[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Jos]
> I like to make a distinction, but recognise that it's flawed: 

I don't find the distinction (flawed or otherwise) that you allude to, anywhere in what follows.

> Cultural morality defines its own version of evil within a given culture, 
> intellect is informed by this definition. 

Is it really the definition of 'evil', or what the definition applies to, that is at issue? 

> Acts are "described by" cultural level consciousness as good or evil. The 
> question of whether they actually are or not, is not visible to intellect, 
> as intellect is a pattern written on top of a what is always a realtively 
> predjudiced cultural viewpoint. 

But what if someone disagrees with the viewpoint of their culture.  Are they still prejudiced? 

> At any point where we try to state what is good and what is evil we can only 
> do so by creating static descriptions of both, but as good is implicitly a 
> dynamic phenomena (thus so is it's absence) we know that all static 
> definitions are inaccurate. 
 
1) Stating what is good requires a static description.
2) Good is dynamic.
3) :. All static definitions are innaccurate.

There are missing premises to your argument.
Craig