Dapo777:


There is no contradiction in What I just said. I simple mentioned "the presence of light before the sun" is because that is What the Bible says,and I am trying to explain to you why the Bible says So. Its not because there is some kind of mysterious light that is only visible to God and Which can still separate day from darkness,But because the ancient people noticed light even after the sun goes behind the clouds,and the only logical explanation they had that time is that there was light created before God created the sun and stars. That explains it all to the ancient people and that explains it to you also.

We are in the 21st century But some people aren't thinking like they are in the 21st century.

These are the thoughts of men you are telling me now. Or was that the aim of the whole thing? Let me repeat it again.

If you are certain that actually, light for visibility by their explanation exists without the sunlight, then what is the point of saying in the first place that the bible contradicted itself by presenting without the sun? Just be straight to the point.

mazaje:
Christians will always have to result to telling lies, fabricating things and DELUDING themselves when trying to use modern knowledge to explain primitive mythology. . .Why did the writers of genesis say that light was created before the sun?. . .because they did not know. . .Why did they say that the earth was in existence before the sun and stars?. . .because they did not know. . .Genesis creation account is Jewish mythology, who ever wrote it had no scientific knowledge and wrote what he thought was true. . .Jews take it to be an allegory, honest christians also say it is an allegory, a honest reading of the verse will tell you that who every wrote it got it wrong and doesn't know. . .STOP fabricating and making things up Reyginus. . .You are doing your religion and your god a dis- service because every body can see that you are trying too hard to sell what is just not there. . .

Maybe it is an allegory. But I do not think that anything, by being one, cannot be explained logically. Maybe I have not done well in these explanations but I assure you, henceforth I will do better.

Reyginus:
I hope this calms you down. Since you asked for examples let me make it easy. Just feed on this.

Infrared is used in night vision equipment when there is insufficient visible light to see. Night vision devices operate through a process involving the conversion of ambient light photons into electrons that are then amplified by a chemical and electrical process and then converted back into visible light. Infrared light sources can be used to
augment the available ambient light for
conversion by night vision devices, increasing
in-the-dark visibility without actually using a
visible light source.

Maybe you would want to say that the light seen was not directly by our visible to which I may ask what then is it?

But you are still wrong,infrared is NOT a visible light,and infrared CANNOT separate light from darkness,also it is not infrared that is seen But the amplified ambient visible light that you can see through the help of the instrument using infrared.

Reyginus you have failed to give me an example of a visible light that cannot be seen with the naked eyes But with an instrument and Which can be used to brighten up a dark room.

Reyginus:
These are the thoughts of men you are telling me now. Or was that the aim of the whole thing? Let me repeat it again.

If you are certain that actually, light for visibility by their explanation exists without the sunlight, then what is the point of saying in the first place that the bible contradicted itself by presenting without the sun? Just be straight to the point.

Yes my point is that, due to their ignorance they thought a supreme being must have created "visible light" without the sun,But they are wrong.

If God truly exist then the creation story would be different. The sun and stars would have been created before any other thing.

Dapo777:


Yes my point is that, due to their ignorance they thought a supreme being must have created "visible light" without the sun,But they are wrong.

If God truly exist then the creation story would be different. The sun and stars would have been created before any other thing.

To be sincere with you, you just lost me with your first sentence or maybe I lost you. I thought that on using the example of the ancient you have come to an acceptance of light for vision without the sun. But now, using our problem word 'visible' is indicating another notion.

If you remember you didn't say what that they termed the light visible or invisible due to their ignorance of both. But at least, the statement suggests that the vision at night suggested to them the presence of light. Let's not try to define the light or classify it like you are doing now because from your example they didn't do so.

I even think it is more than that. God, as per the supreme spirit, if he existed, can create the world ANYHOW he deems fit.To the big question now, why do you think that if God actually exist, the sun and stars would have been created before any other thing? I really want to know.

