A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

From his discovery, he believed there is design to the universe. I'm sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.

His personal beliefs don't "rub me the wrong way", it's just an odd addition to a work that claims to be scientific rather than religious or philosophical

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't even think you understood what he meant. Not surprising.

Originally Posted by Kael

That's very uncharitable of you. Like the quote I referenced from a popular animated tv show, it is not difficult to discern the meaning of the quoted passage. It is the stupefyingly abysmal way it is communicated that was being pointed out.

It wasn't abysmal at all. You're just looking for things to make fun of. I have no idea why you and others are doing this.

Originally Posted by Kael

Likewise, it is also not terribly difficult to discern the intended meaning of this supposed "two-sided equation." Here, however, it is not just terrible writing that deserves attention, but a complete lack of support for the assertions made, from "THOU SHALL NOT BLAME" (which he likes to put in all caps for some reason, or maybe you did that),

I did.

Originally Posted by Kael

a claim which hinges on his woefully lacking arguments for his peculiar brand of determinism*; to his continued, flagrant abuse of the term "mathematical," justified by an artless twist of logic,

There is no twist of logic in this book. It is mathematical. You can use that word (even though it's not numerical), as a synonym for undeniable.

Originally Posted by Kael

taking the simple fact that words and their definitions are more or less arbitrary

The definition is not arbitrary at all. It's accurate Kael.

Originally Posted by Kael

and claiming that it means he can redefine whatever word he wants to mean whatever he wants and if you have any objection it's your problem;

That's such a lie it makes me sick. The objections have come from not reading the book carefully. Don't you throw your lack of understanding back at Lessans, as if he somehow he wronged you. If you don't care to study the book the way it was meant to be studied, don't, but that's your tough luck.

Originally Posted by Kael

to his completely unsupported, even within his book, assertion that if an individual knows he cannot/will not be blamed for a hostile or hurtful action he will be compelled to forgo that action... for some reason...

That's not what he said at all. That one comment shows me you know nothing about this book. That's why you laugh, but the joke is on you.

Originally Posted by Kael

*it should be noted here that there are many different forms and interpretations of deterministic philosophy, at least as many as there are of free will philosophies, and that not all of these stand in opposition to one another. It seems your dad never read anything beyond Spinoza or Durant, and was thus largely ignorant of the incredible diversity of these schools of thought, assuming instead that it all broke down to an A or B question, is our will free or is it not. It does not break down that way, which rather calls into question the whole of his reasoning, and certainly paints his "mathematical" certainty in a doubtful light.

We can't have both free will and determinism. That's an illusion. What he does is reconciles free will with determinism so that although will is not free, we are still able to make choices. Our autonomy is not being taken away, nor is our responsibility is being decreased.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

His personal beliefs don't "rub me the wrong way", it's just an odd addition to a work that claims to be scientific rather than religious or philosophical

I get that, but the book is purely mathematical. Because of his knowledge, he saw that there is design to the universe, which has nothing to do with religion. The fact that there is design to the universe doesn't mean there is someone behind the curtain making up the rules.

[LadyShea]

The fact that there is design to the universe doesn't mean there is someone behind the curtain making up the rules.

The how can the Universe not be "accidental"? Doesn't that imply a designer? And how does the no-God stand with man so man doesn't have to stand alone?

While we're at it, how does the Universe send people on missions?

His words come across as religious, in a personal deity way, as opposed to pantheistic, deistic, or the use of God as a synonym for "universe"

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can't have both free will and determinism. That's an illusion.

The point is that, in fact, we can have both, at least in theory. Hell, you even go on to say that we DO have both, and that your dad is the one who reconciled them. Whether we actually do or not is far from the resolved discussion you seem to think it is.

What he does is reconciles free will with determinism so that although will is not free, we are still able to make choices. Our autonomy is not being taken away, nor is our responsibility is being decreased.

I'm sure you believe that. I have only ever pointed out how and why his case is far from compelling when examined from any perspective save that of the already-converted.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The how can the Universe not be "accidental"? Doesn't that imply a designer? And how does the no-God stand with man so man doesn't have to stand alone?

While we're at it, how does the Universe send people on missions?

His words come across as religious, in a personal deity way, as opposed to pantheistic, deistic, or the use of God as a synonym for "universe"

He never seems to make up his mind on this topic, changing back and forth from claiming "God" refers to the universe and its highly regulated structure to referring to "God" as an anthropomorphic guide and guardian, designer and maker of all, and directly calling him to bring on this new Age. He also references Christ and Satin (sic) a number of times, neither of which would matter or even exist from a God-is-the-Universe perspective. A person less charitable than I might go so far as to think he was doing the same thing here as he appears to do with his misuse of terms like "mathematical: that he attempts to play all sides of the field and appear to support both actually religious groups (especially Christians) as well as more cerebral pantheist and deist groups.

