huxley:

The best answer cosmologist have now is that the universe is expanding into space it is creating at the same time. In fact most cosmologist today are now coming to the view that there is a multiverse or a cyclic universe.  The evidence for this is quite strong now, but will be clinch when they manage to get result from the gravitation wave experiments.

This answer is absolutely contradictory and inconsistent.

There is nothing that can expand into something outside of it and at the same time be the creator of the element outside of it into which it is expanding.

That is like stating that your protruding pot-belly created the air and space around it - in which you live and work - and into which it protrudes.

The second and main reason why it is inconsistent it that the very term MULTIVERSE presupposes other universes existing within the very same space  - thus destroying any idea that the commencement of THIS universe is what created space.

Rather it is obvious that universes may exist in the same space in the same way as planets and other celestial bodies exist in the same space.

Where is your evidence that space-time is a hoax?

It is asserted that space-time was created at the moment of the big-bang or initial expansion.

That is simply illogical and inconceivable because –

1. Space and Time are intangible, self-existent non-contingent elements that exist in and of themselves and so cannot conceivably have a beginning or end.

2. Again, if Space-Time was created at the moment of the big-bang, the question still remains – into what did space-time expand? A void?

3. Even if it is a void the fact that it is capable of receiving an expanding element means that it is itself imbued with space. Already existing space.

4. Space and Time are inherently infinite. If this is the case then space-time as conceived in specifically finite terms by Einstein and co is a myth.


5. Finally, the very idea of a multiverse nullifies the presupposition that spacetime was created at the birth of THIS universe.

Is gravity also a hoax?

No it is not.

What explains the fact that all galaxies are moving away from each other?

Energy.

Deep Sight:

This answer is absolutely contradictory and inconsistent.

There is nothing that can expand into something outside of it and at the same time be the creator of the element outside of it into which it is expanding.

That is like stating that your protruding pot-belly created the air and space around it - in which you live and work - and into which it protrudes.

The second and main reason why it is inconsistent it that the very term MULTIVERSE presupposes other universes existing within the very same space  - thus destroying any idea that the commencement of THIS universe is what created space.

Rather it is obvious that universes may exist in the same space in the same way as planets and other celestial bodies exist in the same space.

It is asserted that space-time was created at the moment of the big-bang or initial expansion.

That is simply illogical and inconceivable because –

1. Space and Time are intangible, self-existent non-contingent elements that exist in and of themselves and so cannot conceivably have a beginning or end.

2. Again, if Space-Time was created at the moment of the big-bang, the question still remains – into what did space-time expand? A void?

3. Even if it is a void the fact that it is capable of receiving an expanding element means that it is itself imbued with space. Already existing space.

4. Space and Time are inherently infinite. If this is the case then space-time as conceived in specifically finite terms by Einstein and co is a myth.


5. Finally, the very idea of a multiverse nullifies the presupposition that spacetime was created at the birth of THIS universe.

No it is not.

Energy.

For now, I shall just focus on my third question (What explains the fact that all galaxies are moving away from each other?) and you answer "Energy".

Yes, some sort of energy is powering the dispersion of the galaxies from one another. This is generally described in cosmology as Dark Energy. Where are these galaxies moving into and why does the light from these galaxies display a red-shift, which means that the space between them is also stretching rather that the galaxies simply moving across fixed space?

That is another deep scientific fallacy. Space cannot be stretched because it is intangible. Prove the contrary if you can.

It only makes sense that if there is a greater distnace between two objects, there will be a difference in the observable light between them, so the red-shift thing means nothing in terms of what you are trying to assert.

I state that it is a fallacy because these are the same scientists who comically talk about bending spacetime to create wormholes.

That is impossible because if spacetime is a material that can be bent in the manner conceived, then that will rip the universe apart and casue the greatest collision and explosion of all cosmic bodies imaginable.

Deep Sight:

That is another deep scientific fallacy. Space cannot be stretched because it is intangible. Prove the contrary if you can.

It only makes sense that if there is a greater distnace between two objects, there will be a difference in the observable light between them, so the red-shift thing means nothing in terms of what you are trying to assert.

I state that it is a fallacy because these are the same scientists who comically talk about bending spacetime to create wormholes.

That is impossible because if spacetime is a material that can be bent in the manner conceived, then that will rip the universe apart and casue the greatest collision and explosion of all cosmic bodies imaginable.

