Scientists...Got it wrong again!

stu · Jun 8, 2009

Quote from killthesunshine:

Existence exists. Foremost.

that just makes total sense, stu

Thanks again kts. Beginning to think I was the only one who is noticing it.

stu · Jun 8, 2009

Quote from Hansel H:

So what is this "existing in possibility"? Is this a kind of existing or merely a potential to exist?

WaveStrider used the phrase. I think I understand it and the context he uses ok , Perhaps you could re-read from about page 18 if you're interested enough

Quote from WaveStrider:

If we use the Big Bang as a scientific "start" of existence, then pre-Big Bang is "potential existence".

Hansel H · Jun 8, 2009

Quote from stu:

Hansel dude,
most of what you post has already been covered. I don't intend to keep repeating it.

Can I suggest you just choose your main shot?

Fair enough. I haven't read more than a paragraph here or there. I'll catch up and get back to you.

Looks like you're defending your position well (as you always do) but I'll search until I can dig up something to work with. Just don't terminate the thread before I can get a good shot at you.

Always a pleasure.

Hans

Hansel H · Jun 8, 2009

Quote from stu:

Hansel dude,
most of what you post has already been covered. I don't intend to keep repeating it.

Can I suggest you just choose your main shot?

Some pretty good stuff here, Stu.. I like the vehicle but would like to kick the tires a bit before I buy it. I'll try to get through it all tonight.

It's good.

piezoe · Jun 8, 2009

Quote from Eight:

Can Scientists really learn though? Evolution theory has holes in it you can drive a truck through but nobody seems to notice.... I see very few posters here that get it that nothing at all is proven. I like to tell people that I know, that I've found that if I want to believe that God made everything a few thousand years ago, I don't really owe anybody any apologies on any level at all, not spiritual, not scientific, not psychological, not any level I've ever found. I do happen to believe that and basically it saves me millions of brain CPU cycles per day because I don't have to read evolution into everything...

There are some interesting possibilities regarding the timeline that could be confusing the subject for scientists though. Before the Cesium clock was used in the measurement of the speed of light, the collection of all the measurements, crude as they were [and results were astonishingly accurate for such crude methods], within the error bands of the instruments, showed that the speed of light was slowing. It didn't stabilize until the introduction of the Cesium clock. I believe it quite possible that time is slowing somewhat exponentially and the Cesium clock is doing the same so "science" thinks that the speed of light is provably a constant..

Science disregards everything that does not fit it's world view. The geologic column is calibrated by the strata, the strata is calibrated by the geologic column... that means it's entirely uncalibrated, it's "curve fitted".. and guess what they do with scientific measurements that don't fit their world view? They discard them of course. When they date things with radiologic or whatever methods they use, they throw out 80% of readings. People did studies on that, just how many readings are thrown out because they "can't be correct". It's all a huge joke.. I practically laugh out loud when I'm flipping TV channels and I hear somebody reporting about "millions of years ago.... " like it was factual. They are always so somber...

Scientists find complete dinosaurs that are not fossilized... they find the actual bones and somehow they believe they are millions of years old and somehow the earth preserved a whole skeleton of a large dinosaur intact for that long... and the press releases never mention that it's not a fossil..... engineers have proven that the pressurized natural gas we get from the earth, trapped in rock, could not maintain the pressure for even ten thousand years let alone millions.. I don't need a whole lot of evidence to think that something could be totally bogus, I just go with the provable stuff, the notions where the evidence actually bears out the story, it's Occam's Razor applied....

Eight, I've got a lot of water around here. I've been trying to turn it into wine. It's been done before, so i know it's possible, but so far nothing i've tried has worked. Would you be so kind as to give me a few hints. (I prefer red over white, if that makes any difference.)

piezoe · Jun 8, 2009

Quote from killthesunshine:

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.
Bertrand Russell

ain't it true
i wonder why
zombies for Christ

I saw your post and couldn't resist pointing out something that is fairly obvious yet seldom recognized: When Jesus popped up ought of the tomb he was in fact, from that point on, a Zombie.

Hansel H · Jun 9, 2009

Quote from stu:

Existence exists. Foremost.

OK - I've studied the thread.

If you would take a minute to clarify the following points for me I would greatly appreciate it. Yes/no answers will suffice.

1) Is Existence is a stand-alone entity in the context of which all existing occurs?

2) Can Existence exist in the absence of all other existing - that is, in the absence of any entity that is not Existence per se?

3) Is Time a necessary element of Existence?

Thanx.
HH

ARealGannTrader · Jun 9, 2009

Quote from Hansel H:

OK - I've studied the thread.

If you would take a minute to clarify the following points for me I would greatly appreciate it. Yes/no answers will suffice.

1) Is Existence is a stand-alone entity in the context of which all existing occurs?

2) Can Existence exist in the absence of all other existing - that is, in the absence of any entity that is not Existence per se?

3) Is Time a necessary element of Existence?

Thanx.
HH

1. Yes

2. If existence is aware of it's existing, then yes.

3. No.

stu · Jun 9, 2009

Quote from ARealGannTrader:

2. If existence is aware of it's existing, then yes.

I'd say the "tree in the forest" thing doesn't work. Existence exists irrespectively of how (human) consciousness thinks its own importance is an essential feature of it.

stu · Jun 9, 2009

Quote from Hansel H:

OK - I've studied the thread.

If you would take a minute to clarify the following points for me I would greatly appreciate it. Yes/no answers will suffice.

1) Is Existence is a stand-alone entity in the context of which all existing occurs?

2) Can Existence exist in the absence of all other existing - that is, in the absence of any entity that is not Existence per se?

3) Is Time a necessary element of Existence?

Thanx.
HH

Hi Hansel, thanks very much for your comments . Glad you are enjoying the discussion.
Yes and no answers then, but with a little explanation thrown in.

1) Is Existence is a stand-alone entity in the context of which all existing occurs?

Yes.
Existence exists

2) Can Existence exist in the absence of all other existing - that is, in the absence of any entity that is not Existence per se?

Yes.
Here lies the philosophical abstract concept which kinda totals any God/Creator concept clean out of the picture in my opinion.

If all things potential and actual did not exist, including existence itself, what can exist? Nothing. Ergo: nothing exists.
That you could say is an intuitive concept of a state or condition, even described as unknowable perhaps, which exists so that all things do not.
God exists or not. God has potential to exist or not. But God in any form one way or another, or not, needs some existence itself to exist or not.

3) Is Time a necessary element of Existence?

No.
Existence exists for Time to exist in