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

Con says: "This site clearly shows that the clock that approaches the black hole slows down in time until no time passes, in essence singularity." How does showing that a clock would slow down if it gets near a black hole prove that time itself would be slowing down? Yes, we use the clock to measure time, but like I said before, the ticking of the clock isn"t time itself, so even if the clock slows down this doesn"t prove that time is slowing down. Think of the many clocks that are still ticking speedily while that clock which is near the black hole slows to a stop. What slows down is the theoretical clock, not time itself. So let me ask Con directly, what do you say time is? Is time the movement of events? Yes or no? If your answer is no, then you have not proved that because a black hole can slow down events that it can slow down time. If your answer is yes, you need to provide evidence that time is the same thing as events. Con says: "The watch never started because time itself has never began." Stated, not proved. What arguments have Con given us to show that time didn"t exist before the black hole singularity? None. He merely assumes this without proof. And no amount of appeals to authority, quoting scientists who agree with him won"t help him anymore than it would help my case if I quote scientists who disagree with him. Truth isn"t decided by who can quote the most authorities, but by the weight of the evidence presented. Con says: "the clock is a way of measuring time, if the clock is slowing down, then time is is slowing down in relativity to the clock." Now tell me if this makes sense. A clock on your wall and another on a plane. The one on the plane moves slower than the one on your wall. Now does it make sense to say that time slowed down on the plane, but didn"t slow down everywhere else? When the plane stopped moving, did time race to catch back up with the time in the rest of the world? In that case, did events on the plane start moving faster to catch up with time on the outside? Or is time still a little behind on that plane till this very day? Its obvious that the gravitational pressure on the clock on that plane was a force that slowed down the motion of the clock, but that this doesn"t in any way slow down time is proven in the fact that other factors could also make a clock slow down, none of which involve slowing down time, such as the clock"s battery dying. That could make the clock move slower. Or maybe the clock is broken in some way and needs fixing. None of these things that slow a clock, slow down time, so I think it was wrong for Einstein to conclude that time slowed just because the clock slowed. He was equating time with motion, but this need not be true either, for if we all started moving in slow motion, if we all decided to do things more slowly, this wouldn"t mean time has slowed down. It would only mean motion has slowed down. If for some environmental reason, or some virus were to spread that cause us to be slower, it wouldn"t mean time has slowed. If some celestial event caused the earth to spin slower and move around the sun slow, this wouldn"t prove that time is slowing down. Only that certain objects in time were slowing down. The same is true of the singularity. Anything in the singularity was so slow it wasn"t moving, that doesn"t show there was no time, only that there were no events. In fact, my opponent has argued that God created the singularity. Obviously, the singularity couldn"t exist before God made it, so there was a state of affairs before God made the singularity. So we have a BEFORE and an AFTER, which is the language of time; so its pointless refusing to admit time existed before the singularity. To claim there was no time would be to deny that that God existed BEFORE the singularity. Psalm 90:2 says that he did, and my opponent says that he did. But if God didn"t exist BEFORE the singularity, then the singularity must have always existed with God, which can"t be true because God created it. So Con has to give up one of these positions. Either God didn"t create the singularity, and it was always there with God, or else God was there BEFORE the singularity and thus we have time, a before and after before the Big Bang. Con says: "An example of this is Einstein's twin theory, which states that if one twin were moving at supersonic speed while the other remained at normal speed, then the twin going faster would age slower." Well, there is a disease that makes people age faster, but nobody thinks this is proof that time is speeding up for them. http://www.google.com... So I don"t see how aging slower would prove time is slowing down. If I had a miracle drug that just taking one pill could stop all signs of aging in my body, and I could remain physically the same as I am now at 29 years old for the next 50 years, would that show time has slowed down? No, it wouldn"t. Con claims that God"s power is control, but isn"t energy. This is wrong. Even John Gill"s Exposition of the Entire Bible says Isaiah 40:26 discusses the omnipotence of God. God is all-powerful, that is, he has unlimited energy with which he can do all things. Malachi 3:6 says: "I the Lord do not change." 1 Timothy 6:16 also describes God as the "who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light." UNAPPROACHABLE LIGHT must be a tremendous amount of energy God is emitting, for light is energy, isn"t it? God has always been cloaked in light. "And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb." (Rev 21:23) If this light, the glory of God, was created, then Con is saying that God was not always glorious. This would contradict Malachi 3:6 which says that God doesn"t change. Notice his quote talks about "infinite density," what the heck is that? Can something be infinitely dense? I challenge Con to tell us how such a situation is possible. It seems to be, no matter how small something is compressed, it can"t be infinitely small, for that would be no different from saying it doesn"t exist! So Con"s version of the Big Bang would have us believe that nothing at all was in the singularity, so then, what exploded? Nothing has no properties, no potentiality, to explode and become the universe as we know it. Con"s source admits that "speed and time are relative to the observer," so why can"t linear time be simply our subjective way of experiencing time, while time itself is eternal? Just because we experience time in a linear way doesn"t prove time is linear! That"s the point Con keeps missing. The because the person in the black hole experiences events differently (slower) from the person outside the singularity, doesn"t mean time has slowed or changed in anyway, just as us seeing the sun move differently from on earth as an astronaut would from in space, proves the sun has slowed down or changed in anyway. These are just different ways of seeing the same thing because we are looking at it from different directions, in different circumstances. But just as the sun hasn"t changed, neither has time, none of them has slowed down. We simply experience the events differently. It doesn"t seem logical to use our subjective experience of events to prove that time has slowed down. What is time made of anyway, that it could be slowed down? Takeon particles have not been discovered. Scientists still don"t know that time is, except that it"s the structure within which all events happen. But if you take away all events, that doesn"t prove you have taken away time, anymore than vacating a house removes the house. Now Con keeps going on and on about all matter/energy being in the singularity, but how does he know our universe (which was inside the singularity) is all there is? I ask him where God put heaven when he created it, and all the angels, he didn"t answer. Were they too, in the singularity? How do you know the angels were not created before the Big Bang occurred? How do you know they were not other singularities and other universes? You don"t, and you can"t, because we can"t get outside this universe to observe if they are any others. So you haven"t proven there was no time outside the singularity. Con says: "I referred to the holy spirit (ie god) being a different type of spiritual energy," so if God himself is energy, and he used this energy (himself) to create the singularity and by extension the universe, then this God-energy was not created at all, only converted into a different from, which is the kind of energy we have today, but its still energy. So even if this were true, it still refutes my opponent"s argument. Though, it would in a way be like pantheism, because it would mean God transformed a part of himself into the singularity and into the energy with which the universe is made. Con says: "Gods power is ENERGY, but again, a spiritual energy, an energy that can create matter, others forms of energy and time itself." Notice here he no longer argues that God"s power is simply God"s CONTROL, but now he admits it is his ENERGY. He now says it is "spiritual energy," well, what"s that? How does it being "spiritual" make it different from, say, electricity, or heat? Both are invisible, an intangible. In any case, this agrees with my argument that the energy wasn"t created, but only TRANSFORMED into another form. So the "spiritual" (whatever that means) energy was transformed into normal energy as we know it today. I don"t see how this shows time was created. Con defines eternity as "a state to which time has no application; timelessness." But the word simply means "forever." To say that God existed in eternity is simply to say he ALWAYS existed, and ALWAYS is TIME. So time is eternal. Back to Con