In school textbooks today our kids are taught..."from a state of nothingness life began". Below is an analogy I stumbled across a while back, and it reinforced and articulates well what I always thought. It's short, interesting and easy to read.

-----------------------------------------



Have you ever thought about the beginning? What is that, you say? You know--whatever it was that showed up first. Or whatever it was that was here first, at the earliest moment in time. Have you ever strained your brain to think about that?

Wait a minute, you say, isn't it possible that in the beginning there was nothing? Isn't it possible that kazillions of years ago, there wasn't anything at all? That's certainly a theory to consider. So let's consider it--but first by way of analogy.

Let's say you have a large room. It's fully enclosed and is about the size of a football field. The room is locked, permanently, and has no doors or windows, and no holes in its walls.

Inside the room there is...nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not a particle of anything. No air at all. No dust at all. No light at all. It's a sealed room that's pitch black inside. Then what happens?

Well, let's say your goal is to get something--anything at all--into the room. But the rules are: you can't use anything from outside the room to do that. So what do you do?



Well, you think, what if I try to create a spark inside the room? Then the room would have light in it, even for just a moment. That would qualify as something. Yes, but you are outside the room. So that's not allowed.

But, you say, what if I could teleport something into the room, like in Star Trek? Again, that's not allowable, because you'd be using things from outside the room.

Here again is the dilemma: you have to get something inside the room using only what's in the room. And, in this case, what's in the room is nothing.

Well, you say, maybe a tiny particle of something will just show up inside the room if given enough time.

There's three problems with this theory. First, time by itself doesn't do anything. Things happen over time, but it's not time that makes them happen. For example, if you wait 15 minutes for cookies to bake, it's not the 15 minutes that bakes them, it's the heat in the oven. If you set them on the counter for 15 minutes, they're not going to bake.

In our analogy, we've got a fully enclosed room with absolutely nothing in it. Waiting 15 minutes will not, in and of itself, change the situation. Well, you say, what if we wait eons? An eon is merely a bunch of 15-minute segments all pressed together. If you waited an eon with your cookies on the counter, would the eon bake them?



The second problem is this: why would anything just "show up" in the empty room? It would need a reason why it came to be. But there is nothing inside the room at all. So what's to stop that from remaining the case? There would be nothing inside the room to cause something to show up (and yet the reason must come from inside the room).

Well, you say, what about a tiny particle of something? Wouldn't that have a greater chance of materializing in the room than something larger like, for example, a football?

That brings up the third problem: size. Like time, size is an abstract. It's relative. Let's say you have three baseballs, all ranging in size. One is ten feet wide, one is five feet wide, one is normal size. Which one is more likely to materialize in the room?

The normal-size baseball? No! It would be the same likelihood for all three. The size wouldn't matter. It's not the issue. The issue is whether or not any baseball of any size could just "show up" in our sealed, empty room.

If you don't think the smallest baseball could just show up in the room, no matter how much time passed, then you must conclude the same thing even for an atom. Size is not an issue. The likelihood of a small particle materializing without cause is no different than a refrigerator materializing without cause!



Now let's stretch our analogy further, literally. Let's take our large, pitch-black room and remove its walls. And let's extend the room so that it goes on infinitely in all directions. Now there is nothing outside the room, because the room is all there is. Period.

This black infinite room has no light, no dust, no particles of any kind, no air, no elements, no molecules. It's absolute nothingness. In fact, we can call it Absolutely Nothing.

So here's the question: if originally--bazillions of years ago--there was Absolutely Nothing, wouldn't there be Absolutely Nothing now?

Yes. For something--no matter how small--cannot come from Absolutely Nothing. We would still have Absolutely Nothing.



What does that tell us? That Absolutely Nothing never existed. Why? Because, if Absolutely Nothing ever existed, there would still be Absolutely Nothing!

If Absolutely Nothing ever existed, there would not be anything outside it to cause the existence of anything.

Again, if Absolutely Nothing ever existed, there would still be Absolutely Nothing.

However, something exists. Actually, many things exist. You, for example, are something that exists, a very important something. Therefore, you are proof that Absolutely Nothing never existed.

Now, if Absolutely Nothing never existed, that means there was always a time when there was at least Something in existence. What was it?

