A
aileron
Guest
No, it isn’t. “Empty” space is buzzing with a lot of interesting activity for physicists.
- Status
J
JDaniel
Guest
You are being rather presumptuous and uncharitable. You do not have the right to tell anyone on CAF what to do, or not do. And, by the way, the paragraph stated in the OP was trying to set up another one of those absurd paradoxes similar, in type, to those like one about whether or not God can make a rock too heavy for Him to pick up. You focused on the first three sentences and ignored the next six. The writer was trying to disprove the existence of God with it. All I was doing is pointing out the absurdities abound in such a childish consideration.
I think I am owed an apology.
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
Your point is well-taken. The paragraph is an exercise in childishness. It’s like trying to describe to someone how to get to New York City by way of the color green and a bowl of chicken soup. You have to teach that person too many things. Of course, if you have a couple of months, you can take them one by one.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Can we really say that because we do not know the opposite of something, that therefore the thing in questions has no existential relevance or being? The reality of it would still be real, even though we would not understand it in terms of its opposite.
But we do understand what darkness is, because we are aware of its opposite, but does it stop being real, when we remove light permanently. Is darkness a thing in itself, or is its existence reliant on our knowledge of it being darkness as opposed to light? If so, then what does it mean for it to exist.
If there is such a thing as darkness, as in being existentially real apart from the reality of light, then your arguement fails to answer the questions, since darkness would be a substance or a particle like light, and would not need the existence of its opposite in order to have being.
But if darkness isn’t really there, then what is it?
But it would not mean that darkness does not exist. It merely means that we would not understand it as darkness.
D
Drawmack
Guest
I apologize. Now, do I get one for you attempting to take my words beyond their natural intention and thereby introducing a logical fallacy into the conversation? And, how about one for inferring that I told anyone what to do? The statement was phrased as a question (note the word please) but I accidentally ended it with a period which is easy because the keys are close.You are being rather presumptuous and uncharitable. You do not have the right to tell anyone on CAF what to do, or not do. And, by the way, the paragraph stated in the OP was trying to set up another one of those absurd paradoxes similar, in type, to those like one about whether or not God can make a rock too heavy for Him to pick up. You focused on the first three sentences and ignored the next six. The writer was trying to disprove the existence of God with it. All I was doing is pointing out the absurdities abound in such a childish consideration.
I think I am owed an apology.
jd
D
Drawmack
Guest
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
But it would still be darkness by nature of being, regardless of our knowledge, correct?
J
JDaniel
Guest
OK, I apologize. Now, do I get one for the alchemy of turning a question mark into a period?
Just kidding!
jd
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Hey!!!OK, I apologize. Now, do I get one for the alchemy of turning a question mark into a period?
Just kidding!
jd
Wheres my apology.
J
JDaniel
Guest
D
Drawmack
Guest
I was explaining why the author might have neglected to mention the creation of darkness. I was not explaining why darkness was not created. There’s a big difference.
So, in answer to your question, yes it was darkness. But, we are only told of it’s existence through the creation of it’s antithesis because the author may have saw no need to explain the creation of something that was totality until such a time as this totality ended.
J
JDaniel
Guest
While I don’t think this aside was the intent of the OP, it might be an interesting thread on its own. From the POV of the physical, in the beginning all there was was darkness, in some sense. The very next act of Creation (after the Heavens and Earth) was the making of light. So, it seems that light presupposes darkness, not the other way around. If darkness was a priori to light, then it was darkness that needed an antithesis. (Although, the earth and the universe might have had some light, it apparently was not enough for those who would come later to inhabit the earth.)
Perhaps we can help the OP with his/her request:
“…as the bible says God created light and then separate[d] light and darkness.” - So far, so good. Right?
“Since everything must be created…” - I should think that not everything must be “created”, in a pro-active sense. Perhaps some things come to be by “permission.” Anyone think differently?
“…who created the darkness then?” - God, indirectly, probably.
“If God did, then what was before the darkness?” - The void.
“Ok, ok, darkness is an empty space.” - Can anyone help us with a physics lesson?
“Then who created the empty space?” - Got to get the answer to the previous question first.
“If it has been there all along, that empty space must be God himself.” - If it turns out that “empty space” is OK, then, yes, but only in the sense that God merely permeates it.
"‘No! No! God is outside time and space.’ " - Got two right!
“Err, do you mean he is inside some kind of solid packed with carbon atoms or inside the carbon itself surrounded by electrons?” - (Here, in my opinion, is where the subject of the OP’s concern felt the initial effects of the crack he ingested a little earlier.)
“I will leave these to you”. - I think that’s the best course of action. At least we’re clean and sober, at least I think we are.
