A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So not only are you a doctor of philosophy, but you have become a doctor psychiatry too?

I don't need a degree in psychiatry to identify your delusions, especially those you've openly admitted to.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's your opinion, and it is just an opinion. It is okay if I clarify what I'm doing when I personalize God, which I did in the beginning of the book. I don't have to make the laws of our nature as something cold and uncaring because they are not. They are leading us to a world of peace and brotherhood, so if I personalize these laws by calling them God, there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it does bring together the heart (feeling) with the head (intellect), and that's refreshing.

But you're not just personifying them. You openly admitted that you believe there to be a supreme intelligence guiding the universe through these laws of nature. That is NOT a mere metaphorical use of the term 'God'. A supreme intelligence =/= impersonal laws of nature. This is not mere opinion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I should post this again:

Some people may be offended that the word God is used throughout
the book and conclude that this is a religious work. Perhaps the ‘G’
word even makes them want to shut down and disconnect from what
is being said. This would be unfortunate. As you carefully read the
text you will see that the word God (often referred to as ‘He’) is simply
a symbol pointing to the laws that govern our universe.

Why post that again? It's a lie. You've already admitted that this is NOT how you have been using the term 'God'.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually we won't need to have faith anymore when our prayers (our hopes for a better world) are answered and we're delivered from evil. God will have revealed Himself through these miraculous changes that are slowly manifesting themselves in the physical realm.

So you have FAITH that one day you won't have to keep on relying upon faith as you do now. That is still faith.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have explained it. The object must be within the lenses' field of view and it has to be bright enough for an image to show up on film. There is no need to attribute this to magic or teleportation as the only explanation.

That's not an explanation, that's just a statement of conditions you deem necessary. You have no explanation for how photons come to be located on the surface of camera film if there are no photons located on the surface of camera film because they are located someplace else.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually we won't need to have faith anymore when our prayers (our hopes for a better world) are answered and we're delivered from evil. God will have revealed Himself through these miraculous changes that are slowly manifesting themselves in the physical realm.

More faith based beliefs about why faith will become obsolete. LOL

[Vivisectus]

God will have revealed Himself through these miraculous changes that are slowly manifesting themselves in the physical realm

That's kind of the point... if your idea of God is just a way of saying "the laws of nature", then there is no non-physical realm.

If there IS a non-physical realm, then we are talking about the super-natural. Oh and incidentally, it seems to me like we have also discarded the idea of causation in this case, since the supernatural does not need to be caused and can cause things without prior causation. After all, it is not part of the "physical realm" and not bound by its limitations.

This in turn would also mean determinism is not valid - including the brand of determinism from the book. If causes can appear without being caused themselves, then determinism does not hold.

And yet you say:

God as a Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe through mathematical laws --- is real. We can only see the manifestation of this Supreme Intelligence by what we are able to observe in the material world. When we are delivered from evil (or hurt), we will know (we won't need faith) that there is an intelligence behind these laws. This world is not here by accident which means there is design to this world, which also means we do not stand alone. Knowing this gives me comfort, but you believe what you want.

So your "God" has a plan. It has intelligence. It is behind the natural laws, and according to you has designed them with an aim in mind. Your ideas about God puts it squarely in the realm of the supernatural.

This means that your God is both supernatural and a personal God. What I do not understand is how you can believe that, and at the same time believe in the odd kind of determinism in the book. They seem to me two entirely contradictory views: they cannot both be true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't need a degree in psychiatry to identify your delusions, especially those you've openly admitted to.

Oh really? You are the one that IS delusional if you believe you have the capabililty to diagnose a psychological problem that you have no expertise in. It's very obvious to those who have any understanding of psychology to realize that your "expertise" is lacking and now you are trying desperately trying to save face. After all, no one wants to be a public embarrassment.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? You are the one that IS delusional if you believe you have the capabililty to diagnose a psychological problem that you have no expertise in. It's very obvious to those who have any understanding of psychology to realize that your "expertise" is lacking and now you are trying desperately trying to save face. After all, no one wants to be a public embarrassment.

