Did Noahs Arc Really Happen

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
creating a view of the physical universe that does not require God is no different than reaching an understanding of why a volcano explodes that wasn’t caused by God’s direct hand. You claim the analogy is so bad. I’m not so sure you “get it”. He does NOT, I reiterate, does not deny a creator. [/quote]

You say physical, I never heard ‘physcial universe’ just universe.

The volcano analogy does not work because it is already the result of a long chain of events. When you are seeking answers to the very first event, it’s a totally different ball game, because there is no preceding cause for this event. It’s a huge difference.

I seriously doubt that he or anybody else would be content to study the ‘first event’ in the chain with out trying to figure out how it got there.

That first event could be the beginning of this universe or the many universes that preceded it. What we know is it’s here and it got here somehow. When you are looking at initial causes you have one of two options. ‘Something caused it’ or ‘nothing caused it’.

Whether Hawking is an atheist or not, he is seeking to prove an atheistic tenant, or nothing caused it. Most TP’s look for the same thing with out considering the other, or at least I have not heard it considered… When you at this level, you cannot take ‘first cause’ out of the equation. It’s impossible to do so.

[/quote]

Final time. You are misinterpretting Hawking. And, you have too narrow a view of the universe. He speaks of an architect, or God, that perhaps created the rules but not necessarily the universe you perceive. He speaks of a universe without and outside of time. Time, which by the way, we poorly understand and is entirely a man made concept. Remove time, and there is no beginning, and no end. If there is no beginning, what then is left except for someone - God, to create physical rules? That opportunistic atheist types would latch on to these scientific theories as “evidence” of a universe without God, does not mean that the scientists such as Hawkings who propound these theories are of like mind. The foregoing does not “remove first cause”. It suggests that perhaps there was no “first cause” as in a big bang or its equivolent, but it does recognize the potential hand of an almighty in creating physical laws that lead to life and consciousness.

So then, we are left with a third alternative other than “something caused it” or, “nothing caused it”. We are left with “it was always here, and always will be here”. And it may very well be God’s hand that created the physical laws of the universe.
[/quote]

What does time have to do with anything? Time is the relative measure of one objects movement, relative to another object’s movement. From the basis of contingency this is irrelevant. From on thing or another, each thing in the universe is dependent on another for it’s existence.

A physical universe has always been there, yet the laws it follows was created by God? And that makes sense to you?
So God always existed and physical matter always existed, so one day God decided to rule over the physical by making it conform to laws? How would this work and who gave him the authority to create rules of behavior for something as uncreated as himself?
Does not the “laws” that the physical matter follows, follow the same causal chain as the matter itself? How then can one be created and the other always exist? And even more ironically, how can the metaphysical constructs of “laws” which is truly timeless and eternal, be created, yet the “stuff” they govern always exist?

[/quote]

You are truly exhausting. When can we agree to disagree and end this? Time is not fully understood and may have no meaning whatsoever as it concerns the universe and its origins. The universe may have always been here, yes, along with God. God is “eternal” remember? Perhaps no beginning, along with no end. Time is only “relative” within our tiny perception of the universe.

Why don’t YOU tell me when and who created God? And then tell me all about the creation of the universe.

362

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
creating a view of the physical universe that does not require God is no different than reaching an understanding of why a volcano explodes that wasn’t caused by God’s direct hand. You claim the analogy is so bad. I’m not so sure you “get it”. He does NOT, I reiterate, does not deny a creator. [/quote]

You say physical, I never heard ‘physcial universe’ just universe.

The volcano analogy does not work because it is already the result of a long chain of events. When you are seeking answers to the very first event, it’s a totally different ball game, because there is no preceding cause for this event. It’s a huge difference.

I seriously doubt that he or anybody else would be content to study the ‘first event’ in the chain with out trying to figure out how it got there.

That first event could be the beginning of this universe or the many universes that preceded it. What we know is it’s here and it got here somehow. When you are looking at initial causes you have one of two options. ‘Something caused it’ or ‘nothing caused it’.

