Creation

Lets give this topic another opportunity. I realize that this is a Bible-based thread, so I won't attempt to refute scripture with evidence...though some may choose to do so.I like that you interpret the Bible without definite dates assigned to given events. This makes the belief that God created everything more plausible---in light of today's scientific evidence.Personally, I am a cosmological creationist. I believe that God exists and that He is the original source for everything created. Whether or not He intervenes...specifically within human thinking...is what intrigues me these days.

If the Sun "goes out" there will be nothing left alive to light the candles.

Perhaps a better question would be this: Was there a person, place or thing in Moses day?I agree that Moses had no idea what a noun was. Nor a Buick. Nor the definition of critical thinking. He may well have unconsciously used critical thought, however. How did people think in those days? That's the real question.

This source differs. Because much of it makes the science out to be a complete fabrication. Which flies in the face of reality.If the bible were 100% true, it would mean that our best science, logic, and testable approaches used by humanity were all wrong. Which would mean that reality is literally not as it appears. So I have a choice between believing in what I can see and perceive or taking a leap of faith in an ancient book.

Be more specific. Saying that the flood is untrue does not mean that the life and ministry of Jesus Christ is untrue. Which specific claims do you personally regard as untrue?More to the point, what is truth?Are we limiting ourselves to evidence or are we discussing experience and plausibility of character?Is it possible to prove that Long John Silver is untrue?Did Jesus even exist? Why or why not?

Thats about the silliest thing you have ever written. Had I wrote it you would have plenty to say to refute it.

If at one point in time,even at the beginning of known time there was a singularity, that singularity would have the exact same weight and mass as the universe does now.Belief is simply that God created the singularity rather than how it necessarily came to be. The BB theory may simply be a matter of observing Gods creation.It makes more sense to ask "What came first? God or dirt" rather than to speculate that dirt has eternally existed. Critics say that one major reason that many people prefer the eternal dirt hypothesis is that dirt (matter) does not hold one accountable.

Because the singularity contains everything that is now out there...according to theory. Why would the mass change?
Or perhaps I am confusing mass with weight or volume.

it seems the pictures cant describe the actual expansion theorized as they are not 3-dimensional diagrams, time being the 4th dimension. Or am I misunderstanding the argument? It appears to me that the universe was "created" in time. The mechanism in my mind would have to be whatever it was that created this universe.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I suppose human imagination and interpretation of logic, reason, and reality would be all we really have.... which is unsatisfactory in my mind

In the context of my beliefs, God was, is, and always will be. In contrast to this, the Beast mentioned in the book of Revelation [i]Once was, now is not, and yet is, for those whose name is not written in the Book of Life.Non Existence can be imagined through the concept of now is not. God created existence itself and if one walks with Jesus, one walks with a perpetual certainty of existence.Relying only on human wisdom exposes us to the risk of non-existence in that we have no certainty of perpetual existence either mathematically or practically. At least that's my 2 cents.

At the time of the singularity, the wallet, cat, and cube were all very very close to one another. Thus, in the sense of expansion, time allows distance to form between objects. Right? (It also allows objects to have height, width, and depth)

I am curious if what they say is true. From my perspective, I sense that you are trying to reason with Modulous, Dr.Jones, Stile, and the rest, but that you approach your reasoning with the presupposition of your belief that God exists and that the universe was created by Him. Your opponents, however, are not so concerned with connecting creation to a Creator as they are about trying to explain to you how natural laws work and how the universe was formed/created through these laws. Does that sound about right?

AZ Paul seemed to explain rather well what he was trying to get the reader to see in message Message 713. Perhaps his point is that there is no center of anything. One could argue, however, that from my personal perspective, I am indeed the origin of my own observational and reasoning capability...at least subjectively from my perspective.

As long as we are pretending and attempting analogies, allow me to attempt to add to your analogy using some pretend stuff of my own. Say you are the Creator of all seen and unseen. You are a singular intelligence, presence, and Being. You choose to make yourself really small and tiny (by becoming a human) and stand on any dot that you choose. In fact, you stand before the expansion even begins, if this were possible. As the Creator of all seen and unseen, you didn't simply create the dots, the "space" and the "time"...you created every word, every object that words describe, every language, every living (and non-living formation of substance, and in fact the singularity itself. In essence, your dot is the singularity. Your raisin is the singularity. Other dots, raisins, stars, whatever...appear to move away from you only when you speak them into existence or imagine them. (which I suppose means that You Create through imagination)..One could argue that you are indeed standing on the privileged dot as your dot is, in fact, the initial singularity. Does that make any sense? Shall I attempt to run with it and pretend further or shall I throw the analogy away and begin again?