The Big Bang, Evolution, Creation, Life etc.

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Have you even bother to read the verses (5-9) surrounding 9:8?

Just did...and?

Job is simply sprouting or ranting utterly meaningless rhetoric, which I cannot even for moment take seriously.

Um, he is talking about the omnipotence of the Almighty God. Pretty clear to me.

Sure, mountains grow or fall naturally, and they have nothing to do with some angry gods. What I don't understand is why would any god show anger against any mountain? It is senseless.

I can't speak for other religions, their religious text, and their doctrines.

Sure, earthquake occurred, for any number of natural reasons. But "pillars"?

In many Near Eastern myths, as well as Egyptian myths, there are either pillars that hold up the Earth itself, or the pillars that hold up the heaven. Judging by the 2nd reference to "pillars" in Job, it is clear that God would shake the pillars of heaven.
I have not seen any "pillars" that hold up the heavens. Have you?

In verse 10 it clearly states that "He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted". Maybe the pillars that are mentioned is metaphorical and not to be taken in a literal sense.

Clearly, this is reference to the firmament, so the pillars were the vault or dome, which is the sky. According to an earlier verse in chapter 26, it say: Why would Job think the earth "suspended", let alone "over nothing"?

What? Isn't planet earth rotating in empty space??? And since the word "suspend means "to hang", isn't it hanging on nothing?? The words of Job are very accurate with our observations of the earth.

Scientifically impossible.

But yet, its happening.

And lastly, the constellations:



Stars are not made of constellations. Constellations are simply abstract patterns that ancient people have assign to the groups of stars. The reality is that the many of the stars in the supposed constellations have nothing to do with one another, other than how we view the stars.

This has nothing to do with anything :thud:

 

[Photonic]

Still postulating infinite regression. I guess it will never stop. Naturalistic explanations only push the question of origins back one step further, ok. Infinite regression is impossible because infinite regression requires infinite time, and time cannot have an infinite past, so you need a external cause that transcend time to be the first cause. Second, the last link above invovling black holes is still postulating the oscillating model, and says gives us the big "IF" on the sub title.



Stop insulting me by thinking that intelligence can come from non-intelligence.

I can see you haven't read anything but the title of those but moving beyond that.

Once again you are claiming transcendent cause simply because you cannot comprehend something being outside what humans conceive of as time.

Last I checked, we are all made of matter. Would you make the claim that matter is inherently intelligent? Otherwise you are simply wasting your time and ours.

 

[gnostic]

In verse 10 it clearly states that "He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted". Maybe the pillars that are mentioned is metaphorical and not to be taken in a literal sense.

If what you are saying is true about it being "metaphorical" and not to be taken literally, then all the verses in Job's replies in chapters 9 & 26 shouldn't be taken literally, including your verse 9:8.

And if that's also true then verse 9:10 (about god creating "miracles" & "wonders") should also not be taken literally. And that would also mean that God's "omnipotence" is also metaphoric.

Otherwise you're cherry-picking what is to be taken metaphorically or what is to be taken literally. It is logical fallacy. Because right now I can't take anything you say or write seriously.

This has nothing to do with anything

Of course it has to do with anything. It has something to do with EVERYTHING!

You're the one who believe in "miracles" & "wonders" and that you believe that god create everything, including trying to human's understanding of the origin of the Big Bang, for you have tack a scientific theory (about universe's expansion) to your Bible's creation myth, to justify your god as miracle-maker.

Verse 9:9 (Job's) stated that god is a maker of constellations, like every other ancient religions and star-gazers of that time and before that time.

We on the ground, see patterns in the arrangements of stars in our night sky, hence constellations. But these constellations are not really there. They are simply imaginary patterns that we could see, but in astronomy, they don't exist except to be used as guide for orientation or navigation.

It is sheer nonsense for the person wrote the Book of Job and other religious myths about deity or deities creating constellations.

