“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[pood]

We cannot have free will and no free will.

Right. I never said we did.

Transparent dodge, avoiding the fact that your author’s silly claims contradict virtually all current science.

 

[peacegirl]

We cannot have free will and no free will.

Right. I never said we did.

Transparent dodge, avoiding the fact that your author’s silly claims contradict virtually all current science.

Compatibilism is both having free will and not having free will. Compatibilists sneak in free will in a way that does not mean how it was intended (i.e., could do otherwise); therefore, it becomes a semantic switch. Who is doing the dodging? Modal logic is a modal fallacy. To repeat: The term free will can be used to mean a lot of different things, but there is only one meaning when it comes to this topic. Either we could choose otherwise or we could not. Determinism says we could not after the choice is made, not before. It doesn't dictate in advance that you must choose A when you want to choose B. If you want to choose B, then you will choose B. You seem to think that determinism is stating something it isn't.

 

[Crumb]

... snip ...
This change in our use of words that falsely stratify people into layers of importance will revolutionize how we see each other and how we treat each other. I wish people would read the book instead of show so much resistance. I guarantee it would give them a new perspective on so many things.

(bolding mine)

Why aren't you giving this book away?

I may just do that. It has cost me a lot of money to get this done, and it would be nice to make some money so I can market.

There's no time like the present.

 

[pood]

We cannot have free will and no free will.

Right. I never said we did.

Transparent dodge, avoiding the fact that your author’s silly claims contradict virtually all current science.

Compatibilism is both having free will and not having free will.

No it’s not. We’ve been over this.

The subject now is how real-time seeing and “the eye is not a sense organ” completely contradicts established physics, biology, and chemistry.

 

[peacegirl]

We cannot have free will and no free will.

Right. I never said we did.

Transparent dodge, avoiding the fact that your author’s silly claims contradict virtually all current science.

Compatibilism is both having free will and not having free will.

No it’s not. We’ve been over this.

The subject now is how real-time seeing and “the eye is not a sense organ” completely contradicts established physics, biology, and chemistry.

Now it contradicts biology and chemistry too? How about bringing in the kitchen sink?

 

[peacegirl]

We cannot have free will and no free will.

Right. I never said we did.

Transparent dodge, avoiding the fact that your author’s silly claims contradict virtually all current science.

Only the science that concludes we see in delayed vision.

 

[peacegirl]

... snip ...
This change in our use of words that falsely stratify people into layers of importance will revolutionize how we see each other and how we treat each other. I wish people would read the book instead of show so much resistance. I guarantee it would give them a new perspective on so many things.

(bolding mine)

Why aren't you giving this book away?

I may just do that. It has cost me a lot of money to get this done, and it would be nice to make some money so I can market.

There's no time like the present.

Amazon won't let you sell your book under $2.99. Are you telling me that you would buy the book at this price? I don't think anyone cares about the price. That's not their reason for not buying it. They just don't want to buy a book that everybody says is garbage. If a well-known philosopher recommended it, $10, $20, or even $30 for most people would be a drop in the bucket.

 

[DBT]

We cannot have free will and no free will.

Right. I never said we did.

Transparent dodge, avoiding the fact that your author’s silly claims contradict virtually all current science.

Compatibilism is both having free will and not having free will.

No it’s not. We’ve been over this.

The subject now is how real-time seeing and “the eye is not a sense organ” completely contradicts established physics, biology, and chemistry.

Now it contradicts biology and chemistry too? How about bringing in the kitchen sink?

'Light at the eye/instant vision' does contradict the biology, chemistry and function of the eye. A claim that only serves to discredit the book.

 

[peacegirl]

We cannot have free will and no free will.

Right. I never said we did.

Transparent dodge, avoiding the fact that your author’s silly claims contradict virtually all current science.

Compatibilism is both having free will and not having free will.

No it’s not. We’ve been over this.

The subject now is how real-time seeing and “the eye is not a sense organ” completely contradicts established physics, biology, and chemistry.

