Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   law of existance
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 1 of 4 (442697)
12-22-2007 10:55 AM


to understand whence we came, we must first understand what is. and the most difficult is existance itself.
many topics all over the world have their eyes on the issue of ancient civilzations. the fact that the pyramid of giza is a profound mathmatical table on many elements and even a prophetic timeline. the fact that pyramids all over the world apear star related. and that calenders of many of these cultures, not near each other, have an apparent end date of 2013 or 2014 or something like that. i do beleive that the stars were always the key to understanding life, that this window of the night sky that is increasingly harder to see from land, holds some fortelling of our future and understanding of our " purpose".
im curios about text relating to enoch. although i do not endorse that the world will "end" in 2013, i cannot say absolutly that it does not hold signifigance in some way or another.
but to understand the science of life, our potential future, we must understand the basic law of existance. because apparently, everyhting in the earth has a specific purpose to the balance of the earth, accept man, and i refuse to beleive that man would exist without purpose.
this next text is called te law of existance. i hope i dont go over anyones heads too much here, but that you think about the state of "being" and existance with all honesty, because that question must be answered before any further exploration of whence we came can be remotly acurate.
the law of existance
the publican and the scientist:
setting: a small hill outside a bustling city. two men are seated near a small tree, one is a publican, the other is a scientist.
publican: i wish it were possable to see God.
scientist: i see God all the time.
publican: what!? how can you say such a thing?
scientist: energy cannot be created or destroyed. that means all that i see has come from the very body of God.
publican: with all the filth, and sin and evils in the world, do you really think that God would want that as a part of his body?
scientist: i do not claim to know why God does what he does, i am simply makeing an observation.
_______________________________________________________
to be or not to be. that is the question. this book is going to tackle the seemingly imposible; to define existance.
this is a very important thing for both science and all existance as a whole. for, if science ignores the law, then the work of science will be prolonged for its lack of observance.
so without further adieu, ill define existance, and then begin arguments.
exist: (websters) v. to have actual being or reality; to live
existance: n. the fact or state of existing, living, or occuring; the manner of existing.
websters definitions lack any real definition at all, accept to say, existance is being. a closer look is in order, because in order to understand what being is, is to understand the base of all laws of science. understanding this base gives the platform on which to discover the truth of what is capable of man, and what is not capable. then "theorys" would have a place to start.
so what is being? existing? ok. why. or better yet how. we know that by exploring our world, that what is, has evolved over time to what is now, from what was. energy and matter collided into new forms and exists in its form without a full explanation of how or where. we do know however , before what is, there was somthing else.
energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, but changed from form to form. the exchanges of matter release hidden energies that transfer sometimes rationally, and somtimes apparently irationaly. however, since nothing can be created or destroyed but changed from form to form we know that somthing was, before what is.
ok so before the earth there was a huge mass that exploded like a supernova. ok. what was before that? 2 million somthings. ok, before that? more somthings. before that? still somthing. ok fine 2 years of "before thats" you eventually get to ONE thing.
existance. nothing can be, if something first was not. so somthing was. and from that energy came all things.
this is law. no argument can rationally say otherwise.
ok so far defining existance: what ever was, before all things were, was existance. and from it all things are.
ok lets explore this further. so somthing was. all things came from it. so was it energy, was it intelligent, or just a random thing that just was or? i mean rationally existance itself makes no sense, since it had to be. because nothing can come fom nothing. so how is anything at all?
well. things are, because we are. and if you can ask the question, then you are. otherwise, you couldnt even ask the question. so why existance was is impossible for any intelligent human to seriosly tackle with any real truth. however , that we are, and some of the nature of existance is definable by observation.
lets observe a computer. and ask yourself; if i took stone, earth, oil, and steel and set them in a box, is it possible that this computer would form on its own in its workable condition with software and technology by chance?
i hope you the reader can say with confidence thats an unrealistic possability, and gives to much power to chance. if, a mathmatician can argue that it is, he may be right mathmattically in a chance, but the chances would be about the same as a man with a golf club hitting a golf ball and getting a hole in one and the "hole" is a three inch hole on the back side of the moon and the man is in the desert during a sandstorm on earth.