 

[terryboy]

Once again, the BGV theorem of 2003 shows that any universe that has been expanding throughout its history at a rate higher than 0 cannot be infinite in its past.

The BVG theorem states that inflation must at some point began to exist, not that the universe or the singularity began to exist. for what I know inflation began at or after the Planck Epoch.

Quote from Wikipedia.

Modern cosmology now suggests that the Planck epoch may have inaugurated a period of unification or Grand unification epoch, and that symmetry breaking then quickly led to the era of cosmic inflation, the Inflationary epoch, during which the universe greatly expanded in scale over a very short period of time.[1]

Quote from the abstract of the BVG theorem paper

Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of singularity theorem. Here we offer a simple kinametical argument, requiring no energy condition, that a cosmological model that is inflating - or just expanding sufficiently fast - must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtain a bound on in the integral of the Hubble parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic. Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime

This paper is practically saying that inflation alone cannot explain the very early universe, we need physics other than inflation. It does not say Universe must have a beginning.

Please quote your source, which part of the paper that shows or implies universe must have a beginning.

The good thing about this theorem is it holds true regardless of what quantum theory of gravity is used to describe the the initial segment.

This seems to contradict the last sentence of the abstracts of the paper.

Hmmm, lets see what this site state:

Second Law of Thermodynamics - In the Beginning...
The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up clock, the universe is winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock?

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Now I see where you got your 'facts' from. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a close system can either be increased or remain constant. An increased entropy means the process is not reversible, a constant entropy means the process is reversible. The fact that the entropy of the universe is ever increasing implies that there's no external work done on the universe. No supernatural force.

Its funny you say this but yet the first question you asked above you were talking about a "timeless gravitational singularity", as if you were postulating it. Well, the singularity is part of the very early universe, so if you claim that all the theories of this state of the universe hasn't been tested yet, then how can you eve begin to even conclude that this state is timeless??

My first question was

Why does it have to be God who exists timelessly and not the gravitational singularity?

The singularity is theorized to exist. God is not even a theory.

Ok, but saying that "nature, a non-intellectual entity, is the origin of all intellectual entities" is just not convincing enough to me either. To me it is much more logical to conclude that all intelligence comes from a being with intelligence than to believe that all intelligence comes from a long, chaotic, non-intellectual, non-purposeful process. So to each its own. Second, we know from science that the universe began to exist. Therefore, it requires a transcendent cause. Nature cannot be the origin of nature.

Fine, you think the universe has no intelligence. I don't even dare to compare my intelligence to the intelligence of the universe. To each, his own.

Really? I can't tell, when at least two people argued with me until they were blue in the face about the fact that we have an eternal universe.

My face is blue too

Of course. Science is not a theological book so you cant open it and find theological implications. All you get from a science book is "the universe began to exist". Once that point is established, you have to figure out "what does it mean to be the cause of all nature??", and based on this question, you have no choice but to posit the supernatural because nature cannot be the origin of its own being. But the problem is, instead of positing the supernatural you just stop dead in your tracks and don't even consider it. You have to be open minded.

I am open minded enough, I have studied many religion scriptures from Sefer Yetzirah to Buddhism Cosmology, I have come across theological cosmology that postulated the existence of binary star systems with habitable planets.

I also believe in the existence of God but I won't let that interfere with my understanding of science.

 

[terryboy]

Edit: I don't mean I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I can see you haven't read anything but the title of those but moving beyond that.

The BGV theorem applies to all of those other models. A finite universe is inescapable.

Once again you are claiming transcendent cause simply because you cannot comprehend something being outside what humans conceive of as time.

C'mon now. If i couldn't "comprehend something being outside of what humans conceive of as time", i wouldnt be postulating a TRANSCENDENT BEING THAT EXIST OUTSIDE OF TIME.

Last I checked, we are all made of matter. Would you make the claim that matter is inherently intelligent? Otherwise you are simply wasting your time and ours.