Now it contradicts biology and chemistry too? How about bringing in the kitchen sink?

'Light at the eye/instant vision' does contradict the biology, chemistry and function of the eye. A claim that only serves to discredit the book.

I don't think it does and I cannot change it. It's a shame because the book is good.

 

[DBT]

We cannot have free will and no free will.

Right. I never said we did.

Transparent dodge, avoiding the fact that your author’s silly claims contradict virtually all current science.

Compatibilism is both having free will and not having free will.

No it’s not. We’ve been over this.

The subject now is how real-time seeing and “the eye is not a sense organ” completely contradicts established physics, biology, and chemistry.

Now it contradicts biology and chemistry too? How about bringing in the kitchen sink?

'Light at the eye/instant vision' does contradict the biology, chemistry and function of the eye. A claim that only serves to discredit the book.

I don't think it does and I cannot change it. It's a shame because the book is good.

It is what it is and the readers make their own judgement.

 

[peacegirl]

We cannot have free will and no free will.

Right. I never said we did.

Transparent dodge, avoiding the fact that your author’s silly claims contradict virtually all current science.

Compatibilism is both having free will and not having free will.

No it’s not. We’ve been over this.

The subject now is how real-time seeing and “the eye is not a sense organ” completely contradicts established physics, biology, and chemistry.

Now it contradicts biology and chemistry too? How about bringing in the kitchen sink?

'Light at the eye/instant vision' does contradict the biology, chemistry and function of the eye. A claim that only serves to discredit the book.

I don't think it does and I cannot change it. It's a shame because the book is good.

It is what it is and the readers make their own judgement.

Yep

 

[Crumb]

... snip ...
This change in our use of words that falsely stratify people into layers of importance will revolutionize how we see each other and how we treat each other. I wish people would read the book instead of show so much resistance. I guarantee it would give them a new perspective on so many things.

(bolding mine)

Why aren't you giving this book away?

I may just do that. It has cost me a lot of money to get this done, and it would be nice to make some money so I can market.

There's no time like the present.

Amazon won't let you sell your book under $2.99. Are you telling me that you would buy the book at this price? I don't think anyone cares about the price. That's not their reason for not buying it. They just don't want to buy a book that everybody says is garbage. If a well-known philosopher recommended it, $10, $20, or even $30 for most people would be a drop in the bucket.

You are selling it for 12.99. But you don't have to sell it. You have the file. You can just give the file away. I'm sure you know that. I wouldn't pay anything for it, but I might read it if it was free.

But that's not really my point. If I had a book that I thought would revolutionize the world the way you claim this one will, I would remove all barriers to its distribution. I'd be kind of a dick if I put the secret to peace and prosperity for all behind a pay wall.

 

[peacegirl]

... snip ...
This change in our use of words that falsely stratify people into layers of importance will revolutionize how we see each other and how we treat each other. I wish people would read the book instead of show so much resistance. I guarantee it would give them a new perspective on so many things.

(bolding mine)

Why aren't you giving this book away?

I may just do that. It has cost me a lot of money to get this done, and it would be nice to make some money so I can market.

There's no time like the present.

Amazon won't let you sell your book under $2.99. Are you telling me that you would buy the book at this price? I don't think anyone cares about the price. That's not their reason for not buying it. They just don't want to buy a book that everybody says is garbage. If a well-known philosopher recommended it, $10, $20, or even $30 for most people would be a drop in the bucket.

You are selling it for 12.99. But you don't have to sell it. You have the file. You can just give the file away. I'm sure you know that. I wouldn't pay anything for it, but I might read it if it was free.

But that's not really my point. If I had a book that I thought would revolutionize the world the way you claim this one will, I would remove all barriers to its distribution. I'd be kind of a dick if I put the secret to peace and prosperity for all behind a pay wall.

It would cheapen the book. People won't read it regardless, and it's disheartening. I can lower the price for you if it bothers you so much. I bet even if I charged $2.99, not one person here would buy it. It's not about the money. People are just mad that he made this claim.

