A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

I thought that I had just answered your questions. Apparently not to your satisfaction.

Neither in this thread, nor in the real world, do I attempt to set limits on God. To do so would be the height of hubris. I do, however, recognize that there are limits on my capacity to comprehend God, much less accurately describe or explain God.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey. The freedom compatibilists are using to justify blame and punishment is not true freedom of the will. Being able to make choices given new antecedent conditions does not make will free, sorry. Yes, we are free to choose (nothing is preventing us from choosing), but the choice is really not free whether you have or don't have an experienced compulsion.

And how are you defining "true" freedom of the will? I've already explained why the compatibilist notion of freedom is the only kind relevant to blameworthiness. As I said before, it is a complete misconception that blame requires contra-causal free will. It doesn't follow from his satisfaction principle that people can't still blame others, for people can blame others for anything at all if they choose. It doesn't follow from his principle that people shouldn't still blame others, for they can and should blame others wherever this will have a positive influence on their future behavior. And it doesn't follow that they won't blame others, for they will continue to do so just so long as they consider harmful actions to be something bad that people should feel bad about, whether causally determined or not. So your claim that the absence of blame follows from the proof that man's will is not free is straightforwardly false.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is where you are so off course in your logic that I'm not even going to address it. You'll only come back telling me I'm in denial.

Yep, that response never fails to amuse. I'm so wrong that you won't even bother explaining how! Who do you think you're kidding with such absurd evasions?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it will be in everyone's best interest, not just collectively. Since will is not free, a person cannot choose to hurt others by blaming when he signed an agreement anymore than you could do something against your better judgment.

This is absurd thinking Spacemonkey. It is in our best interest not to blame collectively or individually. This is not just about what's better for the group over what's better for oneself. This is not a contest wherein I could lose if I am cooperative. Your logic is faulty.

False on both counts, for the same reasons I've been patiently explaining for the last several posts. The absence of free will does not prevent a person from blaming or from wanting to blame others. And it will not be in everybody's individual best interests to refrain from blaming, for there is no motivation to refrain from blaming until the New World is already in effect. You have a Catch-22 situation, where no-one can be sure that they will never be blamed until the New World is first in place, and the New World cannot be put in place until everyone first knows that they will never be blamed. And of course you can lose if you co-operate by refraining from blame when others don't. Others will be able to trample all over you, and you'll be doing nothing to stop it because you won't be holding them accountable. No blame only works if it is adopted almost universally (and also if his silly assumptions about conscience were correct), and it will not be adopted by individuals for the same reason that the prisoner will confess.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If people don't want to sign, they don't have to sign. We are only talking about people who have become citizens. They will treat all people as if they are already citizens, and the police will still be necessary for those people who do things that hurt others. If someone does blame, the person who is the citizen will turn the other cheek, which is what stops the attack and the retaliation thereof.

You are arguing against a strawman again. My objection was not that people would be forced to sign something they reject.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can only blame-shift in anticipation that you are going to be blamed but what good is rationalizing when you know that no one is blaming you? You cannot rationalize to yourself that what you plan on doing is okay with your conscience. It doesn't work Spacemonkey.

More unsupported assertions. If people can blame-shift by anticipating blame from others, then they can blame-shift by anticipating a guilty conscience. You've done nothing to show that this is not the case.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is where you are wrong. A person who signs this agreement could never get greater satisfaction out of cheating the taxpayers knowing they will only turn the other cheek in response even though they are hurt. He can't cheat under these conditions. There is no "could they hurt me or go against what they promised." This is a much more powerful law than the prisoner's dilemma where they really don't know if someone would live up to their end of the bargain.

This has nothing to do with what you were replying to, and you are quoting words I never said. My point was: Co-operation can be achieved between the two prisoners if they know and trust each other and make their agreement before being caught, but you cannot get this degree of trust and co-operation in advance between and among the entire population of the planet, or even any significant portion of it. That's absurdly unrealistic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well, you'll have to wait and see then. What more can I say? The ability to shift one's responsibility is an excuse that can be used to justify an act of crime. The reason for this is that one would know that, if caught, he can offer a reasonable sounding excuse, which weakens conscience, or pay a price by going to jail, which also weakens conscience.

