What did "Let there be light!" actually do?

[leibowde84]

and that would require substance to be 'self motivated'

without a 'self'

There are a few different hypotheses that account for the existence of our universe without a need for a creator. And, they don't violate any laws of physics. Remember, cause and effect doesn't necessarily exist in quantum mechanics.

 

[Thief]

I agreed.

That's why when I did pick up the bible again in early 2000, after 14 years hiatus, my view have changed considerably. I went from being a believer to being agnostic.

Back when I was teenager, I didn't question the bible or that of the church teaching.

What I mean, since re-reading the bible in 2000, I no longer accept church interpretation of the bible. Perhaps because of the years between 1986 and 2000, I had the chance to grow up, learn some new things, pick up some new skills, etc. Whatever it was, I no longer take any thing that I might read, at face value.

The problem with creationists of today, is that they are trying to put modern context (like modern science) into ancient writings, where ancient authors might or don't have the necessarily education of astronomy, of earth science, of mathematics, etc.

That's a mistake, and it is a mistake that I, myself, have to learn from.

so when God introduced Himself as Creator.....
to an old man of eighty years of age
someone raised in the house of Pharaoh...
someone having fled that life to another of wandering

the introduction needed a steep scientific prerequisite on the part of the listener

well then yes....of course

and God did error to speak to anyone dumber than you

so.....have you applied for the position of 'prophet'?

 

[Thief]

There are a few different hypotheses that account for the existence of our universe without a need for a creator. And, they don't violate any laws of physics. Remember, cause and effect doesn't necessarily exist in quantum mechanics.

so....all of the universe
set it's .....'self'......in motion

 

[Thief]

got equation for that?

 

[blü 2]

I've mentioned before the hypothesis that time and space are properties of energy (as distinct from the view that energy exists within time and space).

In that case the existence of energy would be the only thing you need for a universe (or multiverse, or as the case may be), and the problem of beginnings is removed.
.

 

[gnostic]

got equation for that?

Do you?

 

[gnostic]

so when God introduced Himself as Creator.....
to an old man of eighty years of age
someone raised in the house of Pharaoh...
someone having fled that life to another of wandering

the introduction needed a steep scientific prerequisite on the part of the listener

well then yes....of course

and God did error to speak to anyone dumber than you

so.....have you applied for the position of 'prophet'?

 

[Thief]

I've mentioned before the hypothesis that time and space are properties of energy (as distinct from the view that energy exists within time and space).

In that case the existence of energy would be the only thing you need for a universe (or multiverse, or as the case may be), and the problem of beginnings is removed.
.

time does not exist

have you an equation without that factor?

 

[Thief]

likewise

 

[blü 2]

time does not exist

have you an equation without that factor?

Having hypothesized that time indeed exists, being a quality of energy, and noting that time has passed between my previous post and your reply and this post, why would I look for an equation without time?

But leaving that aside, timeless hypotheses occur in quantum theory eg this.

 

[leibowde84]

so....all of the universe
set it's .....'self'......in motion

The Universe is an inanimate object, so, no, it did not set itself in motion. But, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the universe could have come into existence without any "uncaused cause".

The main problem with inserting God is the hypocritical nature of it. You claim that the universe had to have a cause. But, your hypothesis ends because it holds that a cause is necessary for the universe, but, hypocritically, doesn't provide a cause for God. You can't have it both ways.

If you say that God doesn't need a cause, then you can't say that the universe has to have had a cause. We just don't know enough to make that claim with any semblance of certainty.

 

[Thief]

Having hypothesized that time indeed exists, being a quality of energy, and noting that time has passed between my previous post and your reply and this post, why would I look for an equation without time?

But leaving that aside, timeless hypotheses occur in quantum theory eg this.

so there may well be an 'incompleteness" in quantum mechanics......as per article

too bad

but at least there are no false assertions with time in the balance

 

[Thief]

The Universe is an inanimate object, so, no, it did not set itself in motion. But, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the universe could have come into existence without any "uncaused cause".

The main problem with inserting God is the hypocritical nature of it. You claim that the universe had to have a cause. But, your hypothesis ends because it holds that a cause is necessary for the universe, but, hypocritically, doesn't provide a cause for God. You can't have it both ways.

If you say that God doesn't need a cause, then you can't say that the universe has to have had a cause. We just don't know enough to make that claim with any semblance of certainty.

inanimate?.....as in not moving?

and butting two opposites against each other.....uncaused cause.....
sounds rather silly

sorry

but it does

 

[leibowde84]

inanimate?.....as in not moving?

