Which Came First - Light or Darkness?

what leads you to believe there was a "first"?

If God is light and God is eternal then first would not be the right word but It would be first.

I mean from a scientific point of view both light and darkness must have originated at the same point. Darkness is simply the absence of photons, 'light' is simply the existence of photons, without one the other is just a meaningless term.
Another analogy would be to have left without right, or up without down, they are meaningless words without their opposite to add a qualification on what they actually mean.

Darkness can only exist because of Light, just like a lie can only exist if there is truth.

Darkness is the absence of light. Darkness can never make light, but Light can become dark.... if something stands in the way of that light.

Darkness isn't a thing that can be created, light is. Darkness is just the absence of photons from a particular region in space. We dont create darkness by standing in the way of the photons, the darkness was already there, it is the presence of the photons that illuminates the darkness.
Darkness would exist without photons, but it would be meaningless to call it darkness with no countering 'light' to qualify what 'darkness' means.

Fwiw photons can and are continually created by various interactions,

If you go scientific the opaqueness of the universe before it became transparent is closer to a concept of dark I think, so darkness comes first. It was only after this transparency that photons were free to roam about (and hence why we can’t observe anything beyond that cmb horizon).

Not sure what the implications of multiverse or eternal inflation would have on the answer but it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s similar to the infinite sum of an alternating series debate

Lol - nonsensical ramblings of a poker player about the universe. I am betting that most of your beliefs came to you while smoking weed?

Pretty good chance you'd win that bet, Pletho.

Having said that, before we call something "nonsensical" we might want to first ask some clarification questions to try to understand what he is trying to say. In other words, while to you and me it might sound nonsensical, the problem might be on our end, not his.

Which came first...eternity or eternity?

I guess if you had a poor education my post would be non-sensical.

For those genuinely interested, it’s not hard at all to decipher. Look up cosmic background radiation (commonly cmb or cmbr) to get a start. Then dig into why it’s the earliest light we see in the universe and voila, you are at a point where you can debate whether the opaqueness before the universe became transparent is dark or light.

Gadgetguru, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

Color is consequential to the interaction of light and darkness ; Light and darkness are entities in and of themselves . In order to ascertain the "beginnings" of light and darkness only a supersensible appreciation can give the conclusion.

Aristotle(as example) and the ancients knew of these matters due to a supersensible and even atavistic consciousness but the abject approach of Newton and his comprehension of color , light , and darkness specifically denied the supersensible and the game rolls on .....

Color is new to the game relative to light and darkness but definitely not "contained within" the light, ala Newton.

Color is a by-product of light, it does not exist without light. It's simply a bending of light. Simple as that. As for darkness. It cannot exist without light. Darkness is the absence of light. Light is not the absence of darkness.

Why are you guys trying to make me remember my color theory classes.

You're mixing your metaphors. Darkness as the absence of light is a scientific term consequential to Newton.

The other part of what you say is the religious consideration as "I am the Light of the World" which is more expressive, universal and of course telling.

Now, is a scientific sense, we as sense bound human beings do not and cannot see "light" for "light" has no materiality even though the atomists posit and work with photons which in the scientific jargon, has a ponderability of weight and measure. They also posit a "speed of light", I believe secondary to the Michelosen-Morley experiment which was purported to speak to the "ether" of science.

I believe that this "ether" was not found for they were again looking for a ponderable (weight and measure) realm but it (the ether) was disproved.

The assumption is that light is ponderable but going along with the light and color experiments of Goethe he found that he could only speak to the two qualities of "brightness" and "darkness", the polarities manifested to our human senses.To clarify again, speaking scientifically, "brightness" and "darkness", within our sense bound realm have qualities . As per example there is a graduation of "darkness" as there is a graduation of "brightness".

Your correct on one thing, the word Light can be used meaning several different things.

Spiritual Light
Physical Light
Light used to mean Good
Light used to mean Knowledge

I am sure there is another way to use the word Light.

But Light I am talking about is God. God is light. Not only does this mean Good, not bad, it also means Light is one of His Characteristics, like Love is another.

God is spirit, and if God is light, then we are talking about spiritual light. Now of course as a Christian I know and believe that the physical world is a by-product of the spiritual realm. Therefore Light in the physical realm is only possible because of the spiritual.

There is also what's called in the bible the Angel of Light, which refers to Lucifer, who is no longer called that. But has the knowledge to manipulate Light physically and other things. Which I obviously can't go into with an unbeliever who does not even believe in God. No chance you would believe their is a Devil also.... lol

Please please please stop making physics cry.....

