A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm asking why you said that light only has to be at the object and not at the retina. Why did you say that?

Okay. So when were they at the surface of the Sun? How long before the Sun was ignited were these photons at its surface?

The Sun was ignited at 12:00. The photons are at the retina then, at 12:00. When were these photons at the surface of the Sun? At 11:52? Before 11:52? Between 11:52 and 12:00? After 12:00?

Bump.

[sadie]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sadie, we're definitely human and have human frustrations. But to speak of one's frustration when her computer freezes to a "universal vicious streak" that we cannot alter, are not fair comparisons. I do believe we are all capable, if pressed hard enough, to become vicious. But that same predisposition for negativity can become a force for good, if we're given the right circumstances in which the good can manifest.

Because life as been gentle to me, my sins are trivial, as are my virtues, so my peccadillos are irrelevant.

How, may I ask, is this wonderful new world going to evolve when, thus far, every Utopian dream has failed? Moral purity is smeared, not only by dramatic psychopaths, like the guy in the news whose fantasies revolved around cutting a women's feet off and eating them in front of her, but the run-of-the-mill creeps who exploit others in more genteel ways. Frankly, we are all a bit sleazy to some degree. Listen to the exchange of opinions that takes place during election years and you will quickly observe how self-interested, ignorant and malicious most of us are, even when we are fairly well-educated and secure. Even St Paul, as filled with faith and committed to virtue as he was, complained, "I don't understand myself. I want to do what is right but I do not do it. Instead, I do the very thing I hate ... It seems to be a fact of life that when I want to do what's right, I inevitably do what's wrong."

Yes, the examples I provided in regard to my own life are insignificant, but change the conditions, give me some power, and I might decide Mr. Trump should be buried in sand up to his neck at low tide. I'd sell that awful gold- encrusted furniture of his and feed about a 1000 people for a year.

So...how does your dad and how do you suggest we resolve a stubborn and intractable problem that has bedeviled mankind since the earliest civilizations? How are you going to do away with lust, violence, greed, envy, indifference and whatever the other 2 deadly sins are?

Aside from his lack of scientific understanding which everyone has been complaining about, your Dad's proposals seem to be the dreams of a man devoid of both common sense and realism.

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People analyze other people all the time, but there is a danger in diagnosing people online in a non-clinical setting. It is very hurtful to be cast in a certain light when it's a malevolent attack intended to cause harm. What if i was weak and took to heart what NA said about me? People have to be careful what they say because they don't know how a negative comment could affect someone. I am not weak and I can ignore him and others. But you never know how your words might cause lasting damage that leaves indelible scars. People often take things to heart even though the person speaking is anonymous and hiding behind a computer screen. Look at the poor kids who have been bullied online. This is no different.

"You never know how your words might cause lasting damage that leaves indeliable scars etc. etc." - Welcome to life. What's fortunate about it is that our scars help make us who we are; they remind us that the past, and what we went through, is real; they remind us that we are not invulnerable and contained within ourselves...that there is an external world which we cannot control that can wreak havoc on us.

And as a (literary) theorist and not a psychoanalyst, I use depth-psychological ideas in a non-clinical setting. I don't pretend to offer a "diagnosis," but that doesn't mean that non-analysts can't discern these dynamics in the people they communicate with.

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what he meant traumaturist. You don't have to patronize me. In donating something that has to be applied, you cannot make a perfect prediction because there are so many variables. Predicting an eclipse is much easier because it is not dependent on human behavior.

Oh, but from what you quote him saying about war and crime, he most certainly does assume his prediction is perfect in the sense that it is inevitable!! And peacegirl, this is the point you are incapable of accepting or engaging with: the fact that when one says X is inevitable, that it will definitely come - we just don't know when - one makes an assertion that cannot be proven one way or another. It is a statement of faith and, as such, is religious.

Originally Posted by traumagurist

Man "has no choice," and yet is "compelled of his own free will." Pure contradiction which, intellectually speaking, is an insult to hundreds of years of thoughtful engagement with and articulation of the paradox of "fate"/destiny/character and free will.