Whether Hawking is an atheist or not, he is seeking to prove an atheistic tenant, or nothing caused it. Most TP’s look for the same thing with out considering the other, or at least I have not heard it considered… When you at this level, you cannot take ‘first cause’ out of the equation. It’s impossible to do so.

[/quote]

Final time. You are misinterpretting Hawking. And, you have too narrow a view of the universe. He speaks of an architect, or God, that perhaps created the rules but not necessarily the universe you perceive. He speaks of a universe without and outside of time. Time, which by the way, we poorly understand and is entirely a man made concept. Remove time, and there is no beginning, and no end. If there is no beginning, what then is left except for someone - God, to create physical rules? That opportunistic atheist types would latch on to these scientific theories as “evidence” of a universe without God, does not mean that the scientists such as Hawkings who propound these theories are of like mind. The foregoing does not “remove first cause”. It suggests that perhaps there was no “first cause” as in a big bang or its equivolent, but it does recognize the potential hand of an almighty in creating physical laws that lead to life and consciousness.

So then, we are left with a third alternative other than “something caused it” or, “nothing caused it”. We are left with “it was always here, and always will be here”. And it may very well be God’s hand that created the physical laws of the universe.
[/quote]

What does time have to do with anything? Time is the relative measure of one objects movement, relative to another object’s movement. From the basis of contingency this is irrelevant. From on thing or another, each thing in the universe is dependent on another for it’s existence.

A physical universe has always been there, yet the laws it follows was created by God? And that makes sense to you?
So God always existed and physical matter always existed, so one day God decided to rule over the physical by making it conform to laws? How would this work and who gave him the authority to create rules of behavior for something as uncreated as himself?
Does not the “laws” that the physical matter follows, follow the same causal chain as the matter itself? How then can one be created and the other always exist? And even more ironically, how can the metaphysical constructs of “laws” which is truly timeless and eternal, be created, yet the “stuff” they govern always exist?

[/quote]

You are truly exhausting. When can we agree to disagree and end this? Time is not fully understood and may have no meaning whatsoever as it concerns the universe and its origins. The universe may have always been here, yes, along with God. God is “eternal” remember? Perhaps no beginning, along with no end. Time is only “relative” within our tiny perception of the universe.

Why don’t YOU tell me when and who created God? And then tell me all about the creation of the universe.
[/quote]

You can bow out any time…

By definition God could not be created. If he were then he would not be God, what created him would be. The causal chain stops with the first cause.
Time is a measurement…Time = 0 when nothing moves or changes. Perception of time = 0 would be riding on a light beam.

Nobody knows what happened pre-big bang, what happened after I defer to the experts.
One thing I do know, is this universe is verifiably not eternal.

363

^^^^

Bowing out now because you’re making it up as you go along.

You believe in God correct? God is “eternal” - no beginning, no end. Why then does the universe need a beginning and end? Time is man’s measurement - nothing more. In the grand scheme of the universe, time may have no meaning at all, and no place. Time is still poorly understood even among those that study it - I know that little tid bit doesn’t have much sex appeal, but it’s still an issue with TPs.

NOW you defer to experts, but prior you implied they were missing something. And now you “know verifiably” that universe is not eternal. How may I ask that you know this?

You spent pages railing against PTs and Hawkings in particular. And now we get one of the shortest replies from you yet when you are asked to articulate your ideas in concrete form rather than criticism of others. I’ll ask you again. Tell me the nature of God as you understand it and believe it. When did God appear. When did the universe appear?

And without time, which I repeat - is a HUMAN CONSTRUCT - there is no “first cause”. There just “is”.

365

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

And without time, which I repeat - is a HUMAN CONSTRUCT…[/quote]

I disagree completely. I believe Time was created along with matter/energy and space. It is intricately woven with everything we know about it (matter/energy & space).

I also believe Genesis 1:1 expresses this.[/quote]

How can time be created? It’s a measure? That’s like saying you believe that distance was created. Everything we know about space/time now, suggests that the idea that there was a void, before there was stuff, is wrong, with space/time being defined by the stuff that’s present… rather than being the empty terrarium (or void-arium) that Newtonian/pre-Newtonian physics assumed.

And any sense of causation requires time, so the “before time” doesn’t really work.