Light is a common name for photons, usually classified a visible light, but can be a general term for any em radiation... Photons are not some incomprehensible concept that science doesn't understand properly....it's pretty simple, they are quanta of energy that exhibit both frequency and wavelength, amongst other characteristics...
The speed of light, is a thing 3.0*10^8 roughly....and is a fundamental constant throughout the universe...relativity tells us nothing can travel faster than this relative to another object....again not some weird concept that science doesn't understand.

The Mickelson moreley experiment was derived from a time in science when it was believed there was an aether needed to mediate forces, such as gravity, which seemingly act instantaneously....the experiment of course found no evidence for an aether.....
At the time this was an important discovery, or lack there of, but now we have moved well beyond this.
Quantum field theory, entanglement, and simple wave function propagation can explain these interactions with relative ease and the need for an aether is no longer relevant.....
Science making progress......

If you want to discuss the metaphorical connotations of the word light, and what it means in a spiritual term then fine. But the physics of this is all pretty basic stuff, so for God's sake stop getting it so badly wrong

Oh and fwiw colour is just different wavelength photons that we have attributed arbitrary names to, such as red (~600nm) green (~450nm) blue (~350nm)....it doesn't mean anything else.

Your only seeing things from one side, like looking at one side of a piece of paper, or looking at the outside of a balloon after it's been filled with air. Your missing WHATS BEHIND THE SCENES the origins of things, the reason they exist. But as an unbeliever your limited in knowledge, you cannot understand past a certain point, it's impossible, so this conversation is going nowhere..........

You have a lot of blather but fail to see the fuzzy in these terms.

One reference states that a photon is "massless" ; please explain that to me .

What is said is that light has particle and wave characteristics which in no way can be looked at as dogmatically as you present.Believe it or not we know all this but questions still abound for if they didn't we would be in a real fix.

I'll repeat the idea of light as with mass is even denied by the modern physicist and the presentation by Goethe is , even experimentally, more insightful.

But of course yo'd have to study the scientific works of Goethe but I've given you the idea but you cajole instead of asking questions as any real scientist should.

Finis.

Color isn't arbitrary. It is how we experience, and communicate, our awareness of various wavelengths of light. Our experience of it draws it into existence for us.

Darkness is not a thing, it is the absence of a thing (EM radiation).

Pletho - what use does "light" have as a synonym for God? and what does "darkness" therefor mean? Freedom, perhaps?


I hadn't before thought of the derivation of "Lucifer". Interesting.

If God, through his angel, created Light, Light cannot be God.

If Lucifer created Light, and Lucifer is evil, then is Light not evil?



followup thought: "evil" is created by the possibility of man's free-will, God's retraction of his omnipotence; angels don't have free will, right? so what does that mean for Lucifer's rebellion?

Lucifer is the "bearer of the Light". Christ is Light itself.

Lucifer is not the "devil" as many may think but is seen in esoteric and exoteric circles( not all) as the "impediment" to the evolution of Man. Paradoxically, because of this "impediment" Man gains "muscles" to which he could not gain by continuing within the spiritual world such as a finger of the body, without individuality or qualities born of individual effort.

Mankind never had a chance against Lucifer, in a manner of speaking, as he is indeed a higher angelic being beyond the reach of Man. this in no way calls for "Lucifer worship" and there are other perspectives to help explain Lucifer's place in the heavens , these perspectives that offer some salient comprehension of the workings of the s;pirit in Man.

Now, Ahriman is the spirit who is referred to in ancient lore and he is even a higher being than Lucifer. In the stories of Faust by Goethe and Dr. Faustus by Marlowe we meet Mephistopheles the "devil" ; I believe in the Hebrew he is known as "Tophel"(spelling ?) as the spirit of ruin and as the "great deceiver".

In ancient Persia the spirits of "Light and Darkness" Ahriman is the spirit of darkness. In modern times Ahriman is the being who would have Man only "see the earth" and not recognize the world of the spirit, thus building his kingdom on the earth.

Both influences continue, whether recognized or not as Lucifer would have Man leave the earth and come to his kingdom in the spirit thus reversing his previous earthly impediment. Ahriman, of course builds the kingdom of the earth. It seems that they are both in polarity, as they are.

The "Three temptations of Christ" are in fact Lucifer and Ahriman working alone and together to seduce Christ Jesus. The Christ Being in Man as the guide and template of man works in the middle between the two tempters.

We , of course, do work the earth but in dedication to the spirit , the work of Christ.

Finis.

I'm assuming you're asking this question with regards to Christianity. As a Christian I can answer that yes, angels have free will and are capable of sinning. Satan and other angels were cast out of heaven because they chose to sin.

This question on gotquestions.org might help you understand this better:

Question: "Do angels have free will?"

Also, carlo seems to be making a lot of claims that aren't biblical.

Light was created through Jesus, along with everything else that was created (including Lucifer, who is a created being).

Here's another question on gotquestions.org that might help you:

Question: "Is Jesus the Creator?"