"...science had its perversions, while magic had its laws. A definite ritual was needed in either case, whether you built an airplane or a flying carpet." (p. 66)
This comparison prefigures Operation Otherworld.
"...Roland had tried to break Durindal (scroll down), in his last hour at Roncesvalles..." (ibid.)
"In Holger's home world, physical forces were strong and well understood, mental-magical forces weak and unmanageable. In this universe, the opposite held true." (pp. 66-67)
And the goetic universe is one where people can choose to use either set of forces?
"As for the force which made [the worlds] so parallel, the ultimate oneness itself, he supposed he would have to break down and call it God." (p. 67)
Oh no, he does not have to. That word, "God," is like a card trick. It can be used either literally or metaphorically. It can mean either a personal being or an impersonal unity. So a paragraph or a conversation can start with one meaning and end with the other. Either do not use that word or be very clear what you mean by it.
One of my Philosophy tutors, Colin Lyas, said that, when students told him, "By 'God,' I mean (fill in the blank)," he replied, "You want the comfort of that word without the responsibilities."
10 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
But I am more willing to agree with Holger than not! That is, he decided that, ultimately the universe had a final cause or origin which can only be God. Which makes more than an infinitely eternal and material universe existing from all eternity.
And I still remember as well how Holger thought the ruling hierarchy of the forces of Chaos ultimately went back to a certain One he did not care to think about! Again, reminiscent of what we see mentioned in the OPERATION books.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That the origin "can only be God" is precisely the kind of ambiguity that I am arguing against. It can only be a personal being? Why? Scientific and philosophical inquiries are attempts to find out what is in fact the case. Such inquiries do not begin by stating in advance that the answer to be found "can only be" one specific preconceived answer. There is then no need for inquiry and nothing to be learned.
Virtual particles in a vacuum are a current account of the cosmic origin. Such particles are not an eternally existing material universe and nor can they "only be God."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I know we are touching on issues we can't agree over. But I simply don't and can't believe "virtual particles" can be eternal and un-created.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No, they come into and go out of existence until some imbalance made them expand into a universe.
Paul.
But, again, the following reasoning is just an easy route to a preconceived conclusion:
something must be eternal (why?);
matter cannot be eternal (why not?);
there is only one alternative (why only one?)
that alternative is/"might as well be called God" (no, we need to be given a reason why that word specifically is applicable.)
Kaor, Paul!
As simply put as possible, I simply can't see how the atoms in the tiniest possible grain could have existed for all eternity. Thus it SEEMS simpler to believe those atoms had a BEGINNING at some point in time. And I it's simpler to believe that First Cause was a Being, a Person called God. Yes, I know, this is basically the Aristotelian argument, one you don't believe in.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the smallest particles have not always existed. Virtual particles are continually created and mutually annihilated. If there was a beginning, then there was no earlier moment, any more than there is a point further north than the North Pole. A person is not simple but extremely complicated. It is simpler to believe that simple elements have developed and evolved into complicated systems, including the very complicated beings that are capable of self-consciousness and personality.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Actually, I don't disagree. But I do continue to believe God "started" that process of virtual particles being created and annihilated at some point. I think it makes sense there was a "time" when virtual particles started to first being created.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Granted that you continue to believe as you do but I think it has to be acknowledged that attempted arguments in favor of the belief wind up as mere restatements of the belief.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
True, our premises are different, and hence we come to varying conclusions.
Ad astra! Seam
Post a Comment