 

[pood]

..People are just mad that he made this claim.

Right. Basically another ad hom.

No one is mad he made the claim. No one is mad at all. We just point out that the claim is false. And we give evidence to prove it was false.

But you have a recipe of denialism.

Step One: claim that no one read the book, or at least read the relevant chapters.

Step Two: claim that if they did read it, they did not understand it. Otherwise, if they did understand the claim, they would agree with it.

Step Tree: Concede that they both read and understood the claim, and only pretend to disagree with it because the claim threatens their world view and makes them really, really mad.

All such assertions are blatantly ad hom when everyone against whom you make these baseless charges has repeatedly shown you WHY they disagree with the claims. But you ignore our reasoned refutations of this nonsense and argue instead to the man; i.e., ad hom. It’s all you’ve got because you have no facts on your side.

 

[pood]

Now it contradicts biology and chemistry too? How about bringing in the kitchen sink?

Claiming we see in real time thoroughly contradicts established and correct physics. Claiming the eye is not a sense organ thoroughly contradicts established biology and chemistry.

Which would be perfectly fine, if — like Einstein, who had a testable hypothesis that contradicted Newton — your author had a testable hypothesis that contradicted physics, biology and chemistry.

But he doesn’t.

 

[peacegirl]

..People are just mad that he made this claim.

Right. Basically another ad hom.

No one is mad he made the claim. No one is mad at all. We just point out that the claim is false. And we give evidence to prove it was false.

But you have a recipe of denialism.

Step One: claim that no one read the book, or at least read the relevant chapters.

Step Two: claim that if they did read it, they did not understand it. Otherwise, if they did understand the claim, they would agree with it.

Step Tree: Concede that they both read and understood the claim, and only pretend to disagree with it because the claim threatens their world view and makes them really, really mad.

All such assertions are blatantly ad hom when everyone against whom you make these baseless charges has repeatedly shown you WHY they disagree with the claims. But you ignore our reasoned refutations of this nonsense and argue instead to the man; i.e., ad hom. It’s all you’ve got because you have no facts on your side.

I am not going to debate you. It’s a waste. Your summary was not good and I’m tired of defending this man’s knowledge. If you think he’s got nothing, then just move on. No worse for wear!

 

[aupmanyav]

Peacegirl said: "Here are a few sentences with God in them.
Some people may be offended that the word God is used throughout the book and conclude that this is a religious work.

Aup.: My decision sill remains the same. I have nothing to do with God in whatever way the idea is presented.

Maybe you'll make an exception. It was a metaphor.

We can only begin to imagine what an aggressive country would do if there were no other powers to control the desire to spread whatever that country desired to spread. But the moment mankind understands what it means that will is not free which prevents the very things for which government came into existence, it proves, beyond a shadow of doubt, the reality of God—this amazing mathematical power. Everything was timed so perfectly that you must catch your breath in absolute amazement when you contemplate the magnificence of this mathematical equation, which includes not only the solar system and the exquisite relationship that exists between the planets, but man himself and all the evil and ignorance that ever existed.

Presently there are people in the world who make a profit on war, for which they cannot be blamed, and there are many theologians and politicians who cannot be happy from having what gives them great satisfaction taken away. Consequently, this group will be somewhat blinded by the mathematical relations and will be compelled to search for some flaw in order to retain their accustomed position of extreme spiritual satisfaction. However, there isn’t any flaw which compels all those in a leadership position who are accustomed to giving orders, as is the case with religion, government, and education, to be silent for the very first time while the truth about man’s nature is being revealed.

No, I don't. Words should be used carefully.
God and soul are are not reality but fantasy.
I hate revelations. They are bereft of evidence and are fraudulent.
You make amazingly long posts without ever being clear. It is really an art.

 

[pood]

..People are just mad that he made this claim.

Right. Basically another ad hom.

No one is mad he made the claim. No one is mad at all. We just point out that the claim is false. And we give evidence to prove it was false.

But you have a recipe of denialism.

