A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

this is a demonstration of his observations and how he believed conscience works

You mean a presupposition?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is as directly observable by someone who can see beyond the superficial, as apples falling down from trees. It is a general claim in as much as you cannot observe every single person, or apple.

No, general claims are never directly observable. They must always be inferred on the basis of what is directly observable. No-one ever directly observes all falling apples.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing catch all about using the phrase "observation" anymore than using the catch all phrase "observation" when supporting the claim that apples never fall up, only down, from trees. There's no difference.

There is a very important and relevant difference between the two things you are conflating under the term "observation". Seeing a single change of color, or a single falling apple is an observation. But claiming all apples fall downwards (or that conscience is based on a universal standard which will be infallibly perfect once no longer corrupted by blame and other unspecified factors) is not directly observable and can only be inferred on the basis of other actual observations. Lessans' claims are not things directly given in sensory experience. They can only be inferred, and that means their astuteness or accuracy can only be judged with respect to the particular (rather than universal) sensible observations from which they were inferred. Yet he didn't share those, and you have no idea what they might have been. We can state and specify the direct observations of particular falling apples (and other objects) which justify the inductive generalization about all falling apples. You can't do that for Lessans' claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In as much as we know about gravity and we can safely move from the specific to the general that apples fall down from trees as a probable statment, I can accept Lessans' inductive generalizations as probable as well.

Then you are agreeing he was wrong to describe those generalizations as mathematically certain and undeniable, for probable inductive generalizations never have this degree of certainty.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see the humor.

Of course you don't. No-one expects you to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I know what an astute observation is, which does not require defense. If I observe something, it is real if I am not hallucinating. If I see the moon, and somebody says prove it, or explain it, what else can I do to prove to them that it exists if they don't see it with their own eyes? Does that mean that the moon doesn't exist? Just because you don't see what he was able to see, doesn't mean they are inaccurate observations.

No, you don't know what an astute observation is (hence these posts), and Lessans' observations/universal claims do require defense. Without such defense they can and will continue to be rejected. The moon can be seen with one's eyes. The truth of inductive generalizations cannot. (Not even with magical efferent eyes.) They must be inferred.

[LadyShea]

Nice edit

You have to remember that this is a demonstration of how conscience works, and is an accurate description.

And what reason do we have to think conscience works the way Lessans assumed it did?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What answer? Your only answer was that you refuse to answer my questions! I posted the full list, and you refused to answer. I posted the one specific question on that list which you cannot remain consistent on, and you just ignored it.

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

I already showed you the inconsistency, just like I showed you his presuppositions on conscience. Yet you'd rather pretend both do not exist, even when they're right out in the open for all to see:

"You say the properties of the light at the camera determine the nature of the photograph. When I ask you how the light can do that if it never came from the object first, you say that it did travel to the camera from the object (before the picture is taken). But when I ask you how light could change its properties while in transit to match changes in the distant object, you then deny that the light ever travelled from the camera to the object (before the picture was taken)."

I already told you that he had no presuppositions whatsoever.

I also said that the same light that allows us to see an object in real time is the same light that is at the film of a camera. You're trying to differentiate between the time it takes for light to strike the camera, and the eye which sees the object directly, but the eye and the camera are using the same light. I don't think you are going to understand what I'm saying as long as you believe in afferent vision which states that the image has to travel light years to get to the film.

[LadyShea]

afferent vision which states that the image has to travel light years to get to the film.

Uh, taking a picture of an apple across the room requires light to travel light years? No.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nice edit

And what reason do we have to think conscience works the way Lessans assumed it did?

Because his demonstration of what conscience needs in order to permit someone to exploit others is correct. It makes total sense to those who grasp his reasoning. It doesn't make sense to those who don't grasp his reasoning. There will always be people who won't get it, but that doesn't change the fact that these principles will still work under the changed conditions.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your requirement for Lessans to be right is outrageous. You are accusing him of making false presuppositions which never occurred, and then you tell me that until he can support those presuppositions his discovery remains an assertion. What crap!

There is no abuse of these terms. He clarified exactly what he meant by scientific and mathematical. Another false accusation.

The entire connection with feeling guilt and being blameworthy is wrong because you don't have to be blamed to feel remorse. Your entire thought process is incorrect regarding blame and punishment and the development of conscience.