Dapo777:


But you are still wrong,infrared is NOT a visible light,and infrared CANNOT separate light from darkness,also it is not infrared that is seen But the amplified ambient visible light that you can see through the help of the instrument using infrared.

My friend is trying to make it difficult for both of us. Let me ask you. What light source is used to make the object visible?

Dapo777:

Reyginus you have failed to give me an example of a visible light that cannot be seen with the naked eyes But with an instrument and Which can be used to brighten up a dark room.

I think this statement doesn't agrees with your first. I will point it out.

In the first, you rejected the possibility of any source of light seen with an instrument. You claimed that what is seen is the amplified ambient light and not infrared, to which I have placed a question on its source of light.

In the second, now, you are saying that I was not able to show how infrared cannot be seen with the naked eye but with an instrument. The same instrument you claimed to only permit the visibility od ambient amplified light. Make me understand.

Reyginus:
Maybe it is an allegory. But I do not think that anything, by being one, cannot be explained logically. Maybe I have not done well in these explanations but I assure you, henceforth I will do better.

I repeat you are doing your religion and your god a great dis service with all your fabrications and equivocations. . .There is a culture to the genesis creation story, there is NO Jewish Rabbi that knows his onions that will tell you that the story isn't an allegory, all of them after following the tradition have clearly said its an allegory, same with christian apologist, William Criag, Gary Herbermas, Roy Carol etc. . .All these great christian apologist all say the genesis creation account is an allegory simply because it does NOT fit with the observable reality. . .What do you personally know about the bible and how it was written?. . .Who wrote the creation story in the bible?. . .You don't know all these things. . .You are busy spinning and fabricating things just because you read the English translation of the bible, you don't understand hebrew, you really do not know what those words mean in the original language. . .

Rabbi's that have studied it in the original hebrew and the culture behind it have come out to say that it is an allegory because it doesn't fit with any observable reality. . .The bible very clearly states that the earth was created before the sun and stars. . . The writer did not know how the sun or earth came about. . Now we have the hubble space telescope, kepler space telescope and the alma telescope and with them we have been able to capture some planets and stars as they are forming, all of them come about the same way. . .These space observatories have captured different planets at various levels of formation around their parent star. . Some at the proto planetary level, some at more advanced level. . Do the writers of the bible truly know that the stars are form within clouds of gas and dust that collapse under gravity?. . .Do they also know that planets are formed over time when the surrounding dust particles stick together under gravity to form sand and eventually planets?. . .The answer is no they don't. . .If they did they wouldn't have written the nonsense they wrote in the genesis creation myth which is nothing like other tribal religious myth. . .Stop fighting a lost battle. . .

Reyginus:
My friend is trying to make it difficult for both of us. Let me ask you. What light source is used to make the object visible?


I think this statement doesn't agrees with your first. I will point it out.

In the first, you rejected the possibility of any source of light seen with an instrument. You claimed that what is seen is the amplified ambient light and not infrared, to which I have placed a question on its source of light.

In the second, now, you are saying that I was not able to show how infrared cannot be seen with the naked eye but with an instrument. The same instrument you claimed to only permit the visibility od ambient amplified light. Make me understand.

This argument is becoming baseless. Because it seems your definition of visible light is different from my definition of visible light.

Please I want you to define visible light. So that we can have a common ground.

OLAADEGBU:


Sunlight Before the Sun

According to Scripture, God "created the heaven and the earth" on Day One of Creation Week (Genesis 1:1).  Initially all was dark, until God said, "Let there be light" (v. 3).  Days Two and Three saw the oceans, firmament (or atmosphere), continents, and plants formed, as the earth was being progressively prepared for man's habitation.  It was on Day Four that God created the sun, moon, and stars, proclaiming, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven" (v. 14), one purpose of which was "to give light upon the earth" (v. 15).

This light was directional, coming from a particular source.  The earth was evidently rotating underneath it, causing alternating periods of light and dark.  "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night" (v. 5).

