There Has Forever Been A Universe

[buzaw]

I don't think "In the beginning" in Genesis one is of the universe, universe meaning "all" or everything that exists. Why?

1. If you have no universe before Genesis 1, you have no Biblical eternal God Jehovah, who scripture says is "the same yesterday, today, and forever."

2. It would be rediculous to think that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe, for then you'd have eternal God out in space with nothing around him and nothing to do from then back throughout the eternal past. God wouldn't even have a throne to sit on.

3. Imo, God has been creating and destroying things in his eternal universe forever to suit his good pleasure and plan.

4. Genesis one, one states that God created the heavens and the earth. That, imo is a prefacing statement for what follows. What it is saying is this: "When heaven an earth began it was God who made it. Then it goes on to explain how he did it.
What he did with/to the earth which he had some time previously makes up day one and so forth.

4.a. Another reason the heavens and even likely the earth were not created in day one is that the sun, moon and stars are included in the heavens and that didn't happen until day four.

5. The heaven and earth of Genesis one, imo has to be refering to the heavens pertaining to the earth. That is either our solar system or our Milky Way Galexy.

6. It appears that the earth was created first before the heavens including the sun, moon and stars around it, the stars likely referring to the planets of our Solar System or the Milkey Way Galexy.

There's a starter. What do you think so far? This question is obviously addressed to creationists, but all are welcome to participate so have at it. :)

[truelies]

Why the assumption that God exists WITHIN this Universe?????? I have to believe that the exact opposite is true- that The Almighty exists outside of what we think of as Space & Time.

[Meshuga Mikey]

Why the assumption that God exists WITHIN this Universe?????? I have to believe that the exact opposite is true- that The Almighty exists outside of what we think of as Space & Time.


The Creator by virtue of ontolgical necessity would need to exist outside of created time, and created space.

[buzaw]

Why the assumption that God exists WITHIN this Universe?????? I have to believe that the exact opposite is true- that The Almighty exists outside of what we think of as Space & Time.


That, imo, is impossible for the Bible states that he has a place called Heaven where we will go with Jesus to be judged. The angels also we are told in scripture are sometimes in the presence of God in Heaven and sometimes descended to earth. Likely they go other places in the Universe also. No, to have God removed from the Universe, (meaning all, btw, includng God himself) would create havoc with the scriptures.

[buzaw]

The Creator by virtue of ontolgical necessity would need to exist outside of created time, and created space.


Notice I said the universe is as eternal as God is by necessity. So he can still be within the universe and yet be beyond the walls of time. Time only relates to created things within the universe, such as our earth.

Imo, space i.e. nothingness has no end. Thus for all practical purposes, the expanse of the universe is endless in every direction. If you could run a straigh edge in any direction from where you're standing there would never become a time when it would end. It would continue on in a straight line forever, given that it could pierce through any obstacles it came to such as stars in it's path.

I don't think "In the beginning" in Genesis one is of the universe, universe meaning "all" or everything that exists. Why?

1. If you have no universe before Genesis 1, you have no Biblical eternal God Jehovah, who scripture says is "the same yesterday, today, and forever."

Sure you do. The universe does not equal God. He doesn't require the universe to exist in and of Himself, because He is Holy and complete unto Himself.

2. It would be rediculous to think that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe, for then you'd have eternal God out in space with nothing around him and nothing to do from then back throughout the eternal past. God wouldn't even have a throne to sit on.

Instead of thinking about such mind-boggling concepts as before the beginning, or after the end, just realize that God is eternal -- from everlasting to everlasting. Such things are beyond mortal comprehension anyway.

3. Imo, God has been creating and destroying things in his eternal universe forever to suit his good pleasure and plan.

I can't say anything about that, other than matter and energy can't be created or destroyed -- except, of course, by God.

4. Genesis one, one states that God created the heavens and the earth. That, imo is a prefacing statement for what follows. What it is saying is this: "When heaven an earth began it was God who made it. Then it goes on to explain how he did it.
What he did with/to the earth which he had some time previously makes up day one and so forth.

4.a. Another reason the heavens and even likely the earth were not created in day one is that the sun, moon and stars are included in the heavens and that didn't happen until day four.

True enough -- day four for the sun, moon and stars, but I still think the Earth (and the heavens) were made on day one.

5. The heaven and earth of Genesis one, imo has to be refering to the heavens pertaining to the earth. That is either our solar system or our Milky Way Galexy.

I agree with you to some extent there. The universe was quite small to begin with, before God stretched it out.

6. It appears that the earth was created first before the heavens including the sun, moon and stars around it, the stars likely referring to the planets of our Solar System or the Milkey Way Galexy.

Or maybe all the stars -- even those in other galaxies.

There's a starter. What do you think so far? This question is obviously addressed to creationists, but all are welcome to participate so have at it. :)


I've let you know mine so far. You have some interesting thoughts Buzz, even when I don't agree with you

[buzaw]

Sure you do. The universe does not equal God. He doesn't require the universe to exist in and of Himself, because He is Holy and complete unto Himself.

Thanks for the responses, Jack. I see I need to explain myself here. Here's how I see it.

1. The universe is eternal based on the fact that God is eternal and he being the same forever, creating and destroying things to suit could never ever have not had a universe which includes his abiding place and things around him to "keep him busy" so to speak.

2. Everything that has ever existed in the universe has had a time of it's created beginning and likely more has been destroyed, changed, or whatever than could possibly be imagined. I base this assumption on the fact that this part of the universe we can observe is changing.

3. Here's the hard part. There was NEVER a first thing in the universe, for if there were, again God would be not only a being of time, but not the same God he is today. Of course here's where it gets beyon human comprehension, but hey, no matter what theory anyone can come up with there's always that problem of the first thingy. This, imo explains it the best, for this can be possible if the eternal nature of God is possible.


Instead of thinking about such mind-boggling concepts as before the beginning, or after the end, just realize that God is eternal -- from everlasting to everlasting. Such things are beyond mortal comprehension anyway.

Imo, it's not that mind boggling. You put 2 n 2 together and this is what imo you have to come up with. Let's face it. If the universe had a beginning, there MUST NEEDS have had to be a "before" and since the universe is everything, before everything you come up with a BIG ZERO, doncha? ;)

I can't say anything about that, other than matter and energy can't be created or destroyed -- except, of course, by God.

Yes and here again, it's a matter of common sense. If the universe we see is changing, likely it's been doing that for a long, long time. Then of course, If God made anything atol, we know his creating ability is limitless, especially when he has infinite space to put it all in. IMO, what our telescopes see is possibly a pebble of sand on the seashore of the whole shebang. Notice I did not say big bang.


True enough -- day four for the sun, moon and stars, but I still think the Earth (and the heavens) were made on day one.

But which of the heavens? Were back to square one. If it was all of them existing, well here we go again. It it's the heavens around us including the stars you're back to the problem of day four when these came to be.


I agree with you to some extent there. The universe was quite small to begin with, before God stretched it out.

Nobody knows how big it was/is. With unlimited space and eternity to work with, I doubt it ever was small. This again brings you back to having a beginning and "smaller weaker and less eternal" God than we have now. I repeat, he was the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

Thanks again good brother, for the interesting and thought provoking input. Feel free to jump in anytime with more.

Thanks for the responses, Jack. I see I need to explain myself here. Here's how I see it.

1. The universe is eternal based on the fact that God is eternal and he being the same forever, creating and destroying things to suit could never ever have not had a universe which includes his abiding place and things around him to "keep him busy" so to speak.

That's what I'm trying to tell you though -- God doesn't need an abiding place or anything else. I understand God to be transcendent -- that is, above and independent of matter, energy, space, and time. It just doesn't follow to say that because God is eternal, the universe must therefore be eternal.

2. Everything that has ever existed in the universe has had a time of it's created beginning and likely more has been destroyed, changed, or whatever than could possibly be imagined. I base this assumption on the fact that this part of the universe we can observe is changing.

'Changing' is kinda vague. Everything that grows old changes. To be specific, the observable universe is expanding. Furthermore, it seems to be expanding at a progressively faster rate. Naturally, this has profound effects all over the universe, as the effect of gravity diminishes with distance.

3. Here's the hard part. There was NEVER a first thing in the universe, for if there were, again God would be not only a being of time, but not the same God he is today.

I don't follow you there.

Of course here's where it gets beyon human comprehension, but hey, no matter what theory anyone can come up with there's always that problem of the first thingy. This, imo explains it the best, for this can be possible if the eternal nature of God is possible.

I'm sorry Buzz, I'm afraid you've lost me here. I think maybe we're having a fundamental mixup with some definitions somewhere in all this.

Imo, it's not that mind boggling. You put 2 n 2 together and this is what imo you have to come up with. Let's face it. If the universe had a beginning, there MUST NEEDS have had to be a "before" and since the universe is everything, before everything you come up with a BIG ZERO, doncha? ;)


It might help to explain that, unlike our philosophical friend PTT, I don't consider the universe to be everything there is, period -- obviously this definition would make God part of the universe. I consider the universe to be matter, energy, space, and time. No more and no less.

Since time didn't come into being until the universe was created, there can't be a 'before' the creation -- at least not within the realm of the physical universe as we know it. From God's perspective, sure -- but again, we're getting into stuff beyond our comprehension when we try to go there.

Yes and here again, it's a matter of common sense. If the universe we see is changing, likely it's been doing that for a long, long time. Then of course, If God made anything atol, we know his creating ability is limitless, especially when he has infinite space to put it all in. IMO, what our telescopes see is possibly a pebble of sand on the seashore of the whole shebang. Notice I did not say big bang.

Well, I don't think everything that exists has to exist somewhere in the physical universe at all. There may very well be dimensions other than our own, as far as I know.

But which of the heavens? Were back to square one. If it was all of them existing, well here we go again. It it's the heavens around us including the stars you're back to the problem of day four when these came to be.

The heavens include the sky, and beyond that, outer space, but not necessarily the stuff that's in it. It might have been just the Earth and the sky, and maybe enough space to fit the solar system (even though it wasn't there yet) right at the beginning of the creation event.