Well, my couch is made up of matter, but my couch is not intelligent. Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence. Intelligence is defined as "the ability to think and learn." You can't get the ABILITY to think and learn from something that doesn't have the ability to think and learn. Impossible. But i have come to understand that in order to negate the existence of God you have to believe in any illogical concept.

 

[gnostic]

C'mon now. If i couldn't "comprehend something being outside of what humans conceive of as time", i wouldnt be postulating a TRANSCENDENT BEING THAT EXIST OUTSIDE OF TIME.

There is nothing outside of the universe exist, prior to the Big Bang. Time and space as we know it, is meaningless prior to the BB, because time and space only relate to the universe's expansion. When the universe expanded so did time and space expand with the universe.

Nothing outside of the universe exist, and nothing outside, such as your transcendent or intelligent being, can cause the expansion to begin.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If what you are saying is true about it being "metaphorical" and not to be taken literally, then all the verses in Job's replies in chapters 9 & 26 shouldn't be taken literally, including your verse 9:8.

We can debate on whether this particular scripture is metaphorical all night long. That is just one scripture, you still have to deal with Isaiah 51:13, which states

"...that you forget the LORD your Maker,
who stretches out the heavens
and who lays the foundations of the earth,
that you live in constant terror every day "

This is an independent scripture speaking in reference to the stretching of the heavens. So you have to deal with this one too

And if that's also true then verse 9:10 (about god creating "miracles" & "wonders") should also not be taken literally. And that would also mean that God's "omnipotence" is also metaphoric.

As far as omnipotence is concerned, there are to many other scriptures that speak on this particular attribute of God, with the first 10 words of Genesis being the first. So no need to take it there. Second, since you are having a field day with this Job scripture and this metaphorical business, how about this one from Zechariah 12:1, which states:

"A prophecy: The word of the LORD concerning Israel.
The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person..."


In this verse and also the one above, there is no mention of pillars or earthquakes. There is just the Lord declaring what he did with his omnipotent power.

Otherwise you're cherry-picking what is to be taken metaphorically or what is to be taken literally. It is logical fallacy. Because right now I can't take anything you say or write seriously.

Cherry-picking? It is no secret that the bible contain many metaphorical and symbolical verses. So it isn't as if I am making up something new. But even if we don't take the Job scripture as literal, you still have to deal with the others. It doesn't just stop there. The other scriptures leave little doubt, that the Lord stretches out the heavens (outer space), and here we are in the 21st century in the midst of a stretching universe.

You're the one who believe in "miracles" & "wonders" and that you believe that god create everything, including trying to human's understanding of the origin of the Big Bang, for you have tack a scientific theory (about universe's expansion) to your Bible's creation myth, to justify your god as miracle-maker.

In 1929, a discover was made that our universe is expanding. No scientist had ever postulated such a thing before that time. But if you read the bible, the scriptures speak of an expanding universe, thousands of years before 1929. These are facts. The universe is expanding, and biblical verses speaks of the universe scretching. I know this is hard for you to accept, but hey. Science confirmed in 1929 what the bible had been saying for thousands of years. Facts. Whether you like it or not.

Verse 9:9 (Job's) stated that god is a maker of constellations, like every other ancient religions and star-gazers of that time and before that time.

And?

We on the ground, see patterns in the arrangements of stars in our night sky, hence constellations. But these constellations are not really there. They are simply imaginary patterns that we could see, but in astronomy, they don't exist except to be used as guide for orientation or navigation.

It is sheer nonsense for the person wrote the Book of Job and other religious myths about deity or deities creating constellations.

Irrelevant

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Define what you mean by 'timeless', and explain how a 'timeless' being interacts with time.

Timeless, a state of atemporal, not existing or affected by time. Before he created the universe God was timeless, but he became temporal after he created the universe. So he is timeless without the universe and temporal with the universe.