Originally Posted by traumaturist

As I have stated before: merely stating we don't have free will is not making a cogent argument that we don't have free will. I think you and this guy Lessans should read some real philosophy on the subject - I'd recommend Schelling's Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom - a difficult but infinitely rewarding text.

I am sure there is no real disagreement between what Lessans says, "Doing something of one's own free will", and the essense of human freedom.

But waitasec - isnt' this selective quoting? Didn't you say before, ventriloquizing Lessans (which you love to do), that "man's will is not free"?!?!

But again, semantics can really get in the way of the truth. I already see that you've developed a negative attitude toward me the minute you say: You and this guy Lessans should read some real philosophy on the subject." How demeaning can one be when "this guy" has made a discovery that can prevent war and crime, and all the other evils plaguing mankind. That's gonna put a real damper on our ability to communicate in any positive way.

1. "this guy" is neither laudatory nor derogatory. If what you say about Lessans is true (and I need to remind you - AGAIN - that I am focusing on your words and not Lessans', since I haven't read him - and want to less and less the more I hear you defend him) - if what you say adequately represents Lessans (and if you didn't believe that you wouldn't be here) - then his "philosophizing" is the logical equivalent of a drunken rhinocerous rampaging through a fine china store.

2. "Can" prevent war and crime? According to you it will prevent war and crime - a claim which cannot be substantiated thanks to the Tarot-Card Syndrome I have already explained, aka the Messianic Deferral. Are you assuming an ad hominem as a copout (which it is)?

Everything that man has experienced and gone through up to this point could not have been any other way. Unfortunately, he could not predict exactly when this new world would become a reality because of the multitute of factors involved that would play a role in the timing.

Which is precisely why he believes, but cannot know that this "new world" will come.

I am sorry that just because he was certain of his knowledge, you are just as certain that he must be wrong. His prediction is solid and remains so. But you will not understand why unless you have an understanding of why this new age of peace and prosperity cannot be stopped. It is an inevitability, which is based on the untapped knowledge that lies behind the door marked "man's will is not free."

You haven't been paying attention to what I've been writing. I have said repeatedly that I have no problem with what you're saying Lessans is saying...as a statement of belief. I formally challenge you to find any place where I have stated "Lessans is wrong." If it was true for him, then it was true for him - and he'd be foolish to demand anyone else believe it.

I can predict I will win the lottery in the future with precisely as much validity and "solidity" as the prediction you attribute to Lessans.

[naturalist.atheist]

traumaturgist, what do the theories of (literary) theory try to predict?

Oh and get used to peacegirl flipping back and forth. From time to time she will also reset.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Once again, Spacemonkey, he was making a distinction between an object that is bright enough to be seen (which would take the Sun seconds, not minutes) once it was turned on; and the photons that have to travel 8 minutes to Earth which is not necessary since light only has to be at the object. But this does not mean that light is not at the retina if the object meets the requirements. That is because efferent vision is different than afferent vision. It's 180 degrees different. Therefore, if we are able to see the object, that means we are in optical range due to light. But light does not cause us to see anything. We see the object due to light's presence. It becomes the bridge to the external world, not the carrier of the external world. You know what I mean by carrier. Please don't give the analogy about the basket being the light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what he meant traumaturist. You don't have to patronize me. In donating something that has to be applied, you cannot make a perfect prediction because there are so many variables. Predicting an eclipse is much easier because it is not dependent on human behavior.

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Oh, but from what you quote him saying about war and crime, he most certainly does assume his prediction is perfect in the sense that it is inevitable!! And peacegirl, this is the point you are incapable of accepting or engaging with: the fact that when one says X is inevitable, that it will definitely come - we just don't know when - one makes an assertion that cannot be proven one way or another. It is a statement of faith and, as such, is religious.

The only reason he predicted this is because people cannot move against what they believe is in their best interest. That's why mankind has developed to the degree it has; we improve on things, we don't go backwards. Yes, sometimes we go one step forward and two steps back, but many times civilization takes great leaps forward.