Nobody knows how big it was/is. With unlimited space and eternity to work with, I doubt it ever was small. This again brings you back to having a beginning and "smaller weaker and less eternal" God than we have now. I repeat, he was the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

Of course, but like I said -- His qualities don't necessarily lend themselves to His creations. Just because God is eternal doesn't mean that the physical universe is. It had a beginning, according to the Bible as well as science. God, on the other hand, had no beginning.

Thanks again good brother, for the interesting and thought provoking input. Feel free to jump in anytime with more.

Sure thing Buzz, it's been very interesting. We just need to make sure we're talking about the same thing first. God bless. :)

Jack.

That was a very, very long - but well- thought out post.

I am very impressed.

Please take a different angle shot of yourself with your diggie.

You seem so contemplative, and yet innocent in that pic.

Try growling, or biting someone's ear off.

Just a thought.

I like you no matter how you appear.

Carry on.

[truelies]

Why the assumption that God exists WITHIN this Universe?????? I have to believe that the exact opposite is true- that The Almighty exists outside of what we think of as Space & Time.


That, imo, is impossible for the Bible states that he has a place called Heaven where we will go with Jesus to be judged. The angels also we are told in scripture are sometimes in the presence of God in Heaven and sometimes descended to earth. Likely they go other places in the Universe also. No, to have God removed from the Universe, (meaning all, btw, includng God himself) would create havoc with the scriptures.


None of that would prevent our Universe (the bubble of space/time we exist in), being relative to God a cosm the size of a baseball.

That's a good way of putting it truelies -- a bubble of space-time.

[buzaw]

None of that would prevent our Universe (the bubble of space/time we exist in), being relative to God a cosm the size of a baseball.


If the word universe means all, including all of unending space, how could it be described as a "bubble?" A bubble has shape and outer edges whereas, imo, space has no edge. Can you picture in your mind this "wall" at the edge of space when space is simple endless expance in which things can exist? God who is eternal is so much greater than we can possibly imagine that what we are able to see with our most powerful telescopes could be a miniscule speck of all that exists. Likely if we could fathom what's beyond, we would say it goes on forever. The more powerful our telescopes become, the more there is beyond what we could see before. As yet, no "edge" of stuff in the space of the universe is evident. We simply visualize in our finite minds that what we see is it. Not so.

Our scientists naturally think the universe is ball shaped, because the outer edge of the scope of our telecopes would be equal no matter what direction we look. Imo, it has no shape because the expanse of the space of it is endless.

[buzaw]

That's what I'm trying to tell you though -- God doesn't need an abiding place or anything else. I understand God to be transcendent -- that is, above and independent of matter, energy, space, and time. It just doesn't follow to say that because God is eternal, the universe must therefore be eternal.

1. The problem with your analysis is that the Bible says he does have a certain abiding place and in fact a certain throne place where he sits. Around the throne are 24 "elders" and 4 "beasts" who are there continually to serve him. Then there's all the angles who minister for and to him. Your hypothesis has the same defects as that of scientology and other metaphoristic ideas -- that God is some kind of innatimate immageless force that permeates everything kinda like the force of gravity. No, he has a manlike immage and a certain residence within the uniferse.

2. Compared to us, he is transcendent as a being, but his transcentency exists within the universe. The word universe, meaning "all" includes him.

3. The Holy Spirit of God is shapeless, formless and omnipresent. This Spirit is more of what you describe, being a force, transcending even Heaven itself, reaching out into the universe whereever God sends it to perform whatever activity God wishes it to do. For example we read in Psalms 104: 30 or so that it is the Holy Spirit which was sent by God to do the work of creating the world and the things in it. We see this also in Genesis 1:1. But the Spirit of God is not the totality of God. The Spirit is just that, the inatimate spirit of him.


3. Here's the hard part. There was NEVER a first thing in the universe, for if there were, again God would be not only a being of time, but not the same God he is today.[

I don't follow you there.

My point here was that since the universe has always been, there could have never been only one thing in it as being the "first thing." This is as hard for humans to grasp as the concept of the eternal in the frist place.

Secondly, if there was ever a "first thing" in the universe, prior to that "first thing" we are back to the problem of God out there with nothing around him and nothing to do from that point on back throughout the endless eternal past.

Of course here's where it gets beyon human comprehension, but hey, no matter what theory anyone can come up with there's always that problem of the first thingy. This, imo explains it the best, for this can be possible if the eternal nature of God is possible

I'm sorry Buzz, I'm afraid you've lost me here. I think maybe we're having a fundamental mixup with some definitions somewhere in all this.

. All theories argue about what came into existence first. Right?

Well, all I'm saying is that the concept of the eternal with God does not allow for a "before" where he was alone and inactive in the universe. So how could there then be a "first thing?" I can't explain that, nor would I attempt to. It's just that the nature of God who never changes demands that as I have shown in previous posts.



It might help to explain that, unlike our philosophical friend PTT, I don't consider the universe to be everything there is, period -- obviously this definition would make God part of the universe. I consider the universe to be matter, energy, space, and time. No more and no less.

How can space have a limit, an ending, a outer wall, or an edge?? No matter how far you go out in space, there's gotta be more space. Right? By definition, the universe means everything.


Since time didn't come into being until the universe was created, there can't be a 'before' the creation -- at least not within the realm of the physical universe as we know it. From God's perspective, sure -- but again, we're getting into stuff beyond our comprehension when we try to go there.

I can comprehend it and I'm not all that intelligent. ;D

I consider you to be very intelligent, but imo the reason you're not grasping this concept is because the idea that everything had to have a beginning so permeates our human nature and reality within the realm of our visible existence and experience that the eternal is hard to conceive.

Gotta run for now and will be outa town today. Enjoying the discussion. Talk to ya later.

1. The problem with your analysis is that the Bible says he does have a certain abiding place and in fact a certain throne place where he sits.

Yes, but it doesn't say that place is part of the physical universe that we inhabit. If it was, we'd be able to see it somewhere, and we can't.

Around the throne are 24 "elders" and 4 "beasts" who are there continually to serve him. Then there's all the angles who minister for and to him.

Well of course -- they don't dwell in the physical universe either, unless God sends them here or something.

Your hypothesis has the same defects as that of scientology and other metaphoristic ideas -- that God is some kind of innatimate immageless force that permeates everything kinda like the force of gravity.

Actually that's exactly what your hypothesis implies -- if God is part of the physical universe, then He would have exactly that effect. But God is transcendent -- that is, He is independent of the physical universe.

No, he has a manlike immage and a certain residence within the uniferse.

I maintain that God's residence doesn't have to be a part of this universe.

2. Compared to us, he is transcendent as a being, but his transcentency exists within the universe.

His transcendency extends beyond the universe. God is not a part of His creation. That's not to say He can't put Himself in it, but He's not a part of it.

The word universe, meaning "all" includes him.

Well see Buzz -- that's not the scientific meaning of the word. Space, time, energy, and matter -- that's the scientific definition of the universe, and the one I am using. Your definition of the universe is more suited to a session with PTT, or someone else of a philosophical bent.

3. The Holy Spirit of God is shapeless, formless and omnipresent. This Spirit is more of what you describe, being a force, transcending even Heaven itself, reaching out into the universe whereever God sends it to perform whatever activity God wishes it to do. For example we read in Psalms 104: 30 or so that it is the Holy Spirit which was sent by God to do the work of creating the world and the things in it. We see this also in Genesis 1:1. But the Spirit of God is not the totality of God. The Spirit is just that, the inatimate spirit of him.

Just because God can have an effect on, and even inject Himself into the universe, doesn't make Him inherently a part of it.

My point here was that since the universe has always been, there could have never been only one thing in it as being the "first thing." This is as hard for humans to grasp as the concept of the eternal in the frist place.

But the universe hasn't always been there Buzz. This is confirmed by both science and the Bible.

Secondly, if there was ever a "first thing" in the universe, prior to that "first thing" we are back to the problem of God out there with nothing around him and nothing to do from that point on back throughout the endless eternal past.

What's the problem? Whatever He was doing, it's beyond our conception anyway. Why worry about it?

As for the 'first thing' from a scientific perspective -- that WAS the universe. Just like the Bible says -- in the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth.

All theories argue about what came into existence first. Right?

I don't know. Do you mean all theories about the creation of the universe?

Well, all I'm saying is that the concept of the eternal with God does not allow for a "before" where he was alone and inactive in the universe. So how could there then be a "first thing?" I can't explain that, nor would I attempt to. It's just that the nature of God who never changes demands that as I have shown in previous posts.

I'm sorry Buzz, but I'm afraid your definition of the universe includes things beyond matter, energy, space, and time, and mine doesn't. We really can't discuss the nature of the universe until we can agree on a definition as to what the universe is.

How can space have a limit, an ending, a outer wall, or an edge?? No matter how far you go out in space, there's gotta be more space. Right?

It gets kinda fuzzy when it comes to the 'edge' of the universe. There's a point beyond which there is nothing at all, but I can't say whether or not there is no space beyond that point, as the astrophysicists can't seem to agree when it comes to that matter.

By definition, the universe means everything.

I've seen PTT say that before, but I disagree. The universe doesn't mean everything. It means space, time, energy, and matter.

I can comprehend it and I'm not all that intelligent. ;D

All joking aside Buzz, no mortal mind can comprehend God's perspective. You know that.

I consider you to be very intelligent, but imo the reason you're not grasping this concept is because the idea that everything had to have a beginning so permeates our human nature and reality within the realm of our visible existence and experience that the eternal is hard to conceive.

No, I know exactly what the problem is -- our definitions of the word 'universe' differ so greatly that we're talking about completely different things here. I'm using the word as a scientist would use it, and you're using it as a philosopher would use it.

Gotta run for now and will be outa town today. Enjoying the discussion. Talk to ya later.


Okay, but before we talk anymore about the nature of the universe, you might want to check out some scientific literature or something so you can understand where I'm coming from. No offense Buzz, but your understanding of astrophysics seems to be way behind the times.

God bless. :)

The mere title of your thread is an exercise in contradiction, unless you change the definition of the term universe.