 

[Koldo]

Timeless, a state of atemporal, not existing or affected by time. Before he created the universe God was timeless, but he became temporal after he created the universe. So he is timeless without the universe and temporal with the universe.

So far so good.
Do you consider the timeless eternal creator to be a necessity or a possibility?
If you consider it a necessity, why wouldn't another uncaused cause be viable?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The BVG theorem states that inflation must at some point began to exist, not that the universe or the singularity began to exist. for what I know inflation began at or after the Planck Epoch.

Quote from Wikipedia.



Quote from the abstract of the BVG theorem paper



This paper is practically saying that inflation alone cannot explain the very early universe, we need physics other than inflation. It does not say Universe must have a beginning.

Please quote your source, which part of the paper that shows or implies universe must have a beginning.



This seems to contradict the last sentence of the abstracts of the paper.

Alexander Vilenkin, who is 1/3 of the team that formed the theorem that bears their name, BGV, (Borde, Guth, Vilenkin) said this:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a COSMIC BEGINNING." (Many Worlds in One, New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, p.176)

Right from the horses mouth. People. Stop fighting. Accept it. Embrace it. Welcome it. The universe had a beginning.

Now I see where you got your 'facts' from. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a close system can either be increased or remain constant. An increased entropy means the process is not reversible, a constant entropy means the process is reversible. The fact that the entropy of the universe is ever increasing implies that there's no external work done on the universe. No supernatural force.

What???? The energy in our universe is running out. Stars are burning out and even the sun will soon burn out. What the heck are you talking about?? Our universe is a closed system, because there is nothing outside it to replenish its energy. I can't believe you people are arguing me down over scientific facts. The universe is expanding. Fact. The universe had a beginning. Fact. The energy in our universe is running out, major fact. Thermodynamics is one of the most understood parts of science, and it never fails.

Its no surpise now that you people find it so hard to believe in God. You people have a hard enough time believing and accepting science, let alone God. This remind me of John 3:11-12, when Jesus said "Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe, how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" Wow.

My first question was

Why does it have to be God who exists timelessly and not the gravitational singularity?

The singularity is theorized to exist. God is not even a theory.

For the 20th time,we have evidence that the singularity/universe can't exist timelessly because the universe BEGAN TO EXIST. Something that BEGAN TO EXIST CANNOT exist timelessly. I am saying the same things over and over again. You people continue to speak as if the universe is infinite but yet we have evidence that it began to exist.

Fine, you think the universe has no intelligence. I don't even dare to compare my intelligence to the intelligence of the universe. To each, his own.

Huh?

I also believe in the existence of God but I won't let that interfere with my understanding of science.

You know something? I really couldn't tell...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So far so good.
Do you consider the timeless eternal creator to be a necessity or a possibility?
If you consider it a necessity, why wouldn't another uncaused cause be viable?

A necessity. The creation of the universe had to be a personal choice from a being that has free will. A scientific explanation is not viable because there is no science without the universe, because the universe is what began to exist.

 

[outhouse]

The creation of the universe had to be a personal choice from a being that has free will.

No it doesnt

and you havent shown where a mythical charactors hand has done anything

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There is nothing outside of the universe exist, prior to the Big Bang. Time and space as we know it, is meaningless prior to the BB, because time and space only relate to the universe's expansion. When the universe expanded so did time and space expand with the universe.

Nothing outside of the universe exist, and nothing outside, such as your transcendent or intelligent being, can cause the expansion to begin.

So basically the universe popped in to being, uncaused, and out of nothing. Believing in that is worse than magic

 

[Koldo]

A necessity. The creation of the universe had to be a personal choice from a being that has free will.

And how did you come to this conclusion?

A scientific explanation is not viable because there is no science without the universe, because the universe is what began to exist.

And how could a timeless eternal creator exist if time is a requirement for something to exist?

To say that "A timeless eternal creator existed/exists" it is mandatory to relate its existence to a time frame. How do you solve this problem?

 

[Photonic]

The BGV theorem applies to all of those other models. A finite universe is inescapable.