Step One: claim that no one read the book, or at least read the relevant chapters.

Step Two: claim that if they did read it, they did not understand it. Otherwise, if they did understand the claim, they would agree with it.

Step Tree: Concede that they both read and understood the claim, and only pretend to disagree with it because the claim threatens their world view and makes them really, really mad.

All such assertions are blatantly ad hom when everyone against whom you make these baseless charges has repeatedly shown you WHY they disagree with the claims. But you ignore our reasoned refutations of this nonsense and argue instead to the man; i.e., ad hom. It’s all you’ve got because you have no facts on your side.

I am not going to debate you. It’s a waste. Your summary was not good and I’m tired of defending this man’s knowledge. If you think he’s got nothing, then just move on. No worse for wear!

Got it. You can’t defend his claims. What else is new?

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl said: "Here are a few sentences with God in them.
Some people may be offended that the word God is used throughout the book and conclude that this is a religious work.

Aup.: My decision sill remains the same. I have nothing to do with God in whatever way the idea is presented.

Then why are you here?

Maybe you'll make an exception. It was a metaphor.

We can only begin to imagine what an aggressive country would do if there were no other powers to control the desire to spread whatever that country desired to spread. But the moment mankind understands what it means that will is not free which prevents the very things for which government came into existence, it proves, beyond a shadow of doubt, the reality of God—this amazing mathematical power. Everything was timed so perfectly that you must catch your breath in absolute amazement when you contemplate the magnificence of this mathematical equation, which includes not only the solar system and the exquisite relationship that exists between the planets, but man himself and all the evil and ignorance that ever existed.

Presently there are people in the world who make a profit on war, for which they cannot be blamed, and there are many theologians and politicians who cannot be happy from having what gives them great satisfaction taken away. Consequently, this group will be somewhat blinded by the mathematical relations and will be compelled to search for some flaw in order to retain their accustomed position of extreme spiritual satisfaction. However, there isn’t any flaw which compels all those in a leadership position who are accustomed to giving orders, as is the case with religion, government, and education, to be silent for the very first time while the truth about man’s nature is being revealed.

No, I don't. Words should be used carefully.

He used words carefully.

God and soul are are not reality but fantasy.

Personal Gods are, but he used God as a mathamtical reality, not a personal God pulling strings. It's a shame you can't separate the two.

I hate revelations. They are bereft of evidence and are fraudulent.

He did have a revelation, or whatever word you want to call it. You are thinking in religious terms, which is why you reject it.

You make amazingly long posts without ever being clear. It is really an art.

You just came in here and expect to understand a discovery that is this important? The arroance here is breathtaking. I took this excerpt in the middle of the book for your benefit (i.e., to show how the word God was used), but obviously it backfired. People cannot take one sentence in the middle of a book and think they know what it's about. He said it's imperative to read the first three chapters to prevent what you just did—jump to a premature conclusion. Even if you don't like the word God, this in itself does not mean he was not precise in his writing. He was as precise as he could be considering how difficult it was to explain why man's will is not free and why the present definition is not working. He even said: Definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned—unless they describe reality. This is the reason why "doing of one's own accord" (i.e., the freedom to do what one wants) and having no free will to do otherwise could never be reconciled. You are exactly the type that is doing this knowledge a disservice.

One of the most profound insights ever expressed by Socrates was “Know Thyself,” but though he had a suspicion of its significance, it was only an intuitive feeling, not something he could put his finger on. These two words have never been adequately understood by mankind, including psychiatry and psychology, because this observation is the key that unlocks the first door to another door that requires its own key and where the hiding place to this discovery was finally uncovered. However, the problem here is so deep and so involved that even those like your philosopher Spinoza, who understood that man’s will is not free, didn’t even come close to the solution, and others like your William James would be willing to bet their lives that will is free. Why do theologians treat this as if it is an undeniable reality? And what made it so obvious to Durant that man’s will is free? Durant is now deceased, but over 20 years ago I phoned to tell him I had made a fantastic discovery that was hidden behind the fallacious theory that man’s will is free. He replied, “You must be on the wrong tack, but take what you think you have to Johns Hopkins University for an analysis.” I not only contacted that university but many others to no avail.

