I’ve been munching on this carpet for hours, and I still don’t feel like a lesbian!
Sorry I had to throw that in there.
What was this post about again?
Yes, tracer, except that I would say “It seems likely based on observation of every other teflon coated pan I own of this brand that this 2-quart saucepan will never etc…” And then I would probably call the manufacturer a big fat poopie head.
Libertarian:
Doh! Well, it seemed appropriate to use the capital “S” when I wrote that. (I can’t imagine why, now.) I neither deify the practicioners of science, nor do I hold the abstract idea of “big S” Science as the One True Way in which to live. I do, however, believe that the scientific method is the most honest way I know of to go about the business of understanding myself and the universe.
Lib, ya got me! I’m not sure I completely understand your description of the hypersphere, but let’s see: If the observation of a large luminescent hypersphere moving through space time in the manner you describe matches exactly what is expected to be observed of a supernova, then it would certainly make sense for scientists to think it highly likely they had observed a supernova. And I don’t know who Peano was (sorry; I told you I’m learning all this PCR stuff) (and I’m kind of new to formal philosophy), but I can tell you that no other solution for 1 + 1 is reproducible working in base ten. This is simply the structure of mathematics, and has nothing to do with induction.
You may not have phrased that exactly the way you intended it, so I won’t quibble that this seems inconsistent with your earlier statements about the source of agape. (God is Love, love is the spirit, etc.) However, you’ve now introduced a term that is entirely relative, and which defies (so far) man’s best efforts to define it!
When we call another person “good” we are basing that characterization on the person’s actions within the framework either of our own ethos, or of our society’s more’s. Thus, we would have to agree on some very specific definitions of “goodness” in order to even debate the validity of your statement that “Goodness is the source of agape.”
In my view, defining “goodness” in a way that can stand up to objective criticism is so much more difficult a task than defining “love” that I hesitate to do so. While I hold certain definite opinions on the nature of “goodness” I am entirely unprepared to justify my opinions, and indeed I know that I cannot do so.
I’m unsure where this leaves us in this debate, but if we can stick to some more objective and universal terms (or at least to terms which describe observable behavior) perhaps we can continue the God/agape/altered-awareness discussion.
Well, I’m still not going to impune your sanity, but I’m even curioser than before! Are we talking about a direct “Burning Bush” type of encounter, a revelation through some sort of trance/dream, some other transcendental experience or frequent conversation with the Supreme Being?
I am intrigued by some of the last poster’s points, and I have skipped through much of the posts so if I miss something feel free to bitchslap me with a tuna.
Regarding the “relative” nature of “goodness” I wonder if that might not ENTIRELY be true. I mean sure, in our culture we find romantic love between man and woman to be good, whereas other cultures could care less. But I wonder if there are any consistent trends across all cultures that are considered “good”…love for one’s mother, giving of one’s life for the benefit of others, that sort of thing. IF we could find some universal threads for “goodness” we might have some sort of objective base upon which to study morality rather than relying on subjective opinions.
avalongod, your comments are well taken, but I don’t have the heart to respond right now. One of our friends now is finding for himself the answer to this thread.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=28219
It’s nice to know I’m not the only one who has suffered this. However, my first late-night anxiety fests resulted from my contemplation of the possibility of eternal life in heaven (I was still Catholic). Just try contemplating existing for eternity - it freaks you out! My attacks regarding non-existence have actually been milder. BTW, I like the scene in Hannah and Her Sisters where Woody Allen is telling his parents he’s becoming Catholic because he doesn’t want to believe he’ll cease to exist. His father’s take (I’m paraphrasing): “It won’t bother me because I’ll be unconcious. If I’m not unconcious, I’ll deal with it then.” Love that.
Also, College Student, thanks for the laugh. There should be a link to Virtual Hell from Landover Baptist. What a hoot!
Xeno
Were you merely atoms, the scientific method (at least, the popular notion of it) would suffice.
An analogy will help. Consider that you were a two-dimensional being on a plane, and that a three-dimensional being pushed a sphere through the plane from height to depth. You would see nothing more than cross-sections of it, like this: first, the sudden appearance of a point, then an ever widening line (remember, you can’t see over lines — you’re two dimensional), then an ever narrowing line, then a point, and then finally the whole thing would disappear.
Do the same thing with a four-dimensional hypersphere through three-dimensional space, and you will see first a point, then an ever larger disc (you can’t see around the disc) until it is half-way through. Then, you would see an ever smaller disc until it disappeared.
Voilà! Supernova!
Giuseppe Peano (1858-1932) was an Italian mathematician and logician. He originally axiomatically defined the natural numbers in 1899, later adding zero, and ended up with what became known as the five Peano Axioms:
[list=1]
[li]Zero is a number.[/li][li]Every natural number or zero, a, has an immediate successor, a + 1.[/li][li]Zero is not the successor of a natural number.[/li][li]No two numbers have the same immediate successor.[/li][li]The axiom of induction: Any property that belongs to zero, and also to the immediate successor of any natural number to which it belongs, belongs to all natural numbers.[/li][/list=1]
His first premise drawn from the axioms was this: 1 + 1 = 2.