Skeptics have long ridiculed the science of biblical creation over this point.  How could there be light bathing the earth before the sun was created?  Obviously the Bible must be in error.  But as always, this apparent error drives us to look more closely at the relevant data, both scientific and biblical.

Actually there are many sources of light, not just the sun.  There are also many types of light, not just visible light.  Short-wave light includes ultraviolet light, X-rays, and others.  Long-wave light includes infrared light, radio waves, etc.  Light is produced by friction, by fire, by numerous chemical reactions, as well as the nuclear reactions of atomic fission and fusion, which is what we think is occurring in the sun.  God had at His fingertips many options to accomplish His purposes.  Light does not automatically require the sun.

Furthermore, we have important data given by the Hebrew words used in the creation account.  When God created "light" in verse 3, the word used connotes the presence of light only, while the word used for "lights" on Day Four is best translated "light bearers," or permanent light sources.  Their purpose was not only to give light, but to serve as timekeepers for man once he was created.  According to the best stellar creation theory now available, light from stars created anywhere in the universe on Day Four would reach earth in two earth days, and would be useful to Adam on Day Six.  (For more information, see Dr. Russell Humphrey's cosmology articles on www.icr.org.)

Keep in mind that the Creation Week was a uniquely miraculous time, and we are justified in speculating that miraculous events may have been taking place outside of today's natural laws.  Especially when we realize that "God is light" (1 John 1:5) Himself, thus no outside natural source is necessarily mandated.

For semi-creationists who claim that the "days" of Genesis 1 must have been long periods of time, a more serious problem arises.  Genesis plainly teaches that plants appeared on Day Three, and the sun on Day Four.  But plants need sunlight for photosynthesis and cannot wait in darkness for millions of years.  If the days were long epochs, as demanded by critics of a literal Creation Week, plants could not survive.

How much better and more satisfying it is to accept Scripture as it stands.  It doesn't need to be fully understood and explained by modern scientific thought; it just needs to be believed and obeyed.

For more . . . .

God is light!

Dapo777:


This argument is becoming baseless. Because it seems your definition of visible light is different from my definition of visible light.

Please I want you to define visible light. So that we can have a common ground.

That is easy friend. Before I do that I would like to see how my comment you just quoted interferes with the meaning of the two.

mazaje:


I repeat you are doing your religion and your god a great dis service with all your fabrications and equivocations. . .There is a culture to the genesis creation story, there is NO Jewish Rabbi that knows his onions that will tell you that the story isn't an allegory, all of them after following the tradition have clearly said its an allegory, same with christian apologist, William Criag, Gary Herbermas, Roy Carol etc. . .All these great christian apologist all say the genesis creation account is an allegory simply because it does NOT fit with the observable reality. . .What do you personally know about the bible and how it was written?. . .Who wrote the creation story in the bible?. . .You don't know all these things. . .You are busy spinning and fabricating things just because you read the English translation of the bible, you don't understand hebrew, you really do not know what those words mean in the original language. . .

Rabbi's that have studied it in the original hebrew and the culture behind it have come out to say that it is an allegory because it doesn't fit with any observable reality. . .The bible very clearly states that the earth was created before the sun and stars. . . The writer did not know how the sun or earth came about. . Now we have the hubble space telescope, kepler space telescope and the alma telescope and with them we have been able to capture some planets and stars as they are forming, all of them come about the same way. . .These space observatories have captured different planets at various levels of formation around their parent star. . Some at the proto planetary level, some at more advanced level. . Do the writers of the bible truly know that the stars are form within clouds of gas and dust that collapse under gravity?. . .Do they also know that planets are formed over time when the surrounding dust particles stick together under gravity to form sand and eventually planets?. . .The answer is no they don't. . .If they did they wouldn't have written the nonsense they wrote in the genesis creation myth which is nothing like other tribal religious myth. . .Stop fighting a lost battle. . .

Lol. Why all these rant when you can easily show me that an allegory is not logical? Your argument is like that of one who is already made up on what not to agree to no matter any logical deduction.