It is interesting to observe at this point that Durant was indirectly involved in my discovery. To give you a little background, it was November of 1959 when I received an amazing revelation that would change the course of my life. I happened to overhear on the radio a priest state very dogmatically that man has freedom of the will, and the hair stood up on my arms like a cat ready to fight. I didn’t understand why that happened and didn’t pay much attention to it at the time but felt that I was chilled for some reason. Up until that time I never gave much thought to the subject of free will, not rejecting or accepting it, but when this chill occurred every time the subject came up I began to see the connection. That night in a dream I kept hearing this phrase: “The solution to all the problems plaguing mankind lies hidden behind the fallacious belief that man’s will is free.” I still didn’t understand where it was leading, but the next day I started to reread Durant’s chapter on free will in his book Mansions of Philosophy. When I completed it, I remarked, “He really doesn’t know what he is talking about, and Spinoza is right; man’s will is not free.” Then, after nine strenuous months, I shouted, “Eureka, I have found it!” and I have had no rest ever since. After opening the door of determinism and proving conclusively that man’s will is not free, I saw another sign that read: ‘Hidden behind this door, you will discover the solution to the problem of evil — the long-awaited Messiah.’ I applied the key, opened the door, and after many months in the deepest analysis, I made a finding that was so fantastic that it took me several years to understand its full significance for all mankind. I saw how this new world must become a reality in a very short time.

“That’s what I wanted you to admit. I resent your bringing God into this at all. I don’t go for all that religious crap when you’re talking about science. Lots of people like religion, but I can’t stand all this ritual mumbo jumbo. Most people who go to church are hypocrites anyway. Besides, I know you never believed in religion either, never went to synagogue, and never prayed to God. I say again, I resent this.”

“Why are you telling me how I should go about presenting my discoveries? And why are you always jumping to conclusions? Is that what they taught you in college? Now remember, anytime you don’t like how I present my case, you can leave, but this is equivalent to resigning from chess when you can’t win. In order for me to show you how these so-called miracles come about, you must let me do it my way. Is that asking too much, or am I being unreasonable?”

“I’m sorry, and I apologize. Continue.”

The fact that I never went to synagogue or prayed is equivalent to my not wanting to do other things that didn’t interest me. But after making my discoveries, I knew for a fact that God (this mathematical reality) was not a figment of the imagination. The reason theologians could never solve this problem of evil was because they never attempted to look behind the door marked, ‘Man’s Will Is Not Free.’ Why should they when they were convinced that man’s will was free? Plato, Christ, Spinoza, and many others came into the world and saw the truth, but in a confused sort of way, because the element of evil was always an unsolved factor. When Jesus Christ told the rabbis that God commanded man to turn the other cheek, they threw him out because the Bible told them that God said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” When his enemies nailed him to the cross, he was heard to say, “They know not what they do.” “Turn the other cheek,” he said. Because Christ exemplified in his behavior the principle of forgiveness and because he saw such suffering in the world, he drew to himself those who needed help, and there were many. However, the legacy he left for Christianity was never reconciled. How was it possible to turn the other cheek in a world of such evil? Why was the mind of man so confused, and in spite of every possible criticism, how was religion able to convince the world to be patient and have faith? Where did these theologians receive their inspiration since there was no way science could reconcile good and evil with a God that caused everything. They solved this problem in a very simple manner by dividing good and evil in half, and God was only responsible for the first. Then they reasoned that God endowed man with freedom of the will to choose good over evil. To theologians, God is the creator of all goodness, and since man does many things considered evil, they were given no choice but to endow him with freedom of the will so that God could be absolved of all responsibility for evil, which was assigned to Satan. This is also the reason why religion is so hostile toward anyone who speaks against free will. Is it any wonder that Christ and Spinoza, plus innumerable others, pulled away from the synagogue? Is it any wonder Spinoza became a heretic and was excommunicated? According to the thinkers of that time, how could any intelligent person believe in Satan? Religion has never been able to reconcile the forces of good and evil with a caring and loving God, therefore Satan was destined to be born as the opposite of all good in the world.