Was it one thing or many things? Was it an atom? A particle? A molecule? A football? A mutant baseball? A refrigerator? Some cookies?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

My answer would be God always existed.

Eternal existence is just something our tiny little finite minds cannot compute.



[b][u]the quantum "grease monkey"[/u][/b]

We have nerdy little scientists calculating PI to the 10 to the 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th power of decimal places thinking there is some kind of evidence to the beginning of existence with a super computer that has the brain power of every human being ever in existence, and all they can come up with is the "big bang theory"....maybe they should have all been stand up comedians instead of grease monkeys?



In the beginning, God laughed....and it was good!

(just kidding )

Thankyou for posting that,,,,,
I love riddles like that,,,,, make my head spin.

Scientific theories if accurately followed through completely, will always prove scripture. (its when the "scientist" compromise their methods, that we get shoddy scientific results)

"In the begining was the word,,,and the word was with me"

There cannot be "nothing" because there is God

If you like that, then continuing on...
-----------------------------------
If there ever was Absolutely Nothing, there would still be Absolutely Nothing today. Since there is something (you, for example), that means that Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it ever did, you wouldn't be here reading this right now. Absolutely Nothing would still be here.

So there was never a time when Absolutely Nothing existed. Therefore, there has always been something. But what? If we go back to the very beginning, what was the Something that must have existed? Was it more than one Something, or just one? And what was it like, judging by what exists today?

Let's explore the quantity issue first. Let's call into mind again our large, pitch-black, sealed-off room. Imagine that there are ten tennis balls inside the room. As far back in time as we can go, there was only this: ten tennis balls.

What happens next? Let's say we wait an entire year. What's in the room? Still just ten tennis balls, right? Because there is no other force in existence. And we know that ten ordinary tennis balls--no matter how much time passes--cannot spawn new ones. Or anything else for that matter.


Okay, what if there were six tennis balls in the room to begin with? Would that change the situation? No, not really. Alright then, what if there were a million tennis balls? Still no change. All we've got in the room is tennis balls, no matter how many there are.

What we find out is that quantity is not an issue. If we go back to the very beginning of all things, the quantity of the Something that must have existed is not what's important. Or is it?

Remove the tennis balls. Now inside the room is a chicken. Now we wait a year. What's inside the room? Just one chicken, right? But what if we started out with one hen and one rooster in the room? Now we wait a year, what do we have? A bunch more chickens!

So quantity is important, IF inside the room are at least two things that can produce a third thing. Hen + rooster = baby chick. But quantity is not important if we're talking about at least two things that cannot produce a third thing. Tennis ball + football = nothing.


So the issue isn't quantity so much as quality. What qualities does the Something possess? Can it bring other things into existence?

Let's go back to our chickens, but let's get very exact, because such would be the case in the very, very beginning. We have a hen and a rooster in the room. They are in different parts of the room, suspended in nothingness. Will they produce other chickens?

No. Why? Because there's no environment to work in. There's nothing in the room except the hen and the rooster. No air to breathe or fly in, no ground to walk on, no sustenance for them to live on. They can't eat, walk, fly or breathe. Their environment is complete nothingness.

So chickens are out. Chickens cannot exist or reproduce without some sort of environment. With an environment, they could spawn other chickens. And with an environment affecting them, maybe they could--though it seems absurd--change into a different kind of chicken over time. Something along the lines of an otter or a giraffe.


So we've got a room with no environment. Therefore, we need Something that can exist without an environment. Something that doesn't need air, food or water to exist. That disqualifies every current living thing on this earth.

So, then, what about non-living things? They don't need an environment, that's true. But then we're in the same predicament we were in with the tennis balls. Non-living matter doesn't produce anything. Let's say, instead of ten tennis balls, you had a trillion molecules of hydrogen. Then what happens? Over time, you still have a trillion molecules of hydrogen, nothing more.

While we're talking about non-living matter, let's also consider what it takes for that to exist. Ever heard of the Supercollider? Years ago the government embarked on an experiment to create matter. The Supercollider was miles and miles of underground tunnel through which atoms would travel at supersonic speeds and then smash into each other, in order to create a tiny particle. All that for the tiniest, most microscopic bit of matter.

What does that tell us? That our illustration of the ten tennis balls is not nearly as easy as it sounds. It would take an AMAZING amount of energy just to produce one tennis ball out of nothing. And nothing is all we have. The room has absolutely nothing in it.