OK, let take a step back and go back to gravity, which you said is not a hoax. What is gravity and where does it come from? Why do you think it is not a hoax but space-time is?

What accounts for the bending of light in the vicinity of a large object, say another star? Light "normally" travels in a straight line, right. Why is it that in some case, it bends around objects of a certain mass threshold?

I perceive that the problem is that you presume that the body of scientific knowledge regarding space-time, gravity and general-relativity are picture perfect and absolutely correct.

That is not the case in the least. There are many phenomena that the current assumptions do not corresspond with -

According to Wikipedia, there are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways.

Extra fast stars: Stars in galaxies follow a distribution of velocities where stars on the outskirts are moving faster than they should according to the observed distributions of normal matter. Galaxies within galaxy clusters show a similar pattern. Dark matter, which would interact gravitationally but not electromagnetically, would account for the discrepancy. Various modifications to Newtonian dynamics have also been proposed.

Pioneer anomaly: The two Pioneer spacecraft seem to be slowing down in a way which has yet to be explained.[21]
Flyby anomaly: Various spacecraft have experienced greater accelerations during slingshot maneuvers than expected.

Accelerating expansion: The metric expansion of space seems to be speeding up. Dark energy has been proposed to explain this. A recent alternative explanation is that the geometry of space is not homogeneous (due to clusters of galaxies) and that when the data are reinterpreted to take this into account, the expansion is not speeding up after all[22], however this conclusion is disputed[23].

Anomalous increase of the AU: Recent measurements indicate that planetary orbits are widening faster than if this was solely through the sun losing mass by radiating energy.

Extra energetic photons: Photons travelling through galaxy clusters should gain energy and then lose it again on the way out. The accelerating expansion of the universe should stop the photons returning all the energy, but even taking this into account photons from the cosmic microwave background radiation gain twice as much energy as expected. This may indicate that gravity falls off faster than inverse-squared at certain distance scales[24].

Dark flow: Surveys of galaxy motions have detected a mystery dark flow towards an unseen mass. Such a large mass is too large to have accumulated since the Big Bang using current models and may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales[24].

Extra massive hydrogen clouds: The spectral lines of the Lyman-alpha forest suggest that hydrogen clouds are more clumped together at certain scales than expected and, like dark flow, may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales[24].

What I may surmise from these is that there is absolutely no need to presume that Einstein’s theories are perfectly spot on in the matter of space-time. I believe there is still a lot to be learnt, as always.

Curvature of light could be caused by the effect of mass exerting force on light particles. This does not in anyway prove that space-time is a material or that it can be bent in the manner conceived or that it was “created” at the time of the big bang.

If you will assert the contrary then please answer my five posers for me.

I POST THEM AGAIN –

1.   Space and Time are intangible, self-existent non-contingent elements that exist in and of themselves and so cannot conceivably have a beginning or end.

2.   Again, if Space-Time was created at the moment of the big-bang, the question still remains – into what did space-time expand? A void?

3.   Even if it is a void the fact that it is capable of receiving an expanding element means that it is itself imbued with space. Already existing space.

4.   Space and Time are inherently infinite. If this is the case then space-time as conceived in specifically finite terms by Einstein and co is a myth.

5. Finally, the very idea of a multiverse nullifies the presupposition that spacetime was created at the birth of THIS universe.


So what say ye?

Deep Sight:

I perceive that the problem is that you presume that the body of scientific knowledge regarding space-time, gravity and general-relativity are picture perfect and absolutely correct.

That is not the case in the least. There are many phenomena that the current assumptions do not corresspond with -

According to Wikipedia, there are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways.

Extra fast stars: Stars in galaxies follow a distribution of velocities where stars on the outskirts are moving faster than they should according to the observed distributions of normal matter. Galaxies within galaxy clusters show a similar pattern. Dark matter, which would interact gravitationally but not electromagnetically, would account for the discrepancy. Various modifications to Newtonian dynamics have also been proposed.

Pioneer anomaly: The two Pioneer spacecraft seem to be slowing down in a way which has yet to be explained.[21]
Flyby anomaly: Various spacecraft have experienced greater accelerations during slingshot maneuvers than expected.

Accelerating expansion: The metric expansion of space seems to be speeding up. Dark energy has been proposed to explain this. A recent alternative explanation is that the geometry of space is not homogeneous (due to clusters of galaxies) and that when the data are reinterpreted to take this into account, the expansion is not speeding up after all[22], however this conclusion is disputed[23].