And you have yet to be interested in this book because if you were you would be hungry for more knowledge. You would devour his words (even if you're not quite sure how these principles all come together). At the very least you would give him the floor, but you won't. Your insincerity will ruin any chance of understanding.

It's not a self-contradiction at all. Of course we anticipate our behavior and the consequences thereof. The only difference is the anticipation of a consequence of no blame is worse than the anticipation of punishment, which prevents the act. You don't understand the two-sided equation and I'm not going to get into this because you're not letting me cut and paste. I will not explain this in my own words which would only confuse you more. And you're already so confused I think we're at a point of no return.

Oh, so now you know what I remember and what I don't. What a crock.

You mentioned that there's something wrong if I have had no agreement after 10 years, and that's unsound.

Stop it right now! I'm not going to put up with this anymore. He makes no assumptions. He demonstrates how conscience works in a very clear way, and you don't even want to hear what he has to say. This is not fair and I don't want to talk to you anymore if all you do is tell me that this chapter is unsupported.

Nooooo, he made no presuppositions when it came to this discovery. He had suspicions that he was on the right track, but he took nothing for granted. Your reasoning is so off, and what makes me sad is that you are acting so holy in your defense, when your logic is wrong. If this is what you were taught in school, I'm glad I was a child when I learned this knowledge because you have such a block that I don't think anything will penetrate.

Oh my godddd. You can think you won, but you actually lost and I can't save you from your misguided reasoning. If you believe that you are correct in telling me he didn't support his presuppositions, which he did not have, then our discussion is over. Find another thread.

Was there supposed to be anything in this mess of confusion and denial worth responding to? My position is that the following things are required for the soundness of his first non-discovery arguments, but that they are not actually argued-for or supported in his book:

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

You have two options. You can either show us how his arguments will still work, even if these things are not true. Or you can show us where in his book he specifically argues for and supports them (rather than just asserting or assuming them).

If you can't do either, then they remain unsupported presuppositions.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that the same light that allows us to see an object in real time is the same light that is at the film of a camera. You're trying to differentiate between the time it takes for light to strike the camera, and the eye which sees the object directly, but the eye and the camera are using the same light. I don't think you are going to understand what I'm saying as long as you believe in afferent vision which states that the image has to travel light years to get to the film.

You're dishonestly avoiding the question again (which does not presuppose anything about afferent vision):

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Uh, taking a picture of an apple across the room requires light to travel light years? No.

That's what I'm trying to tell you. Seeing the moon is like seeing a candlelit pumpkin across the room. The eyes don't calculate the distance between these two scenes; all the eyes do is see these objects because they are within one's visual range. The brain is what interprets the two pictures and their relative distances.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're dishonestly avoiding the question again (which does not presuppose anything about afferent vision):

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

If the object is within the range of the camera's lens, then that means that the light necessary to take a photograph is already present at the film, so the photograph is not dated. The same holds true for the eye. If the object is within the range of the eye's lens, then that means that the light necessary to see the object in real time (not dated time) is already at the retina. Explaining efferent vision in terms of the afferent model is not going to work because it will be inconsistent. I still maintain that we see in the present because light is not transduced into signals that are then interpreted by the brain.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They have not been pointed out to me in any way, shape, or form. I know who Norman Swartz is and he has nothing over Lessans. Who cares how prominent someone is. It doesn't mean they have all the answers, or that their answers are necessarily correct due to their stature.

Sorry, no one has made an argument to authority. First, stop lying and say that you know who Norman Swartz is. You know NOTHING about ANYTHING. Insofar as you may know the name, it's merely because you may have clicked on the links I gave. You certainly didn't READ the papers, now did you? Swartz EXPLAINS WHY arguments such as Lessans' commit the modal fallacy; I explained why too, though in shortened form. You explained NOTHING in rebuttal; you merely stopped your fingers into your ears like a small child and whined, "Nah, nah, no fallacy! Bwaaaaa!"

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is. It is because it has two sides, and it is a mathematical equation; it just doesn't contain numbers, but so what. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

How many times? Until you finally quit lying, you lying liar. It's NOT a mathematical equation. Moreover, earlier you say his observation was inductive; math is NOT inductive, it is DEDUCTIVE.

An argument is valid if it is deductively valid. That is, if the premises necessarily imply the conclusion. But a valid argument need not have true premises.

An argument is sound if it is valid, noncircular, and contains only true premises. In that case, the conclusion is not only necessarily implied by the premises, it is also necessarily true.

