₦airaland Forum

beneli:
Does anything conceivably exist outside the universe?

Yes and No-whatever exists 'outside' the 'universe' is outside our comprehension. So it's not concievable to us, really. Having said that, the understanding is that our universe is just one of many so called 'universes', each with their own scripts and laws. Even within our own 'universe' at the level of quantum mechanics, the laws and scripts played out there are quite different to the ones we can understand using 4-dimensional calculations. Some suggestions are that cosmic holes may be the gateways to these other universes. But these are just suggestions. It is also suggested that inbetween the 'universes' could be higher dimensional spaces, but certainly not 'nothing'.

This is fine. My take exactly. . .

3. Is the universe the same thing as spacetime,

No-spacetime is just the 4th dimension. The 'universe' is a lot more than the 4 dimensions, according to mathematics and theoretical physics.

  4. or does it exist within spacetime.

No-see the answer to 3.

Existence as a whole may well be a whole lot more than 4 dimensions, infinite dimensions even. But the universe. . .?

Here's what Wikipedia says -

Three-dimensional space is a geometric model of the physical universe in which we live. The three dimensions are commonly called length, width, and depth (or height), although any three mutually perpendicular directions can serve as the three dimensions.

[edit] Details
In physics, our three-dimensional space is viewed as embedded in 4-dimensional space-time, called Minkowski space (see special relativity). The idea behind space-time is that time is hyperbolic-orthogonal to each of the three spatial dimensions.

In mathematics, analytic geometry (also called Cartesian geometry) describes every point in three-dimensional space by means of three coordinates. Three coordinate axes are given, each perpendicular to the other two at the origin, the point at which they cross. They are usually labeled x, y, and z. Relative to these axes, the position of any point in three-dimensional space is given by an ordered triple of real numbers, each number giving the distance of that point from the origin measured along the given axis, which is equal to the distance of that point from the plane determined by the other two axes.

Note the highlighted portions. I am at odds with your suggestion that the universe (i.e: this universe) is alot more than 4 dimensions.

This is because as stated above, we live within a three dimensional space (See the image in my next post below).[/b]with time as a 4th dimension.

I am entirely happy to accept however, as stated in the first part of your post, that outside [b]THIS universe, there may well be a multiverse or infinite dimensions. Remember what i termed "Z."

Addendum: There is a lot of talk of the 'universe expanding'. I think that is where the problem is for some. If there is nothing like 'nothing' then what is the universe expanding into? Well the simple answer to that, a view which some scientists hold, is that the 'universe' is not expanding!  What is expanding is 'spacetime' and NOT the universe per se. Outside of 'spacetime' exists 'space' not subject to our understanding of 'space' and 'time'. This 'space', however, is still within the 'universe'.

NOW THIS IS WHERE I HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS.

Can the intangible quatity called time be said to expand, or be expanding? I doubt that.

It is a verifiable, documented and observable fact that the universe is in fact expanding.

In this regard i am mindful of the balloon model which envisages objects moving away from each other because of the inflation of space within the balloon. So i can uncerstand the ideas about spacetime expanding. Nevertheless i do not accept that idea. This is because space and time are infinite, self existent quantities that cannot in the real sense of things be said to expand.

The universe which consists of matter, is within this infinite space in the same way as other universes may be within the same infinite space. Doubtless there may be different twists to the observation or experence of spacetime in different universes or even in different parts of one universe, but there is absolutely no reason to suppose that space ends at the borders of THIS universe, as space by nature is infinite and boundless. Also such a supposition will raise the question you asked, which i have pointed at severally - "into what is the universe ([b]this universe) expanding?"[/b]

If you state that spacetime is expanding the same poser could be raised - into what is spacetime expanding.

I postively deny that spacetime may be said to expand and i state that the universe of matter exists within and expands into self-existent and infinite space and time.

Thus you are somewhat correct when you say - (as amended by me below)

Outside of 'spacetime' this universe exists 'space' not subject to our understanding of 'space' and 'time'.

But dead on wrong and incongruous when you add -

This 'space', however, is still within the 'universe'

Oops. . . That's a complete logical reverse. Perhaps what you should be saying is that[b] the multiverse exists within infinite space and time.[/b]

Beneli. . . .? ? ? ? ?

Kai, abuse dey plenty for ya mouth o, you don turn to Davidylan.

