Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Precisely......this has nothing to do with removal of actual universal substance/ essence.....detectable or undetectable....from existence...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
Palehorse
Active Member
The elixir of life, also known as elixir of immortality and sometimes equated with the philosopher's stone, is a mythical potion that, when drunk from a certain cup at a certain time, supposedly grants the drinker eternal life and/or eternal youth. This elixir was also said to be able to create life. Related to the myths of Thoth and Hermes Trismegistus, both of whom in various tales are said to have drunk "the white drops" (liquid gold) and thus achieved immortality, it is mentioned in one of the Nag Hammadi texts.[1] Alchemists in various ages and cultures sought the means of formulating the elixir.
If Goldschlager is something. Then people are spending alot of money for nothing, which is something.
If Goldschlager is something. Then people are spending alot of money for nothing, which is something.
Walter Russell
Member
Mind is eternal, matter is a product of mind.
All things are created in the mind first, in the form of an idea before they ever exist in material.
I guess in scientific terms that would mean nothing existed first since consciousness/spirit is ignored by science.
Last edited:
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
The opportunity to offer vapid speculations is wonderful, ain't it?
Walter Russell
Member
WWll era scientist didn't take Russells periodic table as speculation when they used it to create the atomic bomb...
Nikola Tesla certainly didn't see Russells work and knowledge as speculation, but i'm sure your knowledge exceeds theirs considering that brillant one liner...
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I didn't mean to come off quite so crassly. OK, maybe just a little bit. I am very naughty.
Let's back the truck up a tad.
While I DO agree with the statement, in principle, and to a large extent, it is impossible to prove or even furnish evidence of the stated claim. When it is said in such a definitive way it enters into the realm of vapid speculation. One is always welcome to hypothesize the idea, just never leap off the cliff pretending that it is fact.
Again, this is a highly speculative statement that has no basis in reality though it is somewhat true in three-dimensional terms within the human experience. Mt. Everest existed long before there were any eyes around to see it, for example. The rings of Saturn existed long before anyone thought to closely examine the planet.
And, for good reason.
There, Walter, is that comprehensive enough for you? This was much of the reasoning behind my mildly inflammatory one-liner.
Walter Russell
Member
I didn't mean to come off quite so crassly. OK, maybe just a little bit. I am very naughty.
Let's back the truck up a tad.
While I DO agree with the statement, in principle, and to a large extent, it is impossible to prove or even furnish evidence of the stated claim. When it is said in such a definitive way it enters into the realm of vapid speculation. One is always welcome to hypothesize the idea, just never leap off the cliff pretending that it is fact.
Again, this is a highly speculative statement that has no basis in reality though it is somewhat true in three-dimensional terms within the human experience. Mt. Everest existed long before there were any eyes around to see it, for example. The rings of Saturn existed long before anyone thought to closely examine the planet.
And, for good reason.
There, Walter, is that comprehensive enough for you? This was much of the reasoning behind my mildly inflammatory one-liner.
Yes, a much better response, thank you
Below is a link for the pdf copy of Russells book "A New Concept of the Universe"
Certainly his life time wasn't long enough to work out all of his theories but many in my op could have by know had main stream science attempted to.
However I would add that the other half of the creation equation which Russell puts forth can be understood using scientific measures and accomplished, the evidence would be just as respectable as what science has now with its understanding of evolution.
ftp://leo.co.ls/Philosophy/russell/The_New_Concept.pdf
Edit: I'd like to add that Russells knowledge and understanding wasn't book born. With all he accomplished his knowledge came from within. He was an extraordinary man.
Walter Russell
Member
Just to add another comment about Russell.
His understanding of the Universe in his mind wasn't theoretical. It was a knowing. He went to great lengths to share what he knew with the rest of the world in a way that could be tested for accuracy and be used for the betterment of all.
He was a true polymath, Walter Cronkite called him the Divinci of the 20th century.
gnostic
The Lost One
Sorry, but Walter Russell's approach was too New Agey for my taste.
Walter Russell
Member
I respect your opinion. I find it a scientific way to explain creation by an intelligent creator with the only law being the natural law of balance which he very clearly explains in the sexed two way universe.
The perfect marriage of religion and science based on truth not faith and is all inclusive.
Religions teach its good to give, natural law demands giving through balanced interchange.
In other words its the scientific reasoning of what is described as morality. In this reguard there can't be a division among ppl as to whos morality is correct. Its the morality of the universe in which all created things must obey.
When humans disobey the natural law of balance, we become imbalanced, creating chaos equal to the imbalance. That evidenced effect is all around us today.
gnostic
The Lost One
There are nothing "scientific" about any creator.
Natural law can exist and do exist without the needs for any creator...or designer, if you are in ID camp.