but if you say : could an intelligent being ( man) create this computer with the rescources that exist in the earth? you can say quite easily yes. not only because man did and it sits before you, but with reason we understand that intelligent beings can create fairly complicated things with random peices of matter and a understanding of energy transfers.
by applying this observation to existance and science, you should be able to say absolutly that nothing without intelligence can create anything that is more complicated than a computer by chance. if you are thinking to yourself, "your wrong dear writer" then you have opinions already and are unwilling to observe just how complicated the world is. and how very complicated and how very delicate the balance of what is now does rest upon.
so this new law to existance is: intelligence can only come from that which is intelligent. for a rock cannot birth a man by chance alone, since man is much more complicated than a computer.
indeed, no man can create a single celled organism from any element, accept other existing living cells. which again, would be a transfer of what is, not a creation to somthing that was not.
so this means that whatever was that was existance, has or had intelligence.
so existance is: the intelligent energy that was first of all things that are. and from it all things came.
now this can bring some confusion if you think about intelligence in the factor. because we have senses and a world that we take faith in our existance. but this that was first only had iutself. so how then did IT know it existed?
we can say it had to beleive it was for it to be, for without its faith of itself being, nothing else could have been. and we would be not. and then this writing would not exist. nor would your ponderings. so it "knew" it was based on nothing but that knowing. which is faith.
final definition of existance before argments of the worth of such a knoledge:
existance: the basis of all things that "are". it was/is the energy that was before all things that are, which was intelligent, and created all that is from itself. based on faith it was. and therefore established the state of "being" or "existing".
this is law.
here is a story to help furthur with understanding this definition between two "magicians":
________________________________________________________
setting: a library, with shelves that stretch from ceiling to floor. not one speck of dust is to be found. with only the smell of oils, ink, and wax from the tables that sit center of the massive circular room. two old men, well dressed and spoken sit at one of the 5 tables. the tables are arranged in such a way that the tiles of the floor almost give them a look of depth, in that they are in perfect order, a pyramid. the only difference that can rightly be said about the two men is one has a longer beard. the other dressed in similar colors and form, has a shorter darker beard, still grey, yet with a more telling of some youth left.
the vibrant voice of the younger man can be heard booming through the room;
younger elder: what do you mean by this? that you say, all is and is not? there can be no writing in such a fashion! for when such a topic is discussed you say nothing at all!
older elder : i mean to say, that we are only what we beleive we are, that by changeing the way you look at things, the things we look at change.
ye: the reason we exist is so old a question , that any answere can only bring about the topic of either God or chance to be its author, and wether or not there is life beyond this one. it is a futile argument.
eo: futile only if that is how you view things. but look there medwyn, and see the clock constructed by meaphus. can you say, that if given time, such an item would have made itself? from rock and iron, and wood?
medwyn: i daresay it could not. for to argue it could would to give chance a greater power than it has in the natural order.
oe: this clock then, is proof that it could only have been built by something intelligent? that no wolf, or beast of field, could manufacture such a thing?
medwyn: of course not, but if such a beast exists let me buy it!
oe: then by these observations, and i bid you patience to hear my words, are the basis that do explain existance being faith alone, and that it only exists when you have answered the question all either is, or is not.
medwyn nods with curtesy towards his patron.
oe: examine yourself the earth and the sky. examine also the human body, for many have said these come from chance, yet by examining a clock you have conceded that neither can it come from chance, nor anything that lacks intelligence. such an observation of something so definitivly simple means that that which is much more complicated can be addressed to the same rule.
medwyn: but to do so then means you to say it comes from "gods" and can you tell me one god that has answered your call?
oe: i cannot say one has. but i cannot say they could not. neither will i say there is more than one, nor can i say it cares, nor can i say what is when this life is not. i am only addressing existance as it is only, and not to interprete why, but only as an observation of what is.
medwyn: very well, please continue.
oe: if we ask, what was before the earth we can say sky? and before that? heavens? and before that a sun, and before that a galaxy or a greater ball of nothing, yet not nohting, for to be nothing, nothing can be, for only from something can something be. to continue in this method inevitably leads to one thing. this one thing that is. but only it is.
medwyn: lets say then it is.
oe: how does it know it is?
medwyn: what do you mean?
oe: to say there is only one thing, and nothing else, yet for anything to come of itself that has order or intelligence, by the first rules we have explored certainly say it must, then how does it know it is, when their is nothing but itself to base itself on?