Spacemonkey's argument is not sound.

Do you really believe you are fooling your moral and intellectual betters here by Googling "valid" and "sound" and copy-pasting their definitions, and then PRETENDING that you know what those definitions mean? You didn't answer the question I asked you, derper. I asked you not JUST to define "valid" and "sound" (which you did via copy-paste, proving you could not answer in your own words) but to SPELL OUT Spacemonkey's supposed premises and conclusion. According to you, his conclusion follows from his premises (argument valid) but at least one of his premises is false (argument unsound). Show his premises and conclusion, and which premise is false, or admit that you are just lying again when you claim his argument is unsound.

This was not a contradiction. Light does travel to get where its going, but sight is not dependent on that light. It only needs light surrounding the object in order to see said object if sight is efferent. You are basing your logic on afferent sight, which would then be a contradiction.

Voila! We see! Right? Remember when you said that?

You can't get over this claim, can you? I am sorry that you are having such a hard time.

And you can't answer this very simple question about the moons of Jupiter, you liar, because you know it blows Lessans' claim about real-time seeing out of the water. Therefore you dishonestly avoid the question, in the same way you have never ONCE dealt with the fact that anatomically, the eye is an AFFERENT structure with NO efferent nerves and this fact alone completely rules out efferent seeing.

One more little footnote that has not sufficiently been elaborated on: there is NO connection whatsoever between hypothetical efferent seeing and REAL-TIME seeing. If sight WERE efferent, there still would be NO real-time seeing. This completely unsupported connection between one and the other was just something Lessans made up and is another example of his embarrassing lack of education and thinking skills.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your requirement for Lessans to be right is outrageous. You are accusing him of making false presuppositions which never occurred, and then you tell me that until he can support those presuppositions his discovery remains an assertion. What crap!

There is no abuse of these terms. He clarified exactly what he meant by scientific and mathematical. Another false accusation.

The entire connection with feeling guilt and being blameworthy is wrong because you don't have to be blamed to feel remorse. Your entire thought process is incorrect regarding blame and punishment and the development of conscience.

And you have yet to be interested in this book because if you were you would be hungry for more knowledge. You would devour his words (even if you're not quite sure how these principles all come together). At the very least you would give him the floor, but you won't. Your insincerity will ruin any chance of understanding.

It's not a self-contradiction at all. Of course we anticipate our behavior and the consequences thereof. The only difference is the anticipation of a consequence of no blame is worse than the anticipation of punishment, which prevents the act. You don't understand the two-sided equation and I'm not going to get into this because you're not letting me cut and paste. I will not explain this in my own words which would only confuse you more. And you're already so confused I think we're at a point of no return.

Oh, so now you know what I remember and what I don't. What a crock.

You mentioned that there's something wrong if I have had no agreement after 10 years, and that's unsound.

Nooooo, he made no presuppositions when it came to this discovery. He had suspicions that he was on the right track, but he took nothing for granted. Your reasoning is so off, and what makes me sad is that you are acting so holy in your defense, when your logic is wrong. If this is what you were taught in school, I'm glad I was a child when I learned this knowledge because you have such a block that I don't think anything will penetrate.

Oh my godddd. You can think you won, but you actually lost and I can't save you from your misguided reasoning. If you believe that you are correct in telling me he didn't support his presuppositions, which he did not have, then our discussion is over. Find another thread.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Was there supposed to be anything in this mess of confusion and denial worth responding to? My position is that the following things are required for the soundness of his first non-discovery arguments, but that they are not actually argued-for or supported in his book:

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

You have two options. You can either show us how his arguments will still work, even if these things are not true. Or you can show us where in his book he specifically argues for and supports them (rather than just asserting or assuming them).

If you can't do either, then they remain unsupported presuppositions.

Showing you where his description of how conscience works is in the book but it requires cutting and pasting.

[LadyShea]

Then cut and paste, peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Sorry, no one has made an argument to authority.

Yes you did! Now you're lying!!

Originally Posted by davidm

First, stop lying and say that you know who Norman Swartz is. You know NOTHING about ANYTHING. Insofar as you may know the name, it's merely because you may have clicked on the links I gave. You certainly didn't READ the papers, now did you? Swartz EXPLAINS WHY arguments such as Lessans' commit the modal fallacy; I explained why too, though in shortened form. You explained NOTHING in rebuttal; you merely stopped your fingers into your ears like a small child and whined, "Nah, nah, no fallacy! Bwaaaaa!"