1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : COSMOS: as a : a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power b : the world of human experience c (1) : the entire celestial cosmos (2) : MILKY WAY GALAXY (3) : an aggregate of stars comparable to the Milky Way galaxy
2 : a distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed system or self-inclusive and independent organization
3 : POPULATION 4
4 : a set that contains all elements relevant to a particular discussion or problem
5 : a great number or quantity <a large enough universe of stocks... to choose from -- G. B. Clairmont>

I'll grant you that definition one resembles your definition IF you include God amongst those things postulated. I will contend however that the word universe, to most of us, simply means the temporal plane in which we currently exist as mortals. In that case anything existing and/or being destroyed prior to Genesis 1 would have be a, hypothetical in our case, universe unto itself and not a continuation of this one.

Your conjecture that the universe has forever existed is not backed by anything the Bible offers us. The Bible starts with the very words "In the beginning...". This was not the beginning of God obviously but the beginning of time and space and everything we understand to be the universe.

None of that would prevent our Universe (the bubble of space/time we exist in), being relative to God a cosm the size of a baseball.


If the word universe means all, including all of unending space, how could it be described as a "bubble?" A bubble has shape and outer edges whereas, imo, space has no edge. Can you picture in your mind this "wall" at the edge of space when space is simple endless expance in which things can exist? God who is eternal is so much greater than we can possibly imagine that what we are able to see with our most powerful telescopes could be a miniscule speck of all that exists. Likely if we could fathom what's beyond, we would say it goes on forever. The more powerful our telescopes become, the more there is beyond what we could see before. As yet, no "edge" of stuff in the space of the universe is evident. We simply visualize in our finite minds that what we see is it. Not so.

Our scientists naturally think the universe is ball shaped, because the outer edge of the scope of our telecopes would be equal no matter what direction we look. Imo, it has no shape because the expanse of the space of it is endless.


Since we have no direct experience with anything infinite it is not logical to assume that the universe, with which we have direct experience, is infinite. The "amount" of space necessary to contain the finite amount of matter and energy that exist isn't really relevant. How far beyond the last bit of matter the "edge" of the universe lies is a useless speculation. Logic simply dictates that time/space and matter/energy are all finite and quantifiable, given the scope and device to measure them.

God and heaven and the throne of heaven would also logically reside outside of any temporal, finite universe. Your insistence that the word universe must include pedantic representations of the eternal realm of God is an exercise in illogic. You are supposing that the limits of human language represented in the descriptions of God and heaven are litteral representations of heaven itself.

In Mathew Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed. Your logic would then dictate that the kingdom of heaven is small, has a shell, and sprouts a mustard plant. The allegory necessary for human language to describe and discuss the nature of those things eternal with which we have no direct experience does not render those things the exact, temporal object of the allegory. I think I'm talking in circles a bit here but I hope I'm not entirely unclear.

[buzaw]

Jack and OAG, your comments are appreciated. As interesting as this subject is, it's not anything we really have to understand. Nevertheless, imo there's a lot of info in the Bible that we can use as one would use the given in math to figure out that which is not given.

1. Jack, your definition of the universe is not a universal definition. For centuries it did mean all, and imo, the more educated we become, the further from the truth we seem to drift. So, imo, my old fashioned definition of the universe is as valid as yours.

2. In one of your posts, Jack, you stated that space is finite. How can total emptiness be finite?? It's nothing but lifeless, shapeless space. Isn't it logical to say that space has always been there and is infinite, both in expanse and in existence.

[buzaw]

Yes, but it doesn't say that place is part of the physical universe that we inhabit. If it was, we'd be able to see it somewhere, and we can't.

See it? See Heaven?

1. Maybe we do see it. Do you think we'd know what's in it or what it looks like from a great distance, except to see the light? Imo, the North Star could very well be it.

This star which since the beginning has been the single most guiding light in the sky for mankind to keep on tract and find his way. And then there's the magnetic North where the compass points. I've read were scientists have discovered that there is an empty "corridor" in the area of the North Star but have no documentation for this.

Genesis 26:7 "He stretches out the north over the empty space and hangs the earth over nothing."

Isaiah 14:13 "For you have said in your heart, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I wll be like the most High.

The North Star (Polaris) is directly above the North Pole, the northern axis of our earth.

Why does mankind refer to north as "up" and south as "down?" Hmmm. Food for thought.


Well of course -- they don't dwell in the physical universe either, unless God sends them here or something. You don't know that. Satan and the angels move about from Heaven to earth. What about that?

Actually that's exactly what your hypothesis implies -- if God is part of the physical universe, then He would have exactly that effect. But God is transcendent -- that is, He is independent of the physical universe.

No, my hypothesis is not metaphysical. I stated that Heaven is a physical location and the throne of God is real. Your hypothesis and description of God is inanimate force and somehow his heaven must be too if it isn't in the universe.



God is not a part of His creation.

I didn't say he was part of his creation. I said he resides in the universe. Your difinition of the universe includes space. Are you saying Heaven occupies no space? If all spece is included in the universe, we're back to my point that the universe's expanse is endless and God resides within the universe.

Also, God surely created his own throne and Heaven to suit himself. He also created the beings around his throne whom you say resides outside of the universe with him. Don't you see where your hypothesis is leading you?


Well see Buzz -- that's not the scientific meaning of the word. Space, time, energy, and matter -- that's the scientific definition of the universe, and the one I am using. Your definition of the universe is more suited to a session with PTT, or someone else of a philosophical bent.

3. The Holy Spirit of God is shapeless, formless and omnipresent. This Spirit is more of what you describe, being a force, transcending even Heaven itself, reaching out into the universe whereever God sends it to perform whatever activity God wishes it to do. For example we read in Psalms 104: 30 or so that it is the Holy Spirit which was sent by God to do the work of creating the world and the things in it. We see this also in Genesis 1:1. But the Spirit of God is not the totality of God. The Spirit is just that, the inatimate spirit of him.

Just because God can have an effect on, and even inject Himself into the universe, doesn't make Him inherently a part of it.

My point here was that since the universe has always been, there could have never been only one thing in it as being the "first thing." This is as hard for humans to grasp as the concept of the eternal in the frist place.

But the universe hasn't always been there Buzz. This is confirmed by both science and the Bible.

Secondly, if there was ever a "first thing" in the universe, prior to that "first thing" we are back to the problem of God out there with nothing around him and nothing to do from that point on back throughout the endless eternal past.

What's the problem? Whatever He was doing, it's beyond our conception anyway. Why worry about it?

As for the 'first thing' from a scientific perspective -- that WAS the universe. Just like the Bible says -- in the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth.

All theories argue about what came into existence first. Right?

I don't know. Do you mean all theories about the creation of the universe?

Well, all I'm saying is that the concept of the eternal with God does not allow for a "before" where he was alone and inactive in the universe. So how could there then be a "first thing?" I can't explain that, nor would I attempt to. It's just that the nature of God who never changes demands that as I have shown in previous posts.


It gets kinda fuzzy when it comes to the 'edge' of the universe. There's a point beyond which there is nothing at all, but I can't say whether or not there is no space beyond that point, as the astrophysicists can't seem to agree when it comes to that matter.

Here's where we must use some common sense, regardless of what PTT said, that science discards common sense. They need to get real here.

Space is nothing but empty expanse and common sense demands that there can be no end to "nothingness" or expans or area. If you try to visualize the edge of it, beyond it is more of same -- NOTHING. :D

[buzaw]

Hi OAG. (Some of us called you by your first name at NM. Is that ok here or would you rather be called your username? )

{quote]
The Bible starts with the very words "In the beginning...". This was not the beginning of God obviously but the beginning of time and space and everything we understand to be the universe.


You're assuming that. It does not say so. The Bible is for mankind and about the part of the universe that pertains to man. Logic imo, demands that the whole universe was not unexistant a few thousand or a few billion years ago, either of which would be a blink of the eye in the context of the eternal. Can you imagine eternal God void of a universe all alone with nothing around him and nothing to do??

Hi OAG. (Some of us called you by your first name at NM. Is that ok here or would you rather be called your username? )


The Bible starts with the very words "In the beginning...". This was not the beginning of God obviously but the beginning of time and space and everything we understand to be the universe.


You're assuming that. It does not say so. The Bible is for mankind and about the part of the universe that pertains to man. Logic imo, demands that the whole universe was not unexistant a few thousand or a few billion years ago, either of which would be a blink of the eye in the context of the eternal. Can you imagine eternal God void of a universe all alone with nothing around him and nothing to do??


You may address me by my title, asshole, or by my first name as you please.

The Bible does not tell us much about the fall of Satan and the other angels. This all happened before "the beginning". Therefor the universe began after all of that was accomplished. To suggest that God had nothing to do prior to creating temporal space and time is ridiculous. The Bible does mention a few "places" where God is not present. I'll stick with the outer darkness mentioned in the NT. Where is this place? Is it within the universe? If so, then by your logic God, who exists within the universe, must certainly exist there. This is a place where humans will dwell without God's presence. This does not logically fit into your usage of "everything" being the equivalent term to the universe. There are obviously "places" or realms which exist outside of our universe. The Bible doesn't tell us much about them but then how would it? The limitations of human experience and language preclude anything but allegorical representations of those realms.

You claim that we needn't understand this but you've also made statements like the thread title and that heaven and the throne of God are physical places. I submit that while we cannot fully comprehend the matter we can certainly apply our, albeit limited, logic to the questions.

You claim that the universe has always existed. The term implies a physical, tangible thing. You seem to think that the throne of God is a chair for Him to park his butt upon and that it is found in a throneroom somewhere at First and Main, Heaven 92777. I simply don't believe that heaven and the throne of God are physical places. Physical places are those which are separated by a distance of space. You actually suggest that Polaris might be heaven as though you could jump in a starship and fly there. I do not believe that what separates us from heaven and the outer darkness is space. I don't know what it is and I'm quite certain that we don't have a word for it but the closest approximation might be that they lie in another dimension. I don't believe we travel through space to get there. We simply cease to exist within the bounds of this temporal universe. Once that happens the concepts of space and time are meaningless. What exactly lies outside of it and how we get there are not for us to understand.

You insist that space is empty. I assure you it is not. Even where there is no matter, say beyond where matter might come to an end, there would still be remnants of light travelling outward for millions of years. Space, as we know it, is not the same thing as a void.

[buzaw]

The Bible does not tell us much about the fall of Satan and the other angels.