medwyn: i beleive i see what you mean. that is a problem. for we have senses. hearing, sight, feeling of limbs, taste and smell. by these things we know what is.
eo: excellent! as it is so, yet if what was first only was of itself, and by traceing for whence came what only leads to one thing, then without nothing but itself to be, and yet from it comeing all things that are, then it was because it beleived it was. that is to say: it had faith it was. so then do we also have to have faith it is, or else nothing is.
medwyn: so you are then to explain that from this body or energy , made all that is placeing it together as much as the clock was put together. but what then were we made to have such thoughts as these, and if this then be the truth what has happened to this energy? i daresay that by creating, itself was destroyed, for if it was existance, could not be. because it would not be, and without it nothing is. a marvelous problem, so what then should i beleive? how then can i know i exist?
oe: and whom should i say is asking?
______________________________________________________________________
now lets play with some theorys based on this law.
q: ok, so lets say your right, this is the law, what then happened to existance? does it have "feelings" does it "care" about the things that came from it? and i dont see how any science can benifit from such a knoledge. and it apparently leans toward religeon.
a: ok, well first lets establish some scientific theories and then ill embrace some of the more theological points about existance. i feel that its very important that in defining existance i have left out any religeos points since the law of existance is explanation of existance based on scientific observations of the methods of existance. this is law without any prejudice. however, anyone who truly understandes the definition will look to go further than its definition to explanation. many explanatons are found in religeons, since religeons exist because of the need to explain the definition.
lets review the chaos theorys for subatomic particles. sub atomic particles in which the atom is based on, appear to have no order of consistancy. for this appearance their are many that are willing to embrace there explanation by saying simply: it is chaos and chance. einstein refused to believe this and while continueing his work on relativity simply stated: God takes no chances.
and i beleive he is right. for the established order of what is, cannot be based on chance. but based on set variables that "appear" to be chance. since chance itself also has variables, it is just impossible for us to see them with our limitations. but existance knows the variables. it was the author of them. from itself came all that was, and the balance he set. if not, then it would have no intelligence. and with no intelligence, nothing intelligent can be. so now this law would refute the chaos theory and force scientists to look for more variables to the behavior.
let me pose a story about two "magicians" to help better define what i mean:
______________________________________________________
setting: a large circular room filled with tapers scarabs and components. a couple target drudges and arcane devices decorate the surrounding and in the center is a large decorative carpet with no apparent origin. the candles and lit tapers cast earie shadows on the walls. a lone mage sits in the center of the room arrangeing components. an unknown person watches the mage from the shadows
"malar quoshez!" pfffzzzt! the mage sat back in frustration and veiwed his arrangement. he had been working on the spell for quite some time with no luck. from behind him he hears the voice of his elder. " it seems you leave to much to chance"
medwyn: it is all chance. think of the chaos theory of subatomic particles. they behave irrationally. the only way to get a desired effect form them is a repeated trial and a little bit of luck.
older elder: hmm. chaos theory is a theory for a reason.
medwyn: then you have a better theory?
older elder: when existance created all things, it created an established order. this order "appears" to break down when you get to the smallest particles of mass, beyond atoms and into the subatomic particles, but in reality, they all have a behavior that have a decided outcome if all the variables are taken into account. existance left nothin to chance. chance itself has decidable variables. when the laws of all things were written, existance wrote different laws for each element he created. and all of them have decidable values for the conditions that they exist.
medwyn: im afraid i dont quite follow.
OE: lets take for example, elements. all elements would appear to behave the same way to heat. that in heat they expand, and in cold retract. to warm, an elements becomes liquid, then gas, and too cold they become solids.
medwyn: how does this help the rational and irrational values?
OE: because when an element is in a solid form it is heavier than in its liquid state , and so devides with the liquid on the top and its solid form on the bottom. so when doing research with any element can you say that it will always be this way?
medwyn: it does apear to be so..but ice floats. a very important factor with water since if it sunk all life in the waters would die.
oe: quite so! and so you can understand that laws exist based on conditions, and that each was individually created or a specific purpose, and has left nothing to chance.
medwyn: i fail to see how you have proven anything. take for example the gambling houses. they arrange the games so that the chances are in the favor of the house and lead to profit. if no chance existed then an individual would be able to discern the odds, the gambling house would lose, and could not exist.