So here's where we are. The Something that existed at the beginning must be able to exist without depending on anything else. It must be totally and fully self-sufficient. For It was alone at the very beginning. And It needed no environment within which to exist.

Second, the Something that existed at the very beginning must have the ability to produce something other than Itself. For, if It could not, then that Something would be all that exists today. But Something Else exists today. You, for example.

Third, to produce Something Else--out of nothing--requires an incredible amount of power. So the Something must have great power at its disposal. If it takes us miles and miles of corridor and the most energy we can harness, just to produce the tiniest particle, how much power would it take to produce the matter in the universe?

Let's go back to our room. Let's say we have a very special tennis ball inside the room. It can produce other tennis balls. It has that much power and energy. And It is completely self-sufficient, needing nothing else to exist, for It is all there is. It, this one tennis ball, is the Eternal Something.



Let's say the tennis ball produces another tennis ball. Which of the two will be greater, say, with respect to TIME? Ball #1. It is the Eternal Something. It has always existed. Ball #2, however, came into existence when produced by Ball #1. So one ball is finite with regard to time, the other infinite.

Which of the two will be greater with regard to POWER? Again, Ball #1. It has the ability to produce Ball #2 out of nothing--which also means it has the ability to unproduce (destroy) Ball #2. So Ball #1 has far more power than Ball #2. In fact, at all times, Ball #2 must depend on Ball #1 for its very existence.

But, you say, what if Ball #1 shared some of its power with Ball #2--enough power to destroy Ball #1? Then Ball #2 would be greater, for Ball #1 would cease to be, right?

There's a problem with this. If Ball #1 shared some of its power with Ball #2, it would still be Ball #1's power. The question then becomes: could Ball #1 use its own power to destroy itself? No. First of all, to use its power, Ball #1 has to exist.

Second of all, Ball #1 is so powerful that anything that can possibly be done, can be done by Ball #1. But it is not possible for Ball #1 to cease to be, therefore it cannot accomplish this.

Ball #1 cannot be unproduced, for Ball #1 was never produced in the first place. Ball #1 has always existed. It is the Eternal Something. As such, it is existence. It is life, infinite life. For Ball #1 to be destroyed, there would need to be something greater. But nothing is greater than Ball #1, nor ever could be. It exists without need of anything else. It therefore cannot be changed by any external forces. It can have no end, for It has no beginning. It is the way it is and that cannot change. It cannot cease to be, for BEING is its very nature. In that sense, it is untouchable.



What we see is this: the Something at the very beginning will always be greater than the Something Else it produces. The Something exists on its own. Something Else, however, needs Something to exist. Therefore, Something Else has needs. It is therefore inferior to Something, and will always be so, for the Eternal Something has no need of another.

The Something might be able to produce Something Else that is like It in some ways, but--no matter what--Something Else will always be unlike It in other ways. The Eternal Something will always be greater with respect to time and power. Thus, the Eternal Something cannot produce an exact equal to Itself. It alone has always existed. It alone can exist independent of another.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I will get my refernce and post it.

I hope you're not trying to say God is a tennis ball

I love analogies; they bring everything into perspective.

Taking this premise further, Barnabas, let’s ponder something slightly different, what I think is closer to the inception of all that is. Going back to the original football sized room containing Absolutely Nothing, let’s say it is divided in half with a wall, similar in Nothingness as the other four walls, thus creating two realms (continuums) of Nothing. In one realm is Absolutely Nothing, but in the other realm is a large beach ball that is adhered onto the middle of the central shared wall. Now, inside the beach ball is self-contained the Eternal Something (Triune Godhead) and a companion, the Something Else, being an original Perfect Creation, what quantum physicists call “Paradise Lost” in the time “before” Time, itself. This can be identified as a “paleo-universe”, and more accurately it can be called the “Supraeoverse” (super+first+universe).

This Something Else was created by the Eternal Something and is a secondary element. In totality they form a unit, this Supraeoverse being a “Wedlock Omni-Union” (a communalism) between the “Great Eternal Husband” (Eternal Something) and the “Great Eternal Wife” (Something Else), composed of the Original Creation, “Paradise Lost”, and containing “us” in a pre-incarnate pneumatic (spiritual) state, for ‘we” were once the “Great Eternal Wife”. And this is all that there was, self-contained in a measurable sphere, having different properties to Time than what we currently know, for Time in this original state was “affixed” and not “non-fixed” as it is today. And in the next room their continued to be the existence of Absolute Nothing.

