jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (23 posts)

Earth created outside of Time

  1. Blessed Hill profile image82
    Blessed Hillposted 5 months ago

    If the earth was created on day 1 according to Genesis chapter 1 but all other planets, including sun, moon and stars, were created on day 4 wouldn't the earth have been in eternity limbo for 3 days? And if that is the case wouldn't the earth be even older than what everybody, Christian and scientists included, believe. From some science books I have read over the last 20 years the earth has mysteriously aged an extra 1-2 billion yrs. I guess even the scientists can't agree on its age.
    According to scripture, everything God has created, including time, can be manipulated either by God Himself or us! Read Psalm 8. You can also check NASA records to see that according to the sun's calendar we have a day missing.
    My point is this, why argue about things that are based upon personal or group beliefs. If someone uses the best equipment he has at his disposal to come up with an answer that he BELIEVES is correct, great! But he might come up with a different answer 20 years down the track. Even Einstein changed what he BELIEVED about the theory of relativity at the end of his life.
    Everything changes because our knowledge and understanding is limited concerning everything. As soon as we believe we have the answer and it's the only right one we are in danger of being made a fool of.
    Me personally, I believe God created EVERYTHING in one day! But I have already written a Hub about that. But that may change in time too. One thing that is an absolute for me is that God is real and He loves me. Everyone's absolutes generally are absolutely different, and that is absolutely ok.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      Did you use the best equipment/knowledge available to come the belief that everything in the entire universe is the same age?  Or just the Christian bible?

      1. Blessed Hill profile image82
        Blessed Hillposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        No, because I don't think the age of everything is important to me. Maybe it is for you. All I care about is that it's there and that is really exciting.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          As I see it, the time involved isn't the real question.  But if God didn't do it as reported in scripture, how DID it come about?  Did God create it at all?  IS there a god (Christian or otherwise)? 

          One uses the best tools available to find answers - guesswork need not apply.  When you say He did it in one day, all those questions are answered...but you failed to use the best available tools and thus your belief is questionable at best.

          1. Blessed Hill profile image82
            Blessed Hillposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            I used the best available "tool" to come to my belief, the bible! I would rather trust the Creator's account rather than the creations poor attempts at trying to figure it out. Sometimes we just have to accept that we know so much about so little and it's quite comical how we argue to support our ignorance. Quite juvenile actually.

    2. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      I agree that arguing about it is silly because everything, no matter what the philosophy, is based on belief. Although, I will add that the earth would probably have been created inside of Time, not outside, if you are looking at things biblically. I would think time began prior to the first act of creation.

      1. Blessed Hill profile image82
        Blessed Hillposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        Sure, eternity has timespace to. Here's a question, when did age or the aging of things begin? Before or after man sinned?

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          If we take the words literally, I would say that time began when God chose to be an active force in the universe. I know it is probably easy to think that time began at the moment of sin, since it appears it would take a massive amount of time for Adam to name all of the animals but even with that taken into account you have to look at the time length the Bible says others who came after lived. That creates two separate hurdles to jump. I'm a fan of the idea that time is not an unchanging constant. That time expands, just like space and even then forces could cause a fluctuation in the speed of its passage, creating pockets of time fluctuations within various and isolated parts the universe.. If we are not biologically tied to these possible changes then variations in life spans unexplained by other factors could be explained by that. We've seen evidence that we are in some type of space time warp. A slight one. Has it always been so? Is it possible that it has changed drastically at any time during the years? The fact that it exists brings up many questions and some of the possible answers could explain some part of the reason that life spans were longer.

          But, an even simpler explanation could be that the counting of years could very easily have changed over the course of time. If one ancient, who counted time differently, (say they saw the change of a season as a year, not the full cycle we use to count a year by) documented an unreasonably long life span and another comes along, a millenia later, accepts that documentation at face value by his understanding of a year then you could very easily have a problem when we view the material.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            "I would say that time began when God chose to be an active force in the universe. I know it is probably easy to think that time began at the moment of sin..."

            It takes time for a heart to beat, sending oxygen to cells.  It takes time for cells to replicate, making new cells and life.  It even takes time for atoms of hydrogen to combine and more time for the photon created to travel even an inch, let alone the distance to earth.

            Without time, nothing moves; fires don't burn, living things cannot exist and all is dark.  Atomic vibrations are stilled and there is no temperature except absolute zero (-523 F). Until time began, nothing could happen.

            1. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              I don't think anything I mentioned goes against what you posted so I'm not sure what your point is.

            2. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              So you understand, I AM. Once that statement was made within our universe time began.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                Confusion.  "Once God became active in our universe..." would seem to indicate that the universe existed before that point.  Without time, meaning nothing existed as all matter requires time, energy requires time, life requires time, etc.  No stars, no gas to make stars, no energy to turn into matter.  No motion, meaning the universe wasn't expanding even if energy DID exist.  Time had to come into being in the first instant of creation, whether Big Bang or God's work (or both).

