The sun shall no longer be your light by day, Nor for brightness shall the moon give light to you; But the Lord will be to you an everlasting light, And your God your glory. Your sun shall no longer go down, Nor shall your moon withdraw itself; For the Lord will be your everlasting light, And the days of your mourning shall be ended.(Isaiah 60:19-20) NKJV
We’re told that the new heaven and new Earth, where we’ll live for eternity, is a place of perpetual light. We’re making the case that the permanent physical separation of light from darkness is the purpose of creation.
The idea that heaven is full of light is well established, since it was known from the time of Isaiah, which was some 750 years before Christ, and possibly 800 or more years before the book of the Revelation was written by John.
And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.(Revelation 21:23-25) KJV
And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.(Revelation 22:5) KJV
However, based on what we now know about God we can say that he’s not presently living in darkness, but the firmament of heaven is a realm of light (Daniel 12:3). This place was established on the second day of creation, which was the first opportunity that such a separation was possible. This means that the firmament has been a source of light from the time of the second day of creation until now. Why then, can’t we see it?
We’ll answer this question but first we want to address an issue from the field of Astronomy which appears to have been long forgotten about. It goes something like this:
- IF we live in an infinite universe with an infinite number of stars,
- THEN every line of sight from the earth should end upon a star,
- THEREFORE the entire sky should be as bright as the surface of the sun.
Why is the sky not full of light all the time? is an issue that has got to be addressed in both the popular science narrative of godless existence (SciPop), and in the Matty’s Paradigm scientific theory of creation. SciPop deals with this quite simply: Star Trek. Any number of fictional excuses have been proposed. The ones that most closely fit the fictional universe of Star Trek are the ones which persist.
In a similar way to that in which SciPop dealt with the issue of: what holds the stars in the sky? Black holes; SciPop has another fictional ace in its fictional hole. Why is there back space between the stars? Dark matter. Easy, right? It can be called empirical because it accounts for our observations, but it isn’t, it’s theoretical. Actually, theoretical is not strictly accurate. Theories are based on hypotheses and hypotheses have to be predictive and testable in order for them to be scientific. There’s no testable hypothesis for the existence of either black holes or dark energy, and so they are indeed fictional contrivances.
Any supposed experimental foundation that these notions have requires that you have already subscribed to the world view in which they exist, so it’s purely circular reasoning. They’re paradigm-dependent and therefore they aren’t facts. The idea that gravitational waves are emitted by colliding black holes requires that you already believe in black holes. However, there is no proof of black holes because they exist only as mathematical predictions in a cosmological system that is designed around the idea that they exist. Gravitational waves can’t be used as proof of black holes, because there’s no proof of black holes, it’s circumstantial evidence being used in a process of inductive, reductive circular reasoning.
The ephemeral strand of wispy logic upon which all of this fragile theory rests is that the universe is expanding. Edwin Hubble proposed this as a way to account for why the light of stars is red shifted. He suggested that the redshift is caused by the Doppler effect because the stars are moving away from us. Incidentally, if the stars are moving away from us in every direction that we look, it means that we’re at the center, but no one talks about this.
Hubble dropped the idea after concluding his work on the matter, saying that the universe was not expanding, and that redshift may be due to some hitherto unknown explanation, possibly the energy loss as light travels through space. The scientific community wasn’t interested by this point. It had decided that the expansion of the universe fit the Star Trek narrative perfectly, so they were going to stick with it.
In the SciPop narrative of godless existence the theoretical house of cards looks something like this:
- IF the universe is expanding,
- AND mathematically this is impossible without some causal factor,
- THEN there must be a source of gravitational interaction that is either causing or stabilizing it,
- THEREFORE since we can’t see or detect anything then we’ll call it black holes.
That’s a leap of faith, but once you’ve made it you are free to openly speculate and call it science:
- IF the sky between the stars is black but logic tells us that it shouldn’t be,
- THEN there must be something making it black,
- THEREFORE we’ll call it dark matter.
Then comes along some circumstantial evidence:
- IF we can detect gravitational waves and we have no idea where they’re coming from,
- THEN maybe they are coming from the black holes that we just invented to explain the expansion of the universe,
- THEREFORE we just proved black holes exist.
And now we can tie everything together in a logical way and people will believe it because it’s logical:
- IF black holes have been proven to exist,
- THEN obviously dark matter must exist too, Duh…
There is also a logic to atheist idolatry:
- IF we can detect gravitational waves which Einstein predicted 100 years ago,
- AND Einstein was a genius who had weird hair,
- THEN the detection of gravitational waves proves that everything Einstein ever said was true (even if we don’t understand it).
In Matty’s Paradigm the universe isn’t expanding. It’s surrounded by a rigid sphere of layered crystal called the firmament. This is the source of gravitational interaction that holds the stars in place. In Matty’s Paradigm the stars are redshifted because, in part, they’re red colored, on account of being made out of reflective crystalline material similar to ruby. In part the redshift is due to gravitational time dilation (GTD).