Everything was fine until one day, so to speak, the system became “defiled” when “Pride” emerged within the Great Eternal Wife (the Something Else), and there was a “fornication” with an “Other” within the system in which “we” became co-conspirators with the Other and attempted to reverse the Divine Order of the Masculine Creator over His Feminine Creation. As a result, the Eternal Something (Husband) was forced to auto-evacuate the system (the “Spontaneous Theocentric Expulsion”) out of LOVE for His now defiled Wife, the “Great Whore”, for He knew that which is defiled and impure cannot stand within His Presence of Purity and live, for the Light pierces the Darkness. Thus, to salvage a portion of that which He created and loved He aborted the system in a split nanosecond creating a “Hyper-Singularity Event” in the wake of His expulsion.

What transpired was this: the departure, a “Great Separation” and the “Great Divorce”, of the Eternal Something (Husband) pierced the very wall of the beach ball and the continuum wall with a minute subatomic hole (the “Metastatic Threshold”) through which the entire Supraeoverse inverted itself behind the wake of His expulsion. Consequently, a subatomic hole was pricked through the wall of the adjacent realm of Absolute Nothing, and through this hole the former defiled paleo-universe inverted itself into a conic structure (a cone). At “hyper-velocity” the Great Eternal Husband swiftly expelled into the adjacent realm to its outermost Nothingness, and cut the ties that bonded Him with His former Wife (the Something Else). And between the Eternal Something and the new Trans-Universal Superstructure (the “transformed” Something Else) was created a “Great Divide of Separation”. The conic structure eventually flattened into a vast spiraling, flat disk in the realm of Absolute Nothing, which now has something, a secondary “Creation” that is fallen, corrupted, and in a state of entropy and degeneration. The Great Whore is now the “Great Disavowed Widow”, for her Husband “appears” dead to her. The new existence is now “with” Time, for the properties of Time have changed and are now “non-fixed” resulting in death, decay, deterioration, and entropy. Hence, this is why the root etymon to the words “modernity” and “contemporary” (with + time) is ultimately the word “widow”.

Today, all that remains of the former Great Eternal Wife is an “Uterocore”, a “Cosmic Womb”, at the very core of the Trans-Universal Superstructure, for it was the last element to invert into the current continuum, and it continually produces a “Mega Umbilicus” containing a double-helix of countless 6-dimensional and 4-dimensional multiverses just like our own “Local Universe” within the vast Trans-Universal Superstructure. These cylindrically shaped multiverses progress within their double-helix cord in the Mega Umbilicus until they reach an inert state of cold-death and their remains are ultimately deposited beyond the “Termination Ring” where the zero-point energy “Umbra Belt” exists, the vast divide between the Supra-Transdimensions of God and the inner universe. Hence, there are two major sectors to the Trans-Universal Superstructure, the “Endoverse”, which is finite, and the “Supra-Exoverse”, which is infinite.

Consequently, the quantum equations of Big Bang theorists always point to the beginning where there existed a subatomic particle that exploded into our current Trans-Universal Superstructure. In actuality, they are misinterpreting this from the subatomic Metastatic Threshold through which the first atoms emerged into the new continuum during the Hyper-Singularity Event of the Spontaneous Theocentric Expulsion.

I believe the Big Bang Theory and here it is.

Before the beginning before there was anything there was a Spirit. The Spirit wasn't anywhere because anywhere had not been created yet. The Spirit said I need a Son to keep me company. So the Spirit Said let there be a Son And "BANG" There was a Son. The Father Spirit Said We need A Place to dwell So the Son Spirit Said let there be heavens And "BANG" there were Mature Heavens with constellations and galaxies and all of that. Now The Father Spirit and The Son Spirit were in the Heavens and the Father Spirit Said to The Son Spirit we need a Place to rest our feet. So the Son Spirit said let there be earth And "BANG" there was a mature Earth. You can find the rest of this big BANG theory written somewhere. I think they call it the Bible.

[quote name='Godsloft.com' date='Mar 11 2007, 09:25 PM' post='105054']
I believe the Big Bang Theory and here it is.

Before the beginning before there was anything there was a Spirit. The Spirit wasn't anywhere because anywhere had not been created yet. The Spirit said I need a Son to keep me company. So the Spirit Said let there be a Son And "BANG" There was a Son. The Father Spirit Said We need A Place to dwell So the Son Spirit Said let there be heavens And "BANG" there were Mature Heavens with constellations and galaxies and all of that. Now The Father Spirit and The Son Spirit were in the Heavens and the Father Spirit Said to The Son Spirit we need a Place to rest our feet. So the Son Spirit said let there be earth And "BANG" there was a mature Earth. You can find the rest of this big BANG theory written somewhere. I think they call it the Bible.
[/quote]

Hi, Godsloft... with all due respect, the Son was not created, He always was with Father God since the beginning, as well as the Spirit. Additionally, the current universe is not the Original Creation of God, because it is in a state of entropy, deterioration, degeneration, corruption, decay, etc. This indicates that it is in a state of a "Fallen Nature", and God does not create flawed and deformed things; He created everything "perfect". So this alludes to a former universal state that no longer exists, but rather was perverted into a transformed state, being our current Trans-Universal Superstructure.

[center] [/center]
Hi, Godsloft... with all due respect, the Son was not created, He always was with Father God since the beginning, as well as the Spirit. Additionally, the current universe is not the Original Creation of God, because it is in a state of entropy, deterioration, degeneration, corruption, decay, etc. This indicates that it is in a state of a "Fallen Nature", and God does not create flawed and deformed things; He created everything "perfect". So this alludes to a former universal state that no longer exists, but rather was perverted into a transformed state, being our current Trans-Universal Superstructure.
[center] [/center]

You misunderstood what I said SEVEN THUNDERS. I said before the beginning. Read it again. Mans theories have the universe in a state of decay. Man is the only thing in a state of decay. Mans peon theories are not real and have very little if no truth to them what so ever. God did create heaven and earth to pass away but by His understanding and by His design and Hand. Indeed Almighty God is not only the original creator of the entire universe and every thing that anyone could use their senses to detect but He keeps it going down to the neutrons circling the protons. If God removes Himself from any part of creation it ceases to exist. And yes before there was anything there was the Father and the Son.
[center] [/center]

[quote name='Godsloft.com' date='Mar 11 2007, 10:48 PM' post='105066']/[You misunderstood what I said SEVEN THUNDERS. I said before the beginning. Read it again. Mans theories have the universe in a state of decay. Man is the only thing in a state of decay. Mans peon theories are not real and have very little if no truth to them what so ever. God did create heaven and earth to pass away but by His understanding and by His design and Hand. Indeed Almighty God is not only the original creator of the entire universe and every thing that anyone could use their senses to detect but He keeps it going down to the neutrons circling the protons. If God removes Himself from any part of creation it ceases to exist. And yes before there was anything there was the Father and the Son.
[/quote]

Strange, indeed. I'm so glad you changed your picture. This one is far more glorious.

There is an Eternal Something. Something has always existed. Something has no beginning. If this Something has any needs, It can fulfill those needs for Itself. It needs nothing else in order to exist. And It cannot produce an exact equal or another who is greater. Anything that is produced is not eternal. Therefore, the Eternal Something cannot produce another Eternal Something. It will always be greater than anything else that exists.

Now, could this Eternal Something be plural? Possibly. Let's say that originally there were five Eternal Somethings. If that were the case, however, those five would be exactly the same with respect to time and power. All unproduced, all eternal, all able to do whatever is possible to do. This again shows us that quality, not quantity, is the real issue.

So, what do we know about the Eternal Something(s)? It is not alone. For Something Else exists. You, for example. Now you have to ask yourself, are you the Eternal Something, or one of the Eternal Somethings? If you are, then you have no beginning, no needs which you yourself cannot meet, and anything that can possibly be done can be done by you. Is that who you are? If not, then you are truly Something Else, not the Eternal Something or one of the Eternal Somethings.

Let's go back to our large, pitch-black, empty room. But now let's say that one molecule of hydrogen and one molecule of nitrogen are in the room. For argument's sake, let's say that these are the Eternal Somethings. They have always existed. Anything that can be done, can be done by Them.