Originally Posted by traumagurist

Man "has no choice," and yet is "compelled of his own free will." Pure contradiction which, intellectually speaking, is an insult to hundreds of years of thoughtful engagement with and articulation of the paradox of "fate"/destiny/character and free will.

Originally Posted by traumaturist

As I have stated before: merely stating we don't have free will is not making a cogent argument that we don't have free will. I think you and this guy Lessans should read some real philosophy on the subject - I'd recommend Schelling's Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom - a difficult but infinitely rewarding text.

I am sure there is no real disagreement between what Lessans says, "Doing something of one's own free will", and the essense of human freedom.

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

But waitasec - isnt' this selective quoting? Didn't you say before, ventriloquizing Lessans (which you love to do), that "man's will is not free"?!?!

Yes, man's will is not free, but if you don't understand his definition (because you haven't read the book), you won't be able to understand what he means by that. Doing what one wants to do, or of one's own free will (without constraint), does not actually mean one has free will. There is no way I can actually have a productive conversation with you if you refuse to read the chapters necessary. It's like there's no communication whatsoever.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

p. 54 The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?

But again, semantics can really get in the way of the truth. I already see that you've developed a negative attitude toward me the minute you say: You and this guy Lessans should read some real philosophy on the subject." How demeaning can one be when "this guy" has made a discovery that can prevent war and crime, and all the other evils plaguing mankind. That's gonna put a real damper on our ability to communicate in any positive way.

Originally Posted by tramaturist

1. "this guy" is neither laudatory nor derogatory. If what you say about Lessans is true (and I need to remind you - AGAIN - that I am focusing on your words and not Lessans', since I haven't read him - and want to less and less the more I hear you defend him) - if what you say adequately represents Lessans (and if you didn't believe that you wouldn't be here) - then his "philosophizing" is the logical equivalent of a drunken rhinocerous rampaging through a fine china store.

Why do you say that? I am the one presenting his discovery. Do you think Mendel, who knew he was correct, had to ask every tom, dick, and harry for their critique on his work? Even Nageli, the leading authority, disagreed with the very core of his discovery? If the leading authority couldn't understand his discovery and, therefore, discredited Mendel, what chance do you think my father has even in his death? It's the same situation.

Originally Posted by traumaturist

2. "Can" prevent war and crime? According to you it will prevent war and crime - a claim which cannot be substantiated thanks to the Tarot-Card Syndrome I have already explained, aka the Messianic Deferral. Are you assuming an ad hominem as a copout (which it is)?

What ad hominem am I using as a copout? This knowledge has the power to prevent war and crime, if it is applied globally. I can have the raw material to build a bridge that is so strong it has no chance of corroding or collapsing, but I haven't built it yet. That does not mean I cannot make a solid prediction that when it is built, my prediction will come true because I have enough evidence to support what I'm saying.

Everything that man has experienced and gone through up to this point could not have been any other way. Unfortunately, he could not predict exactly when this new world would become a reality because of the multitute of factors involved that would play a role in the timing.

Originally Posted by traumaturist

Which is precisely why he believes, but cannot know that this "new world" will come.

Not true. This is not about belief. But it is true that it may take another century for democracy to spread before this knowledge will be taken seriously. I cannot predict when it will occur, but I can predict that it will occur and be very confident in that prediction.

I am sorry that just because he was certain of his knowledge, you are just as certain that he must be wrong. His prediction is solid and remains so. But you will not understand why unless you have an understanding of why this new age of peace and prosperity cannot be stopped. It is an inevitability, which is based on the untapped knowledge that lies behind the door marked "man's will is not free."

Originally Posted by traumaturist

You haven't been paying attention to what I've been writing. I have said repeatedly that I have no problem with what you're saying Lessans is saying...as a statement of belief. I formally challenge you to find any place where I have stated "Lessans is wrong." If it was true for him, then it was true for him - and he'd be foolish to demand anyone else believe it.

I can predict I will win the lottery in the future with precisely as much validity and "solidity" as the prediction you attribute to Lessans.