Doesn’t Genesis 1:1 plop us into a world already in action, not prior to anything? It implies that God is already operating inside space/time when God created the many heavens and the one earth. So the stuff to make all this must have already been around. Maybe “In the Beginning” is just referring to earth and the atmosphere around it. But frankly, the rest of Genesis 1 reads like it’s talking about a geocentric universe.

366

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

And without time, which I repeat - is a HUMAN CONSTRUCT…[/quote]

I disagree completely. I believe Time was created along with matter/energy and space. It is intricately woven with everything we know about it (matter/energy & space).

I also believe Genesis 1:1 expresses this.[/quote]

Scientifically, you would be absolutely incorrect. Physicists still struggle with “time” and it IS entirely a human construct made up by humans whom lead a finite existence (at least here on earth). If you’re relying upon Genesis for your “science” well then there can’t be much further discussion there Push. Nothing to debate.

However, you are ABSOLUTELY wrong about your stated perception of time. We made up time. And it still does not weave seamlessly into various cosmological formulas, theories, quantum mechnics, etc.

369

Time is no more than a means for humans to measure motion. We are finite beings (at least while on earth), that created a means to measure the passage of our lives and to quantify motion. I suggest many of you do the flat land thought experiment. Just because you do not peceive something in your existence, does not mean it does not exist. A one dimensional being living on a line, cannot perceive the other dimensions that surely surround it. And likewise, just because you perceive “time”, because you do have a beginning (birth) and an end (death), does not mean that “time” exists for all of creation. Time and thus a timeline, must have a beginning. Even if there were a “big bang”, or a “first cause”, I ask you what preceeded that?

And Push, you’re too smart to retort a simple fact about time with a reference to Genesis. I know we rarely agree, but I’d expected better from you. At least do some reading on the problems with “time” that have confounded physicists forever and until this present day.

370

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I disagree.

BTW, the fact that you are debating indicates there is something to debate.[quote]

And it still does not weave seamlessly into various cosmological formulas, theories, quantum mechnics, etc.[/quote]

Define “weave seamlessly.”

Time is always a factor when considering "various cosmological formulas, theories, quantum mechnics, etc., regardless of whether one considers it a created or man-concocted idea.
[/quote]

Time is the factor that does not FIT. Anyway, how can we talk if you just make passing oblique references to genesis without ever stating your interpretation? Are we all supposed to go back to the good book and grok what you believe? Or are you going to state it here so a discussion can be had? I can reference at least a half dozen references to the time problem if you care to read them, but then again, you can just google it, or pick up any number of recent PT books dumbed down for the masses (like me). I however, cannot go back and read genesis and grok what it is you interpret. Fair enough? You have done this in more than one reply now (not just to me). It’s as if you want to assume a higher intellectual ground by oblique reference alone, without ever having to articulate anything, as if it’s beneath you to do so. c’mon man.

373

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
…Just because you do not peceive something in your existence, does not mean it does not exist…[/quote]

You mean like Time being a created entity?[quote]

And Push, you’re too smart to retort a simple fact about time with a reference to Genesis. I know we rarely agree, but I’d expected better from you… [/quote]

One could write a post on Genesis 1:1 that was 2 1/2 miles long and would crash the TN servers. Because I choose not to do so in direct response to your post should not indict me with some nebulous charge of laziness.[/quote]

You’re being disingenous and toward what end I’m not sure. A post about your POINT relative to Genesis as it concerns a simple reply would not crash the TN servers sir. I’m not indicting you for laziness, I’m challenging you that if yoiu have a point to make, I’m simply asking you to articulate it - otherwise, what is the purpose of making a post? To imply a superior position without ever having to do the work? To be a smartass? This isn’t SAMA. Let’s have a serious discussion.