So, They decide to produce Something Else, for They are the only things that exist in the room. But wait, can hydrogen or nitrogen decide anything? Well, for them to be the Eternal Somethings, They MUST have the ability to make a decision.

Think about it. The Eternal Something must choose to change things. The Eternal Something is eternal. It has always existed independent of another. More importantly, It alone has always existed. What does that mean? It means that no event can take place without the say-so of the Eternal Something.

The Eternal Something is all there is, period. Therefore, the only thing in existence that can change the Eternal Something's aloneless is the Eternal Something Itself. There can be no force outside the Eternal Something because the Eternal Something is all there is.

Therefore, if one molecule of hydrogen and one molecule of nitrogen are the Eternal Somethings, no outside force can direct Them. They are all there is. They are the only force there is.

As the only force in existence, it is They alone who can change Their aloneness. There is nothing in existence that can arbitrarily, by chance, influence Them to produce Something Else.



Something Else could not be produced by chance. Why? Because, for that to happen, "chance" would have to overpower the hydrogen and nitrogen molecules. But They are all there is. Anything that can be done, can be done by Them. "Chance" is Something Else. Something Else cannot overpower the Eternal Something. In fact, at this stage, Chance does not even exist.

If Chance is something outside the Eternal Something, then it does not exist unless produced by the Eternal Something. But even if Chance were produced by the Eternal Something, Chance, since it is Something Else, would always be inferior to the Eternal Something.

So, if Something Else is produced, it is by the power and WILL of the Eternal Something. Something Else can be produced by Chance only if Chance is produced before that Something Else. But Chance itself cannot be produced by chance. It would have to be produced by the will of the Eternal Something.

What does that tell us about our hydrogen and nitrogen molecules? That They are not merely the Eternal Something(s), They are eternal persons. They have will. That is, They must have the ability to choose. Therefore, They are personal.



Again, why must the Eternal Something have the ability to choose? Think back to the empty room with only the hydrogen and nitrogen molecules in it. They are the Eternal Somethings. They alone exist in the room, and have done so eternally.

They exist totally independent of another. For survival, They need no other. Therefore, if They produce Something Else, it will not be out of necessity (as in instinct for survival as we see with animals). Also, if They produce Something Else, it will not be by chance -- unless They first produce Chance. Chance is a force, but the Eternal Somethings (the two molecules) are the only force that exists.

Furthermore, the molecules cannot be mere machines. Machines are built and programmed by an outside force of some kind. But the molecules (the Eternal Somethings) are the only force that exists. No force exists outside Them.

Therefore, if They produce Something Else inside the room, the reason for this production must reside within Them, for no other force exists. Nothing else exists within the room except Them.

They are not forced to produce Something Else by instinct, chance, necessity, or the will of another. They are controlled by no other. Whatever They do is done for reasons within Themselves.

This reason can only be Their will. They must choose to produce Something Else, or else nothing else will exist. They will remain alone forever in the room, unless They decide to produce Something Else. They must have more than the power to produce Something Else. They must -- at some moment which differentiates it from all the other moments that They've existed alone -- decide to use Their power to produce Something Else.

If they have no will (like the tennis balls we spoke of in a previous study), then Their power would never be used to produce Something Else. Their power would only be used to further Their own existence. And their aloneness would remain forever.



The Eternal Something has existed alone eternally. There must be a reason, therefore, within the Eternal Something, for that to change. If Something Else exists, it exists because of the Eternal Something, because the Eternal Something has chosen to end its aloneness.

If the reason for the Something Else is not within the Eternal Something, then Something Else will never exist. For the Eternal Something, at some point, was all that existed.

But we know that Something Else exists. Therefore, the Eternal Something must have the ability to decide to use Its power. It must have the ability to choose to produce Something Else outside of Itself. Since it has a will, the Eternal Something is personal. This means that the Eternal Something is actually an Eternal Someone.

This Eternal Someone is not controlled by instinct for survival, for It has no needs and cannot cease to exist anyway. Also, the Eternal Someone does not produce by Chance, unless It first produces Chance. Chance is a force that must be produced by the Eternal Something, or it does not exist. Finally, the Eternal Someone is not a machine. There is no other, outside of Itself, to force It or program It to do anything.