There are plenty of determinists who don't agree with Swartz' paper. I knew of him long before you linked me to him.

The fact that you can't even understand Lessans demonstration as to why man's will is not free explains why you keep saying it's a modal fallacy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is. It is because it has two sides, and it is a mathematical equation; it just doesn't contain numbers, but so what. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Originally Posted by davidm

How many times? Until you finally quit lying, you lying liar. It's NOT a mathematical equation. Moreover, earlier you say his observation was inductive; math is NOT inductive, it is DEDUCTIVE.

The word "mathematical" in the context of this book means "undeniable". It is not mathematics, as with numbers.

An argument is valid if it is deductively valid. That is, if the premises necessarily imply the conclusion. But a valid argument need not have true premises.

An argument is sound if it is valid, noncircular, and contains only true premises. In that case, the conclusion is not only necessarily implied by the premises, it is also necessarily true.

Spacemonkey's argument is not sound.

Originally Posted by davidm

Do you really believe you are fooling your moral and intellectual betters here by Googling "valid" and "sound" and copy-pasting their definitions, and then PRETENDING that you know what those definitions mean? You didn't answer the question I asked you, derper. I asked you not JUST to define "valid" and "sound" (which you did via copy-paste, proving you could not answer in your own words) but to SPELL OUT Spacemonkey's supposed premises and conclusion. According to you, his conclusion follows from his premises (argument valid) but at least one of his premises is false (argument unsound). Show his premises and conclusion, and which premise is false, or admit that you are just lying again when you claim his argument is unsound.

His entire premise regarding guilt and blameworthiness is unsound.

This was not a contradiction. Light does travel to get where its going, but sight is not dependent on that light. It only needs light surrounding the object in order to see said object if sight is efferent. You are basing your logic on afferent sight, which would then be a contradiction.

Originally Posted by davidm

Voila! We see! Right? Remember when you said that?

I remember what I said. So what?

You can't get over this claim, can you? I am sorry that you are having such a hard time.

Originally Posted by davidm

And you can't answer this very simple question about the moons of Jupiter, you liar, because you know it blows Lessans' claim about real-time seeing out of the water. Therefore you dishonestly avoid the question, in the same way you have never ONCE dealt with the fact that anatomically, the eye is an AFFERENT structure with NO efferent nerves and this fact alone completely rules out efferent seeing.

I am not lying. You're making a fool of yourself by your emotional tantrums. I believe Lessans was right, and until proven otherwise I will continue to believe he was right. If it's true that light carries the image to the camera, then the object should not have to be in range. If the object is in a direct line with the film but out of range, we should still be able to get an image from the light that the object is reflecting as long as there's no deflection, but we never do. Why is that?

Originally Posted by davidm

One more little footnote that has not sufficiently been elaborated on: there is NO connection whatsoever between hypothetical efferent seeing and REAL-TIME seeing. If sight WERE efferent, there still would be NO real-time seeing. This completely unsupported connection between one and the other was just something Lessans made up and is another example of his embarrassing lack of education and thinking skills.

Efferent vision implies real time seeing because we're looking at the actual object, or photographing the object in real time. We're not decoding the light through signal transduction which would cause a delay.

[LadyShea]

If it's true that light carries the image to the eye, then the object should not have to be in range.

What we can see, and when, and at what distance is all explained by the scientific field called optics.

Your use of "should" is completely irrational.

If it's in a direct line but out of range, we should be able to get an image from the light that the object is reflecting, but we don't.

Except when we do via technology




Now, about the Moons of Jupiter?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Showing you where his description of how conscience works is in the book but it requires cutting and pasting.

I'm not asking you just to show me his description of how conscience allegedly works. I'm asking you to show me where in his book he specifically argues for and supports the above numbered points. You can cut and paste specific short passages to do that if you wish. But it does not require copypasting entire chapters.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I showed where it's not a modal fallacy, but you can't stand that Lessans could be right. You use prominence as your justification for believing in someone. What idiocy!

Bullshit, you liar. You did NOT show any such thing, you ASSERTED it. You don't know (or pretend not to know) the difference between an assertion and a DEMONSTRATION.

And, no, you twit, I did NOT use prominence as a justification; I linked Swartz's papers AFTER I explained why Lessan's arguments were a botch, for those who wanted to read about the issue in more detail.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Efferent vision implies real time seeing because we're looking at the actual object, or photographing the object in real time. We're not decoding the light through signal transduction.

