time (a rebuttal)
"But, because your lovingkindness is better than life, behold, my life is but a distraction."
-Augustine
Time
beginning of time = starting point
|------------------------------>
like a point at the beginning of a line in math class, continuing on into the future as represented by an arrow. *--------->
but an absolute beginning seems to imply two necessities- one; the thing itself that is beginning and, two; a FORCE that is pushing this thing into motion. Aka. What good is it for time to have a beginning if it were just standing still? I can't think of one example in nature that shows a beginning NOT being put into effect by some prior cause or chain of events - FORCE.
the newborn's life begins. Why? the parents did the nasty. the wind starts to blow? why? atmospheric such and such conditions. a star is born. why? a host of scientific explanations. you start to dance because you will it, you start to work because you need to, you start to play because you want to. But it seems there's always a force behind it.
So what was before the beginning of time to cause time except eternity or something eternal (something outside of time)?
If eternity exists, time is ultimately finite. And, again, based on natural observation - time runs out for everything eventually, where's the precedent to indicate that time will not run out in and of itself?
eternity is something that cannot be measured by time - even if time extended and ran continuously (...) , eternity would be, figuratively, one step to infinite steps ahead of it. FOR EXAMPLE: even if an extreme number of years passed, say, the number 1 follow by a jillion zeroes after it (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000...)
eternity would still be an INfinite number of times longer than this. All that is not eternal is eternally out of date.
If time is finite (which is the definition of time , it seems , because an infinite time would in itself no longer be classified as time but eternity) then the start and end of time must imply a force outside of time that put time into motion in the first place and end it at the last.
this force, then, by definition, must exist outside of time . therefore this force is eternal.
what is eternal cannot die because it always exists.
if it always exists, it is constant.
if it is constant, it is unchangeable.
if it is unchangeable, it is absolute
if it is absolute it is ultimate
if it is ultimate it is truth
if it is truth, all else is lie.
if it is a lie, it is not ultimate. if it is not ultimate, then not absolute. if it is not absolute, it is changeable. if changeable, not constant.
if not constant, not eternal.
if not eternal, then finite.
if its finite, it will die....
This is the cornerstone of the problem with evolutionary theory attempting to explain the complete origins of the universe. If time is infinite, aside from being an oxymoron, it would imply NO beginning but evolutionary theories ALWAYS assert beginnings or it would not be evolution. To admit eternity into the discussion is to jump from the naturalist to the supernaturalist camp, as in most atheists dont believe in eternity. And this of course poses a serious problem to one who's trying to assert a scientific explanation for the beginning of existence , when and if in fact there was no such thing as the beginning to explain scientifically, because there was technically never such a thing as the beginning.
and if thats the case, all these precious theories are shot to dust.
Therefore, the first event in the evolutionary theory MUST account for the beginning of time AND NOT just the beginning of matter. I mean, even if the beginning of time and the beginning of matter were two completely separate things - i suspect you'd have backed yourself into a corner when you realize that you're saying that SOMETHING just up and appeared inside of NOTHING. Matter just "up and appearing" inside of VOID time is about as likely as a cosmos, a cadillac, or a quark suddenly appearing inside of a completely sealed vaccuum that has not even the smallest particle of anything inside it. It's EMPTY. things dont appear for no reason inside of empty space. We're not talking magic tricks, we're talking evolution. and even evolution needs a base particle to grow. and this example is beyond empty space, its a VOID. and beyond a void, for its the FIRST AND ORIGINAL VOID, before all and anything that had fullness of any type could have possibly interefered.
So where did the big bang ball come from? It just always existed? Then why did it wait LITERALLY an eternity before spontaneously (without outside force, because there was no outside, because it was the first all-encompassing event, remember?) exploded? Are we being scandalous enough to propose that the big bang ball existed from eternity yet no longer exists? It had no beginning yet definitely had an end?!?!?!?!?!?!? How could something that had never begun, end?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? Thats like me saying my cousin Jigglypuff died. And when somebody asks me "Oh , that's too bad - how old was he?" I reply "Well, technically he was never born."
GIVE. ME. A. BREAK.
