RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist?

RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/1/2008 6:27:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: (GroupW) Not really - it's a question of "frame of reference" a la Einstein. To an observer bound within space/time, an entity that exists outside that dimension would be "eternal" - ie. existing before and after the creation of space/time. That's kind of the point though. Time is by definition a relative concept, physically speaking. It only exists in relation to something else. If God is absolute, then it would seem logical that he exists separate and apart from space/time. "Eternal" per Webster's includes the idea of timelessness as one possible definition out of 4. Just a thought. BT I think of it more as a "frame of reference" a la God. Einstein was wrong in his theory of "time and speed of light." I do not use him for reference. Well, it is quite easy to sustain one's case if one simply ignores inconvenient references. Yeah! Like Prov 8:22-31

hellohellohi -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/2/2008 11:01:19 AM)
While physics certainly has something to say about time as far as its effects go, I don't think it is safe to say that science can say whether time would have any effects on a subjective observer. This is simply because science would have a difficult time treating a subjectivity in any other way than through interview. Thus, it seems beyond the scope of rational speculation but nonetheless fair to say that time may have no effect on a subjectivity. This includes God and human subjectivity. What I am saying is that the concepts time as discussed by physics and that discussed in common speech may not be the same thing. For example, in physics, the measurement of time is accomplished by observing its effects on radioactive particles, their decay -- something such as this must be established as a reference for measurement, that is. We use references such as this to reckon time, as well. However, it may also be true that some aspect of a subjectivity -- perhaps even physically, for all I know -- is not affected by the passage of time, so that when this aspect is used to reckon time, one would have to say that no time has appeared to pass.

GroupW -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/2/2008 11:05:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi While physics certainly has something to say about time as far as its effects go, I don't think it is safe to say that science can say whether time would have any effects on a subjective observer. This is simply because science would have a difficult time treating a subjectivity in any other way than through interview. Thus, it seems beyond the scope of rational speculation but nonetheless fair to say that time may have no effect on a subjectivity. This includes God and human subjectivity. What I am saying is that the concepts time as discussed by physics and that discussed in common speech may not be the same thing. For example, in physics, the measurement of time is accomplished by observing its effects on radioactive particles, their decay -- something such as this must be established as a reference for measurement, that is. We use references such as this to reckon time, as well. However, it may also be true that some aspect of a subjectivity -- perhaps even physically, for all I know -- is not affected by the passage of time, so that when this aspect is used to reckon time, one would have to say that no time has appeared to pass. I think I'm not explaining things well enough. Time is not subjective - it's relative. There's a huge difference. Time will pass differently for two different observers based on their relative speeds through space time. This isn't speculative - in fact, the phenomenon has been measured and is factual. If God is independent of space/time, then he would be eternal from the point of view of someone who's completely locked within space/time. That part is admittedly speculative. Or did I misunderstand your point?

hellohellohi -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/2/2008 1:16:11 PM)
yeah, far from it for me to argue against apparent facts! I was saying that the way that we reckon time is by meauring it, and all measurements rely on the physical effects of time or at least some non-changing standard. You know, on earth, we can use the sun's rotation around us as the measurement of a day (just kidding by the way.) On any spacecraft in which we could directly compare the passage of time experienced by an accelerating observer versus one "at home" would not rely on the unit of a "day" but rather something that relies on the physical effects of time, such as radioactive decay. To be honest, I am not completely sure how a clock works other than that spring-shaped metals rebound with a uniform periodicity after a force has been exerted on them and they are allowed to return to rest -- so, I suppose, its accelerations would be altered and thus its time-keeping -- however that stuff works! So, yes, what I was trying to say is that one might speculate that time does not actually pass for an observer, though one may very well RECKON it does based on observation of the physical world. I am not making a scientific point but rather suggesting a rather empty philosophical speculation. However, at the same time, it is not empty to ask, "What is time?" I don't think I have a read a very thorough or cogent explanation of what is meant by this word on these forums. I hear that you all are interested in the physics of time, but one might also approach the question from a phenomenological point of view -- and I find it doubtful that science would be able to immediately disqualify statements regarding subjectivity, as the only method I can think of to investigate subjectivity is to ask it questions: E.g.: "How fast is time moving to you now?" I contend that a subjectivity would be wise to refer to some observable periodicity -- perhaps even counting "One Mississippi..." to be fair, but not rely on personal feelings -- heck, such would suggest that we have some absolute to compare it to anyway, if we were able to say "fast" or "slow" (or not -- I can think of comparisons to remembered circadian rhythms as being a fari substitute) Rather, I am saying that the experience of time is ambiguous, and I would argue that it is conceivable that subjectivity is not affected by time at all and hence is exempt from the laws associated with it.