Anomalous increase of the AU: Recent measurements indicate that planetary orbits are widening faster than if this was solely through the sun losing mass by radiating energy.

Extra energetic photons: Photons travelling through galaxy clusters should gain energy and then lose it again on the way out. The accelerating expansion of the universe should stop the photons returning all the energy, but even taking this into account photons from the cosmic microwave background radiation gain twice as much energy as expected. This may indicate that gravity falls off faster than inverse-squared at certain distance scales[24].

Dark flow: Surveys of galaxy motions have detected a mystery dark flow towards an unseen mass. Such a large mass is too large to have accumulated since the Big Bang using current models and may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales[24].

Extra massive hydrogen clouds: The spectral lines of the Lyman-alpha forest suggest that hydrogen clouds are more clumped together at certain scales than expected and, like dark flow, may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales[24].

What I may surmise from these is that there is absolutely no need to presume that Einstein’s theories are perfectly spot on in the matter of space-time. I believe there is still a lot to be learnt, as always.

Curvature of light could be caused by the effect of mass exerting force on light particles. This does not in anyway prove that space-time is a material or that it can be bent in the manner conceived or that it was “created” at the time of the big bang.

If you will assert the contrary then please answer my five posers for me.

I POST THEM AGAIN –

1. Space and Time are intangible, self-existent non-contingent elements that exist in and of themselves and so cannot conceivably have a beginning or end.

2. Again, if Space-Time was created at the moment of the big-bang, the question still remains – into what did space-time expand? A void?

3. Even if it is a void the fact that it is capable of receiving an expanding element means that it is itself imbued with space. Already existing space.

4. Space and Time are inherently infinite. If this is the case then space-time as conceived in specifically finite terms by Einstein and co is a myth.

5. Finally, the very idea of a multiverse nullifies the presupposition that spacetime was created at the birth of THIS universe.


So what say ye?

Where did I say that the body of knowledge that we currently have is absolutely 100% correct. I have said no such thing and no proper scientist would say any such nonsense. But that does not mean that we do not have theories that explain many of the observed phenomema we see around us, such as the attraction between massive bodies. I contend that we have a theory that adequately explains it, which you yourself have admitted that it is not a hoax. Why is that theory not a hoax but other are? Refer to my questions again:


1) What is gravity and where does it come from?

2) Why do you think it is not a hoax but space-time is?

3) What accounts for the bending of light in the vicinity of a large object, say another star? Light "normally" travels in a straight line, right. Why is it that in some case, it bends around objects of a certain mass threshold?


PS - Why is it that you never answer any of my questions? Can you try and address the above three questions?

^^^ That is false. I ahve been answering your questions in great detail.

You asked me what Gravity is. Here it is -

Gravitation, or gravity, is one of the four fundamental interactions of nature, along with strong interaction, electromagnetic force and weak interaction. It is the means by which objects with mass attract one another.[1] In everyday life, gravitation is most familiar as the agent that lends weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped. Gravitation causes dispersed matter to coalesce, thus accounting for the existence of the Earth, the Sun, and most of the macroscopic objects in the universe. It is responsible for keeping the Earth and the other planets in their orbits around the Sun; for keeping the Moon in its orbit around the Earth; for the formation of tides; for convection, by which fluid flow occurs under the influence of a density gradient and gravity; for heating the interiors of forming stars and planets to very high temperatures; and for various other phenomena observed on Earth.

Now we are aware that scientists nowadays explain gravity through the curvature of spacetime. I have stated that I have doubts about such explanations and I have shown already in my last post why I have such doubts - because the theory does no correspond with many known phenomena. I gave a list of those phenomena above.

It may interest you to note that there are other theories out there -

Alternatives to general relativity are physical theories that attempt to describe the phenomena of gravitation in competition to Einstein's theory of general relativity.

There have been many different attempts at constructing an ideal theory of gravity. These attempts can be split into four broad categories:

Straightforward alternatives to general relativity (GR), such as the Cartan, Brans–Dicke and Rosen bimetric theories.

Those that attempt to construct a quantized gravity theory such as loop quantum gravity.

Those that attempt to unify gravity and other forces such as Kaluza–Klein.

Those that attempt to do several at once, such as M-theory.

And the only reason these alternatives to general relativity are being sought is the fact that there are clear phenomena that do not correspond with general relativity and as such we may have to look for teh explanation for gravity elsewhere.