No. "Inanimate" does not mean "not moving". It means "not living".

and butting two opposites against each other.....uncaused cause.....
sounds rather silly

sorry

but it does

So, if God is not an "uncaused cause", what "caused" God to come into existence? What was there before God?

 

[ChristineM]

There are a few different hypotheses that account for the existence of our universe without a need for a creator. And, they don't violate any laws of physics. Remember, cause and effect doesn't necessarily exist in quantum mechanics.

The laws that govern this universe did not begin to coalesce until after the Planck epoch, from 10e-36 of a second after the bb. So you are correct, even the universe from nothing theory does not violate causality.

 

[Thief]

No. "Inanimate" does not mean "not moving". It means "not living".
So, if God is not an "uncaused cause", what "caused" God to come into existence? What was there before God?

and the mystery is now before you

Someone had to be first

we get to ask Him how He did it.....when we meet Him

 

[blü 2]

The laws that govern this universe did not begin to coalesce until after the Planck epoch, from 10e-36 of a second after the bb. So you are correct, even the universe from nothing theory does not violate causality.

Haven't seen that one before.

Do you have a source for it? Looks like fun if it sticks.
.

 

[Thief]

stands to reason...

the void has 'nothing' of shape, size, location, motion......

nothing of contrast
nothing to see or feel

the void was perfect
completely.....uniform

no law given......no law to break

but then.....Let there be light
and I have posted elsewhere.......light is an aberration

 

[ChristineM]

Haven't seen that one before.

Do you have a source for it? Looks like fun if it sticks.
.

I got it from professor Brian Cox but here's Stephen Hawking's take on the same situation.

 

[gnostic]

stands to reason...

the void has 'nothing' of shape, size, location, motion......

nothing of contrast
nothing to see or feel

the void was perfect
completely.....uniform

no law given......no law to break

but then.....Let there be light
and I have posted elsewhere.......light is an aberration

Void is not really all that useful definition, unless you think the "cosmic space" as void.

If you think void is absolute nothingness, as in no particles or subatomic particles and no energies, then you need to provide evidences that such a claim is possible.

Can you provide evidences for your claim?

In Genesis 1, it described the earth being created in the first verse, along with the heavens, so I am assuming "heavens" mean the "universe":

1 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

But in the next verse it say the Earth is a formless void.

If the earth is a void, and if void is "nothing", then how an there be void if the Earth exist.

To re-quote your reply:

stands to reason...

the void has 'nothing' of shape, size, location, motion......

nothing of contrast
nothing to see or feel

If what you say about void, been nothing, then the earth being a formless void are contradiction to what you are claiming.

If the earth exist, then it cannot be a void.

And if Genesis say water and wind exist, then there is no void, because winds and water are not "nothing"; water and wind are something.

Water is substance and so is wind; neither of them are "nothing". The earth is something, not nothing.

You are contradicting what Genesis say, and Genesis contradicts itself, if you were to believe "void" = "nothing".

And this is ignoring the current knowledge of physical cosmology, like the Big Bang cosmology.

According to Genesis 1:1-2, it stated that the earth was created first, before "light" was first created (1:3-5, hence 1st day), and before the sun and moon - the two great luminaries - and stars were created (Genesis 1:14-19, hence the 4th day).

But according to current knowledge of astronomy and cosmology, the Earth as well as the entire Solar System, didn't exist 5 billion years ago.

Before our Solar System formed less than 5 billion years ago, older stars existed in our galaxy, the Milky Way.

One of the nearest stars, is the binary star system (two stars orbiting around each other), called Sirius. Because of the closeness to our solar system (8.6 light years away), it is the brightest star in our night sky.

And one star is brighter than the other, Sirius A and Sirius B. Sirius B star is a white dwarf star, meaning it is what is left of the dying star - the star's core, where all the outer layers of Sirius B have been stripped away, expelling the debris.

Any white dwarf star would be 9 billion years or older. That's the reason why Sirius B is fainter and cooler than Sirius A (a white main sequence star, meaning it is still fusing hydrogen atoms into helium).

Another dying star, Arcturus, is a red giant star, is about 7.1 billion years old, and that's only 36.7 light years away from Earth.

So Genesis 1:14-18 is wrong if you think the Earth is older than these two stars that are.

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

Note that "main sequence" stars, like our Sun, are still fusing hydrogen atoms together to form a new helium nucleus, at the star's core. This process of fusion is known as "Stellar Nucleosynthesis".

One day, our Sun will run out of hydrogen to fuse, so astrophysicists have predicted that it might start fusing helium atoms to heavier elements, like carbon atoms, which mean it will no be main sequence star, thereby by become a red giant star. This will not happen until another 4 billion years from now. When that happened, Mercury will be devoured by the red giant Sun.