My comment about the angels also included the good angels which moved about in the universe from God's Heaven to earth, like Michael who on the way to Daniel to speak to him encountered an entity called "King of Persia." Was this not in the universe??

To suggest that God had nothing to do prior to creating temporal space and time is ridiculous. The Bible does mention a few "places" where God is not present.

He is only present at given places he chooses to be at given times via his Holy Spirit.
Unless we can agree on a mutual definition of the word universe, we're really getting nowhere here.



I'll stick with the outer darkness mentioned in the NT. Where is this place? Is it within the universe? If so, then by your logic God, who exists within the universe, must certainly exist there.

I said God resides in Heaven, a specific location in the universe. I didn't say he was everywhere in the universe. I believe it was you, Jack or both who said that.


You claim that the universe has always existed. The term implies a physical, tangible thing. You seem to think that the throne of God is a chair for Him to park his butt upon and that it is found in a throneroom somewhere at First and Main, Heaven 92777. I simply don't believe that heaven and the throne of God are physical places. Physical places are those which are separated by a distance of space. You actually suggest that Polaris might be heaven as though you could jump in a starship and fly there. I do not believe that what separates us from heaven and the outer darkness is space. I don't know what it is and I'm quite certain that we don't have a word for it but the closest approximation might be that they lie in another dimension. I don't believe we travel through space to get there. We simply cease to exist within the bounds of this temporal universe. Once that happens the concepts of space and time are meaningless. What exactly lies outside of it and how we get there are not for us to understand.

This's getting interresting. So Jesus and Elijah who were visibly seen by witnesses ascending up into the clouds to Heaven were not traveling through space??

The pearly gates, streets of gold, tree of life we're suppose to be eating from in Heaven, etc are not physical and do not actually exist? The New Jerusalem which comes down outa Heaven so wonderfully described in detail will not be a real physical thing? It's all metaphysical?? Do you really think the apostles and our Christian forfathers believe as you do?


You insist that space is empty. I assure you it is not. Even where there is no matter, say beyond where matter might come to an end, there would still be remnants of light travelling outward for millions of years. Space, as we know it, is not the same thing as a void.


I'm aware of that, but there comes a point likely beyond the reach of any light or other rays of any kind I would imagine if you go far enough. Besides space by definition is just that. Space. It is the area in which things like light rays, planets, and gravity exist. Like I buy an empty house. It's vacant until I move in with my belongings. Space is expanse in which things exist. and that expanse has no end. Some of it is occupied whilst other is either nearly empty or total void, depending on how far out from objects you go.

[old_cross_bound]

Buzz,

Where do you come up with this stuff? The mere attributes of God dismiss your argument not to mention the book of Isaiah.
God (spirit) created all things material and that includes the universe.
Notice in Genesis what was present when God began.
Now if you want to talk about the darkness that was present, that's another topic. God is light and he began with darkness in his creation process. How do you account for that?

God Bless,

ocb :)

[buzaw]

Buzz,

Where do you come up with this stuff? The mere attributes of God dismiss your argument not to mention the book of Isaiah.

This stuff? Specifically which stuff? I've said quite a lot here, as you see. Cut n paste, n we'll talk. :)


God (spirit) created all things material and that includes the universe.
Notice in Genesis what was present when God began.
Now if you want to talk about the darkness that was present, that's another topic. God is light and he began with darkness in his creation process. How do you account for that?

God Bless,

ocb :)


Yah, I'm aware that darkness was present on earth, that is, until the Holy Spirit, that omnipresent member of the trinity showed up on the scene, "moving" upon the surface of the earth which was then water. Whilst the Holy Spirit was "moving" on the watery surface light comes by God's orders and being separated from the darkness, day and night comes BEFORE there is a sun and moon. Where did the light come from? It had to be the Holy Spirit of light, the same who enlightens the dark soul of mankind and manifests the buight glory of God. The light was sufficient to grow plantlife before there was a sun on day four. Nobody knows how long days one, two, three and four, for no sun and moon until sometime during day four, those bodies designed to give earth it's first measurement of days, years, signs and seasons.

[quote][quote][quote] My comment about the angels also included the good angels which moved about in the universe from God's
Heaven to earth, like Michael who on the way to Daniel to speak to him encountered an entity called "King of
Persia." Was this not in the universe??

That would all have taken place after creation of the universe. I fail to see how this illustrates your point.

[ Quote]He is only present at given places he chooses to be at given times via his Holy Spirit.
Unless we can agree on a mutual definition of the word universe, we're really getting nowhere here.

So you have this idea that God is physically sitting on a throne somewhere, a spot from which He apparently doesn't move, but that He can go elsewhere through some sort of astral projection via the Holy Spirit.

I said God resides in Heaven, a specific location in the universe.

Right. Then heaven has existed forever as a place where God resides and the other places where He does not reside have also existed forever because the universe is larger than God (it must be in order to contain His presence). Have I got that much correct?

This's getting interresting. So Jesus and Elijah who were visibly seen by witnesses ascending up into the
clouds to Heaven were not traveling through space??

Yes they were, obviously. At what point does it say that this physical travel was how they entered heaven? Did anyone see them enter heaven? Has anyone seen actual gates residing in a physical location that one may travel to and enter through?

The pearly gates, streets of gold, tree of life we're suppose to be eating from in Heaven, etc are not physical
and do not actually exist?

I believe they are allegorical representations. I do not believe that heaven actually has gates manufactured or fashioned from pearl from earth's oysters nor streets paved with a shiny mineral found in the earth's crust. I believe those descriptions were meant to inspire an image of heaven as a realm of beauty beyond our wildest expectations. I believe the reference to the tree of life was one to Jesus Himself as the source of all things eternal. That you choose a pedantic and literal view of these words is merely symptomatic of your fundamentalist limitations.

The New Jerusalem which comes down outa Heaven so wonderfully described in
detail will not be a real physical thing? It's all metaphysical??

I think perhaps when all is said and done and the chaff has been separated from the wheat that we may all take on a new, perfect physical representation similar to our temporal one and be given a familiar dwelling place. On the other hand it may also be one more allegorical representation of something else.

Do you really think the apostles and our Christian
forfathers believe as you do?

Most of the apostles were simple fishermen, uneducated men. I doubt that most of them pondered very deeply the mysteries of God's nature since they had already met God in person and were busy dealing with the aftereffects of that. I don't care to speculate on how closely the beliefs of these forfathers you've mentioned resemble mine because THEIR beliefs will not help me. I will state that I do not believe for one second that YOUR beliefs mirror those of the apostles any more than mine do. I believe that they had a far better understanding of the use of parable and allegory as it was a VERY common practice in their time.

I'm aware of that, but there comes a point likely beyond the reach of any light or other rays of any kind I would
imagine if you go far enough. Besides space by definition is just that. Space. It is the area in which things like
light rays, planets, and gravity exist. Like I buy an empty house. It's vacant until I move in with my
belongings. Space is expanse in which things exist. and that expanse has no end. Some of it is occupied whilst
other is either nearly empty or total void, depending on how far out from objects you go.

How do you know that the expanse of space has no end? There is NOTHING, ZERO, not one bloody thing in the whole of existence that has no end. There is nothing you can point to and say that it has no beginning or end (don't give me the circle thing because a kindergartner could see that one coming). Not only does everything in the known universe have a beginning and end in physical space but it has both in time as well. Since there is not one single solitary thing in human experience that has no beginning nor end it is a HUGE leap of logic to suggest that space has either or both.

Total void is merely a theoretical abstraction. It does not exist anywhere within human experience...with the exception of the space between Anna Nicole Smith's ears.

I understand that you believe that there is something beyond the reach of matter and light but even calling it a void is then a flaw in your logic. A void would not be an area as yet devoid of material. It would be absolutely nothing and capable of containing nothing. If one reaches a void then one has reached the end of space. At the point of the void one would also cease to exist or it would not remain a void. Now unless you wish to redefine the terms space and void my logic is unassailable.

[buzaw]

That would all have taken place after creation of the universe. I fail to see how this illustrates your point.

My point was that if these angels were running to and from Heaven doing things for God, likely Heaven is in the universe.


So you have this idea that God is physically sitting on a throne somewhere, a spot from which He apparently doesn't move, but that He can go elsewhere through some sort of astral projection via the Holy Spirit.

Of course, nobody knows for sure about these things. In revelation 4 we're told the beasts and elders around his throne worship him day and night forever. So must be he the Father doesn't go far from the throne, if he does atol. He is not physical as we know physical, but he does have a spirit image. We are told that he sends his Spirit out to do his bidding. For example, as I pointed out earlier in the thread that in Psalms 104 the things God created are listed, followed by the statement in verse 30 or so that "he sends forth his Spirit and they are created." Also in Genesis one how the Holy Spirit was there doing the thing with the waters.

We also know that when we receive Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord, it is not he that comes into our bodies to make us "new creatures," it is the Holy Spirit. "Know you not that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit?" All ;the while Jesus who has a place on God's right hand is in Heaven. He also said he would prepare a place for us when we get there. It speaks of the many mansions, etc.


How do you know that the expanse of space has no end? There is NOTHING, ZERO, not one bloody thing in the whole of existence that has no end. There is nothing you can point to and say that it has no beginning or end (don't give me the circle thing because a kindergartner could see that one coming). Not only does everything in the known universe have a beginning and end in physical space but it has both in time as well. Since there is not one single solitary thing in human experience that has no beginning nor end it is a HUGE leap of logic to suggest that space has either or both.

Total void is merely a theoretical abstraction. It does not exist anywhere within human experience...with the exception of the space between Anna Nicole Smith's ears.

I understand that you believe that there is something beyond the reach of matter and light but even calling it a void is then a flaw in your logic. A void would not be an area as yet devoid of material. It would be absolutely nothing and capable of containing nothing. If one reaches a void then one has reached the end of space. At the point of the void one would also cease to exist or it would not remain a void. Now unless you wish to redefine the terms space and void my logic is unassailable.


First of all let me give you the definition of space in my dictionary.

"Distance extending without limit in all directions; that which is thought of as a boundless continuous expanse extending in all directions or in three dinensions within which all material things are contained."