C'mon now. If i couldn't "comprehend something being outside of what humans conceive of as time", i wouldnt be postulating a TRANSCENDENT BEING THAT EXIST OUTSIDE OF TIME.



Well, my couch is made up of matter, but my couch is not intelligent. Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence. Intelligence is defined as "the ability to think and learn." You can't get the ABILITY to think and learn from something that doesn't have the ability to think and learn. Impossible. But i have come to understand that in order to negate the existence of God you have to believe in any illogical concept.

Try to change the subject again and I'll take that to mean you know you have no argument. Is the matter you are made up of intelligent or not?

 

[gnostic]

So basically the universe popped in to being, uncaused, and out of nothing. Believing in that is worse than magic

But that just what creation is, "God did is" or "God is omnipotent" or "God will throw you into lake of fire" is the worse form of magic and superstition.

None of the verses you have quoted (Job, Isaiah and Zechariah) are clear what it meant, so it is open to interpretation, which has nothing to do with the universe's expansion.

All you have done is twist the words to suit your agenda, taking it completely out of context. You are no better than the other Young Creationists or Intelligent Design (followers) or the Muslim who believe in "scientific miracles" are found in their Qur'an.

And the 2nd thing that nothing in the Big Bang Theory say that everything was created out of "nothing". You are misrepresenting what science say about matters and energy. The Conservation of Matter is quite clear that matters can't be created or destroyed, but matters can be transformed into something else, which I have quoted in my thread - creation and the incorporeal spirit. It is the same with energy.

And lastly, I have not said anything about the universe was created out of nothing. You putting words into (cyber-) mouth.

We can debate on whether this particular scripture is metaphorical all night long. That is just one scripture, you still have to deal with Isaiah 51:13, which states

"...that you forget the LORD your Maker,
who stretches out the heavens
and who lays the foundations of the earth,
that you live in constant terror every day "

This is an independent scripture speaking in reference to the stretching of the heavens. So you have to deal with this one too

You are the one who said reference to these "pillars" could be metaphoric, not me. But it is your silly logic that one verse is metaphoric, but not the others, just demonstrate that are cherry-picking.

If verse 6 (about the make the pillars "tremble") is metaphoric, why not verses 5, 7, 8, 9 (your "He alone stretches out the heavens"), 10, etc?

And so what Isaiah 51:13 state this too? I don't think it was done independently.

A number of chapters couldn't have been written by Isaiah, who supposedly flourished in the 8th century BCE. Chapter 51 was one group of chapters that was written during the Babylonian Exile, early 6th century BCE (or even possibly after their Return). Many Hebrew scriptures weren't written until the Exile and/or in their return from Exile.

And that included the Book of Job. I don't know if it was during the Exile or later, but the reference in that very chapter (9) about the constellations, Pleiades (daughters of the Titan Atlas) and Orion (the Hunter), are Greek names, so the author is more likely familiar with Greek astronomy, therefore I'm more inclined to believe that Job was written in 5th or 4th century BCE.

Those texts were possibly written by the same individual or group of scribes/authors. And it is not uncommon for people who write during or later periods, to either copy or borrow ideas from one another.

I have read enough Sumerian and Akkadian-Babylonian myths to have seen such copying or borrowings for different and unrelated texts.

 

[idav]

For the 20th time,we have evidence that the singularity/universe can't exist timelessly because the universe BEGAN TO EXIST. Something that BEGAN TO EXIST CANNOT exist timelessly. I am saying the same things over and over again. You people continue to speak as if the universe is infinite but yet we have evidence that it began to exist.

Repeating it doesn't make it any more true. You KNOW that the singularity began existence? When scientists say the universe AS IT IS TODAY began with the big bang. That has nothing to do with where the matter from the big bang came from in the first place. That much matter, to produce what we see in the universe today, could have taken eons to build up to the point of expanding and creating spacetime as we know it. Because of the nature of time saying the beginning of the universe is very much an artificial beginning which is tied to time in THIS universe. Time is likely a different state outside of this universe. Again the law we have says that matter cannot be created or destroyed so to say that matter began to exist is not scientifically supported.