Barnabas read these scriptures.

Titus 1
2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,

Titus 3
7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Luke 20
36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Indeed God Can And Will reward those who are faithfull with Life eternal.

You can't go back to a large, pitch-black, empty room because it hasn't been created yet Barnabas. You have to consider this from a nowhere and nothing train of thought. Everything is created except the One who created it. No light no darkness no eyes to see it, no heat no cold no nerves to feel it, no distance no depth no height no weight. Nothing. This is why you can't see God. God is Spirit. Beyond human comprehension God is everywhere.

It just articulate's a better description for "nothingness" than I could do. Whatever "nothingness" is, the point is life could not have possibly began from that state.

Energy producing energy has never happened either, and there ain't no spacemen out there dropping life off as they fly through the Universe.

No Space men Barnabas. But indeed life started from it's author “God”. The only “One” not created. The originator and the force that keeps it all together.

Acts 17
28 for in Him we live and move and have our being,

Hello Everybody,

I am new here. However, here' my take of the Beginning of our Physical World - for I believe it relates to the bringning forth of the Power and Brightness of the Glory Son into this physical world from the invisible realm of his Father -- when God said "LET THERE BE LIGHT" -- based strictly on the Scripture.

Here's my take ....

Genesis 1:1 is actually a preface - [b]The Story of the Beginning of Creation[/b].

Genesis 1:2 narrate us the condition of the deep BEFORE the start of the actual making of our physical heaven and earth in the beginning.

"In the beginning God Created the heaven and the Earth (air, dust and water). v2 And the Earth was without form, (Dust) and void; (Empty) and darkness (Death) was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Genesis 1:3 document us the bringing forth of the "Word" (Light) into this physical world BEFORE anything is made -- to turn the condition of the deep (empty) from darkness to light (life).

The power and brightness of the glory of the Son provided that Light in the beginning (ALPHA) - which also the cause of the Big Bang - ref. Gen. 1:3 -- as he will also provide the Light in the end (OMEGA) ref. Rev. 21:23.

Genesis 1:4 God divided the Light from the darkness before the start of any creation - the first work of old.

Genesis 1:5 Light Day and Night - the 1st. Day.

Based on the above analogy, am I correct to assume that the heaven and earth were still null & void (non-existence) on the first day (Gen.1:1-5) do you agree?

Seemingly, the actual formation of the first physical heaven took place only on the 2nd. day and the earth was made on the 3rd day - not Genesis 1:1, would that be the case?

But that just my Opinion. Your thought please.....


God Bless

There are several reasons why I believe that the word used in Gen. 1:1 is Heaven and not Heavens (plural). In the context of the text, I see the narrative as saying:

In the beginning God Created the heaven (Air) and the Earth (Ground). And the Earth (Ground) was without form, (Dust) and void; (Empty) and darkness (Death) was upon the face of the deep, (Water) and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The 3 elements necessary for all physical form are shown... AIR, DUST, and WATER. Everything which is physical is composed of these 3 elements.

The text is correct in showing that the water was not directly created, or spoken into being, because it consists of elements of the Air or Atmosphere. Water is Hydrogen and Oxygen and came from the Atmosphere and is not shown as a separate creation.

This is correct in today's scientific knowledge, but IF the Bible were written by Ancient men, Moses would not have known this. He would have written that in the beginning God created the Air, Dust, and Water, but since God Himself is the Author, He correctly shows that the Atmosphere and Ground were created, and the Water was not a separate creation but instead, came from the Atmosphere.

Of course, JMHO, based on the Scripture.


God Bless

The answer is more simple than you think and it's complexity and magnitude astounds and perplexes me... making me just a jester in God's court. A fool plain and simple.

Amen Panda

"What is the kingdom of heaven like? It's like a seed so small you can hardly see it, but then it grows to become the greatest of trees."

Today it is called the bigbang.

Someone should send Mr Hawking a bible...

Physicists are in agreement: "energy equalls mass times the speed of light that is squared (E=MC"2")"
So, from energy, mass can be produced. Isaiah 40:13 makes reference to God as having "...abundace of dynamic energy...." The "Big Bang" theory may have some significance as to by what event started the creatation of the universe; however, it is most important to me who credit is given to.

Mark51