Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
573 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 569 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,809 Year: 21,845/19,786 Month: 408/1,834 Week: 408/315 Day: 4/82 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cern Debate:
tesla
Member
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 responded
 Message 11 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-10-2012 9:14 AM tesla has responded
 Message 13 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-10-2012 9:30 AM tesla has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2 of 51 (678742)
11-08-2012 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tesla
11-08-2012 12:11 PM


I couldn't promote this to any of the science forums, but one of the other moderators might be willing to promote this to one of the religious forums.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tesla, posted 11-08-2012 12:11 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by tesla, posted 11-08-2012 8:21 PM Admin has responded

  
tesla
Member
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?

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/...s-at-cern-but-why

Edited by tesla, : added link.


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

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

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 4 of 51 (678744)
11-09-2012 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by tesla
11-08-2012 8:21 PM


Re: Science forum
And here's a link to the conference program: The Big Bang and the interfaces of knowledge: towards a common language?

I could find no science in your letter, so I couldn't promote it to the science forums. From my personal perspective it seems full of nonsense, so I couldn't promote it anywhere. But perhaps a moderator more adept in the fields of religion and philosophy might find it worth promoting.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by tesla, posted 11-08-2012 8:21 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by tesla, posted 11-09-2012 5:18 PM Admin has responded

  
tesla
Member
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 responded

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

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 6 of 51 (678746)
11-09-2012 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by tesla
11-09-2012 5:18 PM


Re: Science forum
It won't be a debate with a conference program but with you. The contribution from you, your letter, had no science in it that I could discern. You're welcome to try a rewrite.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by tesla, posted 11-09-2012 5:18 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by tesla, posted 11-09-2012 9:11 PM Admin has responded

  
tesla
Member
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 responded

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

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 8 of 51 (678748)
11-10-2012 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by tesla
11-09-2012 9:11 PM


Re: Science forum
Hi Tesla,

I'm sorry, but your letter not only makes no sense to me as science, it makes no sense to me at all. It doesn't appear to be seeking a rapprochement between science and religion, or even to just be seeking to open channels of communication. To me it just reflects confusion about science. But maybe in a philosophical or religious context it makes more sense, and I freely confess that those are not my areas of expertise. So perhaps one of the other moderators will have a different opinion about your letter.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by tesla, posted 11-09-2012 9:11 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by tesla, posted 11-10-2012 9:11 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
tesla
Member
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 acknowledged this reply

  
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1945
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


(1)
Message 10 of 51 (678751)
11-10-2012 9:11 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Cern Debate: thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13349
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 11 of 51 (678752)
11-10-2012 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tesla
11-08-2012 12:11 PM


Middle Ground
tesla writes:

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.

Seems to me that by invoking the word decision you are theorizing that the first cause was personal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tesla, posted 11-08-2012 12:11 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by tesla, posted 11-10-2012 9:22 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 12 of 51 (678756)
11-10-2012 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Thugpreacha
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 Thugpreacha, posted 11-10-2012 9:14 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13349
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 13 of 51 (678757)
11-10-2012 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tesla
11-08-2012 12:11 PM


Philosophical jabberwocky
tesla writes:

...until existence 'is', nothing can exist...

As far as we know, anyway. Reality can exist before a thought of that reality is generated,no?

and If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If a universe happens into existence before physical laws can be defined, is it subject to those laws?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tesla, posted 11-08-2012 12:11 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by tesla, posted 11-10-2012 9:38 AM Thugpreacha has responded
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 11-10-2012 9:36 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 14 of 51 (678759)
11-10-2012 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Thugpreacha
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 Thugpreacha, posted 11-10-2012 9:30 AM Thugpreacha has responded

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

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13349
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 15 of 51 (678763)
11-10-2012 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by tesla
11-10-2012 9:38 AM


Re: Philosophical jabberwocky
tesla writes:

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.

Sounds like a point for the Creator.
Son Goku or cavediver would be useful at this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by tesla, posted 11-10-2012 9:38 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by tesla, posted 11-10-2012 9:57 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019