 

[terryboy]

Alexander Vilenkin, who is 1/3 of the team that formed the theorem that bears their name, BGV, (Borde, Guth, Vilenkin) said this:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a COSMIC BEGINNING." (Many Worlds in One, New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, p.176)

Right from the horses mouth. People. Stop fighting. Accept it. Embrace it. Welcome it. The universe had a beginning.

I really want to believe you, but you didn't quote from the paper. Let me again quote the last sentence of the abstract .

Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.

And, from the conclusion.

What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event [12]. The boundary is then a closed spacelike hypersurface which can be determined from the appropriate instanton.
Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary [20]. This is the chief result of our paper.

What???? The energy in our universe is running out. Stars are burning out and even the sun will soon burn out. What the heck are you talking about?? Our universe is a closed system, because there is nothing outside it to replenish its energy. I can't believe you people are arguing me down over scientific facts. The universe is expanding. Fact. The universe had a beginning. Fact. The energy in our universe is running out, major fact. Thermodynamics is one of the most understood parts of science, and it never fails.

relax! let me quote from you

Our universe is a closed system, because there is nothing outside it to replenish its energy.

Nothing outside to replenish its energy! no supernatural!

Its no surpise now that you people find it so hard to believe in God. You people have a hard enough time believing and accepting science, let alone God. This remind me of John 3:11-12, when Jesus said "Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe, how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" Wow.

The universe is not going to end this instant if your proselyting efforts fail.

For the 20th time,we have evidence that the singularity/universe can't exist timelessly because the universe BEGAN TO EXIST. Something that BEGAN TO EXIST CANNOT exist timelessly. I am saying the same things over and over again. You people continue to speak as if the universe is infinite but yet we have evidence that it began to exist.

You can continue ad nauseum, but in the end we'd be nauseous and nobody would believe in you.

Huh?

Let me quote the Hypostasis of the Archons.

Their chief is blind; because of his power and his ignorance and his arrogance he said, with his power, "It is I who am God; there is none apart from me." When he said this, he sinned against the entirety. And this speech got up to incorruptibility; then there was a voice that came forth from incorruptibility, saying, "You are mistaken, Samael" - which is, "god of the blind."

By saying the universe has no intelligence, one could sin against the entirety

You know something? I really couldn't tell...

Open your mind. God doesn't have to create to exist. He already exists in your heart.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And how did you come to this conclusion?

William Lane Craig said: "There are only two types of explanations that can be offered for the origin of the universe, a scientific one and a person one. A scientific explanation in terms of laws and initial considtions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their violations. For example, if i come into the kitchen and find the kettle boiling, and i ask my wife, "Why is the kettle boiling?" she might answer, "The heat of the flame is being conducted via the copper bottom of the kettle to the water, increasing the kinetic energy of the water molecules, such that they vibrate so violently that they break the surface tension of the water and are thrown off the form of steam." That is a scientific explanation. A personal explanation would be if she just said "I put it on to make a cup of tea". (William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, pg 153)

The first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there are no laws and initial conditions before it. That only leaves a personal explanation. Second, the universe began to exist some 13.7 billions years ago. If the universe is infinite, why did it come into being earlier, or later? The universe came in to being 13.7 billion years ago could make sense only if a personal being with free will freely choose to create it at that particular time.

And how could a timeless eternal creator exist if time is a requirement for something to exist? To say that "A timeless eternal creator existed/exists" it is mandatory to relate its existence to a time frame. How do you solve this problem?

The initial Big Bang singularity was never considered to be part of physical time, but a boundary to time. So in the same way we could say God's timelessness eternity is a boundary of time which is causally prior to the origin of the universe. God enters time at the moment of creation.