Let's say you have an empty box which has one cubic foot of space in it. The space in that box contains light, gravity, airwaves, bacteria, etc, none of which you can see, but know they're there. If it were possible to remove all these things within the space in that box and create a total vacuum, there would still be a cubic foot of space within that box. My point in this illustration is that space is nothing but area in which things like light waves, gases, obstacles n so forth exist. this apace in which things exist never ends in the endless universe and feasably there comes a point somewhere way out there where nothing is except endless empty space into which created things could expand into.

Your problem seems to be that you are defining space as only the area of existing things. PTT had that same problem, and likely it is modern science, not me who are redefining the word space. IMO, they're creating a lot of confusion in doing so if that's the case.

[/quote][/quote]

Of course, nobody knows for sure about these things. In revelation 4 we're told the beasts and elders around his throne worship him day and night forever.

I think this is a perfect example of how you take things way too literally. Do you really think there is day and night in heaven?


First of all let me give you the definition of space in my dictionary.

"Distance extending without limit in all directions; that which is thought of as a boundless continuous expanse extending in all directions or in three dinensions within which all material things are contained."

OK but let's look at the phrase "that which is thought of as boundless". Though of by whom? Obviously YOU agree that space is boundless but do most scientists, physicists, etc. of the modern day think this?

Let's say you have an empty box which has one cubic foot of space in it. The space in that box contains light, gravity, airwaves, bacteria, etc, none of which you can see, but know they're there. If it were possible to remove all these things within the space in that box and create a total vacuum, [b]there would still be a cubic foot of space within that box. My point in this illustration is that space is nothing but area in which things like light waves, gases, obstacles n so forth exist. this apace in which things exist never ends in the endless universe and feasably there comes a point somewhere way out there where nothing is except endless empty space into which created things could expand into.

Buzz, I get it. My point was that you are assuming, against any real reason or experience that such space has no end. You also are not describing a void in your example but a vacuum of space...you even ascribed a volume to it for your illustration. Since you cannot even use an illustration without limits how can you insist that the real thing exists without limits?

Your problem seems to be that you are defining space as only the area of existing things.

Wrong. I didn't define space. I didn't invent the word. I'm simply working with the common understanding of what the word means. If you reread what I wrote you will even see that I conceded the idea that space may reach beyond the point at which any matter or energy exists in it. That does not mean that it necessarily extends forever.

Let me be clear on this Buz. Space cannot be assumed to continue infinitely in any one direction because the term infinite is representative of something hypothetical with no correlation in human experience. Also, a vacuum of space and a void are not the same thing. Space, whether empty or not can only logically be assumed to have a fixed or variable but finite volume based on the fact that everything physical in the known universe has that same quality.

PTT had that same problem, and likely it is modern science, not me who are redefining the word space. IMO, they're creating a lot of confusion in doing so if that's the case.

Well I find it utterly gratifying to know that I am in the same camp as PTT on this one as I consider him brilliant.

[buzaw]

I think this is a perfect example of how you take things way too literally. Do you really think there is day and night in heaven?

No. Actually the text says that they rest not day or night. It's put thataway so we who rest at night understand that it's a continuous around the clock ritual so to speak.


OK but let's look at the phrase "that which is thought of as boundless". Though of by whom? Obviously YOU agree that space is boundless but do most scientists, physicists, etc. of the modern day think this?

The obvious answer is that when this was written, "thought of by most sensible folks." My dictionary is about 40 years old. You know how a lying child has to keep lying to cover the first lie? This is what's happening to modern science. They have to continually revise the logical to cover their bogus theories.


Buzz, I get it. My point was that you are assuming, against any real reason or experience that such space has no end. You also are not describing a void in your example but a vacuum of space...you even ascribed a volume to it for your illustration. Since you cannot even use an illustration without limits how can you insist that the real thing exists without limits?

Expanse of "nothing" is not a "thing" to be measured. That's why it never ends. Simple logic, which the old timers, unbrainwashed by snobbish pseudosophisticated everlearning unabletocometotruth educators, relied alot on.



Wrong. I didn't define space. I didn't invent the word. I'm simply working with the common understanding of what the word means. If you reread what I wrote you will even see that I conceded the idea that space may reach beyond the point at which any matter or energy exists in it. That does not mean that it necessarily extends forever.

Let me be clear on this Buz. Space cannot be assumed to continue infinitely in any one direction because the term infinite is representative of something hypothetical with no correlation in human experience. Also, a vacuum of space and a void are not the same thing. Space, whether empty or not can only logically be assumed to have a fixed or variable but finite volume based on the fact that everything physical in the known universe has that same quality.

Since you implied that I was redefining the word, I assumed you had one. What, by the way is your definition of space? Since you agree that if everything could be removed from space it would still exist as expanse, iyo how could there be a limit or edge to that?

No. Actually the text says that they rest not day or night. It's put thataway so we who rest at night understand that it's a continuous around the clock ritual so to speak.

Ahah, so you do understand that some of the Bible is allegory. Now we are getting somewhere. Now you have to ask yourself that if THIS passage was put that way to help earthbound creatures get an inkling of what it meant then what other passages might use the same approach? If you were truly a Bible literalist you would have conceded that the passage meant that heaven has a day and night.

Niow we can apply what limited science and intellect we possess to a better understanding of what some of these allegories might be referring to. After all, I believe it is safe to assume that allegory is the ONLY means by which anything heavenly could be described as human language does not incorporate terms for those things which only one person in the history of the earth has ever seen. Even God Himself would have to use it to describe His presence, essence, surroundings, etc. in order for mere humans to comprehend.

The obvious answer is that when this was written, "thought of by most sensible folks." My dictionary is about 40 years old. You know how a lying child has to keep lying to cover the first lie? This is what's happening to modern science. They have to continually revise the logical to cover their bogus theories.

In defense of science I would have to say that "they", whomever you imagine them to be, do not generally go out of their way to cover bogus theories. Some people have a vested interest in the perpetuation of certain questionable beliefs or theories but most science is truly an impartial testing of theories for the sole purpose of finding out about our universe. Science itself exposes the bogus or erroneous theories eventually. It is the laity and the media who are these days most guilty of defending "bogus" theories with junk science.

Expanse of "nothing" is not a "thing" to be measured.

You didn't say expanse of nothing before. You said expanse of space. This switcheroo of concepts is not helping your argument. You go back and forth between the words nothing, space, and void as conveniently suits your current point. Space is not a void. It is not nothing. If space and nothing meant the same thing we wouldn't need separate words for them.

That's why it never ends. Simple logic, which the old timers, unbrainwashed by snobbish pseudosophisticated everlearning unabletocometotruth educators, relied alot on.

Well let me give you one more reiteration in my attempt to get you to apply a little of this simple logic upon which you wish us to rely.

You cannot, with good logic, START with something, space, and END with(or tag on an unending) nothing. That is a juxtaposition. That would be like saying that as I run my hand over my cat's back past the tip of it's tail the empty air goes on forever so the cat is infinite.


Since you implied that I was redefining the word, I assumed you had one. What, by the way is your definition of space?

2 a : a limited extent in one, two, or three dimensions : DISTANCE, AREA, VOLUME b : an extent set apart or available <parking space> <floor space>
4 a : a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction b : physical space independent of what occupies it -- called also absolute space

I'd simply like to note that the term boundless in #4 is merely an abstraction for the purpose of the definition. It is not equivalent to infinite nor endless. Boundless simply means that for that definition no bounds are necessary.

Since you agree that if everything could be removed from space it would still exist as expanse, iyo how could there be a limit or edge to that?

I do not profess to know by what means the limits of space are contained nor what, if anything lies beyond those limits. My ignorance of the means by which the universe is contained does not logically dictate that there are none. I have only stated about a million times here that logic and human experience necessitate a view that space MUST end somewhere and somehow. If there were even one tiny, little thing in human experience that represented something infinite then we would not be having this debate.

Quite simply if everything WITHIN the universe is finite then logic would dictate that the universe itself is also finite. Those things which theoritically might exist outside of the universe, like your void or nothing, are another matter entirely.

Infinity in time or space remains a mathematical abstraction with no correlate in the temporal universe.

[buzaw]

Ahah, so you do understand that some of the Bible is allegory. Now we are getting somewhere. Now you have to ask yourself that if THIS passage was put that way to help earthbound creatures get an inkling of what it meant then what other passages might use the same approach? If you were truly a Bible literalist you would have conceded that the passage meant that heaven has a day and night.

This is not an allegory. It is addressed to earthlings who only understand around the clockas being day and nigtht. What it is saying is according to your 24 hour day these worship day and night. While our days and nights come and go, they are up there worshipping continually where there is no night.


Niow we can apply what limited science and intellect we possess to a better understanding of what some of these allegories might be referring to. After all, I believe it is safe to assume that allegory is the ONLY means by which anything heavenly could be described as human language does not incorporate terms for those things which only one person in the history of the earth has ever seen. Even God Himself would have to use it to describe His presence, essence, surroundings, etc. in order for mere humans to comprehend.

That's as erroneous as saying anything we can't see has got to be allegory. So are protons allegory? Nobody's seen one, to my knowledge. Are unseen planets around other stars in the universe allegory, simply because we can't see them? The Bible says these things exist, so as a fundamentalist I take that for face value, until it is proven to be unreal allegory.

The Lord's Prayer opens with, "Our Father Who are IN HEAVEN." That implies he resides within a location called Heaven.

An allegory is a teaching of something with the use of a fable or parable. If I didn't think Heaven was a real existing place I'd throw in the towel and "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."


You didn't say expanse of nothing before. You said expanse of space. This switcheroo of concepts is not helping your argument. You go back and forth between the words nothing, space, and void as conveniently suits your current point. Space is not a void. It is not nothing. If space and nothing meant the same thing we wouldn't need separate words for them.

Better go back and thoughtfully reread my illustration of the "empty box." There I proved that space was nothing but just that, space, in which things existed. Please reread that and come back to state what part of that you don't understand.

Space is not gas, light, gravity, air waves, planets, stars or anything but expanse or area in which the above things exist. If you could remove all these from the universe, the space they occupied would still remain as totally empty space into which other created things could be placed if the occasion arised. If everything suddenly dissapeared within the space of the universe, including God, (God forbid!! :o) the universe would remain as boundless empty space.

