not making any strides and even declining in the western societies.

.

For now nearly 1/3 of the population of Earth believe.

 

[blü 2]

For now nearly 1/3 of the population of Earth believe.

It's a little misleading to put it like that.

Catholicism is not the same as Orthodoxy. Neither resembles Protestantism, and within Protestantism are more varieties than Ben and Jerry's, though not as easy to swallow.

The Christian Church will become unified not long after Hell becomes a ski resort.

 

[Skwim]

For now nearly 1/3 of the population of Earth believe.

Hmm, the first thing that pops to mind, is Quantity, Not Quality.

.​

 

[Grandliseur]

In the beginning, before anything known to mankind existed, there was a supernatural, intelligent being that created the universe. It is thought that He first created space and then He created matter. It is likely that He supplied the energy from Himself to create the universe. The belief is there was no time dimension at this point and He could have created everything instantaneously but He chose to do it in steps to serve His purpose which was to set days, weeks, months and years for the people He would create later.

What would become to be known as day one, It is probable that He created the heavens and the earth and furnished light from Himself to set up day and night.

It seems to reason that He then made the firmament which separated the waters above it from the waters below and called that day two.

It could have happened on the third day when the waters below the firmament gathered together and for dry land to appear which He called earth. The best estimate is the earth brought forth vegetation, plants and trees bearing fruit after their kind.

On the fourth day, He created lights in the expanse to separate day from night and these were made to give light on earth. The great light, the sun, was to govern the day and the lesser light, the moon, was to govern the night. Up until this event, there was no mechanism for measuring time, IOW, there was no time dimension, now it is in place and waiting for intelligence to measure it. This belief is based on much circumstantial evidence that seems to support this view.

It is likely that He created the creatures in the waters and the birds of the sky on the fifth day. He commanded them to be fruitful and multiply, each after its own kind.

Most think it was day six when He created the living creatures on the earth, each after its own kind. Then He created man in His own image, male and female and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply and to rule over the fish, the birds and over every living creature that moves on the earth.

Even though day four saw a mechanism put in place for measuring time, it was not until day six after the universe was created that there was an instrument, intelligence, to measure time. Most seem to agree with this theory.

There is a difference of opinion on exactly what point the laws of nature were created, some believing it was day one and others think it more likely to be day four.

Since God is outside of time and it means nothing to Him, He had a purpose for using six days, in man’s time frame, for the creation.


“Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exodus 20:9–11, NASB95)


Therefore, unless man can provide a provable explanation, using empirical evidence, of where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence and in what sequence, I choose to believe in the supernatural.

I have tried to use a methodlogy used by science in presenting this new theory.

My 1¢ worth of comment:
Since you so obviously refer to the Biblical Genesis account, lets try to keep things accurate in the interest of truth.
The heavens and the earth were not created on Terra-forming day one. They were created in an undefined beginning. Left in this manner, this in an other place is phrased like this:

first: Gen 1:1 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
beginning when: quoting: "His goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity. "
Thus, we can see that the Bible's beginning is mentioned as if it were an eternity. This could easily be in the billions of years since no human can relate such long time to anything else but 'eternity.'​

Since you obviously aren't Christian, I don't think I need the scriptural proof for the following until you ask for it.

Each day, Terra-forming period, epoch - can be shown to be at least 7,000 years each, we are in the 7th day now, and the max possible for each day is unknown. Personally, I believe without much proof that each day is 42,000 years. They could well be longer, but here there is a wall of uncertainty.

God didn't create the sun and moon from verse 14. They were already created in the beginning. But, most atheists are not really interested in the technical details as understood by a Christian.

The reason the account is written so as to confuse atheists is simple. If it had been written so that no scientist could deny what is written, deniers and atheists could not easily exist.
If you want some of the details, let me know.

​

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And you know enough to judge the Almighty God. You must know everything. Wow!

He gave me the tools... all I do is use them. Is that a sin?

 

[Valjean]

God didn't create the sun and moon from verse 14. They were already created in the beginning. But, most atheists are not really interested in the technical details as understood by a Christian.

You must have an unusual definition of "technical detail." It seems to me that technical details are exactly scientists research. The faithful seem content with "Goddidit,"

The reason the account is written so as to confuse atheists is simple. If it had been written so that no scientist could deny what is written, deniers and atheists could not easily exist.
If you want some of the details, let me know.

I do. I'm not understanding what you mean by "so that no scientist could deny what is written,"

 

[Polymath257]

That is not what I am asking. My question is what would the units of time be based on without the sun and earth's rotation?

That's like asking what distance would be based on without the foot of the king.

The *units* of time are arbitrary. For example, we define a second in terms of a certain number of oscillations of a particular frequency of light. No longer is it based on the rotation of the Earth or the revolution of the Earth around the sun. That is a historical way, and the current definition closely approximates the old one. But there are variations in the rotation and revolution of the Earth that are not present in the oscillations of light.

No, that is not what I asked.