Me, I'm more inclined to think he was just a piss-poor writer and possibly confused himself on which version of God he believed in.

[peacegirl]

The fact that there is design to the universe doesn't mean there is someone behind the curtain making up the rules.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The how can the Universe not be "accidental"? Doesn't that imply a designer?

It implies an intelligence, yes, but not a person, or thing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And how does the no-God stand with man so man doesn't have to stand alone?

I'm not sure what you mean.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

While we're at it, how does the Universe send people on missions?

He didn't mean that literally LadyShea. He meant that he was compelled, by his nature, to move in this direction. That's all he meant.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

His words come across as religious, in a personal deity way, as opposed to pantheistic, deistic, or the use of God as a synonym for "universe"

That's why I'm trying to clear this up for you. God, and the laws of our nature, are synonyms. He personalizes sometimes but he's assuming you understand what he means already. He explained what he meant by the word God.

By now I hope you
understand that the word God is a symbol for the source of everything
that exists, whereas theology draws a line between good and evil using
the word God only as a symbol for the former. Actually no one gave
me this slide rule, that is, no one handed it to me, but the same force
that gave birth to my body and brain compelled me to move in the
direction of satisfaction and for me to be satisfied after reading Will
Durant’s analysis of free will it was necessary to disagree with what
obviously was the reasoning of logic, not mathematics. I was not
satisfied, which forced me to get rid of my dissatisfaction by proving
that this philosopher did not know whereof he spoke.

To say that God
made me do this is equivalent to saying I was compelled, by my
nature, to move in this direction of greater satisfaction, which is
absolutely true. Definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is
concerned. Regardless of what words I use to describe the sun;
regardless of how much there is I don’t know about this ball of fire
does not negate the fact that it is a part of the real world, and
regardless of what words I employ to describe God does not change the
fact that He is a reality. You may ask, “But isn’t there quite a
difference between seeing the sun and seeing God? I know that the
description of the sun could be inaccurate, but I know it is a part of
the real world. However, we cannot point to any particular thing and
say this is God, therefore we must assume because of certain things
that God is a reality, correct?”

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can't have both free will and determinism. That's an illusion.

Originally Posted by Kael

The point is that, in fact, we can have both, at least in theory. Hell, you even go on to say that we DO have both, and that your dad is the one who reconciled them. Whether we actually do or not is far from the resolved discussion you seem to think it is.

It is absolutely resolved. You have no idea what he wrote, so you have no room to agree or disagree.

What he does is reconciles free will with determinism so that although will is not free, we are still able to make choices. Our autonomy is not being taken away, nor is our responsibility is being decreased.

Originally Posted by Kael

I'm sure you believe that. I have only ever pointed out how and why his case is far from compelling when examined from any perspective save that of the already-converted.

That's because you don't have a clue Kael. You have no idea what his proof is, yet you tell me his case is far from compelling. Go figure.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The how can the Universe not be "accidental"? Doesn't that imply a designer? And how does the no-God stand with man so man doesn't have to stand alone?

While we're at it, how does the Universe send people on missions?

His words come across as religious, in a personal deity way, as opposed to pantheistic, deistic, or the use of God as a synonym for "universe"

Originally Posted by Kael

He never seems to make up his mind on this topic, changing back and forth from claiming "God" refers to the universe and its highly regulated structure to referring to "God" as an anthropomorphic guide and guardian, designer and maker of all, and directly calling him to bring on this new Age. He also references Christ and Satin (sic) a number of times, neither of which would matter or even exist from a God-is-the-Universe perspective.

Obviously you didn't read the passages themselves. And why are you making fun of my one mistake? For what reason Kael are you taking this one word of the thousands and thousands of words I typed, and include that one? And you aren't out to make a mockery of Lessans and me? Of course you are, and that's why you are going to get nothing out of this book, not because there's nothing in this book to be gotten.

Originally Posted by Kael

A person less charitable than I might go so far as to think he was doing the same thing here as he appears to do with his misuse of terms like "mathematical: that he attempts to play all sides of the field and appear to support both actually religious groups (especially Christians) as well as more cerebral pantheist and deist groups.

He's misuing no terms. He is entitled to use the word God the way he defined it, and if you understood anything about his discovery, you would have known how he's using these terms. You think you can understand a book by its parts, but you can't.

Originally Posted by Kael

Me, I'm more inclined to think he was just a piss-poor writer and possibly confused himself on which version of God he believed in.

He wasn't a piss-poor writer. You're a piss-poor reader. He wasn't confused about anything, let alone his version of God.

[Kael]

Did you have any actual rebuttals or criticisms? Or did you plan on just repeating that I don't understand, and imagining that this constitutes a counter-argument?

[LadyShea]

Lessans quote you provided: This discovery also reveals that God is a mathematical, undeniable reality. This means, to put it another way, that Man Does Not Stand Alone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Did you have any actual rebuttals or criticisms? Or did you plan on just repeating that I don't understand, and imagining that this constitutes a counter-argument?

