Time and Energy Have no Beginning From a Biblical and/or Scientific Viewpoint

When your watch gets broken, does time stop passing? No, it doesn"t. So even if the distortion of gravity makes a clock slow down till it stops, this doesn"t mean that time has slowed down, it simply means the clock slowed down. When Einstein put a clock on a plane travel at supersonic speed, it was moving slower than the clock on the ground. When the plane landed the clock was behind the time of the clock on the ground, so Einstein argued that speed actually slowed down time, and if you could travel at the speed of light, no time would pass. But I believe he was wrong. All he proved is that speed slowed down motion, not that it slowed down time. Time isn"t a physical entity made of matter that can slow down. So-called takeon particles have not been discovered, they are only theoretical. So while I agree with Con that in the singularity there is no motion, or physical activity, I disagree with him that there is no time. He is assuming without a shred of evidence that the passing of time is synonymous with the movement of events, but I see no reason why that ought to be the case, because if all events ceased 24 hours ago, it would be true to say that 24 hours, which is time, has passed since all events ceased. And if the whole universe were to disappear, some amount of time will pass since it has disappeared. So Con would need to show that time is either the equivalent of matter and energy, or at least dependant on their motion for its existence. He has not done so. He also supposes there was nothing outside the singularity out of which our physical universe came at the Big Bang, so did not God create the spiritual heavens where the angels dwell outside that singularity? Or do you believe the angels live on planets in outer space? God himself was outside the singularity, and he always had power which is energy, thus, energy always existed outside the singularity. Con admits, "Of course God had power and emotions etc. Yes it is fair to say those emotions are eternal." So if power is eternal, and power is energy, then energy is eternal and has no beginning. This proves energy was not created at the Big Bang, just converted into another form. Con says, "I have previously explained that is not possible for time to pass due to the gravitational time warp the black whole," but Con has presented no proof that time can be warped. He merely shows that MOTION can be slowed to a stop, NOT TIME. If Con stops moving, does it mean time has stopped? No, it means Con has stopped. I want Con to tell us openly if he believes that time its another form of matter or energy. Is it? Con also says, "Just because matter and energy WERE AROUND BEFORE the big bang, does not mean that that they were not created." But this assumes that creation, which is an event, took place before the existence of time. I say this because his argument is that time itself began at the Big Bang. So if time began at the Big Bang, and matter and energy were created before the Big Bang, they were created before time existed. But events only take place within time, not outside it. Con is speculating that events such as creation were going on before the existence of time. How does that work, Con? And if events like creation happened before time was created, did not some amount of time lapse between the creation of the singularity, and the Big Bang? If so, then time existed before the Big Bang and was not created at the Big Bang as you claim. But even worse, if you have the creation of the singularity as an event occurring before the existence of time, then how do you know time came into existence at all, and that all the events today (just like the creation of the singularity) do not depend on the existence of time? Con"s Pemise1, "Singularity is the beginning of all matter/energy," is speculative at best. We are only able to observe the inside of this universe; we can"t observe outside of it in order to know there is no energy (or matter for that matter) outside the universe. How does Con know? Has be been on the outside? He"s acting like a man who spent his whole life in the desert denying the existence of snow just because he"s not been able to go to where the snow falls. We are not able to go to the borders of this universe to peek and see what lays beyond it. I agree with premise 2 and 3, but Premise 4, "If god created all the energy in singularity, then he used no energy to do it," is again fanciful and speculative. If God created all the energy in the singularity, what about that shows that he could not have used energy to do it? Why couldn"t there be energy outside the singularity, which is the power of God anyway, and God infuse this previous existing energy into the singularity? Con seems to think there is a difference between God"s power, and energy. Con, what is the difference between power and energy? Which dictionary are you reading? If God had no energy before he created the singularity, that means God had no power, he was powerless, and therefore unable to create the singularity in the first place. My opponent says, "So my opponent would agree that all power is energy? Does a king have this kind of energy? No he does not." However, the word "power" when applied to a king is talking about his authority over his subjects; this isn"t the meaning when used in Isaiah 40:26. God didn"t use authority over us to create the universe, in fact, we didn"t exist yet. He used "power" as a part of his nature. Con attempts to identify this power by saying, "The ENERGY being referred to is the holy spirit, which is not bound by the laws it created. The power god used to create singularity was the holy spirit." Notice here the Con agrees that God used ENERGY to create the singularity, therefore, he is admitting that energy existed before the singularity, and therefore it must have been eternal since his own argument is that creation begins with the singularity. But then he tries to identify this EGERGY as the holy spirit. This contradicts the Bible: "Not by might NOR BY POWER, but by my Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty." (Zec 4:6) This verse shows that God"s power, his energy, IS NOT his Holy Spirit, but something just as separate and different as his might. Acts 10:38 mentions both separately, "the Holy Spirit AND power." Power is something the Holy Spirit "has," thus, Romans 15:13 speaks of "the power OF the Holy Spirit." So the Holy Spirit is not power, and since Con admits God"s power is energy, then we have energy before the Big Bang, existing eternally. After all, without this energy, God could not create anything. Con cannot overcome this fact. Romans 1:20 calls it "ETERNAL power," which is "ETERNAL ENERRGY." Also, the Holy Spirit is God. When Annanias lied to the Holy Spirit he was lying to God. (Acts 5:3-4) The Holy Spirit is a living being that can speak (Acts 13:1-4), an is uncreated, eternal. (Heb 9:14) So when Con says God created the singularity with the Holy Spirit, he is saying God created it with himself! .Now I agree with Con that a timeline always has a beginning, but he needs to understand that this timeline was the invention of men who began counting from the Big Bang. But God, who always existed, never began to count, for he has already experienced all of time. Thus, time cannot be linear, or else God would be waiting for tomorrow to come just like the rest of us; and in that case, how could he know the future? At best, he would only be able to offer an educated guess based on current circumstances. But if he is already there, in the future, we have good reason for confidence when he says that he knows for sure what will be a thousand years from now. Linear time is just we way we experience time, just as we experience seeing the sun rise over and set under the earth. But both are illusions of the finite mind that cannot see reality no other way except how they are designed to see it with their eyes and experience it with other senses. But we can use critical thinking to see when our senses of perception are in error. Con says, "God chooses not to decide the future, he let's us handle that." But I never said that God decides what we will do in the future, I argued that he merely KNOWS what we will do in the future because he is already there. Just because a parent may know what a child will do doesn"t mean the parent chooses for them. "God knows everything." (1 John 3:20) "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come." (Isa 46:10) "Before a word is on my tongue, you know it completely." (Ps 139:4) These verses show that God know the future, so how does he know it? I propose there are some things that simply cannot be know just by guessing from current circumstances. God must be in that future to know what will happen. Does this impinge on our free will? No, because if you had two choices, A and B, the fact that God knows in advance that you will choose A doesn"t in anyway show you didn"t have the free will to choose B. If we were going to choose B, God would have known in advance you would choose B and would not have prophesied that you will choose A. I know that my brother will choose to eat pizza over a bowl of rice. Doesn"t mean he doesn"t have free will, I just know what choice he will make. But as a human I am limited. I can"t know every choice he will make. God does because he lives in the future where the choice is already made. Con didn"t deal with the crust of my argument from Psalm 90:2. He admits God always existed, but doesn"t deal with the point I made. This verse tells us God existed from "everlasting to everlasting," or, as some versions put it, "from eternity to eternity." I asked Con "what is eternity if not time?" Con still hasn"t told us how God knows the future. If the future does not yet exist, God has to guess along with the rest of us, what the future holds. That isn't Biblical. God doesn't guess, he KNOWS.