For me, I have said countless times that they are WITHIN the Universe - and that was where you launched your missiles and described my posts as ridiculous!

Right. You waste much time stating repeatedly that the phenomena occur within the universe. Obviously. That is not my issue.

Z - was clearly away from the wormhole or the "folding." You stated it to be "within" the universe. I had problems with that. That was what i described as ridiculous, and not anything to do with wormholes.

But let us look at something that helps -

The Universe is not spacetime, Deep Sight

Great! This is useful!

I positively assert that the Universe exists and is expanding within spacetime.

Therefore when i place Z outside spacetime, it clearly cannot be within the universe, as the universe is within spacetime.

Thus your statement that Z is still within the universe was wrong.

Capisce?

I am leaving the office now to the house. Will do some further explanations when i get home.

Small teaser. . . to assist, since you appear to be having multiple difficulties grasping the question -

  1. Does anything conceivably exist outside the universe?

  2. Even nothingness. . .?

  3. Is the universe the same thing as spacetime, or does it exist within spacetime.

I hope these help you to understand the initial question better.

Goodluck. Going for a cigarette now to reflect on my money and woman.

viaro:
Please answer ths damn question and stop being a grown retard altogether!

? ? ? ? ?

I thought i was the one who asked you a question?

Now you are asking me what? Oh dear viaro, this simple question has really brought out the worst in you tonite, has'nt it?

TRY.

YES OR NO.

IT AIN'T HARD.

viaro:
all I can say is that you're asking the most dimwitte.d question in the entire Universe!

^^^ If its so dim witted it should be easy to answer: Put all doubts to rest by striking it down once and for all -

Yes, or no, Viaro!

Beware the perceptions of others: you are showing up great cowardice here.

Yes or no, i insist!

I need your categorical answer to prove a point!

_{p.s - to help - the question is not whether wormholes occur within the universe. The question is whether there are any parts of the universe that are outside spacetime.}

Whatever long epistle you are busy writing, stop it and save your time and mine.

As i said - simple answer to your own sarcastic jibe at me is this: "No, there are no parts of the intestines that are outside the body."

So give me such an answer as well on my question: indulge my stupidity if you will - because there is something cardinal i seek to show if you will give a definite answer whichever way.

If you do not = supreme cowardice.

Juts say yes or no, i am not God, i cannot kill you for your answer.

viaro:
Then this chap with a matriculation number DS#43 pouts his lips and asks: "are there parts of our intestines that are outside the body?"

In this instance you will easily answer: "No, there are no parts of the intestines that are outside the body."

So why the hell can you not give me a similar answer for my question? ? ? ? ?

viaro:
Deep Sight, let me ask you this: what is spacetime?

^^^ O dear, i should have known he would evade my question by attempting to forward questions of his own. This is the umpteenth time i will ask a question and you would respond in this manner. When we discussed the self-existence of numbers and i asked you a question on moons around Jupiter, you gave me a long list of nember-related words to define. Same tactics again!

I will answer you if you answer me first. Use your own understanding of "spacetime" to deal with the question, that will be fine by me, ok?

Now here we go again:


ARE THERE PARTS OF THE UNIVERSE THAT ARE OUTSIDE SPACETIME?

A one word answer will do. We can go into details after that.

6. You turn round to deny that what we're saying has absolutely nothing to do with wormholes, even though YOU are the very person who first mentioned "wormhole" in this thread.

Wormholes were an aside, if i might set you straight on that: the issue was the effects of "folding" spacetime in an attempt to create a wormhole. So the wormhole thing is just an aside - it is the act of "folding" that justcool and i were concerned about, and what effects such "folding" might have. My posts are clear on this.

Now, coward, back to the kindergarten question that you so comically avoid -


ARE THERE PARTS OF THE UNIVERSE THAT ARE OUTSIDE SPACETIME?

If you cannot answer yes or no, then you are once again trying to escape: this will be obvious to all and sundry.

Abeg jaare, no long thing - give me one word, and we can discuss details later.

Simple. Why is that so hard for you? ? ?

Shouldn't take you that long to pen one single word -

"Yes"

or

"No"

What's the delay? Afraid of falling into trap?

mavenbox:
Speaking for Christianity, when a person gets saved by confessing Christ as Saviour, it's the spirit that gets saved. The mind/ soul is not saved YET, but will be eventually renewed as you walk with God.