Again, not addressing what I said. Obviously there's nothing at all more that you can say. (Although obviously that will not stop you from continuing indefinitely to say nothing at all of any substance.) You can't meet the objections which have been raised, and you can't support his assumptions that have been identified.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Truly, the people I have presented this to are a drop in the bucket. There are thousands upon thousands of people I have yet to reach. Not everyone will scrap this major work like you have done.

There you go yet again resorting to the excuse that you haven't really started promoting yet. And this is why you never will move beyond your current comfort zone of non-promotion. Because so long as you aren't really trying, you don't have to face up to the fact that you aren't really succeeding.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I thought that I had just answered your questions. Apparently not to your satisfaction.

Neither in this thread, nor in the real world, do I attempt to set limits on God. To do so would be the height of hubris. I do, however, recognize that there are limits on my capacity to comprehend God, much less accurately describe or explain God.

Indeed. Limitations cannot be placed on God any more than they can be placed on the bountiful wonders of Lessans' New World, and largely for the same reason.

[Angakuk]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey. The freedom compatibilists are using to justify blame and punishment is not true freedom of the will. Being able to make choices given new antecedent conditions does not make will free, sorry. Yes, we are free to choose (nothing is preventing us from choosing), but the choice is really not free whether you have or don't have an experienced compulsion.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And how are you defining "true" freedom of the will? I've already explained why the compatibilist notion of freedom is the only kind relevant to blameworthiness.

It's a made-up definition, constructed for the purpose of giving blame and punishment legitimacy.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

As I said before, it is a complete misconception that blame requires contra-causal free will. It doesn't follow from his satisfaction principle that people can't still blame others, for people can blame others for anything at all if they choose.

Of course people can still blame others if they want to, but they won't want to Spacemonkey when they realize that the conditions of the new world will be in their personal best interest, not just collectively.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It doesn't follow from his principle that people shouldn't still blame others, for they can and should blame others wherever this will have a positive influence on their future behavior.

This is where you are really getting confused. When they realize that not blaming will have a greater influence on future behavior, they will choose to follow this law of nature as a better deterrent than the one we are now using. All the blame and punishment in the world will not create the kind of world we are all seeking.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And it doesn't follow that they won't blame others, for they will continue to do so just so long as they consider harmful actions to be something bad that people should feel bad about, whether causally determined or not. So your claim that the absence of blame follows from the proof that man's will is not free is straightforwardly false.

You are lost here, and you are failing to hear what Lessans is saying. I hate to say this but all of your learning is actually interfering. It's too much static and it's getting in the way. You keep coming back with canned answers that do not negate this knowledge whatsoever.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is where you are so off course in your logic that I'm not even going to address it. You'll only come back telling me I'm in denial.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yep, that response never fails to amuse. I'm so wrong that you won't even bother explaining how! Who do you think you're kidding with such absurd evasions?

You are the one that's evading all of Lessans' explanations with answers that are clearly mistaken. I can't help but think, "Do you consider yourself the cream of the crop"? If so, I think I may be reaching the wrong group of people.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it will be in everyone's best interest, not just collectively. Since will is not free, a person cannot choose to hurt others by blaming when he signed an agreement anymore than you could do something against your better judgment.

This is absurd thinking Spacemonkey. It is in our best interest not to blame collectively or individually. This is not just about what's better for the group over what's better for oneself. This is not a contest wherein I could lose if I am cooperative. Your logic is faulty.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

False on both counts, for the same reasons I've been patiently explaining for the last several posts. The absence of free will does not prevent a person from blaming or from wanting to blame others. And it will not be in everybody's individual best interests to refrain from blaming, for there is no motivation to refrain from blaming until the New World is already in effect. You have a Catch-22 situation, where no-one can be sure that they will never be blamed until the New World is first in place, and the New World cannot be put in place until everyone first knows that they will never be blamed. And of course you can lose if you co-operate by refraining from blame when others don't. Others will be able to trample all over you, and you'll be doing nothing to stop it because you won't be holding them accountable. No blame only works if it is adopted almost universally (and also if his silly assumptions about conscience were correct), and it will not be adopted by individuals for the same reason that the prisoner will confess.

