Creation of light without a sun?

[Munch]

That's a good point, I'll have to remember that the next time I get into a debate and they bring up that god sustains his creations.

The other week, I was talking to my five year old nephew about the earth and how old it is, when he asked how old. Eventually it came around to him asking "Will the earth be here forever and ever and ever?", so which I haphazardly changed the subject. Telling a sensitive five year old that one day the sun will go supernova and destroy our solar system, including our planet, might be a bit much for him to take in.

[Baruch]

Not to dispute ... modern light theory is being "adequately" presented ... but so Glenn can understand Genesis better ... and welcome ProtoGlenn ;-)  I think a more direct approach to the Genesis question is better.

In the Bible and in science before AlHazen in Egypt 1000 years ago ... light and enlightenment were synonymous.  It was believed that sight went from the soul in the head, out the eyes and to the object being viewed.  Perception happened before sensation.  Of course in modern terms, since AlHazen ... we understand it goes the opposite way ... from sensation to perception.  This is the missing link as to why Genesis has light created before the Sun and Moon ... because this light isn't the modern concept, it is the light of consciousness, not the light of physics.  The light mentioned in the NT is the same concept, light of consciousness.

Munch - I am glad you save the realism for your nephew's later development.  There are lots of things that children less than 13 have no business knowing.  But you could have been a little less literal .. and just say that the Sun has been here a long time in the past, and is expected to be here a long time into the future.  But Joseph Palazzo would have wanted you to explain nuclear physics first ;-)

[ProtoGlenn]

Not to dispute ... modern light theory is being "adequately" presented ... but so Glenn can understand Genesis better ... and welcome ProtoGlenn ;-)  I think a more direct approach to the Genesis question is better.

In the Bible and in science before AlHazen in Egypt 1000 years ago ... light and enlightenment were synonymous.  It was believed that sight went from the soul in the head, out the eyes and to the object being viewed.  Perception happened before sensation.  Of course in modern terms, since AlHazen ... we understand it goes the opposite way ... from sensation to perception.  This is the missing link as to why Genesis has light created before the Sun and Moon ... because this light isn't the modern concept, it is the light of consciousness, not the light of physics.  The light mentioned in the NT is the same concept, light of consciousness.

Munch - I am glad you save the realism for your nephew's later development.  There are lots of things that children less than 13 have no business knowing.  But you could have been a little less literal .. and just say that the Sun has been here a long time in the past, and is expected to be here a long time into the future.  But Joseph Palazzo would have wanted you to explain nuclear physics first ;-)

I like that, but I never see anyone debate creation of "light" as anything but an impossibility.  And Christians don't like there to be impossibilities or unknowns, so they "have" to believe in their "god".  But what I've learned when applying that theory into a debate, I was countered with criticism directed at me and being called uneducated for seeing it that way.  But they never dispute it as being wrong or why.  And no matter how I try to direct there attention back to the theory, and ask them to dissect it and show me what is wrong with it, they continue to ignore it and tell me I've never read the bible and I'm just a bigot and so on.  But fact is, I was force fed the bible just out of elementary school where I was placed in a private Christian school.  I may have believed it for a time out of dogma, but when I grew older and could see the errors in the bible for myself, I wandered away from it and eventually dropped it as nothing more than a fairytale.

[Baruch]

You have the soul of a poet.  Give it water and sun day by day and it will grow ... whatever you may mean by soul.  But if you want to dispute with Bible thumpers, you must be more educated in religion than they are ... or they will not listen.  And even in the best of circumstances, only the open minded and intelligent will be moved.  But where do you want to move them to?

Proof texting is but a poor education ... if you will come to know what it was that the writers of the Bible meant ... not that you need to believe it, but that you must put your hand into their hand as a friend, not an enemy ... with compassion ... then you will see, however distant such people may appear or their uneducated followers ... that we all have common cause.