The be more clear in your questions.

I believe my question was, without intelligence to measure time, how could time be proven to exist?

Hmmm...that seems to be an issue for *anything*. Without an intelligence to witness things, how can you *prove* anything exists?

And, like I said, we can tell about the past by measurements and observations now. And there are people with intelligence now.

 

[Polymath257]

Makes me wonder why 2.2 billion people would believe in Jesus. But surely you know so much better than all of them. Surely.

The majority of people adopt the religion of their parents. Also, Christianity is the religion of Europe, which has been the center of power for the last few centuries.

Finally, most people are ignorant of the facts, whether they be the facts of archeology or of cosmology. General science education is very poor.

 

[leibowde84]

In the beginning, before anything known to mankind existed, there was a supernatural, intelligent being that created the universe. It is thought that He first created space and then He created matter. It is likely that He supplied the energy from Himself to create the universe. The belief is there was no time dimension at this point and He could have created everything instantaneously but He chose to do it in steps to serve His purpose which was to set days, weeks, months and years for the people He would create later.

What would become to be known as day one, It is probable that He created the heavens and the earth and furnished light from Himself to set up day and night.

It seems to reason that He then made the firmament which separated the waters above it from the waters below and called that day two.

It could have happened on the third day when the waters below the firmament gathered together and for dry land to appear which He called earth. The best estimate is the earth brought forth vegetation, plants and trees bearing fruit after their kind.

On the fourth day, He created lights in the expanse to separate day from night and these were made to give light on earth. The great light, the sun, was to govern the day and the lesser light, the moon, was to govern the night. Up until this event, there was no mechanism for measuring time, IOW, there was no time dimension, now it is in place and waiting for intelligence to measure it. This belief is based on much circumstantial evidence that seems to support this view.

It is likely that He created the creatures in the waters and the birds of the sky on the fifth day. He commanded them to be fruitful and multiply, each after its own kind.

Most think it was day six when He created the living creatures on the earth, each after its own kind. Then He created man in His own image, male and female and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply and to rule over the fish, the birds and over every living creature that moves on the earth.

Even though day four saw a mechanism put in place for measuring time, it was not until day six after the universe was created that there was an instrument, intelligence, to measure time. Most seem to agree with this theory.

There is a difference of opinion on exactly what point the laws of nature were created, some believing it was day one and others think it more likely to be day four.

Since God is outside of time and it means nothing to Him, He had a purpose for using six days, in man’s time frame, for the creation.


“Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exodus 20:9–11, NASB95)


Therefore, unless man can provide a provable explanation, using empirical evidence, of where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence and in what sequence, I choose to believe in the supernatural.

I have tried to use a methodlogy used by science in presenting this new theory.

You haven't presented any evidence here to backup your theory. So, in what way is it "scientific"?

"Therefore, unless man can provide a provable explanation, using empirical evidence, of where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence and in what sequence, I choose to believe in the supernatural."
- This is a clear example of an argument from ignorance, a well-known logical fallacy ("God of the gaps"). It is logically fraudulent to claim that the lack of a natural explanation for something should lead anyone to assume it was supernatural. You can't use the lack of a scientific explanation as evidence for God ... that is nothing more than a logically fallacious argument.

 

[Grandliseur]

You must have an unusual definition of "technical detail." It seems to me that technical details are exactly scientists research. The faithful seem content with "Goddidit,"
I do. I'm not understanding what you mean by "so that no scientist could deny what is written,"

I'll get back to you on this. I had an excellent science article I am trying to locate.

However, are you willing to listen to things as if God does exist? This is where any presentation to atheists usually dies before any exchange happens!

 

[Grandliseur]

You must have an unusual definition of "technical detail." It seems to me that technical details are exactly scientists research. The faithful seem content with "Goddidit,"
I do. I'm not understanding what you mean by "so that no scientist could deny what is written,"

Here is a link to a file I wrote on the subject with enough to give you a sense of what is going on. If you have questions, let me know, I can always expand the material in the file.

Link: Genesis 1 ligth

 

[Valjean]

I'll get back to you on this. I had an excellent science article I am trying to locate.

However, are you willing to listen to things as if God does exist? This is where any presentation to atheists usually dies before any exchange happens!

Looking forward to the article.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Here is a link to a file I wrote on the subject with enough to give you a sense of what is going on. If you have questions, let me know, I can always expand the material in the file.

Link: Genesis 1 ligth

It reads very much like apologetics - attempting to affix scripture to sort of support known scientific observation... or, in some cases even match it to what amounts to nothing more than scientific guess-work.

You also have this part written in at the end:

"You have to realize that if God made this chapter too clear so that atheists, scientists could not deny it, then there would be no faith needed for too clear a message would force compliance. This is why Genesis 1 is shrouded so that unbelievers will have what they need for their unbelief."

You use a nice, neutral word like "shrouded", however, as I pointed out to another poster whose comment had the same gist as above, this is a description of God's intentions being tantamount to deception.