You cannot compare the prisoner's dilemma with the new world in which people are signing a contract based on the two-sided equation You obviously don't even have a basic understanding as to why "no blame" is not a postulate. Prisoners are right to be concerned that an agreement to confess by both parties may not be a trustworthy situation, especially when the person who does not confess will be freed. It's a set up for distrust. How you can compare this to the new world is unfair? The prisoners dilemma is a situation that comes out of a free will environment. Without the two-sided equation in place it would be a fair assessment that people would be able to trample all over you with no accountability, but it's impossible to take advantage under the changed conditions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If people don't want to sign, they don't have to sign. We are only talking about people who have become citizens. They will treat all people as if they are already citizens, and the police will still be necessary for those people who do things that hurt others. If someone does blame, the person who is the citizen will turn the other cheek, which is what stops the attack and the retaliation thereof.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are arguing against a strawman again. My objection was not that people would be forced to sign something they reject.

That's not what I'm saying either. I'm saying that people who willingly sign the agreement will do this only when they are sure of the outcome. And the only way we can know the outcome is because man's will is not free to do what does not give them greater satisfaction. They will have no choice in this matter because not to trample on anyone will be the more preferabe choice, which is the only direction man can go.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can only blame-shift in anticipation that you are going to be blamed but what good is rationalizing when you know that no one is blaming you? You cannot rationalize to yourself that what you plan on doing is okay with your conscience. It doesn't work Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

More unsupported assertions. If people can blame-shift by anticipating blame from others, then they can blame-shift by anticipating a guilty conscience. You've done nothing to show that this is not the case.

I give up Spacemonkey. How can people anticipate blame from others when they know they are not going to be blamed by those who have become citizens and signed the agreement. I already explained why citizens would never breach this promise not to blame. How could they get satisfaction from blaming when everyone would be compelled to turn the other cheek for doing what they promised not to do in an effort to get this new world off the ground? They could not do it, yet you are assuming they could, which is a mistake in your logic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is where you are wrong. A person who signs this agreement could never get greater satisfaction out of cheating the taxpayers knowing they will only turn the other cheek in response even though they are hurt. He can't cheat under these conditions. There is no "could they hurt me or go against what they promised." This is a much more powerful law than the prisoner's dilemma where they really don't know if someone would live up to their end of the bargain.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This has nothing to do with what you were replying to, and you are quoting words I never said. My point was: Co-operation can be achieved between the two prisoners if they know and trust each other and make their agreement before being caught, but you cannot get this degree of trust and co-operation in advance between and among the entire population of the planet, or even any significant portion of it. That's absurdly unrealistic.

But even then you can't completely rely on this promise between prisoners because one will have a better pay off by not confessing, even though they both would benefit, but to a lesser degree collectively, by cooperating. Spacemonkey, you are wrong on many counts but you don't see it because you think that your reasoning is more sound than Lessans'. That is the farthest thing from the truth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well, you'll have to wait and see then. What more can I say? The ability to shift one's responsibility is an excuse that can be used to justify an act of crime. The reason for this is that one would know that, if caught, he can offer a reasonable sounding excuse, which weakens conscience, or pay a price by going to jail, which also weakens conscience.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, not addressing what I said. Obviously there's nothing at all more that you can say. (Although obviously that will not stop you from continuing indefinitely to say nothing at all of any substance.) You can't meet the objections which have been raised, and you can't support his assumptions that have been identified.