Is time even constant? As in, flows at the same rate always? Is time constant on Neptune? How bout in the Orion constellation? Oh, well how about on this same planet 300,000 years ago? time is a constant because we as men measure it as a constant but time theoretically and technically could shift and speed up dramatically in a one day span and you could wake up 90 years old tomorrow. and it need not have anything to do with something as relative as the earths revolutionary rate around the sun.
its amazing the things we think we know but really have no idea about. We claim "Those idiot creationists!!!" are stupid because we've evolved to outthink the concept of God, yet we can hardly tie our theoretical shoes because we have no idea - NO IDEA REALLY - about some of the most basic fundamentals and fabrics of our own existence.
and we haven't even approached the topic of LIFE generating from NON LIVING CHEMICALS and material. there is SO much we dont know. So i think its best we shy away from the poppy extremist super proud know-it-all notion of the left wing society of atheists and move towards a more humble position in the world. it only takes three words: "I" "Don't" "Know"
and when we're open to not knowing, we're open to hearing all sides of the argument. And if our ears are open - watch out - we might actually hear something we might not have expected and end up like this dude johnlanguage who once swore up and down there was no God and certainly no Jesus, yet ended up losing friends (yes, and a whole life) for refusing to roll over and blind his eyes again to the One that tore the rock away from the tomb of his heart and caused it to beat again with a Life he never knew.
Yes, the cost is high. But if its the TRUTH, isnt it worth it?
absolutely.
-Augustine
Time
beginning of time = starting point
|------------------------------>
like a point at the beginning of a line in math class, continuing on into the future as represented by an arrow. *--------->
but an absolute beginning seems to imply two necessities- one; the thing itself that is beginning and, two; a FORCE that is pushing this thing into motion. Aka. What good is it for time to have a beginning if it were just standing still? I can't think of one example in nature that shows a beginning NOT being put into effect by some prior cause or chain of events - FORCE.
the newborn's life begins. Why? the parents did the nasty. the wind starts to blow? why? atmospheric such and such conditions. a star is born. why? a host of scientific explanations. you start to dance because you will it, you start to work because you need to, you start to play because you want to. But it seems there's always a force behind it.
So what was before the beginning of time to cause time except eternity or something eternal (something outside of time)?
If eternity exists, time is ultimately finite. And, again, based on natural observation - time runs out for everything eventually, where's the precedent to indicate that time will not run out in and of itself?
eternity is something that cannot be measured by time - even if time extended and ran continuously (...) , eternity would be, figuratively, one step to infinite steps ahead of it. FOR EXAMPLE: even if an extreme number of years passed, say, the number 1 follow by a jillion zeroes after it (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000...)
eternity would still be an INfinite number of times longer than this. All that is not eternal is eternally out of date.
If time is finite (which is the definition of time , it seems , because an infinite time would in itself no longer be classified as time but eternity) then the start and end of time must imply a force outside of time that put time into motion in the first place and end it at the last.
this force, then, by definition, must exist outside of time . therefore this force is eternal.
what is eternal cannot die because it always exists.
if it always exists, it is constant.
if it is constant, it is unchangeable.
if it is unchangeable, it is absolute
if it is absolute it is ultimate
if it is ultimate it is truth
if it is truth, all else is lie.
if it is a lie, it is not ultimate. if it is not ultimate, then not absolute. if it is not absolute, it is changeable. if changeable, not constant.
if not constant, not eternal.
if not eternal, then finite.
if its finite, it will die....
This is the cornerstone of the problem with evolutionary theory attempting to explain the complete origins of the universe. If time is infinite, aside from being an oxymoron, it would imply NO beginning but evolutionary theories ALWAYS assert beginnings or it would not be evolution. To admit eternity into the discussion is to jump from the naturalist to the supernaturalist camp, as in most atheists dont believe in eternity. And this of course poses a serious problem to one who's trying to assert a scientific explanation for the beginning of existence , when and if in fact there was no such thing as the beginning to explain scientifically, because there was technically never such a thing as the beginning.
and if thats the case, all these precious theories are shot to dust.
Therefore, the first event in the evolutionary theory MUST account for the beginning of time AND NOT just the beginning of matter. I mean, even if the beginning of time and the beginning of matter were two completely separate things - i suspect you'd have backed yourself into a corner when you realize that you're saying that SOMETHING just up and appeared inside of NOTHING. Matter just "up and appearing" inside of VOID time is about as likely as a cosmos, a cadillac, or a quark suddenly appearing inside of a completely sealed vaccuum that has not even the smallest particle of anything inside it. It's EMPTY. things dont appear for no reason inside of empty space. We're not talking magic tricks, we're talking evolution. and even evolution needs a base particle to grow. and this example is beyond empty space, its a VOID. and beyond a void, for its the FIRST AND ORIGINAL VOID, before all and anything that had fullness of any type could have possibly interefered.