First you say you haven't stated anywhere that Lessans is wrong, and in the next breath you state that his prediction is as close to being valid as winning a future lottery. The odds are a lot more in Lessans' favor than winning the biggest lottery, but as I stated, exactly when this knowledge will come to light cannot be predicted with complete accuracy.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once again, Spacemonkey, he was making a distinction between an object that is bright enough to be seen (which would take the Sun seconds, not minutes) once it was turned on; and the photons that have to travel 8 minutes to Earth which is not necessary since light only has to be at the object. But this does not mean that light is not at the retina if the object meets the requirements. That is because efferent vision is different than afferent vision. It's 180 degrees different. Therefore, if we are able to see the object, that means we are in optical range due to light. But light does not cause us to see anything. We see the object due to light's presence. It becomes the bridge to the external world, not the carrier of the external world. You know what I mean by carrier. Please don't give the analogy about the basket being the light.

Once again, you haven't answered any of the questions I asked. You said the photons at the eye (when the Sun is first ignited) were previously located at the surface of the Sun. When were they located there?

The Sun was ignited at 12:00. The photons are at the retina then, at 12:00. When were these photons at the surface of the Sun? At 11:52? Before 11:52? Between 11:52 and 12:00? After 12:00?

Please answer.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once again, Spacemonkey, he was making a distinction between an object that is bright enough to be seen (which would take the Sun seconds, not minutes) once it was turned on; and the photons that have to travel 8 minutes to Earth which is not necessary since light only has to be at the object. But this does not mean that light is not at the retina if the object meets the requirements. That is because efferent vision is different than afferent vision. It's 180 degrees different. Therefore, if we are able to see the object, that means we are in optical range due to light. But light does not cause us to see anything. We see the object due to light's presence. It becomes the bridge to the external world, not the carrier of the external world. You know what I mean by carrier. Please don't give the analogy about the basket being the light.

As we've been explaining for over a year, the direction the eyes see cannot make light teleport 93 million miles. Efferent vision cannot change the properties of light.

If the light is on the Sun it cannot at the retina or on camera film at the same time, because the light isn't there yet, it is on the Sun.

Mirror images and flip side of coins do not at all explain this physical location problem you have, because it posits a second physical location for light to be at without a mechanism explaining how it is located there.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Lessans

The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’

I thought you said, many many times, we can't have acted otherwise ever? Yet Lessans states that this is, in fact, the case, we could have acted otherwise if desired. Hmm, that's a contradiction.

[LadyShea]

Do you think Mendel, who knew he was correct, had to ask every tom, dick, and harry for their critique on his work? Even Nageli, the leading authority, disagreed with the very core of his discovery? If the leading authority couldn't understand his discovery and, therefore, discredited Mendel, what chance do you think my father has even in his death? It's the same situation.

This is a misrepresentation of what actually happened, as has been pointed out to you many times by TLR

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Once again, you haven't answered any of the questions I asked. You said the photons at the eye (when the Sun is first ignited) were previously located at the surface of the Sun. When were they located there?

The Sun was ignited at 12:00. The photons are at the retina then, at 12:00. When were these photons at the surface of the Sun? At 11:52? Before 11:52? Between 11:52 and 12:00? After 12:00?

Please answer.

I don't know the exact timeframe that the Sun's photons would become bright enough to meet the requirements of efferent sight. It's not important to this discussion. What's important is that as long as the conditions of efferent sight are met, we will automatically be within visual range and the photons will reflect at the retina exactly what we see (optics). This model does not involve any delays unless, as I said, the object hasn't grown large enough for it to be within a camera's field of view or one's optical range. I know this is not going to satisfy you Spacemonkey. I don't think anything will because you are convinced that our eyes are afferent.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is a misrepresentation of what actually happened, as has been pointed out to you many times by TLR

Well, that's what I read, and it's good enough for me. He was rejected because Nageli did not agree with the core of his discovery, and Nageli was the leading authority at the time, so what could Mendel do? There was no one else higher than Nageli. That must have been the most frustrating thing for Mendel anyone can imagine.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well, that's what I read, and it's good enough for me.

Where did you read it? What's your source for that representation of the events? How did you vet the source for accuracy? Why is it "good enough" for you? Do you believe everything you read?