Again, no professional diagnostic ability is required to identify and point out the delusion that you have admitted to and and were making a joke out of. You've both demonstrated and admitted that you are continuing to pretend that you have a sympathetic lurking audience here when you know that this is not the case. What I don't get is why you would think this is an appropriate thing to joke about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't need a degree in psychiatry to identify your delusions, especially those you've openly admitted to.

I thought what I said was funny. I'm sorry you can't take a joke. Even if just a few were following this debate, I would not leave it at loose ends, and go back to the discussion on the eyes, especially when his first discovery is the most important.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought what I said was funny. I'm sorry you can't take a joke.

Sorry, but no, your self-delusional behaviour is not funny. It is not something to laugh about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even if just a few were following this debate, I would not leave it at loose ends, and go back to the discussion on the eyes, especially when his first discovery is the most important.

Then stop asserting that he was right about vision, and stop lying to us by saying that you understand how light can be at the film without getting there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you have FAITH that one day you won't have to keep on relying upon faith as you do now. That is still faith.

No, that's not what I meant. I was referring to the fact that when this new world becomes a reality (which it will because it's beyond our control to stop) we will no longer need to have faith that God will deliver us from evil because he will have already delivered us. Only when something has not yet occurred do you need faith that it will one day occur.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Sorry, but no, your self-delusional behaviour is not funny. It is not something to laugh about.

You don't get to tell me what to laugh about. I thought my response was funny, and I will continue to make side jokes to lighten up the atmosphere in here, if I think it's appropriate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even if just a few were following this debate, I would not leave it at loose ends, and go back to the discussion on the eyes, especially when his first discovery is the most important.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then stop asserting that he was right about vision, and stop lying to us by saying that you understand how light can be at the film without getting there.

I can say that light can be at the film if the object becomes a mirror image on the film. And don't tell me I'm lying just so you can be the top gun in here.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not what I meant. I was referring to the fact that when this new world becomes a reality (which it will because it's beyond our control to stop) we will no longer need to have faith that God will deliver us from evil because he will have already delivered us. Only when something has not yet occurred do you need faith that it will one day occur.

Still a faith claim.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't get to tell me what to laugh about. I thought my response was funny, and I will continue to make side jokes to lighten up the atmosphere in here, if I think it's appropriate.

You should not be laughing at your own self-delusion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can say that light can be at the film if the object becomes a mirror image on the film. And don't tell me I'm lying just so you can be the top gun in here.

Even worse. Now you need the object to get to the film to turn itself into a 'mirror image'. I think you've just again said something other than what you meant. If the mirror image consists of light, then that light has to get to the film in order to be there. You are lying everytime you claim to understand how what you are claiming could be possible.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegilr

if the object becomes a mirror image on the film

How can the object become a mirror image?

If light is at the film it has to get there. If the mirror image is made of light that is at the film, then you still have to explain how the light got there. It must be a physical mechanism.

Like if I ask you how you came to be located on the chair...you wouldn't say you became a mirror image there.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you're not just personifying them. You openly admitted that you believe there to be a supreme intelligence guiding the universe through these laws of nature. That is NOT a mere metaphorical use of the term 'God'. A supreme intelligence =/= impersonal laws of nature. This is not mere opinion.

Why post that again? It's a lie. You've already admitted that this is NOT how you have been using the term 'God'.

