Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil

From: Charles Roghair (ctr@pacificpartssales.com)
Date: Wed Aug 25 2004 - 01:26:41 BST

  • Next message: Charles Roghair: "Re: MD MOQ and Logic/Science"

    Just a thought:

    Would any or all be willing to agree to read THE RIVER OF GOD or some
    other pertinent tome and discuss it in MoQ terms along the way?

    I hate to reduce the MoQ to a glorified book club, but, then again,
    that's what it is de facto. Right?

    Again, just a thought.

    Another thought:

    Artistic Creativity. Also, discussed in light of the MoQ. Origin of,
    critique of end-result, muse, block, etc.

    I get a sense there are a few artists lurking around; I could be
    wrong...wouldn't be the first time.

    Best regards,

    Chuck

    On Aug 24, 2004, at 3:29 PM, ml wrote:

    > 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" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
    > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > 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: <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
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    > 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 - 01:27:03 BST