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Third bump

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I thought you said, many many times, we can't have acted otherwise ever? Yet Lessans states that this is, in fact, the case, we could have acted otherwise if desired. Hmm, that's a contradiction.

No, the definition of determinism rests on the fact that we could have done otherwise had we desired. This definition does not exclude the will. That's why the conventional definition is misleading because it leaves out the will entirely, as if things happen to us, or cause us to act in ways that go against our will. The standard definition of determinism assumes that if we are free to choose, that means our will is free, but that is false. It just means that we desired to choose this over that in the direction of greater satisfaction. Had we desired to choose something else, that would have been the choice in the direction of greater satisfaction, rendering any other choice at that moment an impossibility. this is not a tautology or circular reasoning just because any decision we make is in this direction. It means that we can only go in one direction, which explains why, under certain conditions, it will be impossible to prefer hurting others as a preferable alternative.

[LadyShea]

Here are Mendel's letters to Nageli

Letters translated to English in pdf

Should you want to read the actual source materials like a scholar would.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As we've been explaining for over a year, the direction the eyes see cannot make light teleport 93 million miles. Efferent vision cannot change the properties of light.

If the light is on the Sun it cannot at the retina or on camera film at the same time, because the light isn't there yet, it is on the Sun.

Mirror images and flip side of coins do not at all explain this physical location problem you have, because it posits a second physical location for light to be at without a mechanism explaining how it is located there.

That's because the distance when looking out at the world, through the eyes, is the same whether the object is the Sun or a candle. They both are within optical range which would allow the object to be seen because the requirements have been met. You can't wrap your head around the fact that there appears to be a gap between light that has not yet arrived, but that's only because you are counting on light to bring the image through space/time. That's not what is necessary for sight in the efferent account because light brings nothing. It reveals the external world, if Lessans is right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here are Mendel's letters to Nageli

Letters translated to English in pdf

Should you want to read the actual source materials like a scholar would.

I have no problem with that. I'm curious if Nageli disagreed with Mendel's paper. I can't read this at the moment, but I will save it to read it later.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by sadie

Because life as been gentle to me, my sins are trivial, as are my virtues, so my peccadillos are irrelevant.

How, may I ask, is this wonderful new world going to evolve when, thus far, every Utopian dream has failed? Moral purity is smeared, not only by dramatic psychopaths, like the guy in the news whose fantasies revolved around cutting a women's feet off and eating them in front of her, but the run-of-the-mill creeps who exploit others in more genteel ways. Frankly, we are all a bit sleazy to some degree. Listen to the exchange of opinions that takes place during election years and you will quickly observe how self-interested, ignorant and malicious most of us are, even when we are fairly well-educated and secure. Even St Paul, as filled with faith and committed to virtue as he was, complained, "I don't understand myself. I want to do what is right but I do not do it. Instead, I do the very thing I hate ... It seems to be a fact of life that when I want to do what's right, I inevitably do what's wrong."

Yes, the examples I provided in regard to my own life are insignificant, but change the conditions, give me some power, and I might decide Mr. Trump should be buried in sand up to his neck at low tide. I'd sell that awful gold- encrusted furniture of his and feed about a 1000 people for a year.

So...how does your dad and how do you suggest we resolve a stubborn and intractable problem that has bedeviled mankind since the earliest civilizations? How are you going to do away with lust, violence, greed, envy, indifference and whatever the other 2 deadly sins are?

Aside from his lack of scientific understanding which everyone has been complaining about, your Dad's proposals seem to be the dreams of a man devoid of both common sense and realism.

