Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil

From: Charles Roghair (ctr@pacificpartssales.com)
Date: Fri Aug 20 2004 - 05:19:33 BST

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil"

    mel, All:

    mel wrote:

    > 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.

    Actually, no, insulting, ignorant; an unprovoked attack on Americans in
    general, specifically. Let's re-live it, shall we?:

    mel also wrote:

    "Despite the American fixation on all of reality
    being as safe as a Disneyland, unboundedly large
    degrees of freedom are, so shit happens."

    I realize evil exists. If not, how would we define good? So I guess
    I'm ironically un-American in that manner. Also, atheism is rather
    unpopular over here.

    The point actually IS I ACCEPT THAT BAD THINGS HAPPEN. Whether we as
    humans understand them or not on God's level is beside the point; they
    jibe with our lowly concept of Evil and we suffer for it. For God not
    to reveal that Evil is actually an illusion or there's some purpose
    that would lend us understanding would be monstrous and, yes, Evil, on
    his part. There's no getting around that.

    Your generalization, while offensive, was also groundless. Good for
    you. Smacks a bit of desperation.

    Also, what msh said is as valid as it gets and leaves your argument
    face down, feet stuck in the starting blocks long after the tape's been
    broken.

    Best regards,

    Chuck

    On Thursday, August 19, 2004, at 07:17 PM, ml wrote:

    > 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
    >

    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 - 05:43:55 BST