This is all you can say? What about the moons of Jupiter, peacegirl? How come we don't see them in real time, if real time seeing is true?

What about the anatomy of the eye, peacegirl? It has no efferent nerves; not a single one! How does Daddy Dumbkin's "theory" account for this empirical fact that completely is at odds with his claims?


ETA: Why don't you at least learn to use the quote tags, you idiot, so people don't keep having to clean up your tag messes when they reply to your drivel.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then cut and paste, peacegirl.

I will, but because it's been so long I have to start from the beginning of Chapter Two. You can read it as a review, which everyone needs anyway. I've been with this since childhood, yet everyone seems to be an authority on this subject matter. It's actually humorous.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will, but because it's been so long I have to start from the beginning of Chapter Two. You can read it as a review, which everyone needs anyway. I've been with this since childhood, yet everyone seems to be an authority on this subject matter. It's actually humorous.

No-one is asking you to copypaste the entire chapter! That is neither appropriate, acceptable, nor necessary.

[peacegirl]

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Two: The Two-Sided Equation

Once it becomes established as an undeniable law that
man’s will is not free, as was just demonstrated, we
cannot assume that it is free because philosophers like
Durant could not get by the implications. Therefore, we
must begin our reasoning where he left off which means that we are
going to accept the magic elixir (call it what you will, corollary, slide
rule or basic principle), THOU SHALL NOT BLAME, and
transmute the baser mettles of human nature into the pure gold of the
Golden Age even though it presents what appears to be an
insurmountable problem, for how is it possible not to blame people
who hurt us when we know they didn’t have to do this if they didn’t
want to.

The solution, however, only requires the perception and
extension of relations which cannot be denied; and this mathematical
corollary, that man is not to blame for anything at all, is a key to the
infinite wisdom of God which will unlock a treasure so wonderful that
you will be compelled to catch your breath in absolute amazement.
This slide rule will adequately solve every problem we have not only
without hurting a living soul but while benefiting everyone to an
amazing degree. However, the problems that confront us at this
moment are very complex which make it necessary to treat every
aspect of our lives in a separate, yet related, manner. God, not me,
is finally going to reveal the solution.

Since time immemorial the two opposing forces of good and evil
compelled theologians to separate the world into two realms, with God
responsible for all the good in the world and Satin responsible for the
evil while endowing man with free will so that this separation could be
reasonable. Giving birth to Satan or some other force of darkness as
an explanation for the evil that existed illustrates how religion tried
desperately to cling to the belief in a merciful God. But this dividing
line between good and evil will no longer be necessary when the
corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, demonstrates that once it becomes
a permanent condition of the environment, all the evil (hurt) in
human relations must come to a peaceful end. The absolute proof
that man’s will is not free is the undeniable fact that we are given no
alternative but to move in this direction once it is understood that
this law can control man’s actions only by obeying this corollary for
then everything that came into existence which caused us to blame
and punish must, out of absolute necessity, take leave of this earth.
Mankind will be given no choice; this has been taken out of our
hands, as is the motion of the earth around the sun.

The first step is realizing that the solution requires that we work
our problem backwards which means that every step of the way will be
a forced move which will become a loose end and only when all these
ends are drawn together will the blueprint be complete. It is only by
extending our slide rule, Thou Shall Not Blame, which is the key,
that we are given the means to unlock the solution. An example of
working a problem backwards, follow this: If you were told that a
woman with a pocketbook full of money went on a spending spree to
ten stores, paid a dollar to get in every one, a dollar to get out, spent
half of what she had in each and came out of the last place absolutely
broke, it would be very easy to determine the amount of money she
had to start because the dollar she paid to get out of the last store
which broke her must represent one-half of the money spent there.
Consequently, she had two dollars left after paying a dollar to get in,
giving her three just before entering.

Since she paid a dollar to get
out of the penultimate store, this added to the three gives her four
which represents one-half of the money spent there. Continuing this
process eight more times it is absolutely undeniable that she must
have begun her spending spree with $3,060. As we can see from this
example, when a key fact is available from which to reason it is then
possible to solve a problem, but when it is not, we must form
conjectures and express opinions with the aid of logic. At first glance
it appears impossible not to blame an individual for murder, or any
heinous crime, but when we extend this key fact it can be seen that
these acts of evil are not condoned with the understanding that man’s
will is not free, but prevented. Regardless of someone’s opinion as to
the rightness or wrongness of the answer I just gave, or their opinion
when considering the impossibility of removing all evil from our lives
which would have to be based upon a logical conclusion, we know that
the answer is correct because there is positive proof.

