Probability is infinite, the universe on the tiniest level is mutable and chaotic. The large scale universe, of you and me, seems ordered because on the larger scale, order is built out of the sum of the probabilities of states within the chaos of the tiny.


This universe that we are is probably both finite (not without limits) and curved/closed within higher dimensions (set out in a straight line in one direction, and eons later you will arrive back at your starting point). Of course certain type of physics predict infinite universes, each like closed finite bubbles within an infinite sea of probabilities and states.


Time is an illusion; scientists cannot point to a thing that can be called time. Time is a convenient idea for explaining human experience, and useful within abstract mathematical calculations, that is all.

If God exists, then God is equivalent to the infinite states of possible existence.

In this we are in violent agreement.

You know guys, the "infinite states of possible existence" is about as far as you can get from an understandable, personal God that we can relate to!


Have you ever heard of Jesus? God anthropomorphized into a human being in an effort to bridge the gap between the Divine and Mankind!? Have you???

It doesn't appear to me that God's efforts were sucessful. Did he fail or or is it just me?

Hi Big Bird:

You wrote: Not at all. I've got so many post replies to do I don't know if I'll ever find the time to do them all.

You wrote (emphasis mine): ... not from belief ... is a very significant observation. From a scriptural perspective it is of utmost importance because that is the only thing that determines what our ultimate outcome will be (for Bible believers, that is).

We can take all our religions and their various combinations of doctrines and on our own, from a human perspective, do better. For instance if we ALL started to 'keep' the don't steal rule, every last one of us, how much better would this world be? And just that one commandment observance would make a HUGE difference. How many cops would be looking for work then?

Being a believer that a Creator exists I understand that He has set before us the capability of discerning between good and evil and that He has admonished us to choose only good so that we can live. Whether we believe that or not doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to all of us. And as you point out, my impression also is that secularism exhibits very much indeed the same social traits of discernment of good and evil as do the 'religious' and tend to pick those things that are actually good and raise the level of our lives.

But that is only the human perspective of good and evil. And as we can see it doesn't work because we all eventually die. So why is that?

It is because from the scriptures we can read that from the Creator's perspective discerning and doing ONLY good can bring life with no death. Furthermore if anyone was able to do only good and always did and had done millions or even billions of acts of good before doing just one act of evil, then death would follow. That is the Creator's perspective. Evil is not an option for life without death according to the scriptures.

We have ALL decided not to believe the Creator about this hence we all dabble with evil and die as a result. Doesn't matter if we are religious or secular, none of us have the capability of doing only good with not even a hint of evil like the Creator. It is our unbelief of the Creator that causes us to not have such a capability so those who are religious who don't believe as you point out have the same fate as those who are not religious and don't believe. Makes no difference even though we all have the same capability of generally discerning between good and evil.

The problem is that we don't have all the information available to us to know and understand all that is good and all that is evil and therefore unwittingly do evil which results in our death. The only way we can get around this problem so that we can live is to take the faith the Creator has given to us about good and evil and test it so that we can learn to believe Him. We cannot believe Him if we don't put His faith in us to the test. And it should go without saying that if He doesn't give us that faith in the first place then there is no chance whatsoever that we will ever believe Him.

It is the promise of the Creator that if we put His faith to the test (obedience) and accept that it is true, then we will come to believe Him and He will forever put away (forgive us) the EFFECTS of the evil (death) we have done to cause us to live immortally and also GIVE us the capability of knowing absolutely that which is good and that which is evil and being able to do ONLY good just like Him.

So all this rule keeping, secular or religious, is for not in the long run without belief. If we don't believe what the Creator tells us about good and evil, we are none of His and die. It is through our belief of the Creator, YHHW, that causes us to become His sons and daughters and live as He lives.

Hi Helice:

Thank you for taking the 'time' to summarize 'time', Helice.

