From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Aug 24 2004 - 18:49:05 BST
Quality puts together being and becoming
lets say giving be(com)ing or sq & dq
q is what is common to sq and dq.
For me, you just ain't getting it.
Here's hoping you keep trying it could
unlock your own ideas in new ways.
little post, broken arm at moment.
regards
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil
>
> From Ham Priday to Mark Steven Heyman
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 12:25 AM
> Subject: Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil
>
>
> Hello again, Mark
> You'll be surprised, and undoubtedly pleased,.to learn that I agree with
> everything stated in this posting.
> >
> > On 23 Aug 2004 at 11:05, Scott Roberts wrote:
> > Chuck said:
> > > Evil exists, which should be impossible if God exists, because:
> > >
> > > 1.If God is unaware of Evil in the world, he is not omniscient.
> > > 2.If God is aware of Evil, but can do nothing to prevent it, he is not
> > > omnipotent.
> > > 3.If God is aware of Evil, is able to prevent it and
> > > chooses not to, he is not omni-benevolent.
> > >
> > > Where's the flaw?
> >
> > scott said:
> > The flaw is to think that words like omniscient and omnibenevolent,
> > and of course God and Evil, have clear meaning, and thus can be used
> > in logical formulas. Whatever God might be, He is not a He, a being
> > who does things the way people do but perfectly.
> >
> > ...The argument here should tell the theist that he or she is working
> > with idols, not God. Idols are concepts (or percepts) that one
> > worships as God in place of God, but God cannot be conceived (or
> > perceived). As I said to Mark SH, most Christians are idolators or
> > heretics of some sort or other. They think that they understand what
> > is meant by "God is omniscient" and so fall into error, the most
> > egregious of which is to think that God is the sort of being that can
> > be thought to be on our side.
> >
> > msh says:
> > Here's the quibble. Saying that people are wrong in their
> > conceptions of God implies that you know what's right. If it's
> > "egregious error" to think that God is omniscient, for example, or if
> > it's true that "God cannot be conceived (or perceived)" then it's
> > fair for us to ask you to elaborate. Why should anyone believe that
> > something imperceptible AND inconceivable exists? I respectfully
> > suggest that the answer can only be that they really, really WANT to
> > believe it.
>
> You're absolutely right, Mark! And the intensity of their desire
> demonstrates the Value of this inconceivable Essence to man.
> With belief comes a meaning to existence to which the non-believer
> is oblivious. But even atheists and agnostics can understand
> that individual freedom would be impossible if man had access to
> absolute knowledge. Logic alone tells you that if you knew what
> must happen, you would have no choice in the matter. You'd
> be a human robot running along a prescribed course, unable to
> feel surprise or awe, set goals, achieve personal success, or learn
> through experience. Since you would not desire what you knew
> you couldn't have, your life would have no value and there would
> be no reason to live. If there's a "scheme" to man's innocence,
> this is it. Does that give you pause? Or is it mere platitudes and
> dribble? Only you can make that choice. But at least you're
> free to choose!
>
> By the way, on August 16, I closed with this question:
> > Does Mr. Pirsig regard Quality as a form of beingness,
> > as being itself, as a Being, or as
> > something else entirely? If Quality is not "being", then why haven't
you
> > raised the same question about Quality that you ask about Essence?
>
> I'd still like an answer.
>
> Best regards,
> Ham
>
>
> > 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
>
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 : Tue Aug 24 2004 - 22:28:35 BST