I know it sounds impossible to create a world of lasting peace, but this is not my knowledge, nor was it my father's. These are laws and, as such, they have more power to change what man could never achieve on his own. That is why I'm asking people to contain their skepticism long enough to take this knowledge seriously. Until people do take it seriously, they will continue to make fun of what they do not understand. Violence, greed, envy, indifference, and the other two sins, are all part of a free will society. You cannot even begin to envision a world in which these things will be forever gone coming from this vantage point. That is why it is so difficult to even contemplate such a world. I get that. But that doesn't mean it can't happen now that we have the knowledge at our fingertips that can make it happen.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the definition of determinism rests on the fact that we could have done otherwise had we desired. This definition does not exclude the will. That's why the conventional definition is misleading because it leaves out the will entirely, as if things happen to us, or cause us to act in ways that go against our will. The standard definition of determinism assumes that if we are free to choose, that means our will is free, but that is false. It just means that we desired to choose this over that in the direction of greater satisfaction. Had we desired to choose something else, that would have been the choice in the direction of greater satisfaction, rendering any other choice at that moment an impossibility. this is not a tautology or circular reasoning just because any decision we make is in this direction.

So every time you've said nobody could have chosen otherwise in any possible alternative world, you really meant they could have chosen otherwise in an alternative world where they desired to act otherwise?

Why were you so adamant that there was no possible counterfactual when Lessans had a counterfactual right in his work? I had missed that sentence completely...but you shouldn't have as many times as you've read the book. And you even use the exact phrasing "chosen otherwise" in your statements.

Did you not understand that what Lessans said was an alternative world counterfactual?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no problem with that. I'm curious if Nageli disagreed with Mendel's paper. I can't read this at the moment, but I will save it to read it later.

He disagreed, sure, but it wasn't some big public discrediting causing Mendel frustration and anguish as you seem to think. Mendel chose to only publish two papers; he did most of his work in private and consulted with his colleagues via letters without trying to convince the world of his correctness.

He didn't seem to really understand exactly what he had discovered himself, contrary to your statements, he certainly wasn't claiming to be undeniably right as Lessans did. He uses qualifiers like "I suspect...." and "I consider it likely...." not "I have absolutely proven" like Lessans. He also detailed how painstaking he was in performing his experiemtns in the utmost controlled and careful manner. He continued with his work even without Nageli's blessing.

His letters are an example of how a humble man who has stumbled onto a discovery of natural laws writes.

Originally Posted by mendel-museum.com

Between 1866-1873 Mendel corresponded with Carl Nägeli (1817-91), Professor of Botany at the University of Munich and an authority in plant hybrids. Nägeli was convinced that hybrids were generally unstable and he could not agree with Mendel's theory that the characters passed onto hybrids from their parents were constant. The period of Mendel's correspondence with Nägeli [i] coincides with the experiments with the Hieracium which disappointingly seemed to prove Nägeli right. Mendel's observed what he called "a peculiar behaviour of the hybrids" which he was unable to explain - i.e. that the Hieracium exhibited both sexual and a-sexual reproduction (a phenomenon known as apomixis).

[LadyShea]

That's because the distance when looking out at the world, through the eyes, is the same whether the object is the Sun or a candle. They both are within optical range which would allow the object to be seen because the requirements have been met.

I didn't ask whether it can or can't be seen. I am asking where the light is located and the physically possible mechanism by which it is located there.

You have stated it is located on the Sun and on the retina/camera film at the same time. The Sun is the emission source, it is emitting electromagnetic radiation through its fusion process. That is the mechanism for how the light is located on the Sun

Now, how is it also located on the retina given the scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon and no light having reached Earth yet?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

light only has to be at the object. But this does not mean that light is not at the retina

[sadie]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know it sounds impossible to create a world of lasting peace, but this is not my knowledge, nor was it my father's. These are laws and, as such, they have more power to change what man could never achieve on his own. That is why I'm asking people to contain their skepticism long enough to take this knowledge seriously. Until people do take it seriously, they will continue to make fun of what they do not understand. Violence, greed, envy, indifference, and the other two sins, are all part of a free will society. You cannot even begin to envision a world in which these things will be forever gone coming from this vantage point. That is why it is so difficult to even contemplate such a world. I get that. But that doesn't mean it can't happen now that we have the knowledge at our fingertips that can make it happen.

I'm confused. What laws are you talking about? God's laws? Or do you mean your father's discoveries?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where did you read it? What's your source for that representation of the events? How did you vet the source for accuracy? Why is it "good enough" for you? Do you believe everything you read?

Peacegirl read her account in Lessans book, and as we have seen, that is the highest authority, according to Peacegirl.