You wrote:Good question, Helice. Without the knowledge and work done to prove that aspect of Einstien's theory of relativity where time is not an absolute constant, our personal senses, as you point out, tell us that time is very, very constant and unalterable. There seems to be little, really nothing, in our normal day to day activities of living we can do to change its course.

The spacial dimensions of physical entities, we can alter to suit our needs ie we can build a larger or smaller house. We can work with length but not with time without going to exceptional means to do so ie high speed space travel. For all intents and purposes, for our day to day events, time is constant while length isn't unless we make it constant.

But by contemplating that added knowledge of time generated by those having the capability to work with exceptional means, we can look deeper into the meaning of life particularly when considering the nature of the Creator. After all it was the Creator who created those aspects of existence we define as space and time.

By only having that knowledge that time is constant, we tend to think that the Creator can only exist within the clutches of time too because it seems that time has to be not only constant, but infinite too. That then tells us that there is something that the Creator is limited in. Even though we preceive this as a limitation we still consider the Creator to be limitless because It is 'eternal'.

But, when science tells us that time is not constant, that it does not exist when nothing else exists, well, that opens up a whole new sense of who and what the Creator is in terms of His existence.

The scriptures tell us of the promise of eternal life when we are made righteous like the Creator is righteous. But how can we be given eternal life if we had a beginning? Further, if the Creator, whom the scriptures say is eternal, has no beginning, how can both us and the Creator be eternal?

Well, the word eternal includes the aspect of time, specifically all time. So the Creator, whether time has a beginning and/or end, or, is infinte, is eternal because His existence includes all time. But if time is finite and the Creator is infinite, that means It has to exist outside of time as well. That makes the Creator timeless and the only being that has an existence that is timeless because It has to have created time along with everything else.

So, that is another reason why the Creator calls Itself YaH-exists and claims to be above all others. Nothing else or no one else exists outside of time. Others do exist outside of space though such as YaHshua, the angels, satan and demons and are eternal but not timeless like YHWH is timeless.

That's why I'm interested in time and because of how it relates to my current understanding of the Creator.

But we still can't see the Creator as He is because we, or at least, I, can't get any sense of reference whatsoever of what it is like to exist without time. Even the English language has no accomodation for it in that its verbs are only past, present and future - no timeless tense. Perhaps the coming pure language of righteousness will have provisions for a timeless tense when we are able to see YHWH as He actually is as the scriptures foretell.

When DCInC wrote:From our puny little physical existence we could never know that from anything we might do scientifically. That can only be speculation at best even though from a logical physical perspective I can see it as a possibility.

I tend to reason it this way because I believe a Creator exists and life exists because It decided that it would. Life was not a result of random chance as I have come to understand it. Additionally I think that the chances of life occurring without a Creator are slim to none especially with scientific observations such as ...

You wrote:In the time between the moments immediately following the Big Bang until eons later, life could not have existed until the universe had developed to the point to sustain it. Physical life sprang up much later after the universe started to take the shape we see now.

There does not seem to me to be any way that life could have sprung up from the elements of the Big Bang spontaneously. The foundational elements of the universe are dead. Life does not come from the dead unless it is created by something that is life. Even the foundational elements had to be created by a life. They did not spontaneously 'happen'. I can't fathom the elements having a spontaneous creation on their own. Neither dead nor life can come from nothing on its own as I understand it.

It's either infinite existence from which I do not think life could come out of without a infinite living Creator, or, all creation from an infinite living Creator. The scriptures reveal that nothing happens regarding our existence unless it is first revealed by YHWH either by the scriptures, living or written, themselves or by Prophets.

Since the scriptures reveal a creation, that precludes infinite time. For whatever reason, I tend to go with the faith of the scriptures rather than scientific theory on that. However, at the same time I see how 'proven-for-now' scientific theories can help us get a deeper understanding of the scriptures and the nature of Creator YHWH.