OE: because the odds are beyond your ability to be able to discern, does not mean that if you examined all conditions you would know the outcome. lets take your example in gambling. lets say the game is a sack, and in the sack is a number of marbles of different colors. if all the variables of gravity, mass, sound, and planetal gravitationals were discerned, the movement could be discerned. and if the man holding and shakeing the sack was to be broken down by his strength, his subconscios method of shakeing the sack, and his conscios efforts to mix all put into equation, the movement of every marble would be known, and imposable to conceal.
medwyn: no one could know these things.
OE: existance does. you could not because you do not have that much awareness. but knowing that and takeing into account what you are aware of you can change the probabilities in your favor with a little observation and math. the reason the alchemist have so much trouble with sub atomic particles is because they have decided is chaos and chance, and have quit searching for the other variables that are causeing the apparent chaos, when in fact their is an order to the bahavior, it is just not easily discerned.
medwyn: how can you say that so absolutly?
OE: existance does not take chances. order cannot be based on chaos and exist. what is only apparent to us to be chance, existance knows the variables.
medwyn: if it is beyond my ability to see, then how does knowing that help me?
OE: the same way that it would help the alchemists. they have stopped looking for the variables because they decided to embrace the theory of chaos. and for it, their research is now many years prolonged. like your spell.
after 30 minutes of math and some little pointers from his elder, medwyn alignes the final taper.
malar nephon!
a large flash ensues and standing before the two is a large shreth. its eyes dart around , looking for anything aggressive that might attack its summoner.
______________________________________________________________________
without understanding what a "shreth" is you can at least see the argument.
now to the more theological and religios explanations of existance. the definition is easy by reason alone. the explanation is a little more complicated. above in the story you see medwyn reason that the existance that was first and had intelligence could not be destroyed or else all that is would not be. for, its based on it. so we know it is, but cannot explain the "why" without looking for an explanation from existance itself. to whom, many can argue, it doesnt care" or by refuteing that it has any intelligence, which is arrogant and nieve at the least and blasphemous at the most.
existance made what is with great care. so , all that came from it has "purpose" some can argue a predifined fate for all things that live, but by observation i am more want to say that it made what is with a set range of abilities, adjusts the things that are, or "tweaks" existance, based on the descisions of that which it gave the power to behave in a manner like itself with free will, yet with limitaitons on where that free will is allowed to go. these limitations are the laws of science. gravity, need for oxygen etc. despite the limitations of the physical form it is quite versatile, and existance left many choices in that which it made could tranfer and create in the mannorisms of its envirnment and intelligence and sensory capability. it also instilled "basic knoledge" that was needed for the thinking process in "living" species that was nessecary for it to continue to exist in the evironment for which it was made. this more commonly is refered to as "instinct". such as mateing and eating, fighting, and hideing.
by veiwing the behaviors of demesticated animals i believe that this basic instinct is passed down in the subconscios part of the brain in every living thing. and generation to generation a part of the last life stored in the "instict" sector of the brain will pass to the offspring. this could be the reason for some beliefs in "reincarnation" since if this is true, memories might potentially leak into some brains instinctual paths more than others and actually relive emotions or memories from many generations of a stored instinct. this again is "theory".
of all religeos and scientific explanations that attempt to explain and define existance, the only one that i have found that meets all the requirments of the law of existance is christianity. based on the torah are other religeons, but these seem to have one problem that jesus pointed out when questioned about observance of law. jesus remarked that the law of marriage and divorce was flawed, and although passed down by moses, it was passed down because moses deemed it a nessecary law to preserve the higher function of order because he " knew the people". but it was accepted as a law passed by existance itself, and not of man. and that realization means that by conclusion so also could other things written and accepted as law of God possibly law of man. and thats unsettling when there is not anyone able to point it out accept existance itself. the reason why i have faith in christ is because moses was instructed by " i am " (existance, which jesus professess as truth). also, no one has disputed the acts of jesus of nazereth. jews prefer to call it history, and other religeons refer to him as a prophet. yet say he was not who he said he was. it doesnt make sense to call a man a prophet in one sentance then call him a liar in the other. since his actions and miricles cannot be denied and all he has said was to be, did come to pass, and for many other reasons if you dig deep
enough youll discover, makes sense in the laws of existance.