People who believe in the creator and creation, are just egotistically projecting their primitive superstitions, and this have nothing to do with science.
Polymath or not, I don't hold Russell up as high a pedestal as you do.
I actually don't hold any philosopher (or any philosophy) with great esteem because they are more often wrong than right. They are mostly just opinionated men, who have too much time to twiddle their brains like they would twiddle their thumbs and think they are enlightened.
Walter Russell
Member
We will just have to agree to disagree...
The universe has a mathematical formula. That is evidence enough for me. It doesn't mean the creator has to be a personal one but creation isn't random. Its intelligently designed. I think anyone that refuses to see that is ignoring science not supporting it.
Your free to hold Russell in whatever light you wish. He was more than a philosopher. He was given a Doctorate in science for his contributions to science.
Scientist of his day didn't take him to task for his claims that they disagreed with for a reason. They couldn't. A year long back and forth in the New York Post between Russell and a well respected scientist concerning black holes is testament to that.
The fact that Tesla with all his accomplishments considered Russell a man 1,000 years ahead of his time says much about Russell.
Like I said. Consider him as you will but with all science has at its disposal today, its done little for the betterment of the common man but has greatly benefitted the worlds elite.
Thats probably the biggest difference between Russell and main stream science today.
gnostic
The Lost One
You are still projecting.
Mathematical formula (or "proof") alone are just sets or patterns of numbers, if there are no evidences to verify it being true. Mathematical equation alone don't make it evidence.
Currently, there are theoretical physics, like the different flavours or versions to superstring theory/theories, multiverse models, all tied in a neat bow with their complex equations and dazzling numbers, but so far they remained untestable (no evidences) and bordered on the realms of being unrealistic pseudoscience.
I don't deny they are geniuses with numbers and equations, but proof alone is not evidences for it being real, tangible, testable.
And intelligent design have neither proof, nor evidence, to support its claim of designer or creator, be it personal or not; intelligent design of the universe or just this world is just superstitious, pseudoscience claptrap.
Show me verifiable evidences for this "designer" or "creator", then, and only then, can I even remotely consider intelligent design or creation as a possibility.
Right now, you are simply telling me to believe in leprechaun or unicorn, because of your say-so. It is the same thing with this designer-ID or creator-creation analogy.
This is a leap of faith, not science. It's pareidolia.
Walter Russell
Member
Im not telling you to believe in anything. I would like to ask if you believe in evolution?
Walter Russell
Member
I didn't say "proof", I said "evidence". There is much consensus in the scientific community for many things that lack irrefutable proof that is put forward as "fact", simply because science discovers a way something "may" have happened. Evolution being a great example.
The purpose in my question to you relating to your belief or non belief in evolution is due to science not being able to fulfill the requirement you set for me in your last post yet its taught as fact not theory.
Also evolution as science teaches us was a set of random events that took place, not a set of patterned ones.
Patterns aren't accidental.
Try reading "The Secret of Light". Its a science book after all.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I agree with you on what I have coloured in magenta. Even all the scientists, past and present together, cannot create a fact. They could make mistakes, the possibility is always there.
Regards
gnostic
The Lost One
I know what you said.
You mentioned "mathematical formula" being all the evidence you needs:
Mathematical equations, formula, models are "proof", not evidence.
Mathematicians deals with proofs; scientists (excluding theoretical physicists) deal with evidences. Mathematicians (including theoretical physicists) try to "prove" their works (eg equations) being true; while scientists tried to test or verify statement and prediction being true.
Then you don't really understand science, let alone evolution, at all.
Evolution have many applications. And the one evolution detractors, more often than not creationists, tend to forget, or most likely ignore, is evolution of viruses and the vaccines.
Are you saying that viruses don't change or mutate?
Viruses change and mutate, because new strain will become immune to new vaccine of previous year(s). Its ability to adapt is evidence for evolution. It is this, that doctors, medical researchers, pathologists, and pharmacists are required understanding of evolution, in order to make you new vaccines.
For you to say that evolution is not fact or not science, this example only demonstrate your ignorance on the subject of evolution. And the funny thing I understand this, and I am an engineer, not a biologist.
The problem with most creationists is that they confused evolution is with the origin of first life.
Abiogenesis is about origin from non-living substance into living matters. Evolution required for life to exist before there can be changes to descendants. Evolution is about biodiversity, not first life.
In my example with viruses and vaccines, no one is interested in the first viruses or the viral disease. They are only interested past and present viruses and vaccines, and how to stop new strains of viruses.
Another ignorance from you that I have seen many creationists make, is saying "evolution is theory, not fact".
It showed that you don't understand what a SCIENTIFIC theory is. They always so stupidly quote from dictionary/dictionaries, without understanding what theory really means in SCIENCE. They cannot distinguish between everyday use theory and "scientific theory".
