Re: MD Self-Evident MoQ Truths

From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Wed Aug 10 2005 - 04:06:58 BST

  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD MOQ: Involved or on the Sideline?"

    Ian,

    Well, that raises the questions of where do people such as myself stand, who
    consider both explanations bankrupt? The gaps exist in the first place as a
    result of SOM patterns of thought (what Barfield calls the sin of
    omission -- of ignoring that the appearances we call the natural world are
    mental creations).

    - Scott

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron@gmail.com>

    So thanks Scott, you make my point.

    People who wave DQ about are on the MoQ side of that line in the sand.
    People who wave God about are on the other.
    Dead simple.

    A decision on which is better or worse (DQ or God) is a matter of
    choosing which side of that line.

    Ian

    On 8/9/05, Scott Roberts <jse885@cox.net> wrote:
    > Ian,
    >
    > Ian said:
    > Atheistic / Non-Theistic ? I feel it is explicit that MoQ does not
    > "require" god as part of its explanation, there are no gaps waiting to
    > be filled
    >
    > Scott:
    > I fail to see how the MOQ has no gaps waiting to be filled. Doesn't it
    > just
    > wave "DQ" at the question of how the universe gets from one level to
    > another? I don't see this as any better (or worse) an explanation than
    > saying "God did it".
    >
    > - Scott

    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 10 2005 - 04:23:45 BST