Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   Cern Debate:
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 1 of 51 (678741)
11-08-2012 12:11 PM


Cern was holding a two day event to invite religious leaders and philosophers to debate their data to try to find a middle ground of agreement between philosophy, religion, and science. Since science contains a lot of data with no real interpretations when addressing potentials of soul or beginnings. I sent this to Cern, and I would like to debate the letter for the truth is either does, or does not contain. Here is the letter:
The argument coming soon would do well to recognize, first and foremost, that the debate is about the first cause.
You will soon conclude that you have no real answer, but I can supply one bit of philosophy that may be useful in debate.
By observation, and by thought, with patience, and much study, the first cause 'could' be Decision.
Now though it may sound unreasonable by data, our sight is still to limited to rule out that the universe, and all we can see and know, is liken to an egg inside of something entirely different. since a cell is of itself, shut off from what is outside of it, like the shell of an egg. Now time is nothing to what you could call 'timeless' for lack of any other data, and unlimited possibility. This paragraph is simply to illuminate debaters to unlimited possibilities, and too keep looking, as science hopefully can unlock some questions as we come to understand our own consciousness, and it's abilities, be it projection through subconscious realms, or what have you.
To go back to the first cause, I have concluded that in the beginning, by all data, our universe was a single energy. You can argue that it could have come from 'apparently' nothing, but if 'literally nothing' nothing could ever be, as nothing would be absence of anything of energy or substance, which all data shows is impossible.
The universe is constantly evolving, but from whence came the first evolution, if in the beginning all that is, was one thing, with no two points to measure? the only variable I could find for such a change of a perfect singularity of all things (inside this universe, or perhaps beyond the shell of the egg): is decision. then change becomes possible.
This does not mean that the first cause, making a decision, cares about such tiny parcels inside itself, nor that it is necessarily aware, but the potential, by this reasoning, is there. and so then does the name of 'God' become existence (Noun). Because until existence 'is', nothing can exist, and if the first evolution was a decision (there are no other variables to implement change in a perfect singular energy): Then what else could you call a change of a singular energy with no other variable but itself to change, when it was timeless and unchanging in it's pure essence of origin?
This is a potential by all observations of what is now. which would mean the galaxies would be liken to cells, perhaps mankind liken to bacteria in our own bodies, which break down feces so that we may live: yet we cannot communicate with our bacteria very well, and to the bacteria its universe does not exist outside it's spot in the body. how must that look like to the bacteria in our bodies staring into their heavens as food rains from the sky after we eat? and so the living species of bacteria will feed, never knowing of the brain or the heart, and especially not the cars and buildings we inhabit.
Is this true? Who knows? that is not the point to know the truth when our sight is so limited, and our ways of thinking so finite within the infinite possibilities of consciousness and awareness. The important thing to understand: is that it is potential. and that does not mean endorse religion and stop looking. It means keep looking. believe what you will, but know what you know, and admit where your knowledge stops.
-Tim Brown

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 11-08-2012 1:11 PM tesla has replied
 Message 11 by Phat, posted 11-10-2012 9:14 AM tesla has replied
 Message 13 by Phat, posted 11-10-2012 9:30 AM tesla has replied

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


Message 3 of 51 (678743)
11-08-2012 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
11-08-2012 1:11 PM


Science forum
If I include a link to the article in which Cern was asking for religious and philosophy leaders to communicate their interpretations of the data, would you promote it in a science forum?
Scientists debate philosophers and theologians at CERNbut why? – Why Evolution Is True
Edited by tesla, : added link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 11-08-2012 1:11 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 11-09-2012 9:11 AM tesla has replied

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


Message 5 of 51 (678745)
11-09-2012 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Admin
11-09-2012 9:11 AM


Re: Science forum
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for explaining the genesis of the universe. To date it has the wide support of the scientific community because if offers the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observations. It leads to a dating of the universe as 13.7 billion years old.
The purpose of this conference is to enable scientists from a range of disciplines to dialogue with philosophers and theologians from the world religions about the nature of the Big Bang Theory. What understandings might scientists and theologians share in common? How are their paradigms shaped and developed? Is it possible to develop a common framework or language?
That is the first two paragraphs in the link you posted. Do you have a different definition for the word ‘scientific’?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 11-09-2012 9:11 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 11-09-2012 7:38 PM tesla has replied

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


Message 7 of 51 (678747)
11-09-2012 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Admin
11-09-2012 7:38 PM


