Platt,
PLATT:
"It all hangs together and, as you say, "the MOQ makes much more
sense than the SOM." When all is said and done, SOM's dogma of
"chance." is every bit as rigid and unprovable as what creationists
believe. The faith of science in chance knows no bounds."
You've written a number of similar criticisms of "chance" over the
years yet you've never fleshed out the issue, opting instead for
the rhetorical pot-shot.
Sometimes you seem to have a problem with chance itself, as
if random events seen from the SOM perspective should be
re-evaluated as moral events (of the Dynamic kind) from the MOQ
perspective. At other times you seem to acknowledge random events
(as being random) but then seem incredulous that these could pattern
the universe.
Would you mind expanding on your criticism of the SOM notion of
"chance" and, as an exercise in intellectual honesty, give the best
defense of "chance" that you can find, *before* positing the MOQ
position?
Glenn
__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:27 BST