What Existed before light was made here? Where did the CREATOR of Light come from?

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

ChesterJohn is correct. God is light and God has always existed. He has no beginning or end, unlike us.

God is the original light and he created the sun and the moon to provide light for us here on earth. Once this life is over and earth has come to it's final end, those who believe in God/Jesus (according to scripture) will join Him in a place He created where it shows that He IS the light.

Revelation 21:23

23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Revelation 22:5

5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

a reply to: Deetermined

Says the Bible whereas science, physics, and mathematics suggest otherwise.

Let's entertain the notion through, what happens to anyone who does not believe, bow down to, or capitulate with the views of God/Jesus in the afterlife?

Current Biblical rhetoric would seem to suggest they will be punished for all eternity via hellfire does it not?

By the very same person who allegedly created them in the first place, in his very image, and loves them ""unconditionally"".

Tough crowd to please if you ask me.

Kind of agree with MasterofNonexistent.
String theory is quite interesting.
Even in esoteric teachings, you will find that in the beginning there was "sound" (the "ohm" sound in hinduism). Or rather, a vibration. Light is just a subset in an infinitely large scale of vibrations.
The sound, however, popped into existence from the void, simply because the void cannot take any other "shape" or form then a circle (which is the only infinitely symmetrical geometric figure, or the only infinite geometric figure period (you can add points to a circle to infinity). It's no coincidence that the number 0 is a circle. A circle is the perfect way for "nothing" to take a form, since every single point in that circle is at an equal distance to it's opposite point.

Here is another way to explain it: take a non existing circle. It can be represented both as nothing, or as a circle whereby each "point" on that circle is "matched" by a point which cancels the first one out of existence. For instance, you put the number 1 on one side of the circle, and the number -1 opposed to it (on the diagonal). You can add an infinite amount of numbers to the circle, and so long as they mathematically cancel each other out, and return to "nothing", you can create "something" out of "nothing". Why do you think quantum foam looks "bubbly" and so dynamic in nature? Well, imagine if it's spheres which contain these equally distributed polarities inside of themselves which crash into one another and either merge or cancel each other out...

I wrote an article about it if you're interested. It's more esoteric then scientific but it could be interesting...
Perfect symmetry and transcendence

You will also find "hits" at what or who "God" is in my article... Spoiler alert: think "heart of a black hole where time flowed infinitely fast and therefore appeared instantly from the void, or in other words, could not not appear from the void".

a reply to: Marma

Sound does not propagate through any void I'm afraid, requiring another medium to exist.

So, in the beginning, there must have been more than just the word/sound.

Think your closer to the mark with frequency and vibration all the same.

a reply to: andy06shake

Well, if you read my article, sound is not moving through the void, the void is deformed to take the shape of a vibration, just like throwing a rock into a pond. And of course, sound is a metaphorical/allegorical way of explaining that a "vibration" is what came first for people who did not have any scientific vocabulary to express these intuitions, but there are plenty of "vibrations" that move through the void, or "space", otherwise we wouldn't be enjoying our sunshine..

Of course, the term "void" is also quite misleading. I would say that quantum fluctuations is the "deformation" of a dimension by conflicting "circles of nothing" which attempt at occupying the same "space" (since there is no reason why such circles would appear somewhere specifically and not everywhere at the same time)

a reply to: Marma

See now my head hurts, the last paragraph was like reading Friedrich Nietzsche.

The term "void" would indeed be somewhat misleading considering the definition of such is completely empty space.

a reply to: andy06shake

Well I was correct in my assumption you are an evolutionist. You then know that not one of the points you make in the post I am replying too are actually verifiable?

Science does not actually understand what causes gravity, all of the studies are based on scientific assumptions with no provable facts. Oh I know that you could argue the whole magnetism caused by a nuclear furnace below the planet but magnetism is not gravity. And gravity is not centrifugal force, all assumptions that if space vehicles had a bicycle rim shaped ring, where enough centrifugal force were maintained, it wold allow man to walk along the inside of the ring. This idea is not even proven to be true.

Studies were done with such a device using mice. Where enough centrifugal force was maintained the mice were not even able to move around in the ring, they were not even able to lift their feet because the force was to strong, until the centrifugal force was slowed. And when it was slowed enough to allow the mice to move it began to throw the mice around inside the tube. Hardly the result scientist were looking for. But they continued to push the assumption say it will work in space. Where you and I know that the experiment was once again a failure as it was tried in the ISS and fail. we heard no more about centrifugal force mimicking gravity from them after the only momentary mention that artificial forms of Gravity would be carried out.

That is not all. Time-relevance is another. Science postulates that if someone is traveling the speed of light, that for some mystically unknown reason time Changes. i.e. that if a person travels the speed of light (not yet given a constant speed) time passes differently. For example science and Sci-Fi portray traveling at "warp speed" or at the speed of light or faster, that no time passes between though points as well. But if it takes for example 100 light years to travel to a star 100 light years away that they would arrive with only minutes passing. No 100 light years is based on the absolute time of 100 years. You have Star Trek ships traveling literally hundreds and even thousands of light years at a speed that 1) would have everybody thrown up against the rear of the vehicle for 100 or a 1,000 years, unable to move. We are to except that force no longer exists where light speed is achieved. Sorry but it does. All those people leaving earth today at light speed would be long dead before they reached their destination 1000 light years away. 1,000 light years is 1,000 years earth time

Again it is a scientific assumption. Actually you know that Evolutionist would believe man is just a advanced monkey. This belief would eliminate all accountability in any higher being to which man is accountable. Evolution was created to give the monkey-man the ability to give him the superiority to be the final authority for all things over any so called "tribal God". So you see, who is really believing in a semi-clever monkey beliefs?