“Now, where’s the rest of that crack?”
jd
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Nothing.
I was just trying to sober you up. I was just joking.
Man
. You more sensitive about words then a gangster rapper!!!I mc all night and all day.
I rap about philosophy in my sleep, when they play the beat.
I rap about how Aquinas leaves all other philosophy in defeat.
I rap about why atheism is bleak
I rap about why naturalism is weak
I rap about how Jesus Christ exposes the theif
I rap about how God loves us, even when we beef.
I rap about repenting and how God fulfills our spiritual needs.
I rap about objective morality, the path the peace.
I rebuke nihilism, its the image of the beast!!
Are you feeling it?
J
JDaniel
Guest
It makes me want to jump around, jump around! :dancing:Nothing.
I was just trying to sober you up. I was just joking.
Man
I mc all night and all day.
I rap about philosophy in my sleep, when they play the beat.
I rap about how Aquinas leaves all other philosophy in defeat.
I rap about why atheism is bleak
I rap about why naturalism is weak
I rap about how Jesus Christ exposes the theif
I rap about how God loves us, even when we beef.
I rap about repenting and how God fulfills our spiritual needs.
I rap about objective morality, the path the peace.
I rebuke nihilism, its the image of the beast!!
Are you feeling it?
jd
C
Chiral
Guest
You guys have too much time on your hands :jrbirdman:
But I think the post about darkness pre-existing and God creating light in antithesis is right-on and beautiful. As a scientist, i also appreciate the skepticism in a number of posts with regard to our understanding of that which we call “darkness”, like our understanding of cold vs hot with respect to energy as heat (K) and the idea of “absolute zero” - so much of physics is theoretical… and to an atheist one might call it theological??
But I do think all Catholics at least would agree that IF darkness can be considered a “thing” beyond the mere formality of requiring a word to describe something we observe (like saying “cold” rather than ## K or ## C) then indeed God “created” it, as is written in Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” (KJV)
But the notions of omnipresence and transcendence may be a bit beyond this particular atheist… or he was just trying to be funny
Oh, one last thing though somewhat of topic - JD made mention of God perhaps “indirectly” creating darkness… but I’m not sure a Catholic understanding of God allows for “indirect” divine creation for that implies passivity or a lack of completeness to his creation and it can only be used metaphorically… unless JD meant “indirectly” in that darkness is not a “thing” but merely a lack, as God’s goodness coupled with freewill “indirectly” “creates” evil, but again that is another discussion entirely, and one sure to be repeated on this forum as it has in the past on this and many other “forums” since theology in earnest began.
But I think the post about darkness pre-existing and God creating light in antithesis is right-on and beautiful. As a scientist, i also appreciate the skepticism in a number of posts with regard to our understanding of that which we call “darkness”, like our understanding of cold vs hot with respect to energy as heat (K) and the idea of “absolute zero” - so much of physics is theoretical… and to an atheist one might call it theological??
But I do think all Catholics at least would agree that IF darkness can be considered a “thing” beyond the mere formality of requiring a word to describe something we observe (like saying “cold” rather than ## K or ## C) then indeed God “created” it, as is written in Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” (KJV)
But the notions of omnipresence and transcendence may be a bit beyond this particular atheist… or he was just trying to be funny
Oh, one last thing though somewhat of topic - JD made mention of God perhaps “indirectly” creating darkness… but I’m not sure a Catholic understanding of God allows for “indirect” divine creation for that implies passivity or a lack of completeness to his creation and it can only be used metaphorically… unless JD meant “indirectly” in that darkness is not a “thing” but merely a lack, as God’s goodness coupled with freewill “indirectly” “creates” evil, but again that is another discussion entirely, and one sure to be repeated on this forum as it has in the past on this and many other “forums” since theology in earnest began.
P
pe219
Guest
I think what you’re looking for is the ‘gift’ of faith; it’s found by humble prayer, by design… I don’t think you’ll just be stumbling across it during a journey down a path conjured up by your own limited reason. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through Him…
Some things are just too big to get our tiny little heads around, but the subject is interesting and so I’ll hazard this thought…You seemed to jump from “God created”… right to “since everything must be created” as if that follows; not. You start with the uncreated Triune Majesty of God, and then everything follows from there. Now getting our tiny heads around the “uncreated Triune Majesty of God” might require you to be God rather than just a guy asking a good question who didn’t have any control over how he arrived at this existence, and can’t even predict (much less prevent) the time, manner or destination of his unquestionable near term exit from this ‘stage’ of life. Maybe it’s just time to put your head down in your hands and PRAY - thereby achieving the highest calling of our most humbling gift - existence.
G
geometer
Guest
The jewish mystics, the kabbalists, have answered these questions quite a long time ago.
- Status