It's ironic that it is you that is saying much to do about nothing except to defend the compatiblist position in order to maintain the justification to blame and punish which is based on flawed logic, and if you haven't noticed, what we're doing is not working.

p. 14 The fact remains that
these individuals are actually trying to solve problems that are very
much over their heads and what is being revealed to them is only a
method to accomplish the very things they have been attempting to
do, without success. Unfortunately, those endeavoring to correct our
ills appear to be cutting off the heads of a diseased hydra — the more
psychiatrists we graduate, the greater becomes our mental illness; the
more policemen and moralists we have, the greater and more prevalent
become our crimes; the more diplomats, statesmen, generals and
armies we have, the greater and more destructive become our wars.
And as an expedient to the situation we find ourselves being taxed to
death while our cost of living steadily rises.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Truly, the people I have presented this to are a drop in the bucket. There are thousands upon thousands of people I have yet to reach. Not everyone will scrap this major work like you have done.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There you go yet again resorting to the excuse that you haven't really started promoting yet. And this is why you never will move beyond your current comfort zone of non-promotion. Because so long as you aren't really trying, you don't have to face up to the fact that you aren't really succeeding.

You are using the fact that people have not accepted this book as a standard in which to judge its accuracy which is completely unscientific. I'm surprised at you. Secondly, I will promote this book in good time and it won't be because of your bullying tactics.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And how are you defining "true" freedom of the will? I've already explained why the compatibilist notion of freedom is the only kind relevant to blameworthiness.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a made-up definition, constructed for the purpose of giving blame and punishment legitimacy.

So what is the non made up definition of true free will? When you say "true freedom of the will" what exactly do you mean? What would "true freedom of the will" look like if it were to exist?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I thought that I had just answered your questions. Apparently not to your satisfaction.

Neither in this thread, nor in the real world, do I attempt to set limits on God. To do so would be the height of hubris. I do, however, recognize that there are limits on my capacity to comprehend God, much less accurately describe or explain God.

Absolutely true. We're just trying to understand God a little bit better, and He is giving us no choice in the matter.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So what is the non made up definition of true free will? When you say "true freedom of the will" what exactly do you mean? What would "true freedom of the will" look like if it were to exist?

I told you many times that free will would mean we could hurt people under any antecedent condition (that is the very definition of free will), but this is not true which proves conclusively that we are controlled by a higher law of man's nature. I do not care what definitions compatibilists present, as if they get a free pass. It's a falsely constructed definition to try to make it appear as if free will is compatible with determinism. It is not. These two positions are mutually exclusive as any two positions would be if they do not blend. It's amazing to me that Spacemonkey won't let his guard down long enough to listen to the reasoning, instead of being defensive. I know that's not gonna happen. He is the top gun and it would mess up his reputation if he admitted he may be wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Indeed. Limitations cannot be placed on God any more than they can be placed on the bountiful wonders of Lessans' New World, and largely for the same reason.

Limitations cannot be placed on God or the bountiful wonders of the Golden Age if this is God's will. We can't do anything about it but follow the laws of our nature, which we have no control over and forces us into checkmate.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Limitations cannot be placed on God or the bountiful wonders of the Golden Age if this is God's will. We can't do anything about it but follow the laws of our nature, which we have no control over and forces us into checkmate.

Referencing God and then claiming that man 'does not' have free will, is in contradiction to most religious teachings that I am aware of. Without free will we are just robots going throught the motions without meaning, free will is the only way worship has any meaning.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

God is a very poor choice of metaphor unless you mean to imply that the impersonal laws of the universe possess intelligence, will, intention and purpose and take a specific interest in human well-being. God, as metaphor, suggests qualities that are pretty much the opposite of impersonal laws of the universe. Not too surprising though, given that Lessans' use of the words undeniable, scientific and mathematical is also pretty much the opposite of those words actually mean.

No they are not Angakuk. He clarified those words so they could be interchanged throughout the book and not be misconstrued. Stop picking on him for no reason. I like the word "God" because there appears to be an intelligence governing this universe. Using the word "God" in the context I am using it may help close the gap between science and religion as it pertains to this thread. If we are moving toward a world of peace, it appears that this world did not come about by a throw of the dice, or by chance. If there is design to the universe, it means that man does not stand alone. The word "God" symbolizes this worldview, but it does not mean that there is a personal God pulling strings up in the sky.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Referencing God and then claiming that man 'does not' have free will, is in contradiction to most religious teachings that I am aware of. Without free will we are just robots going throught the motions without meaning, free will is the only way worship has any meaning.