                Make better sense?

                1. Live to Learn profile image81
                  Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  Our universe was really referring to the space it first occupied, not what it is as we now know it. Maybe the Big Bang was little more than the result of the first I Am statement. Which wouldn't be an act of creation. But, maybe so. I Am, the words alone, being an act of creation by giving birth to a new reality which functions within a linear time frame. A choice to expand and create an ever expanding reality.

    3. Dr CHE Sadaphal profile image80
      Dr CHE Sadaphalposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      I won't address the topic at hand but I will address the premise behind the question: "If someone uses the best equipment he has at his disposal to come up with an answer that he BELIEVES is correct, great!"

      Anyone may believe anything they desire but if that belief is not well-research, vetted, and thoroughly investigated, then it is a belief that will crumble under the burden of proof. Furthermore, if the final arbiter of truth is personal preference, then the truth is not longer the truth and anyone can therefore validate fantasy as reality transform conjecture into credible authority.

      The truth, by definition, must be objective and therefore meaningful to all. Certainly, people can ascribe positive value or negative value to a meaningful proposition but that does not make a legitimate proposition less essential. The "truth" of gravity still stands regardless of what I may believe and if I ascribe to the notion of relative truth, then, quite frankly, the "truth" no longer has any value and wavers between opinions.

      1. Blessed Hill profile image82
        Blessed Hillposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        But my truth isn't necessarily your truth is it. I may believe a lie or a fantasy to be a truth until such a time as I get a revelation of what is true. Most kids believe father Christmas is a truth until they grow up and discover the truth that he isn't. 100 yrs ago man believed that space travel was a fantasy but today we are starting to believe that even time travel may be possible. Until you believe something to be true it will always stay in the realm of fantasy or lies. Through discovery and experimentation we can find out what is possible, what isn't and what is lies. Which is why I don't quite understand why people are always harping on about things they can't believe in until they have proof or evidence. A true scientist believes first then goes looking for the proof. If the first explorers didn't believe the earth was a sphere they would never have set out to find out.
        Most arguments today are around someone else's discovery of part of a truth or fact or law. For one, gravity is not a truth it is a natural law. Law's can be superseded. Evolution is not a truth it is a theory that has to be believed in so that further proof can be discovered. Truth can neither be superseded or requires any further proof. But truth must be believed to change direction or destiny.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          You are confusing truth and belief, for truth is inviolate and the same for everyone.  Only belief varies person to person. 

          The belief was that the earth was flat: the truth was that it is round and eventually the truth was discovered.  The existence of gravity is a truth, not a belief, and whether you believe in it or not it still exists and a dropped ball will always fall.  That living things evolve and change is a truth whether you believe it or not. 

          It is through investigation leading to truth that changes destiny, not just the belief that something is true.  When sailors set out to go around the world it was not the belief that the earth is round that changed destiny: it was the truth that was proven by investigation (sailing around it).  Others had maintained the same belief (round) but until it was investigated nothing changed.

        2. Dr CHE Sadaphal profile image80
          Dr CHE Sadaphalposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          "But my truth isn't necessarily your truth is it."

          And this reflects the exact problem. If truth is relative then it has no value. In such a paradigm, I can cling tightly to one distinct idea (belief that Donald Trump is an alien) while someone else can cling to a contradictory idea (belief that Donald Trump is not an alien). Relative truth means contradictory, mutually-exclusive claims are both valid at the same time. This violates logic. Yes, time can change what is known about the natural world but we always deal with what is present and known, not with speculation with what we may know.

          "Which is why I don't quite understand why people are always harping on about things they can't believe in until they have proof or evidence. A true scientist believes first then goes looking for the proof."

          I am a true scientist: one with an Ivy League degree and board certification. I have never, ever believed first and then went looking for confirmatory evidence because this defies what reason tell us. We use our senses to observe reality which then tells us about itself. This revelation is totally independent of what we may believe or feel.  I can't believe that arsenic will treat your staph infection and then wait for the confirmatory proof of you not dying after I inject a toxic dose. A psychotic patient can't believe they can fly and legitimately use the jump off of a 20-story building as the proof his fraudulent assertion.

          I am a Christian and if my belief is what matters first, then I could just as easily believe in Allah or the tooth fairy and these things magically come true if I can find "proof" that I deem acceptable. Here faith is meaningless because the object and the content of the faith are of no consequence. I have faith not because of what I feel or what intuition tells me is "true." I believe because of the legitimate historical proof of a real historical Jesus who died on a real wooden cross, who was pierced with a real Roman sword, and who really rose from the dead as testified to by multiple historical eyewitnesses who gave confirmatory testimonies. What is the Bible but the preservation of "proof" or historical records of what people heard, saw, and experienced in real life?