Re: Science forum
The letter was already sent to Cern, and it's the letter I wish to examine and debate. Since it is the science communities desire to examine their data against philosophers ideas I figured it would match a 'is it science' type debate.
Your call, but I can't re-write what was already sent.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 11-09-2012 7:38 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Admin, posted 11-10-2012 8:44 AM tesla has replied

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


Message 9 of 51 (678749)
11-10-2012 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Admin
11-10-2012 8:44 AM


Re: Science forum
I understand. I am disappointed that great minds in science do not have the ability to look at science philosophically. Some of the greatest philosophers were also great scientists as well.
From the discussions of is a true vacuum possible, to the question of what does the beginning of the universe look like, the thought experiments of many great scientists still provide a guide for questions we may answer tomorrow.
I would not mind discussing this letter in any forum you choose.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Admin, posted 11-10-2012 8:44 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 12 of 51 (678756)
11-10-2012 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Phat
11-10-2012 9:14 AM


Re: Middle Ground
Seems to me that by invoking the word decision you are theorizing that the first cause was personal.
potentially personal to the decision maker. it is potential the first cause of change was decision. that would imply consciousness was a prominent part of the universe in its earliest form.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Phat, posted 11-10-2012 9:14 AM Phat has not replied

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


Message 14 of 51 (678759)
11-10-2012 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Phat
11-10-2012 9:30 AM


Re: Philosophical jabberwocky
If a universe happens into existence before physical laws can be defined, is it subject to those laws?
Water is not defined by the ideal gas law, but it still has being.
Just because the early universe does not appear to follow any of the current structure of the known universe, it does not mean that it didn't do exactly that. That is why it is a mystery. If an answer to your question was available, it would have been answered.
The point I'm making is that regardless of what appears to be, only with a real thing, could a real thing appear. and so: to exist, and have 'being', substance, and reality, it must come from that which has being and reality.
Existence is the noun ascribed to all that has being and reality. So without the first being and reality, nothing can be born of it.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Phat, posted 11-10-2012 9:30 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 11-10-2012 9:48 AM tesla has replied

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


Message 16 of 51 (678772)
11-10-2012 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Phat
11-10-2012 9:48 AM


Re: Philosophical jabberwocky
Sounds like a point for the Creator.
Son Goku or cavediver would be useful at this point.
No one is useful really, that is why I wrote the letter. I want scientists to not rule out potentials. you have to have the ability to research the potentials, and if you close a potential that is the answer, the path to its discovery is an accident of researching something else.
Science needs funding. and if people will pay for research into the potential that we live inside of a living thing, then it's a greater chance of discovering how to communicate with that greater being sooner than later.
And even if the science was to never discover that, be it by limitations, or by evidence to support the opposite: knowledge and discovery will still have been made, such as with brain research, and space explorations.
Would you agree? The only thing I'm proposing is to do research we already do, under a different theme, with more money. The same reality is being scrutinized, but with a different object in mind for the end question to be answered: Is it possible, that there is a greater being we exist in, that it has consciousness?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 11-10-2012 9:48 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 11-10-2012 10:09 AM tesla has replied

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


Message 18 of 51 (678780)
11-10-2012 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Percy
11-10-2012 10:09 AM


Re: Philosophical jabberwocky
You seem to be arguing that science may be able to get more funding if they put a religious slant on it. Do I have that right?
No. Religious is the wrong word to add to science. I'm saying the religious will help fund science to the end of looking for higher being.
Science does not have slants. Science is Science.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 11-10-2012 10:09 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 11-10-2012 10:41 AM tesla has replied
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 11-10-2012 6:10 PM tesla has replied

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


Message 20 of 51 (678810)
11-10-2012 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
11-10-2012 10:41 AM


Re: Philosophical jabberwocky
If that were true it would simply show that the religious haven't really thought things through; that they are bent on destroying the very concept of a higher being.
I don't follow. How does seeking ‘God’ destroy your concept of higher being?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 11-10-2012 10:41 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 11-10-2012 5:23 PM tesla has replied

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


Message 25 of 51 (678884)
11-11-2012 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
11-10-2012 5:23 PM


Re: Philosophical jabberwocky
Anything science can study can only be natural and so any god science might find, study, understand cannot be a higher being but just another natural thing we understand.
So if higher being is natural, we can study it. but like physics, that doesn't mean we will understand all of it.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 11-10-2012 5:23 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 11-11-2012 10:09 AM tesla has replied

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


Message 26 of 51 (678886)
11-11-2012 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Percy
11-10-2012 6:10 PM