374

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…Anyway, how can we talk if you just make passing oblique references to genesis without ever stating your interpretation? Are we all supposed to go back to the good book…[/quote]

Yes.[quote]

Or are you going to state it here so a discussion can be had? I can reference at least a half dozen references to the time problem if you care to read them, but then again, you can just google it, or pick up any number of recent PT books dumbed down for the masses (like me). I however, cannot go back and read genesis and grok what it is you interpret. Fair enough? You have done this in more than one reply now (not just to me). It’s as if you want to assume a higher intellectual ground by oblique reference alone, without ever having to articulate anything, as if it’s beneath you to do so. c’mon man.
[/quote]

No, it’s not “beneath me” at all. I just am not fully motivated to teach a class. I have a business to run, a wife to fuck, weights to be lifted, and posts on SAMA to be made.

“Oblique references” if that’s what you wish to call them are methods to stimulate thought.

If my lack of a presented thesis frustrates you so be it. Get over it.

(Just don’t put me on Ignore like Eph did. That broke my heart)
[/quote]

I have nothing to get over. I don’t take it personal and really, I was just inviting you to join the dialogue rather than take pot shots from the sidelines which, by now, in addition to your legion posting on SAMA far surpasses any effort required to give a thoughtful articulate reply - not teach a class.

Anyway, to each his own. And by the way, “ignore” is the stuff of women. I wasn’t aware of the option and wouldn’t dream of using it - no matter how wildly you swing at me (and you have in the past).

375

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I said I believe it was created. I didn’t say I believe how it was created is easy to grasp. It IS an interesting concept to ponder.[/quote]

It is. But when we think of time as a continuous line, we fall into an anthropomorphic trap, and time gets its own “thingness”, which it doesn’t have. It goes back to the old (obsolete) idea that the either time or space would exist in the absence of any substance, as some “object” reality.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Yeah, “everything we know…”

I think I can leave that one alone, sitting there naked with no response needed.[/quote]

This entire conversation is using heuristic facts. You could be a real skeptic and decide that your hand doesn’t actually exist, all evidence to the contrary.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

There is much our finite minds can’t comprehend. Don’t intentionally slam doors shut in front of your own face.[/quote]

Exactly. Even a divinely inspired account, would be limited by the person who actually wrote it down, and their ability to comprehend the world. In this thread here, which has hashed out a discussion about space/time a number of times, there are still people on this last page, right here, ignoring that, and going with their own colloquial idea of what time is.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Yes and no. Go read the verse in English. Then read it in Hebrew. The verse is loaded with information for those who intend to cast more than a cursory glance.[/quote]

My JPS Tanakh is at home, so maybe you could be a little more specific. Whether you want to say God began creating or God created, there is still a temporal aspect to the statement… it wasn’t just there in the begging, but there was something there in the begging.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
No, it implies the opposite.[/quote]

I disagree.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Ex nihilo.[/quote]

Ex nihilo is not an argument, where is that in the text? There’s no “In the begging there was nothing.” Or “The World was Void”.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Again, quite the opposite.[/quote]

I’m was trying to help the Bible argument here. It’s clearly not talking the universe, and is a geocentric story, about how the earth, not the universe came to be. We get the earth, we get the water, and we get the sky (atmosphere). We don’t get the sun, which sounds like it was already somewhere (but not giving us light 'till God moved it into range or whatever).

I can give you the extra-biblical very simple metaphysical account the Jews had for three-thousand years: the earth is flat, it’s supported by divine pillars, heaven is above us, and the sun moves around the earth, which exists at the center of the celestial sphere. That’s what the people who lived around the writing of the text thought.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

It a simple book in many respects; it is a complicated one in many others. It truly is the most fascinating book in the Bible.
[/quote]

Have you read Moses Maimonides’(Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon) commentary, or Guide to the Perplexed? He was very influential in how I approach the Tanahk, and you might appreciate him.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The geocentric universe claim does puzzle me though. You would have to give me some examples. And don’t include examples like, “The sun rises in the east and sets in the west” type stuff. We all talk that way even today.
[/quote]

It’s all over. I think I made a few references earlier in the post, but let’s just take the New International translation of 1:1 and 1:2 : “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters”

That’s what we would call a geocentric account. It sounds almost as though earth could be used interchangeably with world, or universe, but it’s not. And the “and” in 1:1 absolutely separates the concept of heavens from earth: it’s talking about the stuff we walk on, not the world. This is only an account of the beginning of all creation (the world) if you understand earth to be “the world”, otherwise, anything who’d creation is not mentioned here, could have already been around, and this wasn’t the true begging of anything at all, but a forming of earth by God.