Reyginus:
Lol. Why all these rant when you can easily show me that an allegory is not logical? Your argument is like that of one who is already made up on what not to agree to no matter any logical deduction.

What is logical in all the fabrications and equivocations you have been making? Dapo777 has already taken you to the cleaners on that and debunked all your fabrications. . .You are trying to insist that the genesis creation my fits with reality but it doesn't stop trying to hard. . .How can invisible light be used to separate darkness?. . .

mazaje:


What is logical in all the fabrications and equivocations you have been making? Dapo777 has already taken you to the cleaners on that and debunked all your fabrications. . .You are trying to insist that the genesis creation my fits with reality but it doesn't stop trying to hard. . .How can invisible light be used to separate darkness?. . .

Do you really want to get into the argument or you just want to rant as they come?

Reyginus:
Do you really want to get into the argument or you just want to rant as they come?

What are the rants?. ..If your cover for being called out for making things up is what you call rants then all I can say is what ever. . .So far you have not been able to state your point clearly to which you already admit, you are just jumping from around and throwing things while looking for what will stick. . .You have not been able to explain what light you are talking about, all the light you have thrown around makes no sense.. when put in context with the biblical light. . .It says god created light and he called it day. . .yo are here trying to tell us that it is invisible light that was called day, eh?. . .well done

Reyginus:
That is easy friend. Before I do that I would like to see how my comment you just quoted interferes with the meaning of the two.

You are breaking the rules by not defining "visible light".

Asking me how your comment interferes with the meaning of the two is your way of evading the question: "What is visible light?"

Define visible light So that this argument would be meaningful.

I have already defined visible light for you,but I haven't heard your own definition of "visible light".

Please define visible light.

Dapo777:


You are breaking the rules by not defining "visible light".

Asking me how your comment interferes with the meaning of the two is your way of evading the question: "What is visible light?"

Define visible light So that this argument would be meaningful.

I have already defined visible light for you,but I haven't heard your own definition of "visible light".

Please define visible light.

Check very well, bro.

It is the other way round. I gave you an explanation which questioned your own very quote but you replied with a question even without answering the very question I created from your position. Check it bro. I only had to return the favor to help the argument.

mazaje:


What are the rants?. ..If your cover for being called out for making things up is what you call rants then all I can say is what ever. . .So far you have not been able to state your point clearly to which you already admit, you are just jumping from around and throwing things while looking for what will stick. . .You have not been able to explain what light you are talking about, all the light you have thrown around makes no sense.. when put in context with the biblical light. . .It says god created light and he called it day. . .yo are here trying to tell us that it is invisible light that was called day, eh?. . .well done

I do not argue like this, bro.

I only want you to admit that you are willing to argue or discuss and we go. I wouldn't want a situation where a person will make random comments and expect to be treated like he is fully in for the argument. I wouldn't have done this if it were to be some person but I have come to know who I am dealing with now.

Reyginus:
Check very well, bro.

It is the other way round. I gave you an explanation which questioned your own very quote but you replied with a question even without answering the very question I created from your position. Check it bro. I only had to return the favor to help the argument.

So the problem now is that you can't define "visible light"?

Reyginus:
Lol. Do you really think that we call invisible light is really invisible?

You broke the first rule here. You didn't answer my question When I asked you true or false. Why?

My question again is this: how can God separate light from darkness If it wasn't visible. Then if you say the light is invisible then it won't be possible for God to use an invisible light to separate day from night.

True or false?

You evaded me by making a very preposterous statement: "do you really think What we call invisible light is Really invisible?"

That was the question you asked,thereby evading my question whether God can use invisible light to separate day from night.

Can you see that you started by breaking the rules. You didn't give me a direct and straightforward answer that actually answers my question,I saw this coming that was why I made the rule earlier enough,because I noticed this among the theist, anytime they realise they have been defeated in an argument they try to evade the question by asking preposterous questions. Which is clearly What you are doing.