Re: Beware the jabberwock my son!
Oh, okay, I see, a higher being isn't religious, it's scientific.
Religious has nothing to do with higher being in the context of science. Anyone can choose to be religious and worship whatever you want to as 'God'.
But in the scientific realm no one really ignores potentials concerning higher being. For instance: how much has been spent on the search for Alien life? For many, belief in a higher Alien life-form is a real possibility, and money is spent on it.
There are unlimited possibilities in that realm. The entire universe we live in could be a cell in a greater 'universe' we are not even aware of. I should not have to remind you how small the earth is in our system.
Do you think it is possible you live inside of a living thing? Is there evidence that living things live inside living things, unaware of what is beyond that living thing?
Is it arrogance of man when mankind sets themselves to be the most intelligent thing in the universe because we figured out how some of it works? Or is mankind really as great as many humans would like to believe? After all, the human body and mind is an awesome bit of engineering.
But you don't care about none of that do you? you want PV=nRT, Pie dee squared / four. A string of algebra with a number at the end that shows 2 million Kilowatts will produce an atom of gold.
Science wants to know everything, and scientists do too, but what scientists do not want to know is if there is a higher being? oooh wait that's right, you’re not the only scientists out there, you just want to convince everyone that religion is bad, science is right, and go back to drinking coffee and doing math.
Is it even possible to have a real conversation without you throwing some negative value and connotations to anything that you can interpret as adding to a religious person's belief?
You have plenty of cannon fodder here, but how about simply answering this one question: Is higher being a possibility?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 11-10-2012 6:10 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Phat, posted 11-11-2012 9:11 AM tesla has replied
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 11-13-2012 11:28 AM tesla has replied

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


Message 28 of 51 (678897)
11-11-2012 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Phat
11-11-2012 9:11 AM


Re: Beware the jabberwock my son!
we never will be able to chew this much.
Well...maybe. But the moon was an impossibility until we set foot on it.
My fear is we will not be given much of a chance in the cycle of things. We will be living underground for centuries, and possibly nearly extinct due to the changing chemistry of our atmosphere being well ahead of the abilities of evolution. Maybe we can hasten evolution through selective breeding and biological chemistry...
Anyways, one has to have a question that needs an answer before you can do any science. So the question of higher being still needs a real answer, and it's worth researching. Mankind will have a lot to gain along the way, even if the answer is never found along the way.
It's frustrating that so many look for the final answer without taking the path that leads to the answer. Like when you’re doing math on a systems flow and you do not calculate density of the substance. you will get the wrong answer.
The search for higher being cannot be looked for without knowing some crucial points that will enable us to look. Light is a record of many things, but maybe other wavelengths are also records. you have to actually spend money on that kind of research, and knowing how the brain writes information and stores it will be an important piece of the puzzle.
I think that a vast majority of people are beginning to wake up and realize old books and past writings can contain some truths, but that what we know today is greater than what writers of old knew. So that battle is won, yet we are missing the opportunity to advance science through funding of those who would fund research on the brain and space with the question being sought to answer is "Is there a higher being" which cannot be answered until we know more about communications between living things at the atomic level.
Imagine being able to speak to a dolphin clearly in its own language, not by the clicks or verbal messages, but through the brain with a device that reads and sends information to its brain via the brains language.
Having that power would enable us to use that language potentially sent via a satellite and see what comes of it.
What are your thoughts on my musing of this?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Phat, posted 11-11-2012 9:11 AM Phat has not replied

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


Message 30 of 51 (678900)
11-11-2012 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by jar
11-11-2012 10:09 AM


Re: Philosophical jabberwocky
But just like physics, it would not be a higher being, just another natural being.
I cannot figure out your thinking...so...to you God is not natural?
Anything that is actually true will be natural. Super or not-natural, is only considered that because it is beyond understanding.
If your God is real, he is natural. If he only exists in your mind, then sure, you can call that super-natural. But like a dream, a thought is not substantial. Thoughts are potentially substantial, but if true, will find validation through a natural way.
But science does not have the answers to everything. So old super-natural things have been found natural, and there are other super-natural concepts that also have a natural explanation once we figure out what’s going on. But without research, we will never know.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 11-11-2012 10:09 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 11-11-2012 10:22 AM tesla has replied

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


Message 32 of 51 (678903)
11-11-2012 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by jar
11-11-2012 10:22 AM


Re: Philosophical jabberwocky
Almost correct, any real GOD would not be natural.
If something is 'real' it is natural. just because it's beyond your ability to understand doesnt mean it's not natural to the "God" who understands it. it is most definitly natural to whatever energy it is a part of.
I'm curios though, How is it that you define 'God' ?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 11-11-2012 10:22 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 11-11-2012 10:37 AM tesla has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024