376

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
^^^^

Bowing out now because you’re making it up as you go along.

You believe in God correct? God is “eternal” - no beginning, no end. Why then does the universe need a beginning and end? Time is man’s measurement - nothing more. In the grand scheme of the universe, time may have no meaning at all, and no place. Time is still poorly understood even among those that study it - I know that little tid bit doesn’t have much sex appeal, but it’s still an issue with TPs.

NOW you defer to experts, but prior you implied they were missing something. And now you “know verifiably” that universe is not eternal. How may I ask that you know this?

You spent pages railing against PTs and Hawkings in particular. And now we get one of the shortest replies from you yet when you are asked to articulate your ideas in concrete form rather than criticism of others. I’ll ask you again. Tell me the nature of God as you understand it and believe it. When did God appear. When did the universe appear?

And without time, which I repeat - is a HUMAN CONSTRUCT - there is no “first cause”. There just “is”.[/quote]

We know this universe had a beginning which was in most common circles estimated at about 13.75 Billion years ago. What preceded it I don’t know, but if it did not have a beginning there was no big bang…

Correct time is a measurement. Not a construct of it’s own. I never railed against, theoretical physicists. I am rather fond of them actually. I merely said that I believe that most of them are atheists and that factor may help color their theories. They spend an awful lot of time trying to disprove causality. ← This has been, historically what athiests do to “prove” atheism. Ultimately, I can’t know a man’s heart.
You picked Hawking, I wasn’t railing against the man, why would I do that? He speaks as if an atheist, but if he says he’s not, then I can’t say he is…But if he says God is not the creator, than obviously we don’t see God the same way. A God, who is not the creator it not God, IMO.

Logic begets a uncaused-cause…“First” is a bad term because it implies time. But to not have one creates a circular reasoning. Being here, cause we’re here is a non-answer.
There is no evidence anywhere in universe of just being…Everything that exists, came from something else.

377

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

And without time, which I repeat - is a HUMAN CONSTRUCT…[/quote]

I disagree completely. I believe Time was created along with matter/energy and space. It is intricately woven with everything we know about it (matter/energy & space).

I also believe Genesis 1:1 expresses this.[/quote]

How can time be created? It’s a measure? That’s like saying you believe that distance was created. Everything we know about space/time now, suggests that the idea that there was a void, before there was stuff, is wrong, with space/time being defined by the stuff that’s present… rather than being the empty terrarium (or void-arium) that Newtonian/pre-Newtonian physics assumed.

And any sense of causation requires time, so the “before time” doesn’t really work.
[/quote]
No it does not. Metaphysical objects are subject to causation yet are not bound by time, at all.
Also, there is something called the EPR effect, which empirically proved simultaneous causation does exist.

378

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Time is no more than a means for humans to measure motion. We are finite beings (at least while on earth), that created a means to measure the passage of our lives and to quantify motion. I suggest many of you do the flat land thought experiment. Just because you do not peceive something in your existence, does not mean it does not exist. A one dimensional being living on a line, cannot perceive the other dimensions that surely surround it. And likewise, just because you perceive “time”, because you do have a beginning (birth) and an end (death), does not mean that “time” exists for all of creation. Time and thus a timeline, must have a beginning. Even if there were a “big bang”, or a “first cause”, I ask you what preceeded that?

And Push, you’re too smart to retort a simple fact about time with a reference to Genesis. I know we rarely agree, but I’d expected better from you. At least do some reading on the problems with “time” that have confounded physicists forever and until this present day. [/quote]

A “first cause” could not be preceded…If it were, it would be the second cause.

379

[quote]pat wrote:

No it does not. Metaphysical objects are subject to causation yet are not bound by time, at all.
Also, there is something called the EPR effect, which empirically proved simultaneous causation does exist.

[/quote]

I would love to see where you got that from. What’s a metaphysical object? And how would you know if it’s bound to causation?

