>Grigory taught him to read and write, and when he was twelve

>>8990779
The light came from God.

File: dfw1.jpg (71KB, 761x750px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 761x750px

>>8990791
OOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHH

>>8990791
>3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
>4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
>5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Clearly the light was not from God. Smerdyakov truly ended Christianity at that moment.

>>8990779
>Dostoevsky was trying to red pill Christfags

No he was trying to show the autism of using science to discredit poetry laden with allegory deserves to be mocked.

>>8990926
Tbh, poetry laden with allegory isn't the sort of thing that needs discrediting.

You can discard it offhand no problemo.

>>8990956
Then you can't discredit Genesis

Good, we're on the same page

>>8990779
Actually, shortly after the Big Bang, long before the creation of stars, almost all of the energy in the universe was in photons, which are traveling light particles. Literally let there be light.

Christians: 1
Atheists: 0

>>8990985
No... read the first lines of Genesis. Everything was happening on Earth. God created light there, and seperated the light from the darkness, etcetera. All of this on Earth.

>>8990985
>almost all of the energy in the universe was in photons

Source?

>>8990926
>poetry laden with allegory

You mean like the Incarnation and the Resurrection?

>>8991024
No

If the resurrection were ever disproven, Christianity would be dead.

If poetry were proven to not be science, Christianity would not be hurt at all.

>>8991051
>if

>>8991058
Not an argument.

>>8991016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_epoch

It really is pretty interesting to read about even if you're not a STEMfag. I had this great book about the first three minutes of the universe or something like that, might have to go find it.

>>8991051
>If the resurrection were ever disproven
One would have to prove it first

>>8991087
>One would have to prove it first

Why?

>>8991051
>If the resurrection were ever disproven, Christianity would be dead.
>If poetry were proven to not be science, Christianity would not be hurt at all.

What if the Incarnation and the Resurrection aren't literal/historical/scientific claims but are poetic devices in an allegorical narrative meant to claim that mankind is not tied to the rituals of Temple priests in order to attain closeness to God but that by simply being all creation is entwined in the being of God (in creation, all things are incarnated; in death, all things are resurrected)?

>>8991139
That would be heresy

>>8990779
>God created light on the first day, and the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day. Where did the light come from on the first day?"

The stars are a large source/reason for "light energy propagation" as they are a fuckingshitton of matter chaotically crashing into one another, but for such activity to produce "light energy propagation" God first had to create the EM field. You little twerp, now turn around for a "spanking"