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

Pro says "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." What pro fails to understand is that the clock is still going the same speed in relativity towards the viewer of it. For example, a person beside it could see it still traveling at a normal speed, however it is only because he himself has slowed down as well. Time is another dimension, one that can be warped. Time is also not the movement of events but the order in which they occur. Pro tries to say that other clocks are still ticking speedily, which is true, but there is no time passing within the black hole where THE ONLY CLOCK COULD BE. In singularity all of the matter/energy is confined in a black hole so therefore there is relatively no time happening. Pro says 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. I have stated so may times as to why there is no time before singularity it is not even funny. I explained my clock example countless times to him and this example proves that there could be no time before the big bang. He says that time is existing elsewhere, because clocks are ticking elsewhere, and while this applies currently, it has no relevance to singularity as there was no elsewhere. The concept I'm quoting is referred to as Relativity, which is a highly respected scientific law. I made no claim to authority, it just happened that the people I quoted happened to be scientists that are commonly known. If my opponent wishes to debate on whether or not Relativity is true, you would be arguing against all the works of the scientific community. Pro offered no substantial evidence as to why it is not true so I do not see any reason for him to criticize me of quoting people when I was more quoting general laws of science. When pro argued my points had no evidence, I provided evidence and he responds by saying it is incorrect of me to do so. Pro says "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. Yes Einstein's example makes perfect sense. Time is passing relatively slower for the clock due to the speed at which the plane was traveling. It was not the gravity difference as pro pointed out because the plane and the wall clock were experiencing the same gravitational pull. In essence the higher speed, the slower time. This is another concept of relativity. If you were to stand on the plane and look at the clock while it was traveling, it would appear to go at the same speed as a normal clock, but only because you were going the same speed relativity. I ask Pro, What would you define time as relatively to singularity? If no time could have been passing in the singularity, then relatively how was any time passing for anything? If time is "b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future" then wouldn't there absolutely have to be a first event? Pro says, "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. The theory is that they are twins and it states nothing about them having any diseases. If no other factors occur to aid/prevent their aging then why would one be younger physically than the other who was not travelling at super speeds. A miracle drug would prevent physical aging, but you still would be 79 by that time, it is just that you would appear 29. With the twins it is different. One actually is one age and one is another age due to their different experiences of time. Pro says "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. My opponent fails to see time as an invention of God. You see an entity such as god would not necessarily need time to exist in. He has always existed, but time is measured in the order of events. b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future To say that time had no beginning is to say that there was no first event. No matter how you look at it, something had to have happened first, so therefore time could not have always existed. I cannot address all of Pro's points as I would like to because my characters are running low. I will address them to the best of my ability with the given characters. Pro says "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." A situation in which it is possible is a black hole. http://www.physicsforidiots.com... Just because something is infinitely small doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For example if you continuously divided 1 by 2 you would get 1/2+=.5 .5/2=.25 .25/2=.175 .175/2=0.0875 Notice how these will infinitely approach zero, but never reach it, because 2 could never go into something zero times. Pro says "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" I would in fact say that angels live in a different universe. I am not hiding from this fact. It is impossible for me to know if there are other universes where time may have existed before it did in our own. All I can say is that even in those universes, there must have been some first event and therefore there must be some ultimate genesis of time. Pro 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? The problem with Pro's debate is that he is just assuming that god's energy was converted into regular energy, but no evidence of this is shown. It could not simply be converted because they are entirely different. I always had the opinion that God's power was an energy, but this does not mean that he transformed his spiritual energy into actual energy. The bible referrers to him creating the stars and other things that require energy, but it is not mentioned that he simply transformed his power into other power, it says that he created it by his will. A spiritual energy is an energy that cannot be measured. The spiritual energy god uses is not like electricity or heat because it shows no boundaries and is able to create anything in his will. Pro says "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." God always existed, but he did not necessarily always exist in time. Out of characters back to Pro