[peacewithoutgod]

I like that, but I never see anyone debate creation of "light" as anything but an impossibility.  And Christians don't like there to be impossibilities or unknowns, so they "have" to believe in their "god".  But what I've learned when applying that theory into a debate, I was countered with criticism directed at me and being called uneducated for seeing it that way.  But they never dispute it as being wrong or why.  And no matter how I try to direct there attention back to the theory, and ask them to dissect it and show me what is wrong with it, they continue to ignore it and tell me I've never read the bible and I'm just a bigot and so on.  But fact is, I was force fed the bible just out of elementary school where I was placed in a private Christian school.  I may have believed it for a time out of dogma, but when I grew older and could see the errors in the bible for myself, I wandered away from it and eventually dropped it as nothing more than a fairytale.

Welcome, and I wish you luck in attempting to convince any creationist on anything which he doesn't wish to believe. Which is the basic problem when arguing with theists - if they were approaching the conversation from any reasonable standpoint, then they would not be able to sustain their position. Creationism, Intelligent Design, and other wacky ideas attempt to sustain the position that our existence cannot be of natural origin, therefore godditit.  When your mind is made up that your god is real, and that he made this universe and the life within it, any information to the contrary can be used in support of your beliefs for as long as unknowns exist - just whip out your God-In-A-Can and spray in that gunk until all the holes in your understanding are filled, and then no matter what others tell you your position will still make perfect sense to you. It's the "miracle" of human cognitive bias!

[PickelledEggs]

Is this guy under the assumption that light only comes from the sun? What about campfires and ceiling lights?

[ProtoGlenn]

Is this guy under the assumption that light only comes from the sun? What about campfires and ceiling lights?

I believe light comes from gods love.  But he is bi-polar, so half the time we are in the darkness of his hate.  That is the only explanation for a light without a sun.

[Johan]

I believe light comes from gods love. 

The god you believe is man made? I think we're done here.

[Baruch]

I believe light comes from gods love.  But he is bi-polar, so half the time we are in the darkness of his hate.  That is the only explanation for a light without a sun.

Still being poetic?  If so, I certainly understand, but literalist readers might not ;-)

[josephpalazzo]

The other week, I was talking to my five year old nephew about the earth and how old it is, when he asked how old. Eventually it came around to him asking "Will the earth be here forever and ever and ever?", so which I haphazardly changed the subject. Telling a sensitive five year old that one day the sun will go supernova and destroy our solar system, including our planet, might be a bit much for him to take in.

You'd be surprised how resilient are kids. I have a nephew, he's 6 years old. He already knows about evolution, life and death. It's no big deal if you don't make it a big deal.

  But Joseph Palazzo would have wanted you to explain nuclear physics first ;-)

My nephew knows every element of the periodic table - its name and its atomic number. Before that he was into capitals and country flags. Before that he was into the names of every dinosaurs. You should see him play the cello, and he's only 6. You do no favors to the child by shielding him. 

[PickelledEggs]

I believe light comes from gods love.  But he is bi-polar, so half the time we are in the darkness of his hate.  That is the only explanation for a light without a sun.

Lol are you joking? That's a pretty funny one if you are.

Sent from your mom.

[Termin]

I believe light comes from gods love.  But he is bi-polar, so half the time we are in the darkness of his hate.  That is the only explanation for a light without a sun.

  Then how come there is never any mention of the sun going away when he's pissed off ? which has happened many times.

[aitm]

I like that, but I never see anyone debate creation of "light" as anything but an impossibility.

Try asking them why a god would ever consider the need for light in the first place. Supposedly god has existed "forever" before anything else existed, meaning of course light as well. What would make a god need light? What would make god conceive of light if it never existed?

[Baruch]

I know .. I know .. Mr Wizard!  If G-d is anthropomorphic and really old .. as an old man myself, it is really Hell trying to find the potty in the dark ;-)

[jonb]

I know .. I know .. Mr Wizard!  If G-d is anthropomorphic and really old .. as an old man myself, it is really Hell trying to find the potty in the dark ;-)

Have you overlooked the possibility of luminescent toilet paper?