 

[aupmanyav]

Peacegirl said: "Here are a few sentences with God in them.
Some people may be offended that the word God is used throughout the book and conclude that this is a religious work.

Aup.: My decision sill remains the same. I have nothing to do with God in whatever way the idea is presented.

Then why are you here?

Maybe you'll make an exception. It was a metaphor.

We can only begin to imagine what an aggressive country would do if there were no other powers to control the desire to spread whatever that country desired to spread. But the moment mankind understands what it means that will is not free which prevents the very things for which government came into existence, it proves, beyond a shadow of doubt, the reality of God—this amazing mathematical power. Everything was timed so perfectly that you must catch your breath in absolute amazement when you contemplate the magnificence of this mathematical equation, which includes not only the solar system and the exquisite relationship that exists between the planets, but man himself and all the evil and ignorance that ever existed.

Presently there are people in the world who make a profit on war, for which they cannot be blamed, and there are many theologians and politicians who cannot be happy from having what gives them great satisfaction taken away. Consequently, this group will be somewhat blinded by the mathematical relations and will be compelled to search for some flaw in order to retain their accustomed position of extreme spiritual satisfaction. However, there isn’t any flaw which compels all those in a leadership position who are accustomed to giving orders, as is the case with religion, government, and education, to be silent for the very first time while the truth about man’s nature is being revealed.

No, I don't. Words should be used carefully.

He used words carefully.

God and soul are are not reality but fantasy.

Personal Gods are, but he used God as a mathamtical reality, not a personal God pulling strings. It's a shame you can't separate the two.

I hate revelations. They are bereft of evidence and are fraudulent.

He did have a revelation, or whatever word you want to call it. You are thinking in religious terms, which is why you reject it.

You make amazingly long posts without ever being clear. It is really an art.

You just came in here and expect to understand a discovery that is this important? The arroance here is breathtaking. I took this excerpt in the middle of the book for your benefit (i.e., to show how the word God was used), but obviously it backfired. People cannot take one sentence in the middle of a book and think they know what it's about. He said it's imperative to read the first three chapters to prevent what you just did—jump to a premature conclusion. Even if you don't like the word God, this in itself does not mean he was not precise in his writing. He was as precise as he could be considering how difficult it was to explain why man's will is not free and why the present definition is not working. He even said: Definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned—unless they describe reality. This is the reason why "doing of one's own accord" (i.e., the freedom to do what one wants) and having no free will to do otherwise could never be reconciled. You are exactly the type that is doing this knowledge a disservice.

One of the most profound insights ever expressed by Socrates was “Know Thyself,” but though he had a suspicion of its significance, it was only an intuitive feeling, not something he could put his finger on. These two words have never been adequately understood by mankind, including psychiatry and psychology, because this observation is the key that unlocks the first door to another door that requires its own key and where the hiding place to this discovery was finally uncovered. However, the problem here is so deep and so involved that even those like your philosopher Spinoza, who understood that man’s will is not free, didn’t even come close to the solution, and others like your William James would be willing to bet their lives that will is free. Why do theologians treat this as if it is an undeniable reality? And what made it so obvious to Durant that man’s will is free? Durant is now deceased, but over 20 years ago I phoned to tell him I had made a fantastic discovery that was hidden behind the fallacious theory that man’s will is free. He replied, “You must be on the wrong tack, but take what you think you have to Johns Hopkins University for an analysis.” I not only contacted that university but many others to no avail.