By a similar process of working our problem backwards we can
officially launch the Golden Age which necessitates the removal of all
forms of blame (the judgment of what is right for another) so that
each person knows he is completely free to do what he wants to do.
Although solving the problem of evil requires balancing an equation
of such magnitude, it is not difficult when we have our infallible slide
rule which God has given us as a guide. 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?”

We assumed energy was contained within the atom until a
discovery was made that proved this, and we also assumed or believed
that there was a design to this universe by the fact that the solar
system moves in such mathematical harmony. Did the sun, moon,
earth, planets and stars just fall into perfect order, or is there some
internal urgency pushing everything in a particular direction?

Now
that it has been discovered that man’s will is not free, and at the very
moment this discovery is made a mathematical demonstration
compels man to veer sharply in a new direction although still towards
greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just as clearly as we see the
sun that the mankind system has always been just as harmonious as
the solar system only we never knew it because part of the harmony
was this disharmony between man and man which is now being
permanently removed. This discovery also reveals that God is a
mathematical, undeniable reality. This means, to put it another way,
that Man Does Not Stand Alone. Therefore, to say God is good is
a true observation for nothing in this universe when seen in total
perspective is evil since each individual must choose what is better for
himself, even if that choice hurts another as a consequence.

Every human being is and has been obeying God’s will —
Spinoza, his sister, Nageli, Durant, Mendel, Christ and even those
who nailed him to the cross; but God has a secret plan that is going
to shock all mankind due to the revolutionary changes that must
come about for his benefit. This new world is coming into existence
not because of my will, not because I made a discovery (sooner or later
it had to be found because the knowledge of what it means that man’s
will is not free is a definite part of reality), but only because we are
compelled to obey the laws of our nature. Do you really think it was
an accident the solar system came into existence; an accident that the
sun is just the proper distance from the earth so we don’t roast or
freeze; an accident that the earth revolved just at the right speed to
fulfill many exacting functions; an accident that our bodies and brains
developed just that way; an accident that I made my discovery exactly
when I did?

To show you how fantastic is the infinite wisdom that
controls every aspect of this universe through invariable laws that we
are at last getting to understand, which includes the mankind as well
as the solar system, just follow this: Here is versatile man — writer,
composer, artist, inventor, scientist, philosopher, theologian,
architect, mathematician, chess player, prostitute, murderer, thief,
etc., whose will is absolutely and positively not free despite all the
learned opinions to the contrary, yet compelled by his very nature and
lack of development to believe that it is since it was impossible not to
blame and punish the terrible evils that came into existence out of
necessity and then permitted to perceive the necessary relations as to
why will is not free and what this means for the entire world, which
perception was utterly impossible without the development...and
absolutely necessary for the inception of our Golden Age. In all of
history have you ever been confronted with anything more incredible?

In reality, we are all the result of forces completely beyond our
control. As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, we are
able to see, for the very first time, how it is now within our power to
prevent those things for which blame and punishment came into
existence. Although Spinoza did not understand the full significance
of this enigmatic corollary, he accepted it by rejecting the opposite
principle of ‘an eye for an eye’ by refusing to defend himself against
his sister or blame her for cheating him out of his inheritance.

Neither he nor his sister had a free choice because the one was willing
to cheat to get what she wanted while he was willing to be cheated
rather than hold her responsible. Spinoza made matters worse for
himself financially, but at that moment of time he had no free choice
because it gave him greater satisfaction to let her cheat him out of
what he was entitled to by law. Both of them were moving in the
direction of what gave them satisfaction. Spinoza’s sister had no
understanding of this knowledge nor did the world at that time,
although Spinoza himself knew that man’s will is not free.
Consequently, he allowed others to hurt him with a first blow by
turning the other cheek. He was excommunicated from the
synagogue while being God-intoxicated, which seems to be a
contradiction. You would think that a person would be thrown out for
being an atheist but not for being a God-intoxicated man.