Myrddin once wrote that if there was a Creator then there would have been a code of some sort made available for us to prove it in the creation, or something to that effect. While Myrddin suggested that it would probably be something codifed from a scientific/mathematical point of view, it seems to me it would have to be something far more reaching, something like the scriptures combined with a discerning mind. While Myrddin understands such a coded proof of existence either doesn't exist or remains elusive, I understand the proof is in the scriptures but only if we are given to believe them. The reason for my thoughts in this way is that the reason for our existence is more than just physical. It is moreso spiritual. Hence, it seems to me to follow that the 'code' would have a significant spiritual aspect included just like in the scriptures.

You wrote:I agree with this logic as a possibility, however, there is knowledge made available to us through the scriptures telling us total entropy of the universe will never happen. Apparently it is understood by science that the universe is not only expanding, but at an accelerating rate. That's not to say it can't reverse but the scriptures say that the government of the kingdom of YHWH will increase throughout eternity.

You wrote:-or, if there isn't a creator, until the next Big Bang.

You wrote:Again logically possible in our own minds but the scriptures indicate there is just the one universe which is what universe means to me - all of the whole.

There is no proof of God in the Bible, just as there is no proof of the Cat in a Hat from childrens books.

Just because something is written down doesn't mean its true, and something that self-references itself as proof of its own truth, probably isn't true in the first place. For something to be true, then there has be a method of testing it to see if false. Some things in the Bible are provably false, like the idea that Man is only 6000 years old, others are unprovable like God.


Scientists aren't even sure that time actually exists in the first place by the way.

Hi Myrddin:

You wrote: I agree. Our news media is a good example of that. And I'm afraid I have to agree with you on the English versions of the Bible as well. You don't even have to have the original texts to see that things are not true in them because of the differences you find between just the English versions.

However, when you do compare the English translations to the original language the differences become glaring. There are well over 7000 mistranslations in the Old Testament alone of just one word in the vast majority of the English texts. It's no wonder the English versions have caused us much mis-information.

But if we go back to the original languages is there a way to test the scriptures for the truth? I believe there is a 'way' to do that and I'm basing how I conduct my life's activities around that 'way'. In doing so, according to the scriptures, that is how we prove them to ourselves. There is no way that we can prove them to others of course. Others can only be convinced of the truth of the scriptures if they are drawn by the Creator to do so and if they respond to that draw with sincerity, patience and diligence.

"Probably" is also a probability for self referencing as you suggest. But if what is presented by the Bible is indeed the truth and it is the basis for all truth, then there is nothing else that can be used to prove it other than itself. There is an area of scripture that addresses that subject with regard to the Creator.

You wrote: I believe you are right in that and the Bible gives us the method to use to prove it to be the truth. I already mentioned it above.

You wrote: Well it depends upon how one 'interprets' the Bible on that subject. I tend to believe that the English Bibles distort the truth to the point that many even think that the earth is 6000 years old too which is obvious from science that it's age is far far greater than that.

But using the current known science and meshing it with the scriptures, particularly the original language of Hebrew, then we can see how the Bible can be correct about the length of existence of mankind as we currently know it at around 6000 years and how the earth/universe can be so very much older.

For instance, in Gen 1 we see in the English translation that things of the heavens were 'made' a few days before man was created. Well that simply isn't true, is it? The sun, the stars and the moon were made billions of years prior to the current version of mankind.

The Hebrew word rendered as 'made' from the Hebrew can also be rendered as 'appointed'. So it seems that if we know that the sun and moon were 'made' billions of years ago what was 'made' a few days prior to man? Well, it was the calendar of the Creator the was 'made' by the 'appointment' of the sun and the moon to mark the days, months, seasons and years. The sun and the moon where already sitting up there just waiting to take on their new assignment of being the Creator's calendar for the newly 'made' man. It would become a central aspect to his existence in relationship to his Creator.