Before i point out the tragedy of this unfortunate remark, please address it yourself. You're a bright girl, i am sure you see what's wrong with this statement. Go ahead. I am waiting.

I had an image of the spacetime fabric. I marked a region outside it and called it Z. I thus envisaged that Z as being outside the spacetime fabric, and you will recall i stated it to be the basis of my theory of infinities.

You insist that that Z IS PART OF THE UNIVERSE.

I ask you -

1. Are there parts of the universe that are outside spacetime?

Yes or no, be bold. Stop this irritating escapism.

No son, this is just completely wrong. Soooooo wrong and off the mark i can't believe it. Your contradictions are just too many and too consistent, and when pointed out, you fill the gaps with thin air.

I'm busy in the office still, i will be back in a few minutes to show you up again, but just like on the Deist thread i fully expect that if i spell it out a zillion times, you will look poker faced at it and claim not to see it.

But just to give you the teaser for the third time: Are there parts of the universe that are outside spacetime? Yes, or No, be man enough.

There will be a limit to my engagement with you, because there isn't much substance to what you offer me.

I'll be back. And this time i will point it out only once.

@ Justcool -

Nice one, but this idea is already in circulation.

Light contains pictures. The technology behind even the simplest camera confirms this. Accordingly the light from a star 1 billion light years away is actually light that is 1 billion years old. Indeed we may be seeing the star on earth long after it has dissolved or imploded, becuase we are seeing the version of the star (light from it) that was in existence 1 billion years ago.

Thus, each time you look into the night sky, you are already looking in many directions into the past.

For this reason what is needed is a machine that can decipher the images contained within light such that when we analyse the light from that 1 billion year old star, we can see pictures of all the events around that star that happened 1 billion years ago.

toneyb:
The believers are behaving the way they do mostly true indoctrination. That's the reasons they're so quick to assume atheists are all immoral savages the religion teaches them that atheist(Those that do not believe in their hypothesis) are degenerate animals. This same lie is being told over and over and over and over again throughout their lives that the atheists are walking embodiments of lust, violence, jealousy, anger, sin, etc They spend their lives living under the weight of that twisted accusation (some crack heads amongst them and blow up abortion clinics, etc), but they're all secure in the knowledge that they will be saved despite it. But since the atheists, and other non believers etc. don't have Yahweh to make us feel guilty and terrified about all the stuff THEY feel guilty and terrified about, it's easy enough for them to point the finger and assume that while we're all equally bleeped in the head, WE (the non-Christians and atheists especially) are the ones with the problem, because we lack the proper "controls". Pure delusion I must say.

In full agreement. Wwell said.

I am not minded to respond in to-to to this post Viaro for one simple reason:

The analysis we have offered has absolutely nothing to do with blackholes, whiteholes or wormholes.

Given this, your entire surmise fails automatically.

Go back and assess thoroughly what we had talked about: to wit - "folding" spacetime.

I note, as customary with you, that you entirely refused to address the glaring contradiction i pointed out in your statement that Z is "part of the universe" and yet outside spacetime. What is the Universe? Is any part of it outside spacetime, as you suggested? That is what i referred to as ridiculous, and Viaro, it eminently is.

That is the issue. Deal with it.

justcool:
Honestly the first time I read about the idea of folding space I had the same questions that Deepsight have. I struggled with the picture before I arrived at a conclusion that satisfied me only a little.

That picture presents many problems:
1) The Universe does not lie on a flat time-carpet like the picture showed.
2) Even of it does, you cannot fold this carpet without disrupting many bodies in the universe. Such folding will cause a catastrophic chain of event that can possibly destroy all the bodies(Planetry bodies) in the universe.
3) If the universe lies on a flat carpet, like the pictures depicts, then folding a part of it will raise the folded part to a height or depth where the universe may not be able to function. Think about it, if the universe operates on a flat carpet, then that height or range is the height most comfortable for the formation and functioning of the universe. Raising any part of the universe into foreign heights may result in catastrophe. I will give an example, imagine a yeast that is growing like a carpet on the surface of a body of water. The surface of this water provides the best environment for the yeast to grow and function. If you fold the yeast, thereby raising a part of the yeast above the surface of the water, the yeast usually dies.
4) In that picture, the carpet depicts space-time, notice that it has arrows pointing to a direction. This is understandable because the carpet moves, representing the passage of time. Now notice that the folded part is moving in the opposite direction to the unfolded part. How can this be!! So the wormhole has to have one mount in the normal forwarding moving time(Carpet), and the other mouth in a backward moving carpet, ie a place in the universe where time moves backwards.