You asked me why I think spacetime is a hoax, and I already gave five answers -

1. Space and Time are intangible, self-existent non-contingent elements that exist in and of themselves and so cannot conceivably have a beginning or end.

2. Again, if Space-Time was created at the moment of the big-bang, the question still remains – into what did space-time expand? A void?

3. Even if it is a void the fact that it is capable of receiving an expanding element means that it is itself imbued with space. Already existing space.

4. Space and Time are inherently infinite. If this is the case then space-time as conceived in specifically finite terms by Einstein and co is a myth.

5. Finally, the very idea of a multiverse nullifies the presupposition that spacetime was created at the birth of THIS universe.

I specifically asked you into what the universe is expanding and you gave a terrible answer which I explanied above could not be the case.

Finally you ask about light bending and I already stated that mass could exert force on light particles. That is my off-the-head proposition - Disprove it. At all events you should know that this does nothing to support the concept of spacetime being "created."

Deep Sight:

^^^ That is false. I ahve been answering your questions in great detail.

You asked me what Gravity is. Here it is -

Now we are aware that scientists nowadays explain gravity through the curvature of spacetime. I have stated that I have doubts about such explanations and I have shown already in my last post why I have such doubts - because the theory does no correspond with many known phenomena. I gave a list of those phenomena above.

It may interest you to note that there are other theories out there -

And the only reason these alternatives to general relativity are being sought is the fact that there are clear phenomena that do not correspond with general relativity and as such we may have to look for teh explanation for gravity elsewhere.

You asked me why I think spacetime is a hoax, and I already gave five answers -

1. Space and Time are intangible, self-existent non-contingent elements that exist in and of themselves and so cannot conceivably have a beginning or end.

2. Again, if Space-Time was created at the moment of the big-bang, the question still remains – into what did space-time expand? A void?

3. Even if it is a void the fact that it is capable of receiving an expanding element means that it is itself imbued with space. Already existing space.

4. Space and Time are inherently infinite. If this is the case then space-time as conceived in specifically finite terms by Einstein and co is a myth.

5. Finally, the very idea of a multiverse nullifies the presupposition that spacetime was created at the birth of THIS universe.

I specifically asked you into what the universe is expanding and you gave a terrible answer which I explanied above could not be the case.

Finally you ask about light bending and I already stated that mass could exert force on light particles. That is my off-the-head proposition - Disprove it. At all events you should know that this does nothing to support the concept of spacetime being "created."

OK, let me put it this way: How is it that a body in space is able to exert a force on another body in space separated by many millions of miles. For instance, how is the sun able to exert a force on the planet saturn? How is the moon able to exert a force on the earth when there is no physical link between them? Is the force transmitted through air?

O, come on huxley, you know very well that there are waves through which such are transmitted.

There are various energies existing in space that makes these possible.

That does not make the energies themselves space.

Can you not see this point?

Look at the earth. Soundwaves permit our hearing. Are those the only waves in existence? Are THE waves themselves space?

Of course not!

Deep Sight:

O, come on huxley, you know very well that there are waves through which such are transmitted.

There are various energies existing in space that makes these possible.

That does not make the energies themselves space.

Can you not see this point?

Look at the earth. Soundwaves permit our hearing. Are those the only waves in existence? Are THE waves themselves space?

Of course not!

No, I don't know. Can you tell me what these waves are generally called? Who is researching them and who has measured them. Come on - reveal all? Some scientific references would be nice!

"This craggy fantasy mountaintop enshrouded by wispy clouds looks like a bizarre landscape from Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" or a Dr. Seuss book, depending on your imagination. The NASA Hubble Space Telescope image, which is even more dramatic than fiction, captures the chaotic activity atop a three-light-year-tall pillar of gas and dust that is being eaten away by the brilliant light from nearby bright stars. The pillar is also being assaulted from within, as infant stars buried inside it fire off jets of gas that can be seen streaming from towering peaks.


Scorching radiation and fast winds (streams of charged particles) from super-hot newborn stars in the nebula are shaping and compressing the pillar, causing new stars to form within it. Streamers of hot ionized gas can be seen flowing off the ridges of the structure, and wispy veils of gas and dust, illuminated by starlight, float around its towering peaks. The denser parts of the pillar are resisting being eroded by radiation much like a towering butte in Utah's Monument Valley withstands erosion by water and wind."

What is the purpose of this endless explosion and destruction captured by the hubble space telescope?