The fact
that I know God is a reality doesn’t intoxicate me. I know that the
sun is also a reality but when the heat gets unbearable, should I jump
for joy? There is no comparison between Spinoza and myself. He
was a gentle man, I am not. He refused to blame his sister for
stealing what rightfully belonged to him because he was confused and
believed she couldn’t help herself. I, on the other hand, would never
advocate turning the other cheek when someone can get the advantage
by not turning it. He excused her conduct, but if someone tried to
take what belonged to me I’d fight him tooth and nail.

Turning the
other cheek under these conditions could make matters worse, which
is why many people reject the pacifist position. How is it humanly
possible not to fight back when one is being hurt first, which goes
back to the justification of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
I personally would get greater satisfaction defending myself or
retaliating against those people who would do, or have done, things to
hurt me and my family. I’m not a saint, but a scientist of human
conduct. Most of mankind is compelled, for greater satisfaction, to
move in this direction. Therefore, it should be clear that the
corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not mean that you should
suddenly stop blaming because you have discovered that man’s will is
not free. It only means at this point that we are going to follow it, to
extend it, to see exactly where it takes us; something that investigators
like Durant have never done because the implications prevented them
from opening the door beyond the vestibule. The fact that man’s will
is not free only means that he is compelled to move in the direction
of greater satisfaction. If you sock me I might get greater satisfaction
in socking you back. However, once man understands what it means
that his will is not free, this desire to sock me is prevented by your
realization that I will never blame you for hurting me. Until this
knowledge is understood we will be compelled to continue living in the
world of free will, otherwise, we would only make matters worse for
ourselves.

To show you how confused is the understanding of someone who
doesn’t grasp these principles, a local columnist interested in my
ideas, so he called them, made the statement that I believe that man
should not be blamed for anything he does which is true only when
man knows what it means that his will is not free. If he doesn’t know,
he is compelled to blame by his very nature. Christ also received
incursions of thought from this same principle which compelled him
to turn the other cheek and remark as he was being nailed to the
cross, “They know not what they do,” forgiving his enemies even in
the moment of death. How was it possible for him to blame them
when he knew that they were not responsible? But they knew what
they were doing and he could not stop them even by turning the other
cheek.

Religion was compelled to believe that God was not responsible
for the evil in the world, whereas Spinoza and Christ believed correctly
that there was no such thing as evil when seen in total perspective.
But how was it possible, except for people like Christ and Spinoza, to
forgive those who trespassed against them? And how was it possible
for those who became victims of this necessary evil to look at it in
total perspective? Is it any wonder man cried out to God for
understanding? The time has arrived to clear up all the confusion and
reconcile these two opposite principles, which requires that you keep
an open mind and proceed with the investigation.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How long I wonder before you forget having posted this comment?

Bump.

It was always just going to be a matter of time.

[Spacemonkey]

When you're done pointlessly copypasting his entire chapter, you'll still have the following task to address:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

My position is that the following things are required for the soundness of his first non-discovery arguments, but that they are not actually argued-for or supported in his book:

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

You have two options. You can either show us how his arguments will still work, even if these things are not true. Or you can show us where in his book he specifically argues for and supports them (rather than just asserting or assuming them).

If you can't do either, then they remain unsupported presuppositions.

[peacegirl]

cont...Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Two: The Two-Sided Equation

Let me show you
how this apparent impasse can be rephrased in terms of possibility.
If someone is not being hurt in any way, is it possible for him to
retaliate or turn the other cheek? Isn’t it obvious that in order to do
either he must first be hurt? But if he is already being hurt and by
turning the other cheek makes matters worse for himself, then he is
given no choice but to retaliate because this is demanded by the laws
of his nature. Here is the source of the confusion. Our basic
principle or corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, call it what you will, is
not going to accomplish the impossible. It is not going to prevent
man from desiring to hurt others when not to makes matters worse
for himself, but it will prevent the desire to strike the very first blow.
Once you have been hurt, it is normal and natural to seek some form
of retaliation for this is a source of satisfaction which is the direction
life is compelled to take. Therefore this knowledge cannot possibly
prevent the hate and blame which man has been compelled to live with
all these years as a consequence of crimes committed and many other
forms of hurt, yet God’s mathematical law cannot be denied for man
is truly not to blame for anything he does notwithstanding, so a still
deeper analysis is required.

Down through history no one has ever
known what it means that man’s will is not free and how it can benefit
the world, but you will be shown the answer very shortly. There is
absolutely no way this new world, a world without war, crime, and all
forms of hurt to man by man can be stopped from coming into
existence. When it will occur, however, depends on when this
knowledge can be brought to light.