the requirment of faith in this life makes sense if by faith existance is and was and will be. then by faith will you also be. the bibles forcasts move deeper than that when jesus say's " i am the alpha and omega, the first and the last" indeed, that is to say in the beggining only existance was, as itself, and in the end only that which is existance will be. and so to be a part of existance youll need faith. einstien beleived in an afterlife because "energy cannot be created or destroyed" so also do i beleive in a continuance of existance when the body is gone and the energy that is life and the "soul" will continue to be "by faith". my theory on the soul is that emotions are its voice. for the brain reacts to emotion , not emotion to the brain.how you react to emotions can be trained over time. many call the control of what you do with an emotion as a wisdom of age. i beleive that the training is not in haveing an emotion as much as what you do with an emotion you have. the ability to "love" can be trained by loveing. and "hate" by hateing. and so does the person who has emotions train their "souls". this again is theory.
whatever you choose to do with the knoledge of the definition of existance, be it scientific, religeos, or theological, the definition as defined in this book is the only definition that makes sense with the science and observation of what is, with the tools available to man.
existance:n. the basis of all things that "are". it was/is the energy that was before all things that are, which was intelligent, and created all that is from itself. based on faith it was. and therefore established the state of "being" or "existing".
nothing was left to chance. you just have not been able to discern the variables.
there is a point and purpose to every thing that is. if there wasnt, it wouldnt be.
............................................................................................

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 12-22-2007 11:28 AM tesla has replied
 Message 4 by AdminPD, posted 12-22-2007 9:05 PM tesla has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 4 (442704)
12-22-2007 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tesla
12-22-2007 10:55 AM


Read a little I did
I don't want you to think you are being ignored. I had a go at reading your much too large opening post.
We'll leave this to some other admin who might have an interest in mumbo jumbo.
This certainly doesn't fit into the science threads and I am not an expert on the other side so I won't put it there.
Even if it made any sense at all it is much too long.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tesla, posted 12-22-2007 10:55 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by tesla, posted 12-22-2007 4:12 PM AdminNosy has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 3 of 4 (442767)
12-22-2007 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
12-22-2007 11:28 AM


Re: Read a little I did
mumbo jumbo:
the basic is this, existance cannot be possible without a basis.
the argument is : God, or nothing.
the length of the post is to explain how there was God (energy that was first which was intelligent)
but that God is the basis of existance and existing, and without that intelligent energy nothing else would be.
im not sure the role that God plays, and im not entirly comfortable with religeon that attempts to explain it. so between the two, Gods methods of creation can be understoo, only afer the intelligent scientist understand that God IS. proof of that is the fact anything is at all.
now , im sure your intelligent, and can easily grasp any physical evidence and apply it. however, perhapts digging into the probobility of "being" is too philisophical? or too poorly written, which may be the case. but the basic truth of this letter is plain: define existance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 12-22-2007 11:28 AM AdminNosy has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 4 of 4 (442869)
12-22-2007 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tesla
12-22-2007 10:55 AM


Welcome to EvC
Welcome to EvC tesla,
Thank you for proposing a new topic and adding to our diversity. Since you are new to EvC, I suggest that you carefully read the Forum Guidelines and familiarize yourself with the functions of EvC by using the Practice Makes Perfect Forum or posting in existing threads.
Firstly, this is a debate forum and not a publishing arena.
this book is going to tackle the seemingly imposible; to define existance.
Per the rules of this forum, when introducing a new topic, please keep the message narrowly focused. Do not include more than a few points.
Your opening post seems to cover a wide range of possibilities and and points are not clearly presented.
I am not inclined to promote this topic as written.
In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant.
As members, we are guests on this board and as guests we are asked to put forth our best behavior. Please read the Forum Guidelines carefully and understand the wishes of our host. Abide by the Forum Guidelines and you will be a welcome addition.
Again welcome and fruitful debating. Purple

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encyclopedia Brittanica, on debate

Links for comments on moderation procedures and/or responding to admin msgs:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate Proposals
    Helpful links for New Members: Forum Guidelines, Quick Questions,
    [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], and Practice Makes Perfect

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by tesla, posted 12-22-2007 10:55 AM tesla has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024