Having no free will does not turn us into robots. It's true that in order for religion to have meaning it was necessary for man to believe in freedom of the will as part of his development, but we don't turn away from the truth just because it is contradictory to most religious teachings.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Having no free will does not turn us into robots. It's true that in order for religion to have meaning it was necessary for man had to believe in freedom of the will as part of his development, but we don't turn away from the truth just because it is contradictory to most religious teachings.

Mixing religious dogma and objective, emperical proof, just does not work, you really should pick one or the other.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Mixing religious dogma and objective, emperical proof, just does not work, you really should pick one or the other.

I don't have to. I already explained why I believe the word "God" used in this context is not contradictory.

[Spacemonkey]

Poor Peacegirl. I see your compulsion has taken over again and you couldn't even take a break for a single day. Not even for your own birthday. A break YOU had planned and said you needed. You just couldn't do it. When it came down to it your compulsion took hold and left you with no choice. You really will be stuck here until you die, running around in circles getting nowhere.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Mixing religious dogma and objective, emperical proof, just does not work, you really should pick one or the other.

No, because this knowledge reveals God or this Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe through mathematical laws.

p. 40 This discussion on chance brings forcibly to the attention of the
reader the fact that this world did not come about by chance. The
purpose of this book is to prove undeniably that there is design to the
universe. By delivering mankind from evil, the last vestige of doubt
is removed. Through our deliverance, God is revealed to us; but the
evil is not removed to prove that God is not a figment of the
imagination, but only because it is evil. He becomes an
epiphenomenon of this tremendous fire that will be built to burn away
the evil, and the light that is shed reveals His presence as the cause of
the evil that He is now removing through these discoveries which He
also caused; and no person alive will be able to dispute these
undeniable facts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Poor Peacegirl. I see your compulsion has taken over again and you couldn't even take a break for a single day. Not even for your own birthday. A break YOU had planned and said you needed. You just couldn't do it. When it came down to it your compulsion took hold and left you with no choice. You really will be stuck here until you die, running around in circles getting nowhere.

Not true. You are the one with the compulsion. I will take a break when I feel like it, not because I have to answer to you. You really aren't as good of a philosopher as you think you are, I'm sorry to say. And I would appreciate that you stop patronizing me.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true. You are the one with the compulsion. I will take a break when I feel like it, not because I have to answer to you. You really aren't as good of a philosopher as you think you are, I'm sorry to say. And I would appreciate that you stop patronizing me.

Sadly it's very true. You DID want to take a break and still couldn't do it. Your compulsion has taken control of you Peacegirl, and unless you seek help you will never break free of it.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No they are not Angakuk. He clarified those words so they could be interchanged throughout the book and not be misconstrued. Stop picking on him for no reason. I like the word "God" because there appears to be an intelligence governing this universe. Using the word "God" in the context I am using it may help close the gap between science and religion as it pertains to this thread. If we are moving toward a world of peace, it appears that this world did not come about by a throw of the dice, or by chance. If there is design to the universe, it means that man does not stand alone. The word "God" symbolizes this worldview, but it does not mean that there is a personal God pulling strings up in the sky.

If that is the case then you don't really mean "impersonal laws of the universe" when you use the word "God". Impersonal laws governing the universe and "an intelligence governing the universe" are two very different things. Laws may be intelligently constructed but they are not, themselves, intelligent. Laws may be constructed that further some particular purpose, but laws, themselves, do not possess purpose. You can talk about an intelligence that governs the universe and distinguish that from the idea of a personal deity but that governing intelligence is still not the same thing as a law or body of laws. As long as you are talking about something that possesses intellect, will, interest and intention you are not talking about impersonal laws. The terms "God" and "impersonal laws of the universe" are not interchangeable and you and Lessans don't actually use them as if they were.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If that is the case then you don't really mean "impersonal laws of the universe" when you use the word "God". Impersonal laws governing the universe and "an intelligence governing the universe" are two very different things. Laws may be intelligently constructed but they are not, themselves, intelligent. Laws may be constructed that further some particular purpose, but laws, themselves, do not possess purpose. You can talk about an intelligence that governs the universe and distinguish that from the idea of a personal deity but that governing intelligence is still not the same thing as a law or body of laws. As long as you are talking about something that possesses intellect, will, interest and intention you are not talking about impersonal laws. The terms "God" and "impersonal laws of the universe" are not interchangeable and you and Lessans don't actually use them as if they were.