The OP video is full of mis-information about evolution by the members of the discovery institute and their propaganda. . . . . .Their arguments look reasonable at first glance but falls short when closely examined. . . .Here is a youtube video showing how their arguments where completely destroyed when they meet and debated other competent scientist and evolutionist in a court of law. . . . .Pls I will urge every body to watch the Youtube videos. . . .ENJOY!!. . . .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R54LGX5_10


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb2iQvHhn7c&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8CqTlJ3gGU&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfJfdYGTWN0&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so4mSX4QBsc&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtRNJHsLR4Q&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqH-yMNFYWY&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHzRwbjJdWs&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id7PyZQMU00&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAn_vQXBPtI&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qI_DcbQlMo&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z0KLdXcB_8&feature=related

mazaje1:




What is the purpose of this endless explosion and destruction captured by the hubble space telescope?

@Mazaje,

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you're insinuating that there's no purpose behind this, no? And maybe none at all in all of creation - no purpose, right?

so dem don unban you, good,

that was for masa masa

^^^^^

Whats the purpose of all the endless explosion of stars and other cosmic bodies?. . .In the video, some of the people in it suggested that the universe was designed for life. . .How so?. . .How is the universe designed for life when MOST of it does not support life?. . . .Life does not even survive in space on its own, so how is the universe created/designed for life when all of the parts of the universe that we know is incapable of sustaining life?. . . . .

IDINRETE:

so dem don unban you, good,

The 120 hour ban don pass ohh. . . .

You still didn't answer my question, but I'll let it pass and address this:

mazaje:

^^^^^

Whats the purpose of all the endless explosion of stars and other cosmic bodies?. . .In the video, some of the people in it suggested that the universe was designed for life. . .How so?. . .How is the universe designed for life when MOST of it does not support life?. . . .Life does not even survive in space on its own, so how is the universe created/designed for life when all of the parts of the universe that we know is incapable of sustaining life?. . . . .

Thats not what was said in the video. I guess you misunderstood them. They did say that most of the universe doesn't have whats needed to support life and the study of science/the universe, like earth does - indicating that the earth must've been designed to support life.

petres_007:

You still didn't answer my question, but I'll let it pass and address this:

Thats not what was said in the video. I guess you misunderstood them. They did say that most of the universe doesn't have whats needed to support life and the study of science/the universe, like earth does - indicating that the earth must've been designed to support life.

Pls watch the video again. . . .That was what William Craig and the other guy said. . . .Whats the purpose of the universe?. . . . .Whats the purpose of the gazillions of stars, asteriods, comets and galaxies out there?

mazaje:

Pls watch the video again. . . .That was what William Craig and the other guy said. . . .Whats the purpose of the universe?. . . . .Whats the purpose of the gazillions of stars, asteriods, comets and galaxies out there?

You keep asking this question and here's my answer -  I don't know. To the best of my knowledge, science is still looking for answers.

But hey.  .  . thats the way its always been. So much of what we know today about creation with the help of science were not known to our forbears.  .  . Would they have been wise to dismiss the unknown & "not yet understood" as meaningless and without purpose?? 

What about what we do know about creation? What about the 4-character DNA code talked about in the video (and plenty of other online sources)? What do you make of that? Did a code appear in every one of our cells by blind chance too?

Or is there a mind behind it?

P.S. I hope to start another thread with a riddle presented by a Christian scientist to the atheists on infidels.org which no one has been able to answer after over 300 replies on that thread. But I'm sure you guys here won't let me down 

petres_007:

You keep asking this question and here's my answer -  I don't know. To the best of my knowledge, science is still looking for answers.

Why then do you keep saying that the universe was designed for a purpose? What purpose exactly?. . . . .

But hey.  .  . thats the way its always been. So much of what we know today about creation with the help of science were not known to our forbears.  .  . Would they have been wise to dismiss the unknown & "not yet understood" as meaningless and without purpose?? 

Ok  . . . . . .

What about what we do know about creation? What about the 4-character DNA code talked about in the video (and plenty of other online sources)? What do you make of that? Did a code appear in every one of our cells by blind chance too?

Or is there a mind behind it?  

