Talk:God's Debris/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Okay, I think I've got this apostrophe problem sorted out. --Brion 22:55, 16 February 2003 (UTC)

I removed:

Relegated to publication as an eBook for its lack of Dilbert content, it became an immediate success, primarily with those comfortable of having their weltanschauungs challenged, and was immediately also published in hardcover.

Because it doesn't really make sense. What is "Dilbert content" and "weltanschauungs"? Why was it an eBook? Because it wasn't Dilbert? Also, the words immediate and immediately shouldn't be used so close together unless it's deliberate, and I don't think this is. Tuf-Kat

Occam's Razor?

On Occam's Razor, its definition is: In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. In God's Debris, Scott Adams uses the adage "the simplest explanation is usually right." However, it is not exactly same as Occam's razor. Also, neither Scott Adams nor the characters use the phrase "Occam's razor" anywhere in the book. A reading of the article in its current version gives an impression that either Adams or the characters use the phrase. imo, it is more a case of reductio ad absurdum rather than Occam's razor. --Gurubrahma 09:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

"There can only be one Avatar"?

The article says:

This book can be classified as a modern version of the Hindu philosophy of Advaita Vedanta. Its only deviation is the statement that "There can only be one Avatara", whereas in Hindu mythology there can be multiple avatars existing simultaneously

However, the book does not say that. The quote is "There is only one Avatar at this time", which does not preclude the existence of multiple Avatars at any other, unspecified time.

Still, I am loath to edit anything - I am not certain if I simply misunderstood. If I did, please disregard this comment.

-- 86.104.41.11 12:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the exact quote is "There is only one avatar at a time." (I downloaded the PDF and have it open right now.) I'll fix that, anyway. --Yar Kramer 16:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

General problems

The article is full of claims that are either obscure, challengeable, or in need of citations.

1. Obscure. For example: "God's Debris creates a cohesive but iconoclastic philosophical universe" — what's a philosophical universe? How can a universe be iconoclastic (or cohesive, for that matter)?
2. Challengeable. "Another similarity the book bears to Vedantic texts, such as the Gita and Upanishads, is its narrative style. Much like these ancient texts, it has a question and answer format between two characters in a fictional setting." In other words, it's a dialogue, and thus shares its style with a huge number of texts in many different traditions.
3. Needs citation. For example: "This book can be classified as a modern version of the Hindu philosophy of Advaita Vedanta. Its only deviation is the statement that 'There is only one Avatar at a time', whereas in Hindu mythology there can be multiple avatars existing simultaneously." This is it's only deviation? Aside from the inherent unlikeliness of this, such a claim is in serious need of a citation. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Yeah. I think we should actually ditch some of that (rather than trying to source the more questionable stuff), give it a slightly more major overhaul than minor cleanup. The only thing I can directly answer there is that it means the ideas presented in it are iconoclastic, and it needs to phrase it better than "a philosophical universe". --Yar Kramer 17:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed merge.. //// Pacific PanDeist * 05:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Speed of Light

Are the statements about light's speed being 3*10^8 m/s faster than the traveller, mentioned by the Avatar as being scientifically sound, true or simply made up? 59.183.134.49 16:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Vader1941

> Yes, it is true, though it is a complex, difficult theory.

(Relativity)

Great Book (if you've never studied classical philosophy)

Adams explores many of the great questions in life for himself, but much of that ground has already been covered through the centuries by many of the great dead philosophers. It is an interesting read, well worth the $5 I paid for it.Landroo 17:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Critique?

I'm looking for the most comprehensive review on the book - listing all the misdirections, false arguments, non sequiturs (and maybe also all about this "hypnosis technique" supposedly used in the book [1], though that's probable bullshit as well :-) ). Is Wikipedia the right place to collaboratively write such a review, or is there already one somewhere? Peter S. 20:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many academic and journalistic reviews of the book out there. A sentence like "The book has its critics, both on the theories and on the narrative style," however, has no place in this article without sources cited. I am tagging it for now, but it needs to be replaced as the same could be said about ANY book on philosophy. Some specific criticisms should be taken from published reviews and related here, but not any sort of synthesis of the existing criticisms into any kind of original research, as Peter S. seems to imply.Slithymatt 21:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers right at the first paragraph?

I wouldn't mind spoilers in a story sum up but this is right in the beginning of the article. The reader is definitely not supposed to know (before he reads it) that God annihilated himself during the big bang and that the smallest units of matter and the law of probability are God's debris. There needs to be at least a warning about the spoiler. Reader isn't expecting the story behind the book being told right in the first paragraph of this article. 93.184.73.10 (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spoiler --Cybercobra (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Logical Errors by Adams

Early in God's Debris, Adams makes a couple of false assumptions. He concludes that most people do not believe in God - because, if they did, they would be searching for the true religion. This makes a couple of false assumptions: That most people are not sure which is the true religion, and that most people believe there can be only one true religion. Actually, people of the Buddhist, Confucianist, Hindu, Jewish, Taoist faiths, and the more liberal and tolerant Chiristians, all believe that God is equally accepting of all sincere faiths and does not demand one single religion. People who do believe there can be only one true religion are usually equally convinced that the religion they already have is the only possible candidate to be that one true faith. Either way, most people see no reason to look for the true religion. Such a search they see as quite unnecessary, for either reason. This does not mean they have no faith. Adams' reasoning is faulty.Erudil 16:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I submit that it is not necessarily Adams' own reasoning which is faulty — as you may remember from the introduction, he states explicitly that some of what he says is "creative baloney designed to sound true." The book is subtitled "A Thought Experiment"; the thought experiment, as explicitly statted in the introduction, is that he wants readers to "Try to figure out what's wrong with the simplest explanations" (emphasis mine). Me, my "own personal error I found" is that his theory is based on the premise that God exists/existed, but never does he prove that God necessarily must exist. —Yar Kramer 05:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The error of his assumption is a simple one: That there was a god, and he was omnipotent.71.54.255.33 07:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather the "Lack of the Above Aforementioned Logical Error" - Adams' reasoning isn't actually "faulty" in that way. First, he never concludes that people who do not really believe in God do not have faith. How is the assumption that "most people are not sure which religion is the true religion" false? The brain's lack of understanding creates simplified delusions. So, if the previous statement is in fact false, then most people are sure of which is the true religion, and thus they have created one of these delusions - "I'm right." God being "equally accepting of all sincere faiths" is also one of these delusions. The religions mentioned above not demanding one single religion are delusions within each respective religion. You can't say that the Jews and Christians are both right AND be a "true" believer of your said religion. Even if you agree that God is "accepting of all sincere faiths", you still have to believe that yours is more right than another and in that case, you are done searching. It is a simplified answer to a question that we cannot understand. Further, Adam's recognizes that different religions lead to the collective good of society. So, if certain religions believe that God is equally accepting, then the people of those respective religions are satisfied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.25.107 (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)