I personally think that that picture is just a form of giving shape to an idea, thus a figurative picture that does not necessarily comform to reality. Its like when you paint a picture of a straight street. Parallel lines(two side of the street) are drawn in such a way that at infinity they meet. This helps to fool the brain into seeing perspective or dept on a flat surface of the picture. But when you take this picture literally, then you might be expecting that there is a place in reality called infinity where parallel lines meet. This does not comform to reality because in reality parallel lines can never meet.
So that's the way to see the pictures of space-time: It is only a rendering or a depiction of an idea on a picture. Imagine the idea of time as a forth dimension is very difficult to depict on a two dimensional picture.
The idea of using a carpet with arrows to represent the passage of time is very understandable; but the idea of folding this carpet to appear as if one layer is ontop of the other is very missleading because actually, no layer is on-top or above the other. At first I thought that the folding into a circle represents the idea that time passes eternally. It is folded to us because we observe it on a two dimensional picture. Imagine a planet that revolves around a star, when depicted in a picture the circle of revolution becomes small. To the observer of the picture it appears the planet goes on two lines, one on-top of the other, and in opposite direction. But the truth is that to a small creature who cannot observe the circulation of the planet from afar; to such a creature, the planet only moves forward and never in a opposite direction or in a circle. Imagine if no stars or planets can be seen from the earth, then there is no way men on earth could know that the earth is in circulation. The best conclution that men can arrive at it that the earth move perpetually in a staight line. All I am saying is that you need an object outside a particular movement as a refrence in other to be able to tell correctly the nature of the particluar movement. That's the problem with dipicting the universe, we cannot see a universe outside our universe to use as a refrence to the movement of our universe.

I will give an example: Imagine a tire spinning on its axis. If you put a red mark on the circumfrence of the tire. You will observe that as the tire turns, the red mark starts from east to north to west to south then back to east. Representing this in a two dimensional picture, the movement from east to north to west will appear in opposite direction to the movement from west to south to east. It appears on a picture, as if one movement in on-top of the other and in opposite direction.
Now imagine an ant on this tire, to the ant, the tire just goes perpetually forward. If there is a worm whole with a mouth on the north side of the tire, and the other mouth on the south side, then this ant can be transported from north to south via this wormwhole in a split second faster than the rotation of the tire. Then such an ant has travelled in time. Because in a while at the south(Today) it has journyed to the north(Tomorrow).


I thought this is what the picture is trying to potray. This is the only way I can make the spacefolding issue reasonable to me. I have a lot of problems with space folding. I dont think humans can fold space and I dont think space can be folded without catastrophy.


@ Deepsight,
I don't know if what I wrote above throws any light. What do you think? I don't even know if I was able to express what I have in mind. This issue is very difficult to express by writing. I don't know how to upload personally drawn pictures to this forum,(like you do) other wise I would have tried to express by drawing.

Anyway what I wrote is my humble opinion, I could be very wrong.

I have my personally invented idea of how one can, scientifically travel through time(I don't mean spiritually or non-physically), and atleast percieve the events that happened millions of years ago. I think my idea is better that the one in question. If you guys want to hear my idea, I will share it so that you guys can analyze and tell me what you think of the idea.

Brilliant, justcool, just brilliant.

I have tried to express some of this to viaro: that the folding of spacetime must perforce have catastrophic or apocalyptic effects, but he seems not to have seen this. At all events, as you stated, i doubt that spacetime is something that can be folded in the manner envisaged.

Quite frankly, all the talk about folding spacetime in my view amounts only to child-like fantasies and delusions. Most surprising to have such emanating from supposed scientists.

Viaro - There are problems with your post. Serious problems.

Now we are wading into the most spectacular of your many contradictions and flip-flops.

I had noticed it in your earlier post, but it was so shockingly and self-evidently contradictory that i presumed it must have been an error, or slip of the tongue pen.

Now check this out:

viaro:
Let me concisely note that 'Z' is still within the Universe; and 'T'  as space-time is also within the Universe.

You have stated that the regions outside of the spacetime fabric (Z) are still within the universe - thus stating that there are parts of the universe which are not within spacetime. This is underlined by your assertion that spacetime is within the universe.