It is interesting to observe at this point that Durant was indirectly involved in my discovery. To give you a little background, it was November of 1959 when I received an amazing revelation that would change the course of my life. I happened to overhear on the radio a priest state very dogmatically that man has freedom of the will, and the hair stood up on my arms like a cat ready to fight. I didn’t understand why that happened and didn’t pay much attention to it at the time but felt that I was chilled for some reason. Up until that time I never gave much thought to the subject of free will, not rejecting or accepting it, but when this chill occurred every time the subject came up I began to see the connection. That night in a dream I kept hearing this phrase: “The solution to all the problems plaguing mankind lies hidden behind the fallacious belief that man’s will is free.” I still didn’t understand where it was leading, but the next day I started to reread Durant’s chapter on free will in his book Mansions of Philosophy. When I completed it, I remarked, “He really doesn’t know what he is talking about, and Spinoza is right; man’s will is not free.” Then, after nine strenuous months, I shouted, “Eureka, I have found it!” and I have had no rest ever since. After opening the door of determinism and proving conclusively that man’s will is not free, I saw another sign that read: ‘Hidden behind this door, you will discover the solution to the problem of evil — the long-awaited Messiah.’ I applied the key, opened the door, and after many months in the deepest analysis, I made a finding that was so fantastic that it took me several years to understand its full significance for all mankind. I saw how this new world must become a reality in a very short time.

“That’s what I wanted you to admit. I resent your bringing God into this at all. I don’t go for all that religious crap when you’re talking about science. Lots of people like religion, but I can’t stand all this ritual mumbo jumbo. Most people who go to church are hypocrites anyway. Besides, I know you never believed in religion either, never went to synagogue, and never prayed to God. I say again, I resent this.”

“Why are you telling me how I should go about presenting my discoveries? And why are you always jumping to conclusions? Is that what they taught you in college? Now remember, anytime you don’t like how I present my case, you can leave, but this is equivalent to resigning from chess when you can’t win. In order for me to show you how these so-called miracles come about, you must let me do it my way. Is that asking too much, or am I being unreasonable?”

“I’m sorry, and I apologize. Continue.”

The fact that I never went to synagogue or prayed is equivalent to my not wanting to do other things that didn’t interest me. But after making my discoveries, I knew for a fact that God (this mathematical reality) was not a figment of the imagination. The reason theologians could never solve this problem of evil was because they never attempted to look behind the door marked, ‘Man’s Will Is Not Free.’ Why should they when they were convinced that man’s will was free? Plato, Christ, Spinoza, and many others came into the world and saw the truth, but in a confused sort of way, because the element of evil was always an unsolved factor. When Jesus Christ told the rabbis that God commanded man to turn the other cheek, they threw him out because the Bible told them that God said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” When his enemies nailed him to the cross, he was heard to say, “They know not what they do.” “Turn the other cheek,” he said. Because Christ exemplified in his behavior the principle of forgiveness and because he saw such suffering in the world, he drew to himself those who needed help, and there were many. However, the legacy he left for Christianity was never reconciled. How was it possible to turn the other cheek in a world of such evil? Why was the mind of man so confused, and in spite of every possible criticism, how was religion able to convince the world to be patient and have faith? Where did these theologians receive their inspiration since there was no way science could reconcile good and evil with a God that caused everything. They solved this problem in a very simple manner by dividing good and evil in half, and God was only responsible for the first. Then they reasoned that God endowed man with freedom of the will to choose good over evil. To theologians, God is the creator of all goodness, and since man does many things considered evil, they were given no choice but to endow him with freedom of the will so that God could be absolved of all responsibility for evil, which was assigned to Satan. This is also the reason why religion is so hostile toward anyone who speaks against free will. Is it any wonder that Christ and Spinoza, plus innumerable others, pulled away from the synagogue? Is it any wonder Spinoza became a heretic and was excommunicated? According to the thinkers of that time, how could any intelligent person believe in Satan? Religion has never been able to reconcile the forces of good and evil with a caring and loving God, therefore Satan was destined to be born as the opposite of all good in the world.

Kindly do not waste your time in replying to my posts. They are too long, and therefore, meaningless. A meaningful post would not occupy more than four lines.