That is not true. It is a symbol of something mysterious and greater than any of us mortals can fully comprehend. Supreme Intelligence = the impersonal laws of nature. In other words, these laws did not come about by chance; there is design to this universe. Therefore, there must be a Supreme Intelligence that is behind these laws --- which you cannot seem to fathom. If we are able to see the power of these laws manifested such that we will one day be delivered from evil (we are assuming there will be a time when this occurs, for the sake of argument), I do not have to be a fundie to see the magnificence of this world in that there is a Supreme Intelligence guiding us toward this age of peace and prosperity. I do not think of this Supreme Intelligence as a Being, although I get comfort in personifying this Intelligence by calling it God. It doesn't feel wrong to me. If it feels wrong to you, don't use it. No one is telling you use this term.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true. It is a symbol of something mysterious and greater than any of us mortals can fully comprehend. Supreme Intelligence = the impersonal laws of nature. In other words, these laws did not come about by chance; there is design to this universe. Therefore, there must be a Supreme Intelligence that is behind these laws --- which you cannot seem to fathom. If we are able to see the power of these laws manifested such that we will one day be delivered from evil (we are assuming there will be a time when this occurs, for the sake of argument), I do not have to be a fundie to see the magnificence of this world in that there is a Supreme Intelligence guiding us toward this age of peace and prosperity. I do not think of this Supreme Intelligence as a Being, although I get comfort in personifying this Intelligence by calling it God. It doesn't feel wrong to me. If it feels wrong to you, don't use it. No one is telling you use this term.

Don't be ridiculous. If A is behind B, and if A designed B, then A =/= B. Something cannot be behind or design itself. Your use of the term 'God' is obviously NOT metaphorical, and you are obviously NOT using it only to refer to a set of impersonal laws. You are ALSO using it to refer to a supreme intelligence (i.e. a mind) behind those laws, which is using these laws, and which created them.

[Vivisectus]

Supreme Intelligence = the impersonal laws of nature. In other words, these laws did not come about by chance; there is design to this universe. Therefore, there must be a Supreme Intelligence that is behind these laws --- which you cannot seem to fathom.

If the Supreme Intelligence is behind these laws, then by definition it is not impersonal, and it is also not natural: it is super-natural.

So then determinism does not stand. And for that matter neither does the book, as it means there is no reason to assume free will does not exist. Free will can be something caused by the supernatural - it does not need to be bound by causation. Our Supreme Intelligence could have endowed us with a soul, for instance, which influences us yet is not itself subject to causation. This would allow us to make choices that are not bound by causation alone, and thus your ideas would not apply.

You cannot claim that free will does not exist because everything is caused on the one hand and then claim there is a supernatural intelligence on the other. The two concepts cannot be reconciled.

[Vivisectus]

Supreme Intelligence = the impersonal laws of nature. In other words, these laws did not come about by chance; there is design to this universe. Therefore, there must be a Supreme Intelligence that is behind these laws --- which you cannot seem to fathom.

If the Supreme Intelligence is behind these laws, then by definition it is not impersonal, and it is also not natural: it is super-natural.

So then determinism does not stand. And for that matter neither does the book, as it means there is no reason to assume free will does not exist. Free will can be something caused by the supernatural - it does not need to be bound by causation. Our Supreme Intelligence could have endowed us with a soul, for instance, which influences us yet is not itself subject to causation. This would allow us to make choices that are not bound by causation alone, and thus your ideas would not apply.

You cannot claim that free will does not exist because everything is caused on the one hand and then claim there is a supernatural intelligence on the other. The two concepts cannot be reconciled.

[peacegirl]

God will have revealed Himself through these miraculous changes that are slowly manifesting themselves in the physical realm

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That's kind of the point... if your idea of God is just a way of saying "the laws of nature", then there is no non-physical realm.

If there IS a non-physical realm, then we are talking about the super-natural. Oh and incidentally, it seems to me like we have also discarded the idea of causation in this case, since the supernatural does not need to be caused and can cause things without prior causation. After all, it is not part of the "physical realm" and not bound by its limitations.

This in turn would also mean determinism is not valid - including the brand of determinism from the book. If causes can appear without being caused themselves, then determinism does not hold.

And yet you say:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So your "God" has a plan. It has intelligence. It is behind the natural laws, and according to you has designed them with an aim in mind. Your ideas about God puts it squarely in the realm of the supernatural.

