From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Fri Aug 20 2004 - 03:17:15 BST
All...
> msh:
> Non-responsive. And somewhat insulting, in a general sort of way.
mel:
IN A GENERAL SORT OF WAY??? No. I am specifically
insulting the whole idea of us needing to be coddled,
treated like porcelain figurines by a victorian sensibility
gawd. (I am NOT insulting anyone here in the mog.org)
I do regard it as responsive, however, it is responding
to the assumption behind the implied discomfort on our
part of the Down's baby situation. We assume it OUGHT
not happen.
>
> prior mel:
> From the HUMAN point of view the Down's baby
> is a terrible tragedy and modern surgery is a mercy.
> BUT...
>
> As I wrote earlier:
>
> Upon reflection, the POE is our attempt to project upon the
> infinite our preferences for how things from our limited capacity
> ought to be. That is simple absurdity, regardless of the
> rigorousness of formulation or the structure of the argument.
>
> msh:
> Your counter-argument (also somewhat insulting) assumes its
> conclusion, a very common fallacy in response to the POE: God exists
> and is smarter than us, therefore we can offer no valid argument
> against his existence. Therefore God exists.
mel:
No, I don't agree. I am not, in this line of discussion, addressing
anything about the specifics of the POE. Rather, I am expressing
doubt regarding the base assumtion itself of even making an
argument. (we're also anthropomorphising a god.)
As to a god being smarter than we are, no, it is not possible.
Smart is a function of intellectual capability, something in mind.
If a god existed, it would be of pure awareness and would KNOW
- omniscence, which would not require the limited problem
solving ability of an intellect.
Allow me to take a different tack regarding the assumption.
The fundamentally significant portion of religiousness is
spiritual, not intellectual or social. To use intellectual tools
in dealing with the spiritual is equivalent to using social only
reasoning to evaluate the significance of the intellectual level.
Despite the strength that logic offers our mental toolbox,
one problem we have using logic, especially deductive
reasoning, is that like a computer GIGO rules. Logic is
not capable of discerning the significance of what is to
be argued, it can only evaluate the truth.
So, using logic to make my point.
Assume that god does NOT exist.
The set of extant god is empty. or
The existence of god is is an empty set.
Since all things are true of the empty set.
I can assert:
God Exists
>>BANG<<
I just created god...
You can now tell your friends you were
present at the creation of god.
(OK you can stop laughing now.)
Point is, a logical argument re: POE
is as inappropriate - in my infallible opinion
(being Pope of the church of 6 PM BEER ;-)
Apologies if I offended anyone personally.
It was not my intent.
thanks--mel
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 20 2004 - 03:22:22 BST