So where did the big bang ball come from? It just always existed? Then why did it wait LITERALLY an eternity before spontaneously (without outside force, because there was no outside, because it was the first all-encompassing event, remember?) exploded? Are we being scandalous enough to propose that the big bang ball existed from eternity yet no longer exists? It had no beginning yet definitely had an end?!?!?!?!?!?!? How could something that had never begun, end?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? Thats like me saying my cousin Jigglypuff died. And when somebody asks me "Oh , that's too bad - how old was he?" I reply "Well, technically he was never born."
GIVE. ME. A. BREAK.
Is time even constant? As in, flows at the same rate always? Is time constant on Neptune? How bout in the Orion constellation? Oh, well how about on this same planet 300,000 years ago? time is a constant because we as men measure it as a constant but time theoretically and technically could shift and speed up dramatically in a one day span and you could wake up 90 years old tomorrow. and it need not have anything to do with something as relative as the earths revolutionary rate around the sun.
its amazing the things we think we know but really have no idea about. We claim "Those idiot creationists!!!" are stupid because we've evolved to outthink the concept of God, yet we can hardly tie our theoretical shoes because we have no idea - NO IDEA REALLY - about some of the most basic fundamentals and fabrics of our own existence.
and we haven't even approached the topic of LIFE generating from NON LIVING CHEMICALS and material. there is SO much we dont know. So i think its best we shy away from the poppy extremist super proud know-it-all notion of the left wing society of atheists and move towards a more humble position in the world. it only takes three words: "I" "Don't" "Know"
and when we're open to not knowing, we're open to hearing all sides of the argument. And if our ears are open - watch out - we might actually hear something we might not have expected and end up like this dude johnlanguage who once swore up and down there was no God and certainly no Jesus, yet ended up losing friends (yes, and a whole life) for refusing to roll over and blind his eyes again to the One that tore the rock away from the tomb of his heart and caused it to beat again with a Life he never knew.
Yes, the cost is high. But if its the TRUTH, isnt it worth it?
absolutely.
Leave a Comment
tvsgweblog on
Time is a human invention. Something for us to measure. It does not exist outside of artifice!
Good posting. I enjoyed reading it. Thank you!
Good posting. I enjoyed reading it. Thank you!
johnlanguage on
hmm. im not so sure time is entirely a human invention, either. afterall, we didn't invent death or the lifespan - yet they still happen. I think we more or less follow , in my opinion, the blueprints for measuring time given to us by God in the form of the time it takes the earth to rotate, to revolve around the sun, and for the moon to go through its cycles.
even if we came up with a measurement of time called SEPTONAUTS (one septonaut being the approximate equivalent of, say, 1/100th of a second) the number of septonauts in a day would always conform approximately to the same sum total - the singular unit of measure it takes for the earth to rotate once on its axis. Be it called a day, or a 'lay' or a 'fay' or a 'tay' , the time it takes for one rotation will always be relatively uniform.
However we choose to break up this uniform span of time is up to us ; whether it be 86,400 seconds per day or 8,640,000 septonauts per 'fay' , they'll always add up because the base line for measurement of time (for us) is already pre-established - the time it takes to rotate, revolve, etc...
we didnt make up time - it was already here. we just made up the smaller comprising incriments of measure.
here's one from those silly archaic pre-next-phase-of-evolution creationists:
Genesis 1:14 - "Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years."
our (humanly relative) yardsticks for measuring time.
even if we came up with a measurement of time called SEPTONAUTS (one septonaut being the approximate equivalent of, say, 1/100th of a second) the number of septonauts in a day would always conform approximately to the same sum total - the singular unit of measure it takes for the earth to rotate once on its axis. Be it called a day, or a 'lay' or a 'fay' or a 'tay' , the time it takes for one rotation will always be relatively uniform.
However we choose to break up this uniform span of time is up to us ; whether it be 86,400 seconds per day or 8,640,000 septonauts per 'fay' , they'll always add up because the base line for measurement of time (for us) is already pre-established - the time it takes to rotate, revolve, etc...
we didnt make up time - it was already here. we just made up the smaller comprising incriments of measure.
here's one from those silly archaic pre-next-phase-of-evolution creationists:
Genesis 1:14 - "Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years."
our (humanly relative) yardsticks for measuring time.
TheJoeD on
Of course what johnlanguage won't admit to is that in high school when asked what time it was, he would jam a stick in the ground, and no matter what time of day it was, or where the shadow was cast, his reply would be "'bout noon time"
