|
Post by Leo on May 18, 2010 19:06:23 GMT
Does Light always triumph over Darkness?
|
|
|
Post by Leo on May 18, 2010 19:08:19 GMT
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on May 18, 2010 21:28:55 GMT
From a standpoint of physics, I don't believe darkness is a physical force. Light is an energy, so in that respect I would say it 'always' triumphs, if by 'always' is meant in its period of existence. Energy is never destroyed. It is only transformed. To consider further, there are forms of 'light' we cannot see with the naked human eye. There are certainly other forms of energy, while not traditionally called 'light', are nonetheless 'light' in my opinion. Sound is light, for example and in my opinion. All is energy, and energy cannot be destroyed. I hope I have not diverged to greatly from the conversation. Let me put it more succinctly; 'Light is all, darkness is nothing.'
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on May 18, 2010 22:01:13 GMT
What I do think is an interesting aspect of this is, what do you think came first, Darkness or Light.
As Spike Milligan said, 'darkness is just the absence of light' ?
So when the Universe began, was it Dark or was it light.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on May 18, 2010 22:42:11 GMT
This gets into myth and science and how belief comes together to uphold objective facts. In the singularity of the Big Bang, it started as void. Void being the closest description of 'true darkness' available. There is no energy, motion, intelligence, light, &c. in a true void. Interesting, if the universe was created Ex Nihilo, the universe was a blinding flash of light that came from nothing. This reminds me of the checkered pavement. What I do think is an interesting aspect of this is, what do you think came first, Darkness or Light. As Spike Milligan said, 'darkness is just the absence of light' ? So when the Universe began, was it Dark or was it light.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on May 18, 2010 22:58:46 GMT
Greatest argument for the existence of God, no scientific knowledge can explain how something came from nothing.
Where did the void come from ? What was before the void ? The first atom, the first molecule ?
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on May 18, 2010 23:26:47 GMT
If we'd discovered .0001% of the mysteries of the universe thus far, I'd be shocked.
|
|
|
Post by Leo on May 19, 2010 7:56:51 GMT
Greatest argument for the existence of God, no scientific knowledge can explain how something came from nothing. Where did the void come from ? What was before the void ? The first atom, the first molecule ? Good observation. Something/someone preceded what we have today. Light/Darkness. For some [people] there is no difference. For them it could be simply one of perception. Perhaps the "reality" is what lies between the two? In any event, from a Masonic perspective the Light/Darkness seems to always be with us; the 1st Degree sees us going from darkness to light. And, in this instance we see light as superior or better than darkness.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on May 19, 2010 14:15:49 GMT
Most of what is being discussed here seems to be working under presumption that that hasn't always been something. It takes a very large leap to think that all matter and energy has always existed. It is also a large leap to think that it was just created out of nothing.
So there are two currently untestable ideas. So what to do now?
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on May 19, 2010 14:48:00 GMT
Most of what is being discussed here seems to be working under presumption that that hasn't always been something. It takes a very large leap to think that all matter and energy has always existed. It is also a large leap to think that it was just created out of nothing. So there are two currently untestable ideas. So what to do now? Aaaaaaaaaaaagh, then you have to explain, how come at one point there was nothing, then there was something. Or if indeed matter has always existed then is there no beginning to time. Logic dictates that if there is an Elephant in front of you it came from somewhere. Unless someone can show an atom or molecule being created from no other matter then again logic tells us that it is impossible. Einstien said:- "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
|
|
afterthought
Member
A true initiation never ends. -Robert Anton Wilson
Posts: 242
|
Post by afterthought on May 19, 2010 18:51:11 GMT
I find that darkness is very misunderstood.
In Hellenic mythology, the mother of Uranus and Gia is Chaos. Chaos is described as pure darkness. Represented by the color black.
In Northern Egypt darkness and the color black represented movement, creativity and change.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on May 19, 2010 19:11:12 GMT
I don't understand it differently than you do. Perhaps we're both mistaken? ;D
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on May 20, 2010 17:23:53 GMT
As a side-note, I know an art councilor who told me she disliked how the word 'negative' was a feminine descriptive, though she later changed her mind.I understand the idea of the darkness of the womb and the formative operations that occur there. I still do not agree that the womb is chaotic or void-without-energy. The void of a black hole is part of the pattern of the universe, rebirthing energy in the form of a white hole (if the theories are correct). True darkness, or void, impels nothing by itself and offers 0% light, lux, or anything.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on May 21, 2010 3:34:20 GMT
That is the deal isn't it Bill. The thought that all of this universe stuff came from some deity that created it all poetic reasons that we can't understand is a little loopy. Just as loopy to think that the universe has always been around. Regarding time, does there really have to be a beginning of time? These are questions that we can't answer at this time. I do suggest that those who are interested continue to seek answers. In order for something to scientific it must be falsifiable.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on May 21, 2010 6:15:42 GMT
Well there you go.
How can you have this time if there was not a time before and a time after. no time we all stand still and say nothing, which in some cases might be a great idea.
For you to experience today, there must have been a Yesterday and we have to be ready for tomorrow to arrive.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on May 21, 2010 12:13:33 GMT
Time could be just an arbitrary measurement that we use to describe increment. Time doesn't seem to be a motive force.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on May 21, 2010 23:12:52 GMT
According to the thoughts of some physicists, time itself is illusionary. On the other hand, that may be getting too technical. Time does pass-somehow. My watch moves, my tea grows cold, my fingers grow old. Impelled motion can only come from motion. Motion, to the eye, ears, touch, &c. is measurable. Motion comes over time, and time is recorded in motion. I'm pretty much in the camp that there must have been a Prime Impelling Event, which does not necessarily indicate a Prime Mover, but it seems possible given the information.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on May 22, 2010 2:38:35 GMT
The problem with most discussions on relative concepts always seems to come back to the 'tree falling in the forest', if we are not there does it make a noise.
I start from man's concept of the Universe. We can see , touch , taste , hear etc.
We see a box, we know it is box because it has width, depth and height and we can feel it and see it. We can only perceive these things because we have the invisible element of time. We see the box with the lid shut. Not before it is shut, not when it was open, not after it is closed again, we see it as a shut box.
The big question is, if living creatures were not here , where is the box. Does it still exist ?
Is it possible that time is only created in order than life may be.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on May 22, 2010 5:08:13 GMT
I think at some point, scientific discussion must occur largely by analogy.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on May 22, 2010 18:33:50 GMT
To translate difficult subjects into regular language requires analogy.
We are starting to bridge onto the subject of whether or not reality is dependent upon an individual's acquiescence.
|
|