There is nothing supernatural about what I believe. I'm saying that based on this knowledge which is going to bring about peace on earth, I do not believe this world is here by accident. There is a purpose for our existence. You can believe what you want, but I get great comfort in knowing that everything that has happened in life had to happen, and everything that will happen is part of a greater plan. How can it not be? I am not saying there is a thinking Being behind the scene, but there is something much greater than we as humans can even comprehend.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This means that your God is both supernatural and a personal God. What I do not understand is how you can believe that, and at the same time believe in the odd kind of determinism in the book. They seem to me two entirely contradictory views: they cannot both be true.

If you understood his demonstratrion you would see that his kind of determinism is anything but odd. And it's also useful because it's true. I am equating the laws of our nature as a Supreme Intelligence because in my estimation (which probably doesn't count for much but who cares), there is no way these laws and all of this universe could have come together by a throw of the dice, nor could all of evolution come from accidental mutations. I know I will not win a popularity contest, but that's not why I came here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If the Supreme Intelligence is behind these laws, then by definition it is not impersonal, and it is also not natural: it is super-natural.

So then determinism does not stand. And for that matter neither does the book, as it means there is no reason to assume free will does not exist. Free will can be something caused by the supernatural - it does not need to be bound by causation. Our Supreme Intelligence could have endowed us with a soul, for instance, which influences us yet is not itself subject to causation. This would allow us to make choices that are not bound by causation alone, and thus your ideas would not apply.

You cannot claim that free will does not exist because everything is caused on the one hand and then claim there is a supernatural intelligence on the other. The two concepts cannot be reconciled.

I never said there is anything supernatural occurring, so don't misconstrue what I'm saying.

[LadyShea]

A supreme intelligence that designed the Universe and created laws is by definition supernatural. If it is a natural part of the Universe it couldn't be its designer or created its laws, nor could it be supreme.

[Vivisectus]

I never said there is anything supernatural occurring, so don't misconstrue what I'm saying.

But you do! You may not realize it, but you do so when you refer to a Supreme Intelligence behind the laws of nature. If this supreme intelligence is the architect of the laws of nature, then it is supernatural: it is not part of the natural laws itself. For starters, it would have to have existed before the laws of nature were designed and put into action.

Your view depends on the view that everything is caused on the one hand, but refers to a supernatural being or force at the same time. How do you reconcile the two?

[Vivisectus]

There is nothing supernatural about what I believe. I'm saying that based on this knowledge which is going to bring about peace on earth, I do not believe this world is here by accident. There is a purpose for our existence. You can believe what you want, but I get great comfort in knowing that everything that has happened in life had to happen, and everything that will happen is part of a greater plan. How can it not be? I am not saying there is a thinking Being behind the scene, but there is something much greater than we as humans can even comprehend.

I am glad you get comfort from your beliefs, and do not begrudge you it in the slightest. But I think you are wrong when you say that there is nothing supernatural about what you believe. Your "purpose", for instance, is clearly not a purpose we human beings make up for ourselves, but a purpose that is somehow given by a God-like manifestation of some kind. You have already stated that you believe this entity to be the architect of the natural laws, a Supreme Intelligence. Now you contradict that a little bit and say you do not think there is a thinking being behind all of this. So that means no Supreme Intelligence.

But if there is a plan, then there is a planner.

If you understood his demonstratrion you would see that his kind of determinism is anything but odd. And it's also useful because it's true. I am equating the laws of our nature as a Supreme Intelligence because in my estimation (which probably doesn't count for much but who cares), there is no way these laws and all of this universe could have come together by a throw of the dice, nor could all of evolution come from accidental mutations. I know I will not win a popularity contest, but that's not why I came here.

Yes yes yes anyone who has a different opinion from you is too stupid to understand, you have stated that a million times already.

But that does nothing to address the point: if evolution is guided by some plan, then there needs to be a planner, with intentions. You may have given your God a thin dusting of Spinozan Pantheism, but really it is just a religious belief just like all the others. To quote Hunter Thompson: the belief that someone, somewhere, is tending the light at the end of the tunnel.