You have no argument Kael. How can you have an argument when you don't know the first thing about his discovery?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans quote you provided: This discovery also reveals that God is a mathematical, undeniable reality. This means, to put it another way, that Man Does Not Stand Alone.

I don't know what you read LadyShea, but it was in response to two different positions on the existence of God.

Since the
modern world of science was playing havoc with religion it needed a
boost and along came, just in the nick of time, a scientist who gave
seven reasons why he believed in God. A. Cressy Morrison, who wrote
his book, “Man Does Not Stand Alone,” was almost convinced that
God was a reality. He challenged Julian Huxley’s conclusions written
in his book, “Man Stands Alone.”

Both tried to answer the question,
“Is there a Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe?” Who is
right? Huxley said ‘no there isn’t,’ but Morrison’s arguments were
mathematically sound and he gave quite a boost to instilling faith
again in those people who were really beginning to wonder. I can
almost remember word for word how he tried to prove that nothing
happens by chance, and he did prove it except for this element of evil.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know what you read LadyShea, but it was in response to two different positions on the existence of God.

Since the
modern world of science was playing havoc with religion it needed a
boost and along came, just in the nick of time, a scientist who gave
seven reasons why he believed in God. A. Cressy Morrison, who wrote
his book, “Man Does Not Stand Alone,” was almost convinced that
God was a reality. He challenged Julian Huxley’s conclusions written
in his book, “Man Stands Alone.”

Both tried to answer the question,
“Is there a Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe?” Who is
right? Huxley said ‘no there isn’t,’ but Morrison’s arguments were
mathematically sound and he gave quite a boost to instilling faith
again in those people who were really beginning to wonder. I can
almost remember word for word how he tried to prove that nothing
happens by chance, and he did prove it except for this element of evil.

I read your post where you bolded the part about God being an undenialble reality and that because of it Man Does Not Stand Alone.

So, if God = Nature's laws, who exactly is standing with man?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I read your post where you bolded the part about God being an undenialble reality and that because of it Man Does Not Stand Alone.

So, if God = Nature's laws, who exactly is standing with man?

No one. All he was saying is that there is order to this universe.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is getting outrageously nasty. Show me Stephen.

Wow. Stephen Maturin doesn't think the book suggests genocide, thedoc does. Neither Stephen or I found any indiction of it, and we would have gladly shown the world if it did. Why are you asking Stephen to show you, when he agrees with you?

[Stephen Maturin]

Oh me oh my! Large swaths of the "Our Posterity" chapter are available here courtesy of Google Books. Just click on the link and go to page 471. I don't want to spoil anything, so for now suffice it to say

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Wow. Stephen Maturin doesn't think the book suggests genocide, thedoc does. Neither Stephen or I found any indiction of it, and we would have gladly shown the world if it did. Why are you asking Stephen to show you, when he agrees with you?

I thought he was adding to what doc said. You know, finding things about the book that don't exist. You can't blame for me this, since all he's done is put the book down in any way he can.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Oh me oh my! Large swaths of the "Our Posterity" chapter are available here courtesy of Google Books. Just click on the link and go to page 471. I don't want to spoil anything, so for now suffice it to say

Looks like I don't hate myself enough today to wade through more than two pages. Glad to see he doesn't give up on the stilted, made-up dialogue though. Gotta stick with a classic.

[LadyShea]

Good find Maturin!

[LadyShea]

Your consciousness is not a personal characteristic, like the shape of your nose, but that which applies to the living substance of all mankind.

Your consciousness is the potential consciousness that exists in the germinal substance.

We're like an immortal headless body that sprouts new heads, and each head is "I"

[thedoc]

Oh well, Can't find it, I need to mark down where I read things, so I retract, except on the bottom of page 199 in the PDF he talks about entering the new world "of our own volition". But I did not say 'genocide' but you can read elimination however you want to. Another two sided equation, I write something and you read something, not always the same something.

[Doctor X]

In the morass he does claim that those who do not choose to follow "the Way" will be legally compelled to do so. He does not claim they will be "eliminated."

Either way it is arguing what color cloud upon which Cloud Cuckoo-Land resides.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can't have both free will and determinism. That's an illusion.

Originally Posted by Kael

The point is that, in fact, we can have both, at least in theory. Hell, you even go on to say that we DO have both, and that your dad is the one who reconciled them. Whether we actually do or not is far from the resolved discussion you seem to think it is.

I wanted to add here that I never went on to say that we DO have both Kael. Please don't misconstrue my words.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

In the morass he does claim that those who do not choose to follow "the Way" will be legally compelled to do so. He does not claim they will be "eliminated."

Either way it is arguing what color cloud upon which Cloud Cuckoo-Land resides.

--J.D.

Eliminated was ment as removed from participation in the society, much like native Americans were removed to reservations and restricted from participating in the society of the day.