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/2/2008 2:03:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi While physics certainly has something to say about time as far as its effects go, I don't think it is safe to say that science can say whether time would have any effects on a subjective observer. This is simply because science would have a difficult time treating a subjectivity in any other way than through interview. Thus, it seems beyond the scope of rational speculation but nonetheless fair to say that time may have no effect on a subjectivity. This includes God and human subjectivity. What I am saying is that the concepts time as discussed by physics and that discussed in common speech may not be the same thing. For example, in physics, the measurement of time is accomplished by observing its effects on radioactive particles, their decay -- something such as this must be established as a reference for measurement, that is. We use references such as this to reckon time, as well. However, it may also be true that some aspect of a subjectivity -- perhaps even physically, for all I know -- is not affected by the passage of time, so that when this aspect is used to reckon time, one would have to say that no time has appeared to pass. Oh I just love it. At least ONE other person understands the objectivity/subjectivity of time.

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/2/2008 2:25:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod quote: These are aspects of God's nature though, not things. Love, holiness and righteousness are not physical things that God finds himself dependant on. God could be compeletely unloving, and still exist apart from time. I would like to see a proof that "time is part of the Nature of God, and ALWAYS was..." but I don't think it's coming. And this was exactly my point when arguing with TB about this aspect on another thread of his. God is not limited by anything outside of His Nature, so unless TB can prove to me (an you) that time is an aspect of God's Nature, he remains wrong about this. That's easy. Using the kind of logic I have seen demonstrated on this board, since God is not limited by time, it must therefore be that time is an aspect of God's nature. Now, prove it ain't so.

GroupW -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/2/2008 2:27:57 PM)
Interesting thought.

hellohellohi -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/2/2008 3:10:32 PM)
I'm getting confused again about what y'all actually believe vs. just what you find fun to argue about. But I thought it might be relevant to ask-- since God cannot sin, can't it be said that He is limited from sinning? Of course, that's not to say that God is limited by the law or something -- when he kills it is surely not murder! When he deprives Job of what He had formerly given Him, it is not stealing but rather to remind Job of the grace which Job may had taken for granted -- though, I suppose he hadn't. Since sin is our free will exerted in rebellion -- God is also limited in His power to the extent that He gave some to us! Seriously, how else could God be said to love if He wasn't taking some sort of risk! Unconditional love would not be that if it was contingent on anything. And love would not be love if it didn't proceed with the possibility or contingency that it may go unreturned -- otherwise it would be understood as reciprocity! Anyway -- forget y'all's dry omni-absolutes! God is love; therefore, He (voluntarily I will grant) abides by contingency!! (I.e.: He is limited.) His love is not limited, of course -- rather it is shown to be love because it is extended with the possibility that we will be be offended and reject it (i.e.: it is limited, ha!)

everstudy -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/2/2008 4:29:36 PM)
I may have missed it, but has "Time" ever even been defined? quote: since God cannot sin, can't it be said that He is limited from sinning? No. It's not that God can't sin, He doesn't sin. To say that God cannot sin is to imply that God really, really wants to sin, but, gosh darn it, just can't to it. I think that the only limitation God has is that He cannot be what He's not. quote: Seriously, how else could God be said to love if He wasn't taking some sort of risk! It would only be a risk if God didn't know the result of such love. He knew before creation His plan of redemption. No risk on His part. quote: forget y'all's dry omni-absolutes! What?!? Dry? How can one truly follow one that they don't know? We're talking about God and who He is. Nothing dry about that. quote: Now, prove it ain't so. Sorry, you made a statement of fact, the burden's on you to prove it. You have not done that yet. ~ Everstudy