That induction axiom was first formally defined by Augustus de Morgan (1806 - 1871), another logician, of DeMorgan’s Law fame: Not(A Or B) Implies (Not A And Not B) And Not(A And B) Implies (Not A Or Not B).
Goodness and Love are metaphysical synonyms. That which is Good Loves. That which is Absolutely Good Loves Absolutely. Likewise, that which Loves Absolutely is Absolutely Good.
And well it should defy those efforts, since man, in solitude, has no frame of reference from which to comprehend it.
False dilemma.
You have not considered the reference frame of God’s own Absolute Goodness.
It is okay by me if we define Goodness as God, or else as Love. Spirit is not predicative, but nominative. It is not genitive, but ablative.
We are talking about a changed heart that comprehends suddenly differently. Whereas before, I had understood things this way, “there are atheists and theists, and never the twain shall meet,” I now understood very differently, “there are those who love and those who don’t”.
God doesn’t speak to the brain, but to the heart. The limbic system (the brain’s connection to God) is for apprehension, not comprehension.
For more information on God and the limbic system, see Phantoms in the Brain, by V. S. Ramachandran.
avalongod wrote:
My grandfather was a lesbian. That makes me one-quarter lesbian, right?
Tracer
But hopefully no further removed from Kevin Bacon.
Libertarian, sorry I took so long. I’ve only had time for quick posts here and there, and I take my debates more seriously than that! 
“Merely atoms” as opposed to… what? Is there something else I could be composed of?
Actually, Lib I do understand what you’re saying, but I disagree that a rational approach to understanding somehow limits my comprehension. I find the scientific method (not “the popular notion” of the scientific method, whatever that is) perfectly adequate and totally harmonious with intuition and emotion.
Well, I read and thoroughly enjoyed Flatland when I was ten, so I understand the two and three dimensional imagery. I don’t believe your four dimensional analogy holds up, but I don’t know enough on the subject to argue. (However, if JonF or KP or anyone else wants to take it, please elucidate us.) --But I do know that if a three dimensional scientist were to observe the phenomenon you described, he would certainly not think “supernova.”
In any case, I’m unclear as to the relevance of your analogy. IIRC, you were attempting to clarify an earlier comment you made in response to my statement that: “My definition…has the advantage of compatibility with the universe which I observe and which Science describes.”
Your point seems to be that science can only describe what can be observed. Since this is obviously quite easily refuted, I have to think that I misunderstood you. Perhaps if you could make your points without using doubtful analogies, we could move more quickly. (Try using parables. Jesus loved them.)
and:
I Love that which contains the Chewy Goodness of caramel. That which I Love Absolutely contains Absolute Chewiness. Absolute Chewiness produces Absolute Goodness in me. This is true because I say it is, having been given the reference frame of the Mars candy company.
But it’s not okay by me to define goodness in that way. Furthermore, your argument is becoming a classic fallacy. You’re trying to show that agape is proof of the eternal spirit of God because:[ul][li]Agape is Absolute Love[]That which Loves Absolutely is Absolutely Good[]Goodness is God and so is Love[*]Abso-freakin’-lutely[/ul]You’re stating your assumptions in such a way as to prove your conclusion, since your assumptions are simply restatements of your conclusion![/li]
Look, I’m not trying to offend with my responses, Lib but WTF are you trying to say? You appear to mean that spirit is a separate thing from its effect, that it is separate from personalities and cannot be possessed as an attribute, but is instead the instrument of such attributes.
I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, Lib but I feel that if I don’t, you’ll have said nothing! Grammatical terms are quite useful when applied to grammatical concepts, but are in no way illustrative of metaphysical constructs. Your ideas are quite intriguing, but I’m having some trouble following you. This may just be some dullness on my part, but believe me, I’m not being deliberately obtuse (although I’ve been accused of it before).
You’re a fun guy to talk to Lib but you get under my skin sometimes with the smoke and mirrors! (No offense intended.)
I’m posting this for Lib; his response apparently posted in the wrong thread.
Libertarian says:
Xeno
Um, I have been asked to clarify my statement that our Spirit is ablative in its relation to God rather than genitive beyond merely stating that I use the terms in their ordinary sense.
Perhaps if I paraphrase myself.
Our Spirit does not belong to God, though it comes from Him. It is His will that we believe in Him, but He allows us free moral agency to make our own decisions. That is, we are removed (ablatively) from His will, not tied (genitively) to it.
(Is that okay now?)
Hey, Lib, no fair using a book I recommended to you to draw contradictory conclusions from what I drew!