I see we have two opposing definititions of the word space. I got mine from a 40 year old dictionary. Where did you get yours from? As long as we have conflicting definitions of the subject at hand, we're battin the breeze here. You've never answered my question as to what the edge of the end of space would look like or be. Imo, logic says there has to be endless same.

If your logic is correct, there's nothing for the things in the present universe to expand into.

The Lord's Prayer opens with, "Our Father Who are IN HEAVEN." That implies he resides within a location called Heaven.

That does not mean that it is a physical place nor does it tell us anything about the location or the properties. All it tells us is that God does not live on earth or in space or anywhere else in our universe.

An allegory is a teaching of something with the use of a fable or parable.

Wrong. Look up the word. It is the use of something to represent something else. It is necessary when the thing being represented is something unknown, unfamiliar or unknowable to the listener.

Space is not gas, light, gravity, air waves, planets, stars or anything but expanse or area in which the above things exist. If you could remove all these from the universe, the space they occupied would still remain as totally empty space into which other created things could be placed if the occasion arised. If everything suddenly dissapeared within the space of the universe, including God, (God forbid!! :o) the universe would remain as boundless empty space.

Wrong. If everything including God ceased to exist then you would have nothing and you would have the potential for nothing. If space were to remain there would remain the potential for something to occupy it.

Space has characteristics or properties by which things CAN occupy it. This is in contrast to a void which has the property or characteristic by which nothing can occupy it, not consciousness, not anything physical, nothing.

Again your use of the word boundless is as though it implies that no limits exist. What it means is that none have been set forth.

I see we have two opposing definititions of the word space. I got mine from a 40 year old dictionary. Where did you get yours from?

Our definitions are the same but your understanding of the definition is in error.

You've never answered my question as to what the edge of the end of space would look like or be. Imo, logic says there has to be endless same.

I did answer your question. My answer was that I do not know what limits the universe as I am not the one who set those limits nor do humans have the means as yet to discover their nature.

If your logic is correct, there's nothing for the things in the present universe to expand into.

Not so. The universe is expanding into space. I simply contend that logic dictates that such expansion cannot continue indefinitely.

This is what you don't get and I'm tired of repeating it.

[buzaw]

Our definitions are the same but your understanding of the definition is in error.

Better reread mine and compare it to yours. You'll see the difference.


Not so. The universe is expanding into space. I simply contend that logic dictates that such expansion cannot continue indefinitely.

This is what you don't get and I'm tired of repeating it.


But you said space is part of the universe. The universe is expanding into itself??

We're now coming full circle back to my contention that the universe includes all space which goes on boundless. It is the THINGS IN THE UNIVERSE that expand out into the UNIVERS'S UNDENDING SUPPLY OF SPACE.

Anyhow, old friend, I doubt we'll come to any agreement on this space/universe thing anytime soon, but I appreciate that you're willing to debate it in a mature and Christian manner. Reminds me of the debates with PTT, who though an athiest was equally as good a counterpart. :)

But you said space is part of the universe. The universe is expanding into itself??

Bingo. The universe itself is expanding. This necessarily includes space. In fact, it's the space itself which is expanding.

We're now coming full circle back to my contention that the universe includes all space which goes on boundless.

But that doesn't mean that space itself is without boundaries, it just means that we can't put a clear-cut definition on them.

Some cosmologists theorize that if one were to reach the 'edge' of the universe, there would be a 'wrap-around' effect, and that person would suddenly appear again on the other side. Now they don't all believe this, and personally I think the point is kind of moot anyway, as not even light can overtake the 'edge' -- however you want to define it.

It is the THINGS IN THE UNIVERSE that expand out into the UNIVERS'S UNDENDING SUPPLY OF SPACE.

What I'm trying to get across is that just because you can't reach the end of something doesn't mean there is an undending supply of it. It could be that it manages to stay just ahead of you, so to speak -- think of a moving finish line that a runner can never catch, and maybe you'll see what I'm getting at here.

Sorry it took so long to get back to the discussion. God bless.

[buzaw]

Bingo. The universe itself is expanding. This necessarily includes space. In fact, it's the space itself which is expanding.

Jack, imo, you're making the same mistake that OAG is making. You're assuming that space MUST contain something to exist. If the universe includes all space/area, the area/space which things like gas, light, gravity etc expand into was part of the universe before these things of the universe expanded into it.


But that doesn't mean that space itself is without boundaries, it just means that we can't put a clear-cut definition on them.

The reason you can't define the alleged boundaries is because you think space, by definition MUST CONTAIN SOMETHING to exist and what space contains determines it's alleged boundaries. According to my dictionary, that's not the case.


Some cosmologists theorize that if one were to reach the 'edge' of the universe, there would be a 'wrap-around' effect, and that person would suddenly appear again on the other side. Now they don't all believe this, and personally I think the point is kind of moot anyway, as not even light can overtake the 'edge' -- however you want to define it.

PTT believes this, using a 2 dimensional explanation for a 3 dimensional universe. Imo, that's cheating and obviously, your hypothesis is going to be wrong.


What I'm trying to get across is that just because you can't reach the end of something doesn't mean there is an undending supply of it. It could be that it manages to stay just ahead of you, so to speak -- think of a moving finish line that a runner can never catch, and maybe you'll see what I'm getting at here.

Sorry it took so long to get back to the discussion. God bless.


Again, in your runner example, the "runner" being things existing in space is simply running into the space that already exists. He's not expanding space. If the runner were actually able to run in a straight line in one direction into space he'd be able to run forever. And if all existing space is part of the universe, we're then back to my contention that the universe is boundless.

[buzaw]

Society's physicists of supposed science who discard common sense crack me up. Like this fellow who writes a book now claiming the universe isn't what's observed, but a 12 dimensional gyroverse thingy.


Richard Feynman, the renowned physicist, in his book QED, after discussing one of many quirks of nature, stated: "… the more you see how strangely nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomenon actually works. So theoretical physics has given up on that."

www.gyroverse.com/document.htm

Jack, imo, you're making the same mistake that OAG is making. You're assuming that space MUST contain something to exist.

No, I'm not. Space -- by its very definition -- is empty, but it must have the capacity to contain something.

If the universe includes all space/area, the area/space which things like gas, light, gravity etc expand into was part of the universe before these things of the universe expanded into it.

The matter, by and large, isn't expanding though. It seems content to stay in tiny little clumps. It's the space that's actually expanding -- not the matter.

The reason you can't define the alleged boundaries is because you think space, by definition MUST CONTAIN SOMETHING to exist and what space contains determines it's alleged boundaries.

Buzz, I'd really appreciate it if you stopped telling me what I think. It seems as though you barely grasp what I'm talking about here, so how can you possibly know what I'm thinking? Trust me my friend -- you're way off base.

According to my dictionary, that's not the case.

Well, that's fine and all, but I never that empty space was anything other than empty.

PTT believes this, using a 2 dimensional explanation for a 3 dimensional universe. Imo, that's cheating and obviously, your hypothesis is going to be wrong.

Actually Buzz, I haven't given my hypothesis. In case you didn't notice, I said the point was moot, since nothing can overtake the 'edge' of the universe anyway -- including light, which happens to be the fastest thing there is.

Oh, and our universe is four-dimensional, not three-dimensional -- the four dimensions being length, width, height, and time.

Again, in your runner example, the "runner" being things existing in space is simply running into the space that already exists. He's not expanding space.

It's a metaphor Buzz, not an example. I thought I made that pretty clear.

If the runner were actually able to run in a straight line in one direction into space he'd be able to run forever.

That's right -- but not because there is no boundary, but rather, because it will always stay ahead of him.

And if all existing space is part of the universe, we're then back to my contention that the universe is boundless.

Now Buzz, just think about what you're saying for a minute. You're saying that space is infinite, and that it exists independently of God. That goes directly against scripture doesn't it?

It's like OAG said -- you don't understand the difference between space and void. They're not the same thing. Space is simply the absence of matter. Void is the absence of anything -- including space.

I can discuss this matter with equal facility on either religious or scientific grounds. Either way, the answer is the same -- the universe had a beginning.

[buzaw]

No, I'm not. Space -- by its very definition -- is empty, but it must have the capacity to contain something.


Ok we're together on that. Now from there, my question is how can empty nothingness have a boundary?? It's only the things in that expanse that at some point have an edge or boundary.



The matter, by and large, isn't expanding though. It seems content to stay in tiny little clumps. It's the space that's actually expanding -- not the matter.

My comment was not about individual "clumps" expanding, but the totality of all matter expanding further out into the empty area of space.


Buzz, I'd really appreciate it if you stopped telling me what I think. It seems as though you barely grasp what I'm talking about here, so how can you possibly know what I'm thinking? Trust me my friend -- you're way off base.

Ok, my apologies. By what you said, I was assuming what you were thinking. I'll try not to do that. As for the grasping, I guess neither of us seem to be understanding the other, aye? ;)


Well, that's fine and all, but I never that empty space was anything other than empty.

I was going by this previous statement of yours.

Jack:
"In fact, it's the space itself which is expanding."

How can empty nothingness expand?? Expand into what? Into more of itself? Only the things in it expand out into it to occupy it.


Oh, and our universe is four-dimensional, not three-dimensional -- the four dimensions being length, width, height, and time.

But most often only the physical dimensions are alluded to which has been the case in this thread, which would be three physical dimensions, i.e. height, width and length, my contention being that these are all endless since space is included in the definition.


It's a metaphor Buzz, not an example. I thought I made that pretty clear.

Metaphor, yes, but that changes nothing about the conclusion it would lead to does it?


That's right -- but not because there is no boundary, but rather, because it will always stay ahead of him.

Mm hm, yah, sure. Looks to me like a round about way of saying there'll always be more ahead? Sure sounds like what I've been saying all along.


Now Buzz, just think about what you're saying for a minute. You're saying that space is infinite, and that it exists independently of God. That goes directly against scripture doesn't it?

You mean God had to make empty nothingness?? What does it consist of? Mmmm............ how'd he ever manage that feat? ;)


It's like OAG said -- you don't understand the difference between space and void. They're not the same thing. Space is simply the absence of matter. Void is the absence of anything -- including space.

Jack, I like you n all, but methinks you are tryin to drive me nuts er sumpthin.