You are trying to confuse the meaning of visible light,that is why I am asking you to define visible light,So that we can avoid this confusion you are trying to create with the "visible light"?

Again I ask you; Reyginus What is the definition of "visible light"?

Reyginus:
Chapter 1 Verse 14, you mean? Let me help your understanding, friend.

God created the stars, of which the sun is a part, differently from his creation of the first light. You'd wonder why he had to create light again if the current light is visible enough. I will break it down.

In the beginning, it was all dark, as the spirit of God hovers all over the surface of the earth. To neutralize the darkness and begin his creation he had to neutralize the efficacy of the dark earth by introducing other forms of light. The human eye is not capable of seeing this 'invisible light' but that doesn't apply to the eyes of God. To understand this, you must consider first that if these lights actually exists and operate, the uncaused cause responsible for existence must have caused them. And it is not possible not to know what we created.
A commonsensical approach to see this is to consider Verse 14. If the actually the light created in the beginning was visible to the human eye why was the creation of the stars, of which the sun is a part, in verse 14, come again?

The logical explanation is that one, the first was a tool to separate the dark, the reason the dark part after the separation was called darkness, and the light creating the difference day ,while the other one, was created to necessitate the easy detection of things by animals.

It is more of a problem of translation, I think. The author not knowing what to describe such a light as due to the absence of knowledge of it then. Surely, he knows it is not the same light we know if not he wouldn't have written verse 14.

Now Let's take a closer look at the bolded statements you made above.

First you wrote: "The human eye is not capable of seeing this 'invisible light' but that doesn't apply to the eyes of God."

That means you are saying and you agree that the light is totally invisible to man,only God can see it.

And then you gave me your own logical explanation: "The logical explanation is that one, the first(light) was a tool to separate the dark, the reason the dark part after the separation was called darkness, and the light creating the difference day"

Which Ofcourse isn't logical.

My reason for saying it is not logical is this: How can you say the human eyes isn't capable of seeing this "invisible light" and then still went ahead to conclude that the same invisible light that can't be seen with the human eyes is used as a tool to separate the dark from the day?

Seriously does that conclusion make any sense to you? :/

If the conclusion makes sense to you,Please give me an explanation of how an invisible light that cannot be seen with the human eyes(as you stated) be used as a tool to separate darkness from day.

Thank you.

I will also like you to realise that we humans cannot see infrared waves(light) in the real sense of seeing,But we can see the infrared energy emitted from warm(or hot) bodies and not the infrared wave itself. Check out this article I saw on the internet:
We can sense some infrared energy as heat. Some objects are so hot they also emit visible light—such as a fire does. Other objects, such as humans, are not as hot and only emit only infrared waves. Our eyes cannot see these infrared waves but instruments that can sense infrared energy—such as night-vision goggles or infrared cameras–allow us to "see" the infrared waves emitting from warm objects such as humans and animals.

Even If we have to agree that the invisible infrared wave cannot be seen with the eyes,it still cannot be used to separate day from darkness as you are trying to make me believe. Unless God was wearing a night vision Google,and If that was the case, God wouldnt have called the light day,because obviously according to you,only God can see this invisible light, So why then did he call it day Since humans can't recognize it as day. Was the day only for God to see? If the day was only Fr God to see,then it shouldn't be called day,because What we all know as day isn't seen by God alone But by man.

#DEBUNKED#

Dapo777:


Now Let's take a closer look at the bolded statements you made above.

First you wrote: "The human eye is not capable of seeing this 'invisible light' but that doesn't apply to the eyes of God."

That means you are saying and you agree that the light is totally invisible to man,only God can see it.

And then you gave me your own logical explanation: "The logical explanation is that one, the first(light) was a tool to separate the dark, the reason the dark part after the separation was called darkness, and the light creating the difference day"

Which Ofcourse isn't logical.

My reason for saying it is not logical is this: How can you say the human eyes isn't capable of seeing this "invisible light" and then still went ahead to conclude that the same invisible light that can't be seen with the human eyes is used as a tool to separate the dark from the day?

Seriously does that conclusion make any sense to you? :/

If the conclusion makes sense to you,Please give me an explanation of how an invisible light that cannot be seen with the human eyes(as you stated) be used as a tool to separate darkness from day.

Thank you.

Everything I typed just flashed. I have to type again.

Dapo777:


Now Let's take a closer look at the bolded statements you made above.

First you wrote: "The human eye is not capable of seeing this 'invisible light' but that doesn't apply to the eyes of God."

That means you are saying and you agree that the light is totally invisible to man,only God can see it.

And then you gave me your own logical explanation: "The logical explanation is that one, the first(light) was a tool to separate the dark, the reason the dark part after the separation was called darkness, and the light creating the difference day"

Which Ofcourse isn't logical.

My reason for saying it is not logical is this: How can you say the human eyes isn't capable of seeing this "invisible light" and then still went ahead to conclude that the same invisible light that can't be seen with the human eyes is used as a tool to separate the dark from the day?

Seriously does that conclusion make any sense to you? :/

If the conclusion makes sense to you,Please give me an explanation of how an invisible light that cannot be seen with the human eyes(as you stated) be used as a tool to separate darkness from day.

Thank you.

You didn't answer my question but I have to keep going to really allow this argument go ahead. I think, if you consider the context and were able to reconcile the very verse and verse 14 it will become logically correct to you. I will explain. And also, I don't really think that your question is feasible.This is why I don't think it is feasible.

The human eye cannot see invisible light directly. Yes. The invisible light was used to separate the dark from the day. Yes. But do you know the problem with your question. It is assuming that man was present in this separation. If it weren't so, you wouldn't have asked why the same invisible light we can't see make the difference between total darkness in the beginning. We are not needed for any visibility or invisibility at that time because we were yet to be brought to existence.

I hate to quote bible passages when discussing with a person who doesn't agree with the material itself. But since we are discussing the integrity of its logical sense I will go ahead. I will only ask that you read between the lines and open mind.
Here it is:

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.

If you did what I asked for, you'd see that the initial light created were in a way mixed up with the total darkness creating a form of normal night, the type we have here. The little brightness was a synocdeche for day and the darkness stood for the night.

If what God created in the first day was the Sun there wouldn't have been a need for Verse 14 but what he actually created were lights which can only be seen at the certain wavelength. And there is no contradiction. He created our 'invisible light' to neutralize the initial total darkness and went ahead to create our visible light to separate the day from the night. I don't think this can be enough to push somebody towards atheism. Frankly, I don't think so. There are other stronger reasons.

First, he created a little bright light to mix up with total darkness and thus neutralize it partly.
Second, he created very bright lights, to separate totally the darkness, or night, from the day. I don't find any problem here.

Dapo777:


You broke the first rule here. You didn't answer my question When I asked you true or false. Why?

My question again is this: how can God separate light from darkness If it wasn't visible. Then if you say the light is invisible then it won't be possible for God to use an invisible light to separate day from night.

True or false?

You evaded me by making a very preposterous statement: "do you really think What we call invisible light is Really invisible?"

That was the question you asked,thereby evading my question whether God can use invisible light to separate day from night.

Can you see that you started by breaking the rules. You didn't give me a direct and straightforward answer that actually answers my question,I saw this coming that was why I made the rule earlier enough,because I noticed this among the theist, anytime they realise they have been defeated in an argument they try to evade the question by asking preposterous questions. Which is clearly What you are doing.

You are trying to confuse the meaning of visible light,that is why I am asking you to define visible light,So that we can avoid this confusion you are trying to create with the "visible light"?

Again I ask you; Reyginus What is the definition of "visible light"?

I don't want a reason to destroy the intent of the argument so I will answer you.

This is the definition of visible light. The scientific definition claims:
A visible light is a light that human eyes can see. A light within the range of human vision.