hellohellohi -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/2/2008 5:11:40 PM)
quote: No. It's not that God can't sin, He doesn't sin. To say that God cannot sin is to imply that God really, really wants to sin, but, gosh darn it, just can't to it. Fair enough. I still say love is a risk though -- because we can refuse that love. To say that God didn't risk anything to me is to say that Jesus didn't come to call EVERYONE, knowing full well that we would refuse! You see, I am tryin gto illustrate the main paradox of God -- His love. Yeah, I guess it is one-in-the-same as the omniscience paradox. So, you're right -- He knows everything, but he still calls everyone! I basically just wanted to say that those are more interesting than to say that God is in time and He's not in time -- simply because "beyond time" is a contradiction or an oxymoron -- it is not comprehensible to us. However, that God is love -- that He sent His Son to die for our sins out of LOVE, that is, as a free gift to ALL but without expecting anything in return and on the contrary knowing that the love entering our hearts is contingent on us NOT rejecting it or taking offense -- is a more of a paradox to me. What's the difference? I think a paradox takes one around in circles, whereas an oxymoron is a no-go. To clarify, I believe that when God refers to what is "beyond time," He is referring to something we have no need to understnad -- whereas He very much wants us to understand and take to heart His love! Let me express the paradox of God's love one more time: Love ought not be contingent on anything (otherwise it is like reciprocity). However, love cannot come into being therefore unless there is a possibility of it being "for naught" -- that is, to be precise, its original purpose -- That is, it is gratis, extra -- it is grace. That is, its primary quality is that it has no limits or requirements --including that it might be accepted. Therefore, I feel comfortable saying that God takes risks -- because tha is like saying He loves to me. On the other hand, He knew the outcome. However, this only adds to the love -- because not only did He know that His love MIGHT go unrequited, so to speak -- He KNEW it would! And that is the only difference between human love and God's -- He helps us see when OUR love may in fact be "requited!" He does not require of us what He set before His son, that not only would He sacrifice Himself for others, so to speak, but that sacrifice was to show that He in fact loves the one's who refuse His love. How else could a perfect loving God operate?? Thankfully, I cannot imagine anything else! Edit: ooh, i believe i see how this relates to a possible "time" paradox: I don't think it can be said, as you will probably agree, that God truly loves the ones who refuse Him -- because, in fact, it will be said, "I never knew you." Here is the paradox: We are a state called "time" in which it is not apparent to us whether we fall under the category of sheep or goats. In this moment, which could be no more than that or could continue to have extension and seasons, we are asked by God this question, and we are to reply. (Our judgment is actually a confession.) However, there IS a contingency -- which is represented precisely by OUR ignorance and stubbornness, contrasted with God's omniscience and patience. For those who refuse -- time will have been as if nothing. For those who confess and are broken by the love of God, time will also be as nothing. "But in the meantime..." That I say is another (the same, however) paradox. What do y'all think?

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/2/2008 6:52:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi I'm getting confused again about what y'all actually believe vs. just what you find fun to argue about. But I thought it might be relevant to ask-- since God cannot sin, can't it be said that He is limited from sinning? Of course, that's not to say that God is limited by the law or something -- when he kills it is surely not murder! When he deprives Job of what He had formerly given Him, it is not stealing but rather to remind Job of the grace which Job may had taken for granted -- though, I suppose he hadn't. Since sin is our free will exerted in rebellion -- God is also limited in His power to the extent that He gave some to us! Seriously, how else could God be said to love if He wasn't taking some sort of risk! Unconditional love would not be that if it was contingent on anything. And love would not be love if it didn't proceed with the possibility or contingency that it may go unreturned -- otherwise it would be understood as reciprocity! Anyway -- forget y'all's dry omni-absolutes! God is love; therefore, He (voluntarily I will grant) abides by contingency!! (I.e.: He is limited.) His love is not limited, of course -- rather it is shown to be love because it is extended with the possibility that we will be be offended and reject it (i.e.: it is limited, ha!) Good point. Sin is defined in scripture as "trangression of God's law." God cannot transgress his own law. He therefore is limited by the parameters of his own word. Of course some will not see it.