You thus regard the universe as being more expansive than spacetime. You imagine that there are parts of the universe which are outside spacetime.

This is ridiculous, preposterous and calls for an immediate definition of the word "universe." Is it possible for our universe to exist outside spacetime? I would have thought the right thing would be to state that it exists and is expanding within spacetiime.

Viaro, your statement that there are parts of the universe outside spacetime calls for an inquest. You had earlier hinted at it here -

The region marked 'Z' is still part of the universe, it is not something other than the universe

Now i am firmly convinced that this discussion cannot proceed without a definition of the word - Universe.

Let me provide wikipedia's definition -

The Universe comprises everything we perceive to physically exist, the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter and energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern them.

And accordingly, your assertion that Z, a region stated to be outside spacetime, is also part of the universe, is just off the cliff.

Krayola!!!!!!! Brilliant! Nice one, thanks, i watched the video, perhaps it will do Mazaje some Good.

You for show us ya face na. . . i no know why i no been imagine b4 say na baritone you go get.

Nice one bro.

mazaje:
The fact that an ancient writer does not know what a UFO is says that he is ignorant and saying that a UFO is a ball of fire when it is not a ball of fire says that he is not telling the truth.

I am sure you are conversant with the saying that perception is cognitive reality.

Thus when you see a UFO today, it is your reality that it is an unidentified flying object.

You are right in that perception.

If a child sees it, it may appear to him simply as an aeroplane.

The child is also right in that perception.

If the prophet Elijah saw one, it is very real for him, and his reality, that it is a spinning ball of fire.

Have you stopped to ponder the fact that the prophet is actually perfectly right in his perception and description - because -

  1. It is spinning

  2. It is round, and thus ball-shaped and

  3. It emmits fire/ exhaust/ light etc.

Thus you have absolutely no way of saying that it was not a spinning ball of fire, because that is effectively and actually what it was!

I am certain that with this, you will be more circumspect in hastily presuming that the ancient writer is lying ignorantly.

In this recall the analogy of 10 blind men groping an elephat and each describing it differently. We are only blind men, you see, and our descriptions will all be imperfect, but partly true.

Mazaje, i think this from Mavenbox summarizes what i was trying to say:

As such, when a prophet sees a manifestation of something that is hitherto unknown to him, he will write it or say it in the best known way to him. It does not mean what he saw was wrong, it only means the human expression at that time was too weak to convey the message.

For heaven's sake, if an ancient writer saw a UFO, he would describe it as a spinning ball of fire.

How in hell does that make him a liar or ignorant? He only describes what he sees according to the language of the day. period.

mazaje:
I read through your arguments with wirinet and toneyb and I do not exactly know what you are trying to say. Modern astronomical and cosmological writings will become trash if the universe is later found to be an optical illusion.

The point is this; even if its an optical illusion, then all the current writings will serve to -

  1. Show what kind of illusory effect it had on observers

  2. Show what the illusion looked like to onlookers at the time

  3. Record the daily perceptions of those living within the illusion and importantly -

  4. State in the language of the time what that illusion appeared to be -

All of which have definite historical and cultural value and none of which will mean that the current writings are lies, even if they disclosed a limited understanding.

mazaje:
@ Wirinet and Toneyb

You guys should stop assuming that davidylan knows what he is talking about. He talks about moral values as if there is any to be found in the myth he subscribes to. His evidence to show that christians are more morally responsible for their lives than atheist is?. . . . i laugh in greek. . .By the way what kind of morality is it that is entirely predicated on a self-interested desire to escape some imaginary damnation? This seems to bypass the very core of what we mean by morality, which is an actual concern for the welfare of other human beings. Clearly it is possible to teach our children to form such a concern and to grow in empathy and compassion without lying to ourselves or to them about the nature of the universe,without pretending to know things we do not know.

Which is more moral?Helping the poor, feeding the hungry, defending the weak,out of a mere concern for their wellbeing, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it and will reward you for it?, . . . .The truth is people do not need to be threatened with damnation to love their children, to love their friends, to want to collaborate with strangers, or indeed to recognize that helping strangers and not hurting others can be one of their greatest sources of happiness. . . . .

Again i wholly agree. People should to be good because goodness springs naturally from their hearts, and not because they have been promised a carrot in heaven or threatened with a stick in hell.

wirinet:
David are you serious? Atheists refusing to take moral responsibility for their life?. Are you playing with paradoxes?.