As for the creation of man himself, I see no reason to doubt the Creator's words of the scriptures that the current version of mankind was created from the dust of the earth some 6000 years ago. But what was really the distinguishing point of that creation was for the very first time of the long 'history' of the earth's hominids, mankind was created in the image of the Creator. That happened approximately 6000 years ago according to the scriptures and science does not yet have the capability of proving that to us. I doubt that it ever will.

On an regularly continuous basis now there are numerous discoveries being made by archeology that prove the accuracy of the Bible where previously it was thought that the Bible was in total error. They are being reported in the paper quite often (oh no, does that make them untrue ).

So when we might think the Bible is "provably false" I have come to believe that more than likely it is a translation problem, or lack of scientific information, complete lack of understanding of the scriptures or a combination of all of these aspects. There is quite a number of things involved that can throw us off.

Time and its existence. While science debates that, I'm going to keep counting the years of time until my time ends. Time is most apparent to me despite the technical aspects that science has to deal with, or 'without', it.

DCinC , if there are How do you know what the Old Testament says.

Although you say you know what the Bible says. However you do not quote any Hebrew scholar or a Scientist to explain your belif that thew world is only 6000 years old. It would be almoset impossible to find a scientist who would agree with this. So in the end you are left with the list of generations in a Bible which you say has 700 mistransalations.

The sad thing about people who based their faith on an exact time when the end of the world will take place is that when they are proved wrong they lose their faith. What happen to the Jehovah Witnesses when their end date 1914 past and the world had not ended. Trying to eexplain this away has not stop many members leaving all religion

Hi aus22:

You wrote: Just clarify something first, I don't believe the world is only 6000 years old; that is if you are saying the world is the earth. The earth is billions of years old according to common scientific knowledge. I suppose you could look it up in any encyclopedia if you need an expert scientific opinion that would confirm this.

What I believe about the approximate 6000 years is that is when mankind, as we know it today, was created, not the world/earth. I thought I had taken care to explain that difference sufficiently in my previous post. Do you understand what I wrote in that previous post the way you wrote it in your reply? If so, I'll try to re-write it to make it clearer.

Again, the Bible itself is quite self-explanatory. Although I haven't done it myself there are several individuals over the centuries who have calculated the number of years since the creation of mankind and some try to make it seem the earth was created at the same time contrary to well established scientific kinowledge. I was only writing from memory and don't remember any names of those individuals but they are easy to search out. Another source of this information is the Jewish calendar which is a couple hundred years or so shy of 6000 years as Tobias recently mentioned.

The over 7000 mis-translations comment I made was also based upon well known Biblical information one can find in Strong's concordance. Again from memory, it seems to me that there are almost 7000 occurences of the name YHWH in the Old Testament. In another reference that I once came across which is now buried in my 'stack' somewhere was the information that the scribes of Judaism physically changed over 100 times the name YHWH in the original scriptures to another Hebrew word. If you need that info, if I get time, I'll try to find it for you but I don't really think it will help you much. Strong's is easily accessible to confirm most of what I've written. Or, I could have kept it simpler and said over 6000 mis-translations.

In the English OT the name YHWH of the original Hebrew language was rendered as 'LORD'. The term 'LORD' is neither a translation nor a transliteration in any sense of those words. The rendering is a most intended replacement. It is a significant mis-leading replacement at that.

So the information I'm basing my comments on in this post is rather common well known information that can be easily confirmed by almost anyone. It is the interpretation of this information that is subject to investigation, but that is up to individual discretion. I don't know any experts in the field of the mind of DCInC that can confirm the discretions that I put for in my posts to quote for confirmation. PLUS, the are many experts who have wide ranging opinions so quoting them may not be any help to you in qualifying my statements. PLUS individuals who I may consider as experts may be considered as fools by you.

You wrote:I agree but as I pointed out above I don't believe I wrote anything like that.

You wrote: What do you mean with this comment. I don't understand how it ties in with what you've written otherwise in your post. What about that list of generations and how does anything I wrote have anything to do with the 'end of the world'?