everstudy -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/2/2008 6:58:07 PM)
quote: To say that God didn't risk anything to me is to say that Jesus didn't come to call EVERYONE, knowing full well that we would refuse! God didn't risk anything though. God knew the outcome beforehand, and GAVE His Son. We take risks all the time, because we don't know the outcome. I take a risk driving home every night from work because I don't know if I'll be in an accident. If I knew ahead of time I'd arrive safely, there's no risk and I've taken none. Look at it this way: We're playing poker, you don't know the outcomes ahead of time, and you play accordingly. You risk whatever you've bet against my hand. Now, I already know the outcome. There is no risk (gamble) in how I play. I already know if I'm going to win or lose. You may read my actions as risky, but for me there are none. The same is for God. We may see things as a risk (God loving us when we may reject it), but to Him, He is simply acting out His nature. quote: He knows everything, but he still calls everyone! I'm sure there are those that would argue that point. quote: I basically just wanted to say that those are more interesting than to say that God is in time and He's not in time That may be true, but for the sake of this thread, it's foundational. When we start adding human characteristics to the nature of God, we tend to get ourselves into theological trouble. quote: We are a state called "time"[...] Again, though, we need to define "Time". Is it just a concept or is it a physical part of our universe (ie. a dimension)? ~ Everstudy

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/2/2008 8:20:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: everstudy I may have missed it, but has "Time" ever even been defined? quote: since God cannot sin, can't it be said that He is limited from sinning? No. It's not that God can't sin, He doesn't sin. To say that God cannot sin is to imply that God really, really wants to sin, but, gosh darn it, just can't to it. I think that the only limitation God has is that He cannot be what He's not. quote: Seriously, how else could God be said to love if He wasn't taking some sort of risk! It would only be a risk if God didn't know the result of such love. He knew before creation His plan of redemption. No risk on His part. quote: forget y'all's dry omni-absolutes! What?!? Dry? How can one truly follow one that they don't know? We're talking about God and who He is. Nothing dry about that. quote: Now, prove it ain't so. Sorry, you made a statement of fact, the burden's on you to prove it. You have not done that yet. ~ Everstudy Has time ever been defined? Many times on this thread. Post 152, 155, 156, 164, for a few examples. As to "Can God sin?" 1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. As to "dry omni-absolutes" not being dry... Never to one who delites in such things. But they are to the rest of us. As to theo's statement quote: Now, prove it ain't so. everstudy responds "Sorry, you made a statement of fact, the burden's on you to prove it. You have not done that yet." Well I've proved it many times over. The fact you reject the premise does not mean it has not been proved. God is. "Is" is 3rd person singular indicative form of "to be." "Be" is a verb meaning to exist; 1st person singular of "be" is "am." 2nd person singular of "be" is "are." "Exist" is an intransitive verb meaning "To have actual being; be." "Action" is "state of being active." "Active" is "Being in a state of existence." I have proved it every way I know to approach the matter. God is. All else falls into place based on that premise alone.

hellohellohi -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/2/2008 10:52:09 PM)
quote: That may be true, but for the sake of this thread, it's foundational. When we start adding human characteristics to the nature of God, we tend to get ourselves into theological trouble. yeah, but i don't mean love as a human attribute - but I am talking about the comprehensible in God, or, if you will, what He wants us to understand. Also, yeah, I agree with what you said about risks and about God knowing everything beforehand. But whatever. I still say love is taking risks. I was being kind of peculiar saying that God took something beyond a risk because He knew His sacrifice would go for naught for some people. So, I start with the idea that human love takes a risk and I see the same exigency in God's love, and since He knows everything and it can't be called a risk, perhaps we can say He has done something greater than a risk -- because it was certain that in some cases his love would go "unrequited." Get it? As or some people arguing that He doesn't call all people, sure. What about you? What does the scripture say? "Many are called, few are chosen"? It doesn't say "all" -- but what then is the difference between "many" and "few"? BTW, I feel nitpicked when I felt like I was saying larger things (though hastily and awkwardly, sure) -- perhaps save the fairly obvious things such as about poker being an example of risk-taking. Just a remark -- I think you can see what I mean. I would more appreciate responses that address what I have been saying or trying to say overall. I am not really trying to construct a really careful argument. yknow