You and the scientist, who still after years of failure cannot create artificial gravity, and have yet to verify that light speed is actually 186,282 miles per second, are the ones who are far more religious than a simple high school educated Janitor who believes in Christ. You see it is all unproven conjecture of advanced Monkey-men, "Science falsely so called".

a reply to: ChesterJohn

"Well I was correct in my assumption you are an evolutionist."

Let's just say Ile keep an open mind but accept the currently accepted rhetoric until it's supplanted by a better more accurate version with added veracity.

Religion says follow, science asks why.

Science is a tool, nothing more, nothing less.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I will respond briefly to you, sorry if I don't explicit more.

The only force that exists in the Universe is the "pull" of the future on the past.
The only accountability we have towards anyone is towards our future selves which would not exist if we screw up today. But that cannot happen, because of the principle above.

The Universe cannot be anything less than what it already is. Think of it this way: imagine that the Universe was a Quantum Computer which, in order to "think", consumed the entire energy of the Universe (all the existing particles including the particles which it is made of). It's thinking would lead it to recreate itself in the "future", inevitably, because it cannot be anything less that what it already is. And THIS, what we are living now, can be simply a tiny, minuscule part in it's "thinking", and each of us could be "sub-threads" inside it's "core processor".

In English: God is us in the future, reaching out into the past to "steer" it back to it so it can "recreate" a new story from the infinite possible stories invariably leading to it's existence.

a reply to: Deetermined

Says the Bible whereas science, physics, and mathematics suggest otherwise.

Let's entertain the notion through, what happens to anyone who does not believe, bow down to, or capitulate with the views of God/Jesus in the afterlife?

Current Biblical rhetoric would seem to suggest they will be punished for all eternity via hellfire does it not?

By the very same person who allegedly created them in the first place, in his very image, and loves them ""unconditionally"".

Tough crowd to please if you ask me.

a reply to: Marma

I accpet you reply, but I doubt you can speak for andy06shake

a reply to: andy06shake

Science creates words to supplant God's words.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Far as i can see Gods not saying much.

Thats Man I'm afraid.

originally posted by: Marma
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I will respond briefly to you, sorry if I don't explicit more.

The only force that exists in the Universe is the "pull" of the future on the past.
The only accountability we have towards anyone is towards our future selves which would not exist if we screw up today. But that cannot happen, because of the principle above.

The Universe cannot be anything less than what it already is. Think of it this way: imagine that the Universe was a Quantum Computer which, in order to "think", consumed the entire energy of the Universe (all the existing particles including the particles which it is made of). It's thinking would lead it to recreate itself in the "future", inevitably, because it cannot be anything less that what it already is. And THIS, what we are living now, can be simply a tiny, minuscule part in it's "thinking", and each of us could be "sub-threads" inside it's "core processor".

In English: God is us in the future, reaching out into the past to "steer" it back to it so it can "recreate" a new story from the infinite possible stories invariably leading to it's existence.

How long do you think your will live into the future?

The universe upon which we glance up into is the inside of a very large opaque crystal ball.

But the Universe is not a Quantum Computer therefore imagining it is, is futile.

What runs the Universe is God, who is light and in him is no darkness at all. The universe does not and has not given us any reason to believe that is and has recreated itself. It is what it is a container to hold in darkness and to keep it from spreading into the abode of God, Paul called it the third heaven. What you are describing is from a small portion of the religion of Hinduism and Buddhism known as reincarnation but limited to the Universe.

God is not us in the future, unless you are a Mormon, for they believe that "as man is so god was, and as god is man can become" J Smith and the teachings of the Mormon church of the latter day saints.

There is only one story His story, and it took place in history that each man can take hold of a future that is glorious with him in heaven and not apart from him in hell.

a reply to: andy06shake

Then it proves you never read the bible and if so you never understood it as God would have to too.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I went to Sunday School when i was a lad.

Christened a Protestant in Church.

And if memory serves the Bible was indeed required reading in primary and again in Religious Education whilst attending secondary school.

So bang goes that theory I'm afraid. LoL

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Hi Chester.
I disagree. There cannot be anything outside of God. If God is infinite, eternal, omnipotent, all seeing, all powerful, then we are a part of him.
God is all that existed, exists and will exist, from now until the end of time.
To think that God can "create" something outside of him/her/itself is crazy. This means that there would be something "more" beyond infinity and eternity. It's impossible.

a reply to: Marma

"To think that God can "create" something outside of him/her/itself is crazy. This means that there would be something "more" beyond infinity and eternity. It's impossible."

Accept the Many Worlds interpretation pretty much blows that notion completely out the water, infinity so.

What if God is simply responsible for his own iteration of the universe?

And the rest of them are some other omnipotent omniscience blokes lookout?

a reply to: andy06shake

Yes and no. If there are Gods beyond God, then they are organized as a neural network of Gods which is the "brain" of another God, which itself is just one "node" in a neural network of "Super" Gods which forms a "Mega" God etc ad infinitum. So no, there is ALWAYS only ONE God... Until there are many Gods but then, they all are just a part of ONE God etc...

a reply to: Marma

"Until there are many Gods but then, they all are just a part of ONE God etc..."

Job satisfaction aside, that would be rather a lonely profession and existence to bear, and for eternity no less, even for a God, would it not?

When is there only ever one of anything significant?

If the big dude creator force, or whatever we deem to call it does exist, i imagine there to be a whole pantheon of the mother suckers, not just one.