1. We've agreed that space is empty nothingness capable of being occupied.

2. My dictionary -- Void: "Not occupied; vacant..........containing nothing, empty........that which is void; as empty space, vacuum. "

These all also imply the capability of being occupied.

Yes you can use it as a verb as you would "void the space," but you still come up "empty."

I know most moderns will not agree with me, but imo, they've bought into this nonsense that to be scientific, you must not lower yourself to the simplicity of common sense.

Buzz, even scripture tells us that the universe is not eternal.

From Isaiah:

51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

That's as direct a statement concerning the temporal nature of the universe as you can ask for. I simply don't see how you can get around that.

Ok we're together on that. Now from there, my question is how can empty nothingness have a boundary??

Very simple. It stops where something begins.

It's only the things in that expanse that at some point have an edge or boundary.

Why can't the expanse itself have boundaries? And more importantly -- how can it be eternal when God Himself says it isn't. Explain that.

My comment was not about individual "clumps" expanding, but the totality of all matter expanding further out into the empty area of space.

You still don't get it -- the matter is not expanding. It stays clumped together into planets, solar systems, gas clouds, galaxies, and the like. The space between the matter is expanding.

Ok, my apologies. By what you said, I was assuming what you were thinking. I'll try not to do that. As for the grasping, I guess neither of us seem to be understanding the other, aye? ;)

Actually Buzz, I do understand what you're trying to say, but it doesn't make any sense in light of science or scripture.

I was going by this previous statement of yours.

Jack:
"In fact, it's the space itself which is expanding."

How can empty nothingness expand?? Expand into what? Into more of itself?

Yes.

Only the things in it expand out into it to occupy it.

No.

But most often only the physical dimensions are alluded to which has been the case in this thread, which would be three physical dimensions, i.e. height, width and length, my contention being that these are all endless since space is included in the definition.

Buzz -- you're the one that named this thread 'There Has Forever Been A Universe.' Don't tell me that time isn't part of the discussion here, especially when it's one of the very components of the universe.

Metaphor, yes, but that changes nothing about the conclusion it would lead to does it?

The metaphor isn't supposed to lead to a conclusion -- it's supposed to lead to an understanding of what I've been trying to tell you. I can't give you an example of the expansion of the universe, other than the expansion of the universe itself, but I was trying to show you what I meant by a moving boundary. Evidently I failed.

Mm hm, yah, sure. Looks to me like a round about way of saying there'll always be more ahead?

Sigh... yeah Buzz.

Sure sounds like what I've been saying all along.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I said there is a boundary. You said there isn't. These statements don't sound anything alike to me.

You mean God had to make empty nothingness??

Are you saying it exists independently of Him?

What does it consist of?

Space.

Mmmm............ how'd he ever manage that feat? ;)

You'll have to ask Him that. While you're at it, you might as well ask Him why He didn't glue everything together.

Jack, I like you n all, but methinks you are tryin to drive me nuts er sumpthin.

I like you too Buzz, but I'm not going to bother trying to discuss this with you from a scientific perspective anymore, as you clearly have no understanding of it. And to be honest, I do find that quite frustrating -- it's like trying to explain physics to my three-year old nephew.

1. We've agreed that space is empty nothingness capable of being occupied.

2. My dictionary -- Void: "Not occupied; vacant..........containing nothing, empty........that which is void; as empty space, vacuum. "

These all also imply the capability of being occupied.

Yes you can use it as a verb as you would "void the space," but you still come up "empty."

Buzz, it seems as if you have difficulty dealing with abstract concepts. I can't help you there, but I wish I could.

I know most moderns will not agree with me, but imo, they've bought into this nonsense that to be scientific, you must not lower yourself to the simplicity of common sense.


I don't agree with that statement at all, and I'm a Young Earth Creationist for crying out loud.

http://servedby.advertising.com/site=0000084213/mnum=0000076416/genr=1/logs=0/bins=1/optn=1

What I'm trying to get across is that just because you can't reach the end of something doesn't mean there is an undending supply of it. It could be that it manages to stay just ahead of you, so to speak -- think of a moving finish line that a runner can never catch, and maybe you'll see what I'm getting at here.



I agree with this because for the universe to continue on forever the components that we term as 'universe' must be present.

But you can come to the physical edge of something and there can lie nothing beyond it. Not space - not vaccuum - but nothing. The wrap around effect is an interesting concept.

For me - the idea that space goes on forever - is not necessarily true.

[buzaw]

Buzz, even scripture tells us that the universe is not eternal.

From Isaiah:

51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

That's as direct a statement concerning the temporal nature of the universe as you can ask for. I simply don't see how you can get around that.


Well, good brother, I certainly agree with the text here, but it's addressed to earthlings and imo pertains to the heavens of our area of the universe, likely our galexy as do, imo, the "heavens" of Genesis one. I don't think the whole shebang is going to vanish n emptiness before the "new earth" shows up and the "New Jerusalem" comes down outa "Heaven." Time will tell, of course, but that's the way I see it. Whether you are right or I am right, our security is in Christ and neither of us has to loose any sleep over it. I've enjoyed the debate with you fellas though, thus far and appreciate that you're interested enough to address it. Hopefully we'll all come out a little more knowledgeable in the end. 8)

Double post.


I've found this discussion to be a frustrating experience, but then again I'm not always the most patient fellow in the world. Fortunately, our differences in understanding as to the nature of the universe don't amount to much compared to the stuff we agree on.

I agree with this because for the universe to continue on forever the components that we term as 'universe' must be present.

That's got to the be most intelligent thing I've ever seen you post. Well said.

But you can come to the physical edge of something and there can lie nothing beyond it. Not space - not vaccuum - but nothing. The wrap around effect is an interesting concept.

Interesting yes, but like I said -- the point is kind of moot if nothing can actually reach the edge.

For me - the idea that space goes on forever - is not necessarily true.

Most scientists don't believe it either. In fact, I can't think of a single one that does.

But you said space is part of the universe. The universe is expanding into itself??

Space is not expanding as far as any of us know. What is expanding is the physical matter within it. If it were not so the matter and energy in the universe would create heat in the billions of degrees and life would be impossible, according to Isaac Asimov anyway. I tend to trust his grasp of physics and universal mechanics.

We're now coming full circle back to my contention that the universe includes all space which goes on boundless. It is the THINGS IN THE UNIVERSE that expand out into the UNIVERS'S UNDENDING SUPPLY OF SPACE.

Once again I will reiterate that you have no experience with nor reference to anything unending yet you contend that space is unending. There is no logic in that.

Anyhow, old friend, I doubt we'll come to any agreement on this space/universe thing anytime soon, but I appreciate that you're willing to debate it in a mature and Christian manner. Reminds me of the debates with PTT, who though an athiest was equally as good a counterpart. :)


As we have both restated our positions a good half dozen times I agree that neither of us is willing to concede.

Let me just close this then by saying that I believe that the only thing purely eternal is God. Any reference to anything physical, knowable, measurable, etc. being eternal, limitless or unending is speculative at best and illogical at worst. Eternity is merely a term by which humans refer to a concept with which we have zero experience and zero empirical evidence that anything with eternal characteristics can or does exist. Your basic premise is that if God is eternal then He must always have existed in a PLACE and therefor that place is eternal in nature. I don't agree that God needed or needs a place to dwell. I believe that any reference to a place is referenced after the event of creation. Once the act of creation of other beings was accomplished, or simaltaneously if you wish, it was necessary for a place to exist wherein to be in the presence of God. Prior to that there would be no need for such a place.

Any speculation on how God existed prior to our creation is a mind-numbing and futile exercise because we haven't the capacity to understand God, His "dwelling place" nor the true nature of eternity.

[buzaw]

But you said space is part of the universe. The universe is expanding into itself??

Space is not expanding as far as any of us know. What is expanding is the physical matter within it. If it were not so the matter and energy in the universe would create heat in the billions of degrees and life would be impossible, according to Isaac Asimov anyway. I tend to trust his grasp of physics and universal mechanics.


This is what I've been trying to tell you guys all along. The things in space expand into the already existing space. The space is not expanding. Notice the question mark on my question to Jack above. It was Jack who said space expands and I was responding with two questions.

There's unlimited space out there for "things" i.e matter, light etc to expand into.


We're now coming full circle back to my contention that the universe includes all space which goes on boundless. It is the THINGS IN THE UNIVERSE that expand out into the UNIVERS'S UNDENDING SUPPLY OF SPACE.

Once again I will reiterate that you have no experience with nor reference to anything unending yet you contend that space is unending. There is no logic in that.

Your first statement said as much. That matter expands into space. You agree that space is part of the universe so the space matter is expanding into is already there and part of the universe. There is no boundary with a big sign on it out there somewhere saying "STOP, KEEP OUT, NO UNIVERSE ALLOWED, is there?

Anyhow, old friend, I doubt we'll come to any agreement on this space/universe thing anytime soon, but I appreciate that you're willing to debate it in a mature and Christian manner. Reminds me of the debates with PTT, who though an athiest was equally as good a counterpart. :)


As we have both restated our positions a good half dozen times I agree that neither of us is willing to concede.


Let me just close this then by saying that I believe that the only thing purely eternal is God.

For God to be eternal, light must be eternal. Things in the universe are not eternal, but for there to be an eternal God, how can he not have something else around him for eternity past from the supposed beginning of the universe??

What kind of god is dependent on things being around him? Not the God of the Bible.

Your first statement said as much. That matter expands into space. You agree that space is part of the universe so the space matter is expanding into is already there and part of the universe. There is no boundary with a big sign on it out there somewhere saying "STOP, KEEP OUT, NO UNIVERSE ALLOWED, is there?

It stands to reason that there is a boundary. I've said as much. I've also said that I have no idea what, where or of what nature the boundary is so don't bother asking again. I doubt that there is a sign as the cognitive abilities of inert matter in deciphering the signs are highly questionable.

For God to be eternal, light must be eternal.

Why? Even if I were to concede that God is Himself a source of light there is no reason to believe that it is light of a visible nature, spectrum or anything even measurable or quantifiable by human beings. Once again the nature and essence of God are entirely beyond humans.

Things in the universe are not eternal, but for there to be an eternal God, how can he not have something else around him for eternity past from the supposed beginning of the universe??