          If God wanted me to deny my senses (that He gave me) in order to just "believe" then I would be god because I could simply believe anything I wanted and that would be "true." Jesus is made all the more real because He transcends my personal experience. Who am I, but a mere speck, to tell an Almighty God how true He is based upon how I feel?

          "For one, gravity is not a truth it is a natural law. Law's can be superseded."

          Gravity is a natural law and indeed, it is also true that it is measured at 9.8 meters per second squared. If this were not true, then I (along with humanity) would float effortlessly into space or be crushed by the Earth's pull. This natural fact may be superceded one day by more precise observations but in the present in which we dwell, we have objective, repeatable, quantifiable evidence that applies no matter who you are, where you are, or what you believe.

          1. Blessed Hill profile image82
            Blessed Hillposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            Gravity is superseded every day when an aircraft applies thrust and lift to fly. My point is people do believe anything to be true and their futures are dictated by what they believe. I agree that truth is absolute but until you discover it for yourself it isn't absolute for you. If your professor taught you to treat staph with arsenic and somehow could prove it worked you would accept that as truth and treat your patients accordingly. But you would have accepted a lie from a charlatan. (It's a stupid example I know)
            Let me be a bit controversial. Most people that go to college go to learn what someone else has already discovered. Only few after their studies go looking to discover answers to questions or truths about certain matters. Why do they seek? Because we believe something. And in that search we will discover what is and what isn't.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              Gravity has been superseded?  Not in the history of the universe, it hasn't.  At best we can apply enough force to counteract it, as when we throw a ball up or a plane flies.

              Your belief absolutely shapes your future, subject to truth (try jumping up and floating and see if your belief allows it).  But it doesn't shape the future of anyone else; truth does that, and is absolute for everyone.  Neither you nor anyone else can float in the air no matter how much you believe you can.

              1. Blessed Hill profile image82
                Blessed Hillposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                I don't believe I will float.
                You are wrong about a person's future being subject to truth. You can even know truth and decide to go completely against it. It would be to you detriment in the case of certain laws such as gravity but you would have chosen to ignore it because you did not accept it as truth. All truth that is known and ignored will be detrimental. All known truth that is applied correctly will be advantageous. But there are still hidden truths that will neither hurt or benefit us until they are discovered. But until you believe that there is truth beyond your five senses and limited intelect you will never set out to discover it.
                Oh, I am not ruling out the possibility that I could one day jump into the air and float into the clouds. I believe it is possible. Why? Let a 4000lb vehicle fall ontop of your child and all of a sudden you don't care about what physics says is possible for a 175lb man. You will very quickly believe that you can lift that vehicle to save your child.
                So there are truths still hidden from us but at times we are able to tap into them. If we believe that they are there we may just discover them.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  I know you don't believe you can float.  But the point is that no matter how strong your belief that you could, it isn't going to happen - truth controls, not belief.  You cannot do something, regardless of belief, that violates truth. 

                  But see, physics has nothing to say about weighing 175 lb and lifting a car.  A jack that weighs only a couple of pounds will do it, after all.  The truth here is that the human body is capable of far more than we know how to use (so is the brain).  Under unusual circumstances, you might be able to lift that car - we don't know the truth here. 

                  Aside from that, though, if you get in the path of natural truths (laws, if you like), you will be subject to them whether you believe or not.  The floating thing, for instance - all such truths affect everyone regardless of belief.  If you don't believe in global warming, the earth will still warm. If you believe vaccines cause autism with all your heart, no amount of vaccines you take will ever give you or your children autism.  And you can't float regardless of your belief, for the truth is that gravity will pull you down.

          2. Blessed Hill profile image82
            Blessed Hillposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            @wilderness: I agree completely that truth is absolute whether people believe it or not. Truth will always have the last say. My point is that people know the truth and yet they try to explain it away with fancy reasoning and and scientific jargon. If the bible is THE Truth, and I believe it is, wouldn't ignoring it be like trying to ignore gravity? If the evidence is there to be investigated why are people refusing to do so? Why should believers consider all the information and proof there is for evolution if the same isn't to be considered for the bible? Why should a believer in Christ, who's birth, death, resurrection and ascension was foretold thousands of years before the fact/truth, believe one man's idea of the evolution of species, who is decomposed in a grave somewhere?
            What makes the work of Charles Darwin and those who came after him more credible than the historical documentation of a nation? If you can't believe that then why should we believe any historical account of any nation or people. Why believe in the history of America, which is very young. Why believe in history at all for that matter, if there isn't any concrete proof based on investigation and corroboration let's just chuck it all down the toilet. Isn't that what the Nazis did in world war 2 when they burned down the whole contents of historical libraries, some of the richest knowledge were said to be in those libraries.
            Here's the crux of it, if we as a people are doing research and investigation to provide "evidence" that leads others away from knowing the truth then humanity is in a really bad way! I fear for its future.

  2. 61
    Kenagainposted 5 months ago

    Not sure

 
working