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

Con describes a person seeing a clock moving at normal speed when in fact the clock has slowed down, and uses this as proof that time can be warped. All this shows is that motion can be slowed, not time, for both the person and the clock have slowed down. But if a person sees a clock slow down because of a singularity, it merely shows his perception has been warped, not time. In reality, the clock was zapped into the centre of the black hole in less than a second. The fact that someone going into the singularity would PERCEIVE events differently doesn"t prove they happen this way, anymore than seeing the sun rise and set proves that it circles the earth. So Con"s theory of time is based on flawed human perception. Con then says that "Time is also not the movement of events but the order in which they occur. " So if God creates the singularity, then the Big Bang occurs, that"s an order of events, and thus time was around before the Big Bang, and thus the Big Bang was not the beginning of time. Regarding my illustration of clocks ticking outside the singularity, he says "it has no relevance to singularity as there was no elsewhere. " How does Con know this? How does he know there was no place outside the singularity? Yet he believes in God! So if nothing was outside the singularity, then God was either non-existent, or trapped in the singularity. Yet he created it! He also created heaven and the angels. Where did he put them? In the singularity? Did angels come flying out in the Big Bang? Con has argued from both religion and science, and its high time he fit this science and theology together into a cohesive unit. Theologically, its incorrect to speak of a first event, or else you have the ridiculous situation of a God who was immobile, who literal existence for an eternity doing absolutely nothing. Not even thinking. In this state, unable to even think, God would not be able to create the universe. So God needs time to exit in order to create, just as he also need wisdom and power to create. These are attributes of God. Time was passing in the singularity in the same way that time passes today even if all events come to a stop. Each thought God was having about creating the singularity were separate events. Creating the singularity was another event. So we have actions occurring, and actions only occur in time. Con tried to cop out of the science by arguing that God is omnipotent, therefore he doesn"t need time to create the universe. By the same logic, it could be reasoned that such an omnipotent God could cause time to continue passing inside the singularity. I don"t think this kind of logic gets us anywhere. This isn"t about what God can do, but about what he did do. Con then makes the claim that the twins in his illustration would be two different ages if one travelled at light speed for a time. This is just another way of saying that the physical body of one of them would have undergone less physical growth, that is, its maturity would have been slowed down by the speed it was travelling at. That doesn"t prove the two twins have not existed for the same amount of time, and are not the same age. Con is measuring age by the physical signs in the body, as opposed to counting from the moment of birth to the present moment. This is ridiculous, and merely shows Con is equating physical change with the passage of time. But I would argue that no matter how long an object remains the same it doesn"t prove time has stopped. We could still ask, how long has it remained that way? If the twin outside the plane travelling at light speed or supersonic speeds (? ) were to measure the time the plane was in the air from take off to landing, would he not be correct? If the one on the plane has a shorter time to report, how can BOTH be right? Only one can be right, the other has had their perception warped by circumstances, but time remains the same. The twin outside the plane would have the correct view of time. Time itself doesn"t slow, speed up, bend or change; its only our perception of it that does. A good example is the rainbow. If two people see a rainbow and one walks towards it, to the one walking to it, it will appear to move away from him and go further in the distance, but the one remaining where he is will see the rainbow in the same spot. So where is the rainbow? Both men have had their perceptions warped. They were designed to see this way. We were designed to experience time in different ways according to different circumstances. Con says, "No matter how you look at it, something had to have happened first," so then did your God have a FIRST THOUGHT? I suppose Con thinks his God only began to think at the Big Bang, and was a vegetable before then. Now God ALWAYS existed, he has no beginning, so he leaves us with the ridiculous idea of a god that literally was doing nothing, and thinking nothing, and feeling nothing, for an infinite amount of time. In that case, if God had no thoughts or feelings, why would he create the universe? This is a complete denial of the eternal fellowship that existed between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit before he made the world. John 1:1-2 describes the relationship between God the Father and God the Son (called the Word) before creation began in verse 3. It says "the Word was with God," and the Greek word for "with" here is "pros. " A. T. Robertson in his Word Pictures of the New Testament says that "with God" means the "Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. \8;`1;_9;`2; [Pros] with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. " Scholar William Hendriksen wrote, "And the Word was face to face with God. The meaning is that the Word existed in the closest possible fellowship with the Father, and that he took supreme delight in this communion" (New Testament Commentary, Vol. 4, pg. 70) But if the Big Bang was the very first event, there could have been no fellowship, no delight, no intimacy, between the Father and Son. Con throws out Bible truth in favor of scientific theories. I use both in harmony. Con tries to give an example of infinite density by dividing 1 by 2 over and over again, claiming you will never reach zero. When the fact is that he already went below zero when he reached .25, because anything behind the decimal point on the number line, such as 0.1, is less than zero. These equations may seem logical on paper, but they don"t work in real life. Because if I gave you a cup of water, and you tried to divide it infinitely, you wouldn"t succeed. By the time you got back to dividing the hydrogen atoms from the oxygen atoms, you no longer have water anymore. And you can only divide the atoms into subatomic particles, but eventually you will get to something so small you can"t get any smaller. It becomes impossible to divide and you have to throw it away. I wonder if Con thinks he can divide his money infinitely? How strange that he thinks there had to be a first event, that events couldn"t go back forever, but he thinks he could divide backwards forever. So in that case, is it possible the universe always existed in this state of infinite density and wasn"t created by God? Such theories as Con proposes lead to confusion. Con then says: "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. " But what he doesn"t get is this. We often locate things relative to where other things are. So where is our universe relative to where God put these other universes where the angels and so on are? Our universe is separated from heaven by literally, nothing but distance. So if something is moving outside our universe, again there must be time outside our universe, outside the singularity which began our universe, for events to happen outside such as creating heaven and other universes. My evidence of the fact that God"s energy was simply converted, is the scientific fact which you accept, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. And science doesn"t claim the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe, but merely the expansion of an already existing universe. Scientists admit they do not know exactly what was going on before the Big Bang, because at the singularity all our physics breaks down. "The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time. " . http://www.google.com... Con says that God's energy "could not simply be converted because they are entirely different. " First of all, has Con examined God's energy in a lab to know this? Second, God himself became flesh despite being entirely different, so why can't his energy do similarly?