This is where you get it wrong. . .Who has ever said that the DNA code appeared by chance? Creationist love stating this even when nobody has EVER made that claim. . . . .Evolution by natural selection has never argued that everything is a result of blind chance. . .The video you posted had so many misinformation about evolution. . . .For example one of the scientist in the video said that evolution said that organisims change from one completely different form to another. . .Like a cell  suddenly changing into frog and from a frong into a rat and from a rat into a dog, and from a dog into a monkey,  from a monkey into a man etc. .  .That is NOT what the theory states. . . .Natural selection tries to explain the evolutionary process. . .I do not accept its explanation in totality because some of it is flawed but it does not say that the DNA in our cells appear by chance. . . .It says it appears to aid survival. . . .Natural selection is NOT a random process according to the theory. . . .

Pls watch the youtube videos I posted. . . .it explains what evolution says and not the delibrate misinformation creationst keep bandying around. . . .I might not agree with some of the concept of evolution but it's better to present what the theory actually says than presenting what it does not say. . . . .Just listen to Willaim Craig and all the misinformation he kept bandying in that video. . . .

Ah! You came online again. My eyes are getting sticky now o.  .  . 

You're the only atheist who's taken time to watch this video and discuss it with me and I'm thankful you did. But just so we don't go on and on in this thread and never get to accomplish anything.  .  . except waste our time 

I'd like to know what you think about DNA and its "code". Do YOU think there's a mind behind it or not??

petres_007:

Ah! You came online again. My eyes are getting sticky now o.  .  . 

You're the only atheist who's taken time to watch this video and discuss it with me and I'm thankful you did. But just so we don't go on and on in this thread and never get to accomplish anything.  .  . except waste our time 

I'd like to know what you think about DNA and its "code". Do YOU think there's a mind behind it or not??

Your welcome. . . .I think that DNA are the blue print of an individual organisims characteristics. . . . .Is there a mind behind it? That "mind" is what I call natural selection. Since the process of transfering of chromosomes from parents to their offsprings is imperfect because DNA undergoes random mutation(or "mistakes" given each offspring its own unique blue print. . . .Some times the random mutation of the DNA produces characteristics that are good some times the random mutation of the DNA produces chracteristics that are harmful to the organism. . . .So what "mind" or "intelligence" will design a DNA that mutates to produce characteristics that are harmful to an organism and make sure that the organism begins its life at a disadvantage? Sickle cell anemia and thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years. . . .Pls watch the youtube vidoes I posted and understand what evolution says and see how the arguments of the advocates of intelligent design were COMPLETELY destroyed. . . .

Deepsight what is God? and how do you come to the conclusion that singularity is God? . . . . . .

^^^ Can you show me where I said that on this thread? ? ?

^^^
I might have gotten what you said wrongly. . .What is god?. . . .Can he be known on his own independent of other things. . . .

^^^ God IS independent of EVERY OTHER THING.

If you can tell me what "Time" is - you will be perilously close to staring God in the face.

Deep Sight:

^^^ God IS independent of EVERY OTHER THING.

If you can tell me what "Time" is - you will be perilously close to staring God in the face.

What has god get to do with time. . . .Time is a man made entity used as part of the measuring system, It is used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them. What has that god to do with time?. . . .

^^^ I am honestly dumb-founded by your post.

You assert that man - mere man - CREATED Time? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Good grief, where do i start from?

Your scientist friends do not even assert that. They assert that time was created at the moment of the big bang.

Mazaje, do you want to re-think that statement of yours before we proceed?

Time is a man made entity used as part of the measuring system, It is used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them. What has that god to do with god?.

Errrr, this is sooooooo wrong on many fronts i dont even know where to start. It has already been pointed out to you how erroneous this statement is. I wont go into the theory of relativity, space -time continuum and string theory here, but do understand something - Just because man "discovered" a way to measure it, do not mean it did not exist before.

It is really a shame i came to this post so late.
I would have loved to teach Deep Shite and Mazeje or whatever his name is a thing or two regarding Einstein's Theory of relativity, the space-time continuum and Stephen Hawkins theories on quantum physics, black holes, cosmic inflation, string theories, muons, tauons, neutrinos - and how they all challenge/affect E=Mc2, and give meaning to the space-time conundrum.

Deep Sight:

^^^ I am honestly dumb-founded by your post.

You assert that man - mere man - CREATED Time? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Good grief, where do i start from?

Your scientist friends do not even assert that. They assert that time was created at the moment of the big bang.

Mazaje, do you want to re-think that statement of yours before we proceed?

NO. . . .Don't get me wrong. . . .I did NOT say that made created what we call time. . . .Man created the idea of time to help him measure events, sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them.
What has time got to do with god?. . . . .How did OOI create time?. . . . .