We have been growing and developing just like a child from
infancy. There is no way a baby can go from birth to old age without
passing through the necessary steps, and no way man could have
reached this tremendous turning point in his life without also going
through the necessary stages of evil. Once it is established, beyond a
shadow of doubt, that will is not free (and here is why my discovery
was never found; no one could ever get beyond this impasse because
of the implications), it becomes absolutely impossible to hold man
responsible for anything he does. Is it any wonder the solution was
never found if it lies hidden beyond this point? If you recall, Durant
assumed that if man was allowed to believe his will is not free it would
lessen his responsibility because this would enable him to blame other
factors as the cause. “If he committed crimes, society was to blame;
if he was a fool, it was the fault of the machine which had slipped a
cog in generating him.” It is also true that if it had not been for the
development of laws and a penal code, for the constant teaching of
right and wrong, civilization could never have reached the outposts of
this coming Golden Age.

Yet despite the fact that we have been
brought up to believe that man can be blamed and punished for doing
what he was taught is wrong and evil (this is the cornerstone of all law
and order up to now, although we are about to shed the last stage of
the rocket that has given us our thrust up to this point); the force that
has given us our brains, our bodies, the solar and the mankind
systems; the force that makes us move in the direction of satisfaction,
or this invariable law of God states explicitly, as we perceive these
mathematical relations, that SINCE MAN’S WILL IS NOT
FREE, THOU SHALL NOT BLAME ANYTHING HE DOES.
This enigma is easily reconciled when it is understood that the
mathematic corollary, God’s commandment, does not apply to
anything after it is done — only before.

“I don’t understand why God’s commandment applies to
something before it is done, and not after. Does this mean you can
blame after a crime has taken place? And doesn’t this go back to the
same problem man has been faced with since time immemorial; how
to prevent the crime in the first place, which is the purpose of our
penal code?”

“It is a natural reaction to blame after you’ve been hurt. The
reason it doesn’t apply to anything after it is done — only before —
is because God’s commandment, Thou Shall Not Blame, has the
power to prevent those very acts of evil for which a penal code was
previously necessary as part of our development.” At this juncture, I
shall repeat a passage from Chapter One to remind the reader of
important facts that must be understood before continuing.

To solve this problem of evil with the aid of our enigmatic corollary —
Thou Shall Not Blame — (for this seems mathematically impossible since
it appears that man will always desire something for which blame and
punishment will be necessary), it is extremely important to go through a
de-confusion process regarding words by employing the other scientific fact
revealed to you earlier. Consequently, as was pointed out, and to reveal
this relation, it is an absolutely undeniable observation that man does not
have to commit a crime or do anything to hurt another unless he wants to. As history reveals, even the most severe tortures and the threat of death cannot make him do to others what he makes up his mind not to do. He
is not caused or compelled against his will to hurt another by his
environment and heredity but prefers this action because at that moment
of time he derives greater satisfaction in his motion to there, which is a
normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control.
Though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to
another that which he makes up his mind not to do (this is an extremely
crucial point), he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment
of his existence to do everything he does.

This reveals that he has
mathematical control over the former (you can lead a horse to water but
you can’t make him drink) but none over the latter because he must move
in the direction of greater satisfaction. In other words, no one is
compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country
against his will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes
simply because the alternative is considered worse in his opinion and he
must choose something to do among the various things in his environment
or else commit suicide. Was it possible to make Gandhi and his followers
do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death, which was
judged the lesser of two evils? They were compelled by their desire for
freedom to prefer non-violence, turning the other cheek as a solution to
their problem. Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to
do what he did against his will because the alternative was considered
worse, that he really didn’t want to do it but had to (and numerous words
and expressions say this), he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another
is done only because he wants to do it which means that his preference
gave him satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

It was always just going to be a matter of time.

LadyShea just asked me to. You're not the only one here Spacemonkey. If you don't want to read it, don't, but you'll be left behind.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea just asked me to.

No, she did not. She most certainly did not ask you to post the whole chapter all over again. She was asking you to post those particular passages which support the points I listed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're not the only one here Spacemonkey. If you don't want to read it, don't, but you'll be left behind.

You 'forget' yet again that I've already read it.

No-one has asked you to post the full chapter. No-one.