A definition of scientific theory in Wikipedia:
Scientific Theory Wikipedia said:
Normally, I don't quote from Wikipedia, but you can look it up any science textbook on scientific theory.
And the keywords are "well-substantiated explanation", and in red "repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation" and "they seek to supply strong evidence for...the truth of the conclusion".
EVIDENCES, not proofs, are important in science, and it is evidence, observation or experimentation.
The reason why it say "not absolute proof", because any statement (whether they be theory or hypothesis) is required to be "refutable", "testable", "falsifiable".
No science is irrefutable. Irrefutability is not the goal of science. A scientific theory is not a dogmatic doctrine of faith, because it can be sway by evidences (or tests) that either (A) will verify it as true, or (B) it is refuted as being false.
The theory of evolution explained how life change, it explain the phenomenon or the biological fact, and either to test it or to discover evidence that support it.
Theory explains the fact.
gnostic
The Lost One
That because you lack education in science, and have no idea what theory and evidence.
If you understood the very basic of science at all, you would know that science don't deal with "irrefutable proof", because science is only interested in verifiable and testable EVIDENCES.
I keep telling you time and time again that science deal with more evidences than proofs. Mathematicians deal with proofs and proving, scientists are mostly interested in evidences.
Proof is mathematical equations or mathematical models.
You have been here for 4 or 5 years, and you still cannot bring yourself to understand what theory is or the distinction between evidence and proof.
You have heard of "stubborn ignorance"? Well, I am afraid you got this in spades. You are sadly unable to learn.
Walter Russell
Member
I would consider this adaptation rather evolution.
Having trbl with my phone to quote multiples
I'm sorry to burst your bubble but science has not and cannot prove where information comes from with considering "mind" as an outside source.
Physical matter as you like to call it does not create information as its intangible and evolution can't happen without the information already in the cellular structure to do so.
Like I said there is no irrefutable proof of evolution. Adaptation yes, evolution no.
That in my op is a leap of faith and Russell makes no such leaps in what hes presented.
gnostic
The Lost One
What do you think Natural Selection is, Russell?
Natural Selection is all "adapting" to the environment they lived in.
A change in geographical terrain or climate, the availability or scarcity of food, water or other resources, will require species to adapt to this changing condition, passing on the right genes to the next offspring or descendants, OR not adapt and future generations will die out.
The biological change don't need to be so completely different.
Darwin visited the Galápagos Islands, and seen at first hand, different subspecies on two different islands that are only a mile or two apart. And the most profound differences between the subspecies are that of the tortoises.
On one island (eg Santa Cruz), in which the island was rich in green vegetation and humid condition, all within reach by a much smaller tortoises with dome-shaped shells, short necks and limbs.
But on the other island(s), in which is more harsher in both terrain and dryer climate, vegetation are different, and higher off the ground. The giant tortoises here have saddle-shells, and much longer necks and legs than their smaller cousins. The shape of their shells allowed them to crank their neck vertically, and stretch their legs, so that they can feed off leaves that were higher off the ground.
That's evolution, or more precisely Natural Selection, at work.
Do you not see the differences, between these two species of tortoises?
Another good example would be bears. Why do the southern bears, eg brown bears, black bears, grizzly bears have different coats than the polar bears? Why do these bears hibernate but the polar bears don't? Different climates and geographical terrains, would require each adapting to their conditions and thrive. The polar bear have more insulating coat and fat in their bodies, which enable to hunt in the arctic region and swim in icy sea, something their southern cousins couldn't do. Somewhere in the past, the polar bears diverge from the bear species of the south. Again, Natural Selection at work.
With the virus example, I gave you earlier. That's partly Mutation and partly Natural Selection.
Mutation and Natural Selection are not the only mechanisms in evolution.
Another one is Gene Flow, in which the environment is not a factor. The change occurred when a new population breed with the existing population, producing offspring that are different from both, because the new generation inherited traits from both populations.
I forgot what Genetic Drift and Genetic Hitchhiking are. Don't forget I am not a biologist, so excuse me if I cannot define these two from the top of my head.
Evolution is all about change and adaptation; about biodiversity. Evolution is not about creating something from nothing, it is not about non-living matter turning into living matters (that's abiogenesis, not evolution) and it is not about the origin of first life (and again, that's abiogenesis, not evolution).
Which earth are you living in, if you ignore it?
And again, science don't deal with "irrefutable proof"; science deals with evidences that are observable, testable and falsifiable.
Only mathematicians and theoretical physicists deal with proof (mathematical models or mathematical equations).
You keep confusing proof with evidence, but in the physical science and mathematics, they are not the same things. This forum is science vs religion forum, not a maths vs religion forum.
Your ignorance knows no bound.
Last edited: