…as in “Let there be light”?
Science thinks? 
Humans think… humans created/developed Science… it is humans who analyse scientific data and make sense of it… much of Science -Cosmology mainly- is theoretical, not concrete - I would also like to add, that many well-established Scientists do not agree on many of the mass-theories being proposed by current scientific communities and that Science needs to be cleaned-up.
It has become a farce.
Why do electromagnetic fields exist?
They are generated by natural phenomena like the Earth’s magnetic field but also by human activities, mainly through the use of electricity. Mobile phones, power lines and computer screens are examples of equipment that generates electromagnetic fields.
So a by-product of Cosmological activity. I have always been of thought that gravity/all cosmological phenomena, are all by-products of ‘only one/an initial’ first cause/occurrence.
When patterns unify they produce an excess of attractive energies if they are in harmony.
Interactivity = attraction/repulsion.
Harmonious patterns produce an excess of attraction - reduction of friction - creating a field effect - range of attraction.
So, what is most like the unity is attracted…and what is unlike the unity is repelled.
A large enough unity may attract weaker unities - gravitational effect.
In organisms this is the aura…a biochemical-electromagnetic field of effect that extends beyond the boundaries of the physical body.
Like is immediately and innately attracted to like…before the mind is even engaged.
You used the phrase “science tells”, and instead of being pedantic and annoying I chose to interpret it as a colloquial expression with an obvious non-literal meaning. I don’t know why you’re choosing to react like this when you introduced this loose language about what “science does”.
“Science thinks” to the same extent that “science tells”. If you’re comfortable with saying the latter, maybe relax a bit about people saying the former.
I asked “Can Science tell” … as in, with the technology we’ve got, can Science glean an approximation of a date.
Sure, I’ll give it a go.
…as in “Let there be light”?
If you want it to be like that, I guess you can spin it that way. I guess I don’t really know what it means for those two things to be “like” each other. They’re both, I guess, about the origin of light… is that what you mean? They’re like each other because they’re both about that?
Is immediate the same thing as ex nihilo…?
Before there was ever a medium or material or energy or whatever.
[Never mind that the whole blended timeline is eternally co-sustained and that there is spiritual substance not subject to entropy. So not 100% ex nihilo or without an efficient, formal/final, or first/original/eternal cause/movement.]
Ahhh the aura, I know it well… I see auras, but these days mainly around inanimate objects not living matter.
Us humans have been being put into a low energy state, for years… weak auras, work hearts, weak minds… literally.
…sounds… heavenly… divine… sublime.
…and on the first day God said, “Let there be light”
…and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness.
I thought your reply biblical/creationist, but I guess that wasn’t intentional?
No, the single word “immediately” is not intentionally biblical. I don’t believe it was unintentionally biblical either, as I haven’t read any translation of the Bible that used that word in that context.
Probability theory versus possibility theory. probability deals with one number. possibilities theory deals with possibility and necessity (or modal logic, right?). however the probability of a contradiction (impossibility) is always zero and the probability of a necessity (if there is any possibility, its impossibility is impossible—or the improbability of its improbability is one) is always one. am I wrong? Isn’t this just probability theory? isn’t probability theory just grounded in modal logic? principle of sufficient reason adapted — reason/explanation: Being through which everything that is caused/made is caused/made (actual possibles of varying degrees of probability prior to actuality in the transimmanent moment) exists by the necessity of their own nature.
The complementary probability is the same thing as when you’re dealing with pressure.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” falls flat.
Irreducibly complex evidence requires an irreducibly complex explanation.
Sufficient/best explanation of the data.
The answer causes (draws/chooses) the question because, when you ask the question, you recognize the answer is needed. Answer: Home. Question: Migrating/pilgrimage/wandering for home.
Fix it where it’s wrong. If.
[b][i]“…and on the first day God said, “Let there be light”
…and there was light”[/i][/b]
I don’t know about you, but that^ hints at an immediacy to me.
…and let’s bear in mind, that one day back then might have been as long as 1 million years or more, of now… i.e. ‘the rate of measurable change’ being far-more slower than it is, now.
Why would the "all-knowing, require light?
To see what?
When we dream, we require darkness, to immerse ourselves in our internal processes.
_
…and what of day-dreams, experienced in illuminated conditions?
Fantasies and lies dissipate in light.
They need darkness.
We close our eyes to fall asleep, losing contact with reality, we immerse ourselves, internally - esoterically.
In dream all is convoluted, strange…irrational…we seek meaning in them.
In darkness all seems the same, uniform…the light exposes differences.
Cultures can be divided into solar and Lunar - masculine/feminine.
Why feminine?
Because female wants to immerse itself in the collective.
Feminization always means diversity, collectivism…Marxism.
The masculine must deal with the collective and what is outside.
Females develop psychology, evaluating personality, reading a room etc.
Males develop objectivity - thinking outside the box, empathizing without sympathizing…because they must prove themselves worthy relative to what is alien - hunting other species, for example; a hunter must get into the prey’s mind, without sympathizing, or losing himself there.
Not all light on the electromagnetic spectrum is visible.
Yet.
When we’re talking about a ‘day’, that’s already pretty far from ‘immediately’ - maybe it took him a few hours to say it? Maybe he said it after breakfast? Maybe he said it after his pre-sleep wank?
And if we bear in mind that a day might be a million years, then it means ‘immediately’ even less. Idk if you were trying to steelman the case AGAINST it meaning immediately, but you did a good job.
Nonsense.
In the same context, a day is 1/365,000,000 of a million years. There is no such animal as two different times. A day is a specific duration of time, and a million years is 365 million times more duration than a day. This nonsense of talking about duration as if there was some other duration is absurd!
I was being charitable to Magsj. If you would like to criticize the idea she brought up about the ambiguous meaning of ‘day’ in the bible, please take it up with her.
Consider a long row of dominoes. You could tip the first domino and watch them all fall. Or you could pick one domino up, hold it in your hand, pick another domino up, hold it in your hand, and gently put them down in each other’s places — or duplicate them, combine them, and put the blendings back in each other’s places — and then you could tip the dominoes. From your position, it took time to do what you did, but you are the originator of the dominoes and have unlimited time. From their position, time didn’t start until you tipped the dominoes.
All analogies break down. If you try to understand it, you will throw up, guaranteed.