Is you EPR stand for the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox? I’d love to hear how a paradox has been empirically proven, and what that would even mean. Are you saying you buy that Alain Aspect in his 1983 proved, what?.. as long as no one measures anything the state of the photon remain undetermined… same as the election… (we don’t know where it is), and that the they both gain their characteristics when we measure… this proves causation?

I think it shows the necessary RELATION between the observer and the observed, because the observer isn’t “causing” the photon to go + or -, it just is + or - when we take the measurement, and is then indeterminate till we take a measurement again.

380

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
^^^^

Bowing out now because you’re making it up as you go along.

You believe in God correct? God is “eternal” - no beginning, no end. Why then does the universe need a beginning and end? Time is man’s measurement - nothing more. In the grand scheme of the universe, time may have no meaning at all, and no place. Time is still poorly understood even among those that study it - I know that little tid bit doesn’t have much sex appeal, but it’s still an issue with TPs.

NOW you defer to experts, but prior you implied they were missing something. And now you “know verifiably” that universe is not eternal. How may I ask that you know this?

You spent pages railing against PTs and Hawkings in particular. And now we get one of the shortest replies from you yet when you are asked to articulate your ideas in concrete form rather than criticism of others. I’ll ask you again. Tell me the nature of God as you understand it and believe it. When did God appear. When did the universe appear?

And without time, which I repeat - is a HUMAN CONSTRUCT - there is no “first cause”. There just “is”.[/quote]

We know this universe had a beginning which was in most common circles estimated at about 13.75 Billion years ago. What preceded it I don’t know, but if it did not have a beginning there was no big bang…

Correct time is a measurement. Not a construct of it’s own. I never railed against, theoretical physicists. I am rather fond of them actually. I merely said that I believe that most of them are atheists and that factor may help color their theories. They spend an awful lot of time trying to disprove causality. ← This has been, historically what athiests do to “prove” atheism. Ultimately, I can’t know a man’s heart.
You picked Hawking, I wasn’t railing against the man, why would I do that? He speaks as if an atheist, but if he says he’s not, then I can’t say he is…But if he says God is not the creator, than obviously we don’t see God the same way. A God, who is not the creator it not God, IMO.

Logic begets a uncaused-cause…“First” is a bad term because it implies time. But to not have one creates a circular reasoning. Being here, cause we’re here is a non-answer.
There is no evidence anywhere in universe of just being…Everything that exists, came from something else.
[/quote]

A complete circle with you really.

You said most PT are atheist. Again, please post a reference. I’ve read many a book about PT and studied it as much as my time will allow - and I have not picked up on this atheism trend you claim. What I think you are actually perceiving is the atheist bastardizing PT for their own aims - BIG DIFFERENCE. Kind of like the spiritualist that will glom onto anything quantum mechanical as “proof” that their beliefs are based in science.

We do NOT know the universe had a beginning. The big bang is “generally accepted” under our present understanding of the universe, but not yet proven. A big bang still presents many problems that are thus far unreconciled. Hawking expressed a thought of a timeless universe, not one without God.

You argue fiercely against “something from nothing”, null theory etc, but at the same time, you do not know what preceeded the theoretical big bang. Surely “something” had to preceed it correct? When then is it so hard to wrap your mind around that universe, and God, ALWAYS being here, without beginning or end? Again, time may only have meaning to you, because of your perspective, because your physical existence has a beginning and an end. We therefore have a very difficult time wrapping our minds around the infinite and eternal.

Everything that exists does not necessarily come from something else if it was always here with no beginning and no end. To suppose a beginning begets something was prior to that. The big bang theorizes that the entirety of all matter in the known universe was condensed into an impossibly small space before a great “bang”. Well then, within what did that impossibly dense mass exist? Within itself? The very idea of a first cause is a paradox! Hawking seems to be supposing that if it the universe was always here, perhaps it is God that just created the rules by which it behaves, and allowed life to spring forth. And I ask, what is so atheistic about that? Why is that so hard for you to imagine?

Right now, the universe has an age based upon our limited understanding of the universe. I am hopeful, and certain, that one day we will make discoveries that turn some of this dogma right on its head. And no such progress or discovery would eliminate the need for God.