Now, let me ask. Do we say that anything is not visible or doesn't exist, because we do not have the capacity to see them or sense them?

There is a certain decibel range which a human ear can hear. This decibel is not the same with the decibel range a dog can hear. Would it be logical to now say that any sound not within the decibel range of man's hearing is not a sound, knowing fully well that we only operating within the range of hearing?

Dapo777:
I will also like you to realise that we humans cannot see infrared waves(light) in the real sense of seeing,But we can see the infrared energy emitted from warm(or hot) bodies and not the infrared wave itself. Check out this article I saw on the internet:
We can sense some infrared energy as heat. Some objects are so hot they also emit visible light—such as a fire does. Other objects, such as humans, are not as hot and only emit only infrared waves. Our eyes cannot see these infrared waves but instruments that can sense infrared energy—such as night-vision goggles or infrared cameras–allow us to "see" the infrared waves emitting from warm objects such as humans and animals.

Even If we have to agree that the invisible infrared wave cannot be seen with the eyes,it still cannot be used to separate day from darkness as you are trying to make me believe. Unless God was wearing a night vision Google,and If that was the case, God wouldnt have called the light day,because obviously according to you,only God can see this invisible light, So why then did he call it day Since humans can't recognize it as day. Was the day only for God to see? If the day was only Fr God to see,then it shouldn't be called day,because What we all know as day isn't seen by God alone But by man.

#DEBUNKED#

Initially, I thought you were about to make the mistake of arguing in my favor but I was disappointed along the line. Don't take it serious.

The earlier you add the adjective 'total' to the darkness preexisting, the faster you see how the lights can be used to separate this darkness.

I think the use of day was a form of Synocdeche, whereby, a little amount of a thing stand for the whole thing.

Reyginus:
You didn't answer my question but I have to keep going to really allow this argument go ahead. I think, if you consider the context and were able to reconcile the very verse and verse 14 it will become logically correct to you. I will explain. And also, I don't really think that your question is feasible.This is why I don't think it is feasible.

The human eye cannot see invisible light directly. Yes. The invisible light was used to separate the dark from the day. Yes. But do you know the problem with your question. It is assuming that man was present in this separation. If it weren't so, you wouldn't have asked why the same invisible light we can't see make the difference between total darkness in the beginning. We are not needed for any visibility or invisibility at that time because we were yet to be brought to existence.

I hate to quote bible passages when discussing with a person who doesn't agree with the material itself. But since we are discussing the integrity of its logical sense I will go ahead. I will only ask that you read between the lines and open mind.
Here it is:

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.

If you did what I asked for, you'd see that the initial light created were in a way mixed up with the total darkness creating a form of normal night, the type we have here. The little brightness was a synocdeche for day and the darkness stood for the night.

If what God created in the first day was the Sun there wouldn't have been a need for Verse 14 but what he actually created were lights which can only be seen at the certain wavelength. And there is no contradiction. He created our 'invisible light' to neutralize the initial total darkness and went ahead to create our visible light to separate the day from the night. I don't think this can be enough to push somebody towards atheism. Frankly, I don't think so. There are other stronger reasons.

First, he created a little bright light to mix up with total darkness and thus neutralize it partly.
Second, he created very bright lights, to separate totally the darkness, or night, from the day. I don't find any problem here.

Yes there is a big problem,a very big problem.

What you are trying to say in essence is that,they are two different kinds of day that God created.

The first kind of day that only god recognizes as day and we humans can't recognize as day,and a second kind of day that we humans can recognize as day? Please does that make any sense to you?

Reyginus:
Initially, I thought you were about to make the mistake of arguing in my favor but I was disappointed along the line. Don't take it serious.

The earlier you add the adjective 'total' to the darkness preexisting, the faster you see how the lights can be used to separate this darkness.

I think the use of day was a form of Synocdeche, whereby, a little amount of a thing stand for the whole thing.