All I am saying is that as a result of this knowledge, there appears to be a Supreme Intelligence, or a mathematical reality of infinite wisdom, governing our Universe. Lessans uses the word "God" throughout the book in this context, and I like it because it gives life meaning, not to say that we can't find meaning without it, but it does add to the feeling that life has purpose.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I am saying is that as a result of this knowledge, there appears to be a Supreme Intelligence, or a mathematical reality of infinite wisdom, governing our Universe. Lessans uses the word "God" throughout the book in this context, and I like it because it gives life meaning, not to say that we can't find meaning without it, but it does add to the feeling that life has purpose.

If you are speaking of God as a supreme intelligence governing the universe, then you are obviously not using the term merely as a metaphor for the impersonal laws of the universe.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will take a break when I feel like it.

But not when you say you are going to.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by koan

It's really amazing how you constantly tell us he "never" said something. Then we show you where he said it. Then you tell us that we are misinterpreting it and then we prove there is no other interpretation then you sometimes admit you don't know why he said it that way. Then you go back to pretending he never said it.

It gets especially surreal when she spends days or even weeks stoutly insisting that Lessans has "clearly and undeniably" demonstrated that something is true -- only to discover that she has actually mis-remembered what Lessans wrote. At which point she instantly switches to arguing the exact opposite of what she had been previously arguing.

And all the while she will stoutly refuse to admit to having switched positions.


It's the clearest demonstration you could ever hope for that her sole criterion for "truth" is "Lessans said it was so."


For a really spectacular example, you might slog through the early parts of the threads for the time when she was doggedly insisting that since a camera doesn't have a brain, it doesn't "see" in "real time" like the human eye supposedly does.

Even when people pointed out how this would mean that when we looked at distant objects, what we saw and what the camera "saw" would be distinctly different, she doggedly insisted that cameras don't see in real time, but the human eye does.

Even when it was pointed out that this would mean that we could see a distant supernova for centuries or even millennia before it was possible to photograph it, she doggedly insisted that, all evidence to the contrary, cameras and eyes see differently.

Her "justification" was that we must have gotten the speed of light wrong, and it would have to be "recalculated" -- yeah, that would explain why we can't detect discrepancies between when a camera sees something happening and when an eye sees it happening.

Oh, and those "distant" supernovae -- including those occurring in other galaxies? They're probably actually quite close to us. Why the Earth hasn't been vaporized by these supernovae that would necessarily have been closer to us than the planet Jupiter was never adequately addressed.



In any event, she suddenly discovered that she'd misinterpreted the Holy Text, and that Lessans hadn't been claiming that cameras see in delayed time. So she immediately switched to advocating the "undeniable" claim that cameras see in "real time" too -- and even denied that she had ever claimed otherwise.

[thedoc]

I would sincerely like to thank all those who are willing to slog through the book and the threads to point up all the discrepencies from the book and the thread, it certainly saves me a lot of effort that I just cannot justify spending on Lessans nonsense. I hope you are all looking forward to a very merry Christmas, Just try to remember why we celebrate this particular day in history.

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because this knowledge reveals God or this Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe through mathematical laws.

p. 40 This discussion on chance brings forcibly to the attention of the
reader the fact that this world did not come about by chance. The
purpose of this book is to prove undeniably that there is design to the
universe. By delivering mankind from evil, the last vestige of doubt
is removed. Through our deliverance, God is revealed to us; but the
evil is not removed to prove that God is not a figment of the
imagination, but only because it is evil. He becomes an
epiphenomenon of this tremendous fire that will be built to burn away
the evil, and the light that is shed reveals His presence as the cause of
the evil that He is now removing through these discoveries which He
also caused; and no person alive will be able to dispute these
undeniable facts.

Jesus disputed that God had omnipotence over the designed world:

Jesus Insulted God - Jacque Fresco - YouTube

that's pretty cheeky for his son to insult God's intelligence in such a way, no?