You suppose God to need space, elbow room, air, a view? Could not God be the only thing existing in an otherwise perfect void?

[buzaw]

What kind of god is dependent on things being around him? Not the God of the Bible.


But Jehovah is "the same today, yesterday, and forever," the text says. He has the status and desire to be worshipped. He is the creator today. He was the creator yesterday, and he is/has been the creator forever. He's not a lonestar. ;)

[buzaw]

It stands to reason that there is a boundary. I've said as much.

You're trying to have it both ways. The runner never runs outa space to run in, but the universe somehow's gonna run into some kinda wall where space runs out.

For God to be eternal, light must be eternal.

Why? Because wherever God is light is according to the Bible. You should know that.


Even if I were to concede that God is Himself a source of light there is no reason to believe that it is light of a visible nature, spectrum or anything even measurable or quantifiable by human beings. Once again the nature and essence of God are entirely beyond humans.


Now I guess we're gonna redefine light. LOL on that.

You suppose God to need space, elbow room, air, a view? Could not God be the only thing existing in an otherwise perfect void?
As I said, that's just not his nature as scripture has it.

I think I see what you're saying, but it doesn't follow that He always has to be creating something. He destroyed the world with a flood, but it's not like He's doing that every day. In fact, He said He'd never do it that way again, and gave us the rainbow as a sign of His covenant.

Most people (including myself) would consider me to be a Biblical literalist, but I think some people go a little too far when it comes to taking everything literally. There's context to consider, some things don't apply in every situation, and other things are obviously metaphorical.

I should probably point out that some mathematical models allow for the universe to be either finite or infinite in space, but none of the currently accepted models allow for it to be infinite in time.

You're trying to have it both ways. The runner never runs outa space to run in, but the universe somehow's gonna run into some kinda wall where space runs out.

If you wish to argue that space curves around on itself like the surface of the earth does for your example them we can continue along THAT line of reasoning. Your contention that space continues in an infinite line is a dead one IMO.

Why? Because wherever God is light is according to the Bible. You should know that.

That's funny. According to MY Bible God said, "Let there be light." I interpret that to mean that He needed to create it. I don't see how you could interpret it otherwise but you continue to surprise me with your flavor of scripture.


Now I guess we're gonna redefine light. LOL on that.


What did God create then if light already existed?

As I said, that's just not his nature as scripture has it.


As YOU declare scripture has it. I see nothing of the sort in scripture. I see a description of a being of absolute perfection. You see a physical being not entirely unlike yourself.

I should probably point out that some mathematical models allow for the universe to be either finite or infinite in space, but none of the currently accepted models allow for it to be infinite in time.


For the sake of brevity and logical continuity then it is my opinion that nothing we know of is infinite. Any model that allows for infinity in any characteristic has logical flaws. To say that it is infinite in space but not in time is actually inconsitent because that would mean that one can exist without the other. After all you could then (theoretically) travel through infinite space for an infinite time. I believe we exist in a space/time continuum. To exist apart from one is to exist apart from the other as well.

[buzaw]

I think I see what you're saying, but it doesn't follow that He always has to be creating something. He destroyed the world with a flood, but it's not like He's doing that every day. In fact, He said He'd never do it that way again, and gave us the rainbow as a sign of His covenant.

I didn't mean he's continuously creating or destroying, but that he's been doin it when, and as he see's fit for all eternity.


There's context to consider, some things don't apply in every situation, and other things are obviously metaphorical.


I understand that and certainly recognize metaphor when the text calls for it. But imo, to metaphorize Heaven to the point that it's not a location in the universe, as Dean is stating, would be unacceptable to my thinking.

[buzaw]

I should probably point out that some mathematical models allow for the universe to be either finite or infinite in space, but none of the currently accepted models allow for it to be infinite in time.


I take it that by "infinite in time" you mean to be eternal.

[buzaw]

If you wish to argue that space curves around on itself like the surface of the earth does for your example them we can continue along THAT line of reasoning. Your contention that space continues in an infinite line is a dead one IMO.

In order to curve around itself it must be a closed system like the earth or odd shaped like an asteroid and of course we don't agree on that because that repuires an edge to space which I don't buy. PTT contended that if I had a straight edge and extended it far enough, it'd hit me in the butt eventually, but that's, imo, nonsense. He tried to use a 2 dimensional explanation to back it up, but even with a 2 dimensional universe it would be impossible. A string which would bend, yes, but not an unbendable straight edge. It's going to remain straigh forever out into space. Even your runner example is 2 dimensional because he's on the surface of a round earth and yes if he runs long enough, he's going to end up where he started. We are within the universe, though and not on it's surface, so our straight edge is going to protrude from within, not around.

That's funny. According to MY Bible God said, "Let there be light." I interpret that to mean that He needed to create it. I don't see how you could interpret it otherwise but you continue to surprise me with your flavor of scripture. You're isolating a verse that says that. Other scripture indicates that wherever God is light is. The New Jerusalem will be lighted by his presense and the presence of Jesus and no sun or moon is needed to light it, the text says. It mentions the "brightness" of his glory in scripture some place/places.


What did God create then if light already existed?

God is not everywhere, imo. Light is like water. It's not everywhere, and where it isn't, it must be either created or emitted to from another source. I did not say it existed everywhere. I said it has been existing as long as God has existed.


As YOU declare scripture has it. I see nothing of the sort in scripture. I see a description of a being of absolute perfection. You see a physical being not entirely unlike yourself.


God is a spirit which is immaged like us, but not physical like us. Jesus is the only person/man like us of the Trinity and his body is not changed in such a manner as to be able to go through walls and exist in space. He does have a body and will return as a superman.

I take it that by "infinite in time" you mean to be eternal.


Naturally.

For the sake of brevity and logical continuity then it is my opinion that nothing we know of is infinite. Any model that allows for infinity in any characteristic has logical flaws. To say that it is infinite in space but not in time is actually inconsitent because that would mean that one can exist without the other. After all you could then (theoretically) travel through infinite space for an infinite time. I believe we exist in a space/time continuum. To exist apart from one is to exist apart from the other as well.


I'm just saying some of the models allow for infinite space, not that I personally believe that. Most of them that I've been exposed to have space and time both being finite. I'll also agree that the human mind boggles at the concept of anything being truly infinite.

I didn't mean he's continuously creating or destroying, but that he's been doin it when, and as he see's fit for all eternity.

What's the difference?


I understand that and certainly recognize metaphor when the text calls for it. But imo, to metaphorize Heaven to the point that it's not a location in the universe, as Dean is stating, would be unacceptable to my thinking.

It just seems to me that the builders of the Tower of Babel made a similar assumption. Why does God's throne have to be a physical place in the universe? Isn't that reducing God to the level of a physical being? That's the way I see it.

God is not everywhere, imo.

This is where your "logic" reduces God to something less than the alpha and omega, perfect, eternal God that He, Himself claims to be. You continue to insist that the universe and/or space exceed God in one manner or another. This is where we will forever disagree unless you accept that your initial premise and current views on the nature of God and His creation are in error.

Has anyone noticed I'm not "contributing" to this thread? I can tell you why.

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about. 8)

Has anyone noticed I'm not "contributing" to this thread? I can tell you why.

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about. 8)


What else is new? ;D

[sawbuck]

Has anyone noticed I'm not "contributing" to this thread? I can tell you why.

I don't know what the XXXX you are talking about. 8)


Buzsaw here as sawbuck. I'm in Calif and couldn't get logged in so I reregestered for a week until I get home.

BN, here, we're talking about "nothing." Absolutely nothing. These guys are tryin to tell this old geezer that nothing comes to an abrupt end somewhere. What you think?? I mean, man, tell me. how the heck do you tell when nothing ends and something starts to end nothing? ??? ???

Has anyone noticed I'm not "contributing" to this thread? I can tell you why.

I don't know what the XXXX you are talking about. 8)


Buzsaw here as sawbuck. I'm in Calif and couldn't get logged in so I reregestered for a week until I get home.

BN, here, we're talking about "nothing." Absolutely nothing. These guys are tryin to tell this old geezer that nothing comes to an abrupt end somewhere. What you think?? I mean, man, tell me. how the heck do you tell when nothing ends and something starts to end nothing? ??? ???


Well there you have it Buzz. You continue in your failure to see that if you could somehow arrive at nothing you would have reached the end of anything and everything. You have just summed up this entire discussion for BN by reiterating your initial premise that space=nothing in spite of my patient and, if I do say so myself eloquent and completely logical, explanation of why they are not the same thing. Rather than admit that you were wrong you are going to cling to a premise/definition that is so obviously incorrect that a child could see it. Honestly, I expected better from you old friend.

[sawbuck]

Well there you have it Buzz. You continue in your failure to see that if you could somehow arrive at nothing you would have reached the end of anything and everything.

And since space being included in the universe, is endless nothing into which anything and everything can be put, we still have a boundless universe. So what'v you got to crow about in your inability to bind nothing up into something of size?

[ilovelucy]

Okay, in my opinion...

There was once a universe.　perhaps something like we have now....

And God decided to create something different. Perhaps he was lonely and wanted Man...who knows, really...

Perhaps, after he created Man,　he thought Man might be lonely and created Woman. Who knows?

But, in my little universe, God is still there.

Call me stupid. I don't mind.

Okay, in my opinion...

There was once a universe.　perhaps something like we have now....

And God decided to create something different. Perhaps he was lonely and wanted Man...who knows, really...

Perhaps, after he created Man,　he thought Man might be lonely and created Woman. Who knows?

But, in my little universe, God is still there.

Call me stupid. I don't mind.


You're not stupid in the least lucy but this God you describe sounds like someone with too much time on his hands. :)

[ilovelucy]

lonestar---

Time?

We cannot even dream of what time is in God's own hands....:)

lonestar---

Time?

We cannot even dream of what time is in God's own hands....:)


Before I forget lucy let me tell you I've missed you! I'm glad to see you over here, it really isn't the pit that has been made out to be .... well not always. ;D

Where does God live? What do you picture in your mind when you talk about God?

[ilovelucy]

God?

Are you teasing me?

I picture God living in and around and above and beyond us....All the time.

He has known us from before we were born and He loves us, even his wayward ones.... I should know. I was one of the most wayward and unfaithful for so long....

That is part of how I picture