So now you saying the day mentioned in verse 5 is not a complete day? doesn't Dat sound funny to you? God still went ahead to call this first day "morning"(in verse 5) ,So why would God call an invisible/incomplete day morning?

I am Sorry to say this,But this your conclusion is completely nonsensical.

Dapo777:


So now you saying the day mentioned in verse 5 is not a complete day? doesn't Dat sound funny to you? God still went ahead to call this first day "morning"(in verse 5) ,So why would God call an invisible/incomplete day morning?

I am Sorry to say this,But this your conclusion is completely nonsensical.

It is a day in the sense of the series of events occuring in the phenomena.

The morning and evening were symbolic of the early period of the events and the late period after the event. You and I know that morning does not depict daylight as our morning begins by 12am, a time occupied with darkness. Morning and evening in this context refers to the initial and late period after the creation.

The question would have been, why did the bible use days to record the events of the creation of man when God should leave outside time?

Dapo777:


Yes there is a big problem,a very big problem.

What you are trying to say in essence is that,they are two different kinds of day that God created.

The first kind of day that only god recognizes as day and we humans can't recognize as day,and a second kind of day that we humans can recognize as day? Please does that make any sense to you?

I wouldn't call them different kind of days but different kinds of light. The first one, to neutralize the total darkness while the second to separate the darkness from day.

They are all days in the sense of the beginning and end of the period of creation. This is symbolism at play.

Reyginus:
It is a day in the sense of the series of events occuring in the phenomena.

The morning and evening were symbolic of the early period of the events and the late period after the event. You and I know that morning does not depict daylight as our morning begins by 12am, a time occupied with darkness. Morning and evening in this context refers to the initial and late period after the creation.

The question would have been, why did the bible use days to record the events of the creation of man when God should leave outside time?

I totally disagree with you.

That's What Christians are good at doing. They interpret meaningless things in the Bible as symbolism, whatever makes sense is literal and whatever doesn't make sense is symbolic right? Hahahahaha Christians and their silly way of interpreting clear messages in the Bible whatever way suits their argument.

Morning to me starts from 6:30am When there is light to see,12:00am is midnight So don't try to confuse anyone here cos u are only confusing yourself.

As far as I am concerned, it is very obvious that the light is visible beyond reasonable doubt,someone telling me that the light isn't visible is obviously in for an ulterior purpose. I don't want to further this argument again with you,because you are changing the natural and normal meaning of things just to favour your own side of the argument and it makes no sense at all.


Its like someone saying dogs don't bark and cat don't meww just to win an argument. I am not interested in silly definition and conclusion.

BYE!!!!

Reyginus:
I wouldn't call them different kind of days but different kinds of light. The first one, to neutralize the total darkness while the second to separate the darkness from day.

They are all days in the sense of the beginning and end of the period of creation. This is symbolism at play.

What rubbish are you saying. You are exhibiting signs of cognitive dissonance.

How would you say the first light is to neutralize total darkness, why then was it called day and first morning. Why on earth was it called the first morning,If it was just to neutralize total darkness.

It seems you have no idea whatsoever What morning means.

Let me define morning for you because you obviously don't know What morning means: according to Google definition, morning is:

the period of time between midnight and noon, especially from sunrise to noon.

Did you see that? Especially from sunrise to noon. So you telling me morning starts from 12:00am is completely wrong and you are just doing that to earn cheap points in this argument.

End of story. I won!!!

Why because, the verse 5 of chapter 1 clearly makes us know that during the time the first light came, the first morning came into existence. And morning starts with sunrise. That means they have to be sunlight in order to have morning. And Since God didn't create sun that time and was still able to misteriously create the first morning without the sun,that makes this Biblical account impossible and that makes Yahweh impossible to exist because Yahweh did the impossible.

#debunked#

OLAADEGBU:


God is light!

I am Happy you concluded that the Biblical account is just to be believed,and not to use scientific methods to analyze it.

So God is the light that was created, So God said let there be God and there was God,and God called the God day and there was the first morning.

Wonderful.