Because that statement applies to Christians than any other world view. It is a cardinal doctrine of Christianity not to accept responsibility for ones actions. The cardinal doctrine which i find absurd, is that once you are born again, you are no longer responsible for your sins, Christ by dying on the cross has carried all our sins - past and future, you only need to ask for forgiveness and your are as white as snow. The only problem is that the cycle of since and asking for forgiveness is limitless.

They also have numerous other catch phrases to escape taking responsibility for their own actions. Like;

1. The devil made me do it.
2. The flesh is week.
3. It is the will of God.
4. I was guided by the holy spirit.
5. The devil is a lair.
6. We fight not against flesh and blood but principalities.

And hundreds of others.

Most moral people i have come in contact with are either Atheists, Agnostics or liberal Christians and Muslims. The religiously fervent Born again Christian or fundamentalist Muslim almost always end up being morally bankrupt including most of your General Overseers, pastors, and reverends.

Even if you study the world corruption index, you will find a direct correlation between corruption and degree of religiosity of the countries.

I entirely agree with this. The vast majority of people in Sweden and Finland are not concerned with religion at all. . . atheists, agnostics, humanists etc. Yet those nations rate amongst the best in terms of transparency, absence of corruption and general crime.

Nigeria, by contrast, the most religious country in the world, is also the most corrupt.

Religion really has no relevance to the modern man's ethics.

Anyhow David has clearly stated in the past that "Christianity has nothing to do with eithics," so we should not be surprsied.

toneyb:
So why are people using the limited understanding of ancient writers to describe events that will happen in the future? What exactly are you trying to say? You are just trying too hard to pass a moot point across.

It does, they wrote down what they thought and they happened to be WRONG. What exactly are you trying to say?

The writers of the bible did not know anything like meteorites, If they did they would have written about them, The writers of the koran wrote that meteorites are spears that allah use to destroy the jinns that go up into paradise to evasedrop. They wrote down what they felts about the cosmos and they were very wrong period.

You forget that they were truly sincere in what they were writing and thought they were right. When they talk about stars falling into the earth they truly meant what they were saying, to them stars were tiny light bulbs hanging in the firmament, that fight along side humans in wars as written in some parts of the bible. If you read the book of daniel you will see where daniel had a vision and in that vision he saw a goat whose horn rose right up into the sky, The horn of the goat pushed one of the stars hanging in the sky and the star came falling into the sky and upon reaching the ground the goat stepped on the star. This cleary shows you what they thought the stars were. They very clearly had NO idea of what they stars were if they did they would have written about it.

The sodom and gomorrah story might be one of the many mythical stories that can be found in the bible. So we are to accept the writing of ancient writers who were clearly wrong about events and natural occurance on what basis?

They thought that the stars were small light bulbs hanging in the sky which were created only to give light to the earth and to mark the seasons, to them the stars can fight along side humans in wars and fall into the earth some day.They were wrong. Accept it and stop apologizing for things that do not make any sense at all.

The problem is that they ancient writers do not even know that there are planets, when their god was inspiring them to write about how he created the earth he did not even bother to tell them that he created planets because their god did not even know that planets existed. So the point you are trying to make is completely moot.

I don't know what more i can do or say to stress the applicability of language, metaphor and visual images.

I think you have got it wrong though: nobody is saying they were right: they wrote according to their understanding, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Would modern astronomical and cosmological writings become trash if in future it is dicovered that the universe is an optical illusion?

Think.

Sisi Kill - thought otherwise how? Do you mean you always knew?

I believe he's a guy and is just playing pranks

Kay 17:
@ deep sight, i have indicated many times my leanings, i do not BELIEVE in any religion or in PINK unicorns and religion is incapable of standing on truth. or do you want me to write a treatise on it?

Kay, this is becoming embarrasing.

You are yet to answer my questions. It matters little to me what you personally believe. I asked those questions because i suspect from your posts that you hardly understand the words "atheism" or "agnosticism."

Let me simplify the question -

Define these words -

1. Athiest

2. Agnostic

And state if you would categorize yourself as either.

@ Wirinet/ Toneyb -

I appears to me that both of you are so dug-in in the ecstasy of science that it may not have occurred to you that a number of historical, cultural and literary perspectives are relevant to the raised question. Visual imagery is also relevant. I will explain.

