I read it, but its pretty ordinary. there are so many presumptive answers from both characters designed to move teh book in specific directions, but that are not fully investigated or complete - like the bit about how the concept of time as a limiting factor for God, and the bit about the nature of God - what characteristics if any God may posess and why people think of God as having human type characteristics - so overall, slightly beat up in the intro, but failed to meet expectations - will probably please anyone who knows very little about religion except that they dont like religion. Not as deeply considered as I had hoped. Still glad I read it though, its not offensive or anything, just not particularly accurate for the topics its based on (first 50 or so pages)
"Liberty, what crimes are committed in your name."
S@M wrote:I read it, but its pretty ordinary. there are so many presumptive answers from both characters designed to move teh book in specific directions, but that are not fully investigated or complete - like the bit about how the concept of time as a limiting factor for God, and the bit about the nature of God - what characteristics if any God may posess and why people think of God as having human type characteristics - so overall, slightly beat up in the intro, but failed to meet expectations - will probably please anyone who knows very little about religion except that they dont like religion. Not as deeply considered as I had hoped. Still glad I read it though, its not offensive or anything, just not particularly accurate for the topics its based on (first 50 or so pages)
thats the point though, its meant to have errors for you to think about. the ideas presented are plausible and sound right, pretty much exactly as science's ideas sound. the book wants you to ask yourself: if there can be errors in these ideas which are close in believability to science/modern conceptions of God and the world, then which is really right?
I thought you didn't like "books", "knowledge" and "learning" and all that unimportant shit that takes you away from dealing drugs in local shithole bars?
Foo wrote:
You can read it in PDF form in under an hour without skimming it. In summary, it's written in the style of an extremely long philosophical hypothetical scenario (one of those 'Aristotle talks to God' type things). It's an extrapolated analysis of a stereotypical world view vs an example unified theory. It's not scientific in term, but straddles the subjects of science and religion and proposes an example of unity between the 2.
What do you guys think abou the "Relationships" chapter? About people who are object-oriented being boring and that people who talk about other people with their friends are more interesting? I think I agree.
I haven't gotten that far yet. I'm up to the ESP section. Once he explained what "god's debris" was, I thought it made complete sense. The ESP shit, however, seems like utter bollocks.
[quote="YourGrandpa"]I'm satisfied with voicing my opinion and moving on.[/quote]