gluadys -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/2/2008 11:06:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi BTW, I feel nitpicked when I felt like I was saying larger things (though hastily and awkwardly, sure) -- perhaps save the fairly obvious things such as about poker being an example of risk-taking. Just a remark -- I think you can see what I mean. I would more appreciate responses that address what I have been saying or trying to say overall. I am not really trying to construct a really careful argument. yknow Take it as flattery. People tend to nit-pick when they have nothing they can quarrel with in the main argument.

SavedByGraceMD -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/3/2008 12:02:09 AM)
I am going to take gluadys advice and add some imagination to my post, and interpretation, there was no light until God turned on the lamp.

everstudy -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/3/2008 1:03:23 AM)
quote: Has time ever been defined? Many times on this thread. Post 152, 155, 156, 164, for a few examples. Funny you'd say this in post no. 88!!![8\|]

gluadys -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/3/2008 1:30:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD I am going to take gluadys advice and add some imagination to my post, and interpretation, there was no light until God turned on the lamp. And was that before, after or at the same moment that he started the clock of time?

drmark -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/3/2008 2:10:32 AM)
quote: He therefore is limited by the parameters of his own word. Another unfortunate misunderstanding by theo_book. God IS the uncreated Word and the uncreated source of His own word when He created the beginning (John 1:1).

SavedByGraceMD -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/3/2008 12:49:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD I am going to take gluadys advice and add some imagination to my post, and interpretation, there was no light until God turned on the lamp. And was that before, after or at the same moment that he started the clock of time? He had to put the batteries in the clock first, of course, which He couldn't see until He flipped on the light. Yes I am joking and being sarcastic. Thank you very much. and to be honest, this is not something I even feel the need to know. I am quite comfortable with knowing that there are things we won't know this side of heaven.

GroupW -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/3/2008 1:03:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD He had to put the batteries in the clock first But where did the batteries come from? I gotta know! When they named the company Everready did they really mean "Ever" ?

SavedByGraceMD -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/3/2008 1:26:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GroupW quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD He had to put the batteries in the clock first But where did the batteries come from? I gotta know! When they named the company Everready did they really mean "Ever" ? may have been duracell, the most durable battery.

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/3/2008 3:17:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: He therefore is limited by the parameters of his own word. Another unfortunate misunderstanding by theo_book. God IS the uncreated Word and the uncreated source of His own word when He created the beginning (John 1:1). Yah! Right Doc; misunderstood by theo_book and God himself. "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie (limited by the parameter of his own word), promised before the world began; 3 But hath in due times manifested his logos (word) through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;" [Titus 1:2-3] "For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, 14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. 15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the PROMISE. 16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an OATH for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. 17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 18 That by two immutable things (His OATH and His PROMISE), in which it was IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO LIE (LIMITED BY THE PARAMETER OF HIS OWN WORD), we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:" [Heb 6:13-18]

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/3/2008 3:28:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: everstudy quote: Has time ever been defined? Many times on this thread. Post 152, 155, 156, 164, for a few examples. Funny you'd say this in post no. 88!!![8\|] Oh! Right! Wrong thread. "Old God, New Earth" thread. Sorry 'bout that. Of course it is not new to many who are still trying to argue on this thread. They just ignore the significance of the premise and proof texts.

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/3/2008 8:41:44 PM)
quote: (theo) God is. Does everyone agree that the bible teaches that God is? Does everyone agree that Webster teaches quote: (theo) "Is" is 3rd person singular indicative form of "to be." "Be" is a verb meaning to exist; 1st person singular of "be" is "am." 2nd person singular of "be" is "are." "Exist" is an intransitive verb meaning "To have actual being; be." "Action" is "state of being active." "Active" is "Being in a state of existence." Is there ANYTHING upon which we can agree?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI