Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil

From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Aug 25 2004 - 21:23:18 BST

  • Next message: MarshaV: "RE: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil"

    Mel

    both god & DQ talk try to speak
    about the non-sq aspects of experience &
    their links are clear, ---thanks for asking,
    well my biological sq lost to some hard
    inorganic tennis court floor sq.

    dm

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "ml" < >
    To: < >
    Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 11:29 PM
    Subject: Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil

    > An interesting reference that traces
    > the evolution of the concept of God
    > is a book "The River of God" by Reilly
    >
    > It is not an argument for or against, but
    > simply a good history of who believed
    > what, when, and where the qualities
    > attributed to a deity came from, culturally
    > and geographically.
    >
    > It is a dynamic concept...who knows, this
    > may be where a DQ concept enters the
    > language of religious thought.
    >
    > David, what happened to your arm?
    >
    > thanks--mel
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "David Morey" < >
    > To: < >
    > Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 11:49 AM
    > Subject: Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil
    >
    >
    > > 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: < >
    > > To: < >
    > > 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 -
    > > > >
    > > > > 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 -
    > > >
    > > > 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
    >

    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 : Wed Aug 25 2004 - 22:27:50 BST