It amazes me to find people point to statements laden with obvious visual imagery and apply such statements to scientific knowledge as some sort of psuedo-basis for reaching a conclusion that the bible is flawed. There are indeed flaws in the bible, but in seeking them, please look elsewhere.

First off: i stated that there are historical, cultural and literary aspects to this, because it should be obvious to anyone that ancient writers could only pen down phenomena according to their limited understanding and worldview.

This does not in any way discredit such writings: it is rather the burden of the reader to decipher the clear meanings from the ancient imagery.

A prime example is this: meteors or meteorites may fall to the earth. When this happens, such objects come into the atmosphere at speed and on impact with the atmosphere may splinter up or be engulfed in heat leading some of these bodies to burn up. Indeed, we are all familiar with the phenomenon of "shooting stars" - a modern term for this phenomena!

Now how do you expect an ancient writer to capture such? He only sees a small ball of light smilar to the small lights he sees in the skies and he sees this little ball of light hurtling towards the earth. There is only one way he can capture this event: and that is by stating that stars are falling to the earth. This is why i stated that visual imagery is also important to this, because the writer is simply recording the visual imagery of what he sees. Now how can there be anything wrong with this when even today, meterorites are termed "shooting stars!" Thus it is a historical and literal question of imagery, clearly borne out by even modern references to such objects as being "shooting stars." Language, my friends!

All manner of objects may fall to the earth. When it is said that God sent down balls of fire to consume sodom and Gomorrah, it must perforce occur to the rational mind that a hail of meteors or a splintered hail of meteors must have rained down on those towns. And such happenings are well documented all around the globe: the markings of the land in many areas of the planet bear witness to this. How else would the ancient writer capture it, if not to state that the stars have fallen to the earth? ? ?

It is not the ancient writer that has a problem here: but the modern critic looking for irrelevant things to moot as flaws in scripture.

wirinet:
We cannot hide under the unknown to perpetuate all kinds of scientific and even logical fallacies. How can a start  Plummet into a small planet like earth. Even if we suspend the laws of science and allow a star to leave its position in a galaxy ad then venture into our sun's gravitational pull, the combined effects of the gravity and radiations of the two suns would have quite a devastating effects on all the planets, and not a star plummeting into a planet. Our solar system would be termed a binary  star system, and such systems do not allow for stable planets.

When you say this, just bear in mind the concept of visual imagery again. Because if a prophet sees a vision of a distant time in the future, where the earth is, for example, drawn by the gravitational pull of a star (cosmic alignments do change over time), it is conceivable that a planet could be sucked in by a star. Now from the standpoint of observers on that planet, it would appear as though the star is "falling" into it, whereas in reality the tiny planet is being drawn into the massive star. Visual imagery at work again. Just a thought.

^^^ Under the known laws and assumptions of physics, that is. . .

Given the vastly unknown and undeciphered mysteries of the universe, i would not be so bold as to positively assert any cosmic event to be "impossible."

kolaxy:
I can't but laugh at the above red bolded words,

Yes, you can only laugh cos your grey matter is not compound enough to see the excellent thinking contained in Mavenbox's surmise.

Kay17 -

Its been several hours now. I have seen you posting in other threads.

Why can't you answer these simple questions of mine, eh?

Billions & Trillions are multiplications of millions, so the word "millions" still captures it.

Would i be wrong to call Mike Adenuga a millionaire?

Mazaje, please do not be misled by Kolaxy.

He wrote -

kolaxy:
Exodus 20:11

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.  Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Remember that the activity referred to here is God's activity. Thus the "days" referred to are such periods as would be days for a transcendental being like God. We are made to understand even from the Bible that in the view of God, a thousand earth-years may be as a single day. I do not believe that this refers specifically to 1000 years on earth, but is simply metaphorical for a stupendously long period. An era, if you like. Personally, i believe that God is entirely timeless and so the "days" in question are mere parametres for recording divine activity over very long periods of time in such a manner as to be understood by humans.

That's the proper understanding.

The sabbath being on the sixth human day, is merely a human reflection of what the divine had done. Much as man himself is said to be a small reflection of God, or made in the "image and likeness" of God.

So Kolaxy - understand clearly - nothing in the bible suggests that the Earth is 6000 years old.

It is many millions of years old, and this is a fact.