[MD] Natural or supernatural?

[david buchanan]

David M said to dmb:
The point is to explore the meaning of the concepts of determinism and 
freedom, these concepts are
rich not thin. But you seem to wish to avoid this.

dmb says:
Avoid what? Like I already said, its not a matter of disagreement so much as 
comprehension. I simply don't understand what you're saying. How can I wish 
to avoid "this" when i don't even know what "this" is. For example,...

David M continued:
It seems to me that the concept from 'freedom' is inseparable from 
'possibility' and this latter concept is inseparable from the one that the 
realm of the actual is separate from that of the possible, and that the 
latter concept is one that is richly explored in religious thought.

dmb replies:
Huh? Possibility is richly explored in religious thought. Okay. So what? The 
problem is not with the explorations of religious thought. The problem is 
that I have no idea what you are saying about those explorations. Look at 
your own words here, David. Its extremely vague. Freedom is inseparable from 
possibility? What does that mean? We are not free to do the impossible? Our 
freedom is limited to what is possible? I keep thinking, yea, so what. What 
sort of freedom are you talking about here? What sort of possibility are you 
talking about. Anything that doesn't break the laws of physics? What does it 
mean to distinquish between the actual and the possible? Is this any 
different from distinquishing between what is and what will be? I mean, are 
we talking about the processes of time and space, or what? And if this is so 
"richly explored in religious thought" why are you not sharing some of this?

David M said:
Seems to me you rightly avoid unpacking your thin and empty notions here 
because it would make you defenceless against that which you fear. That the 
MOQ cannot sustain a repression an outlawing of religious thought. ...Am I 
wrong?

dmb says:
Yes. If you think I have any idea what you're talking about, you are 
definately wrong. For example, which of my notions are thin? What makes you 
think I've avoided "unpacking" anything? How would unpacking make me 
defenceless? Against what? What do you think I'm afraid of? Who said 
anything about the MOQ repressing or outlawing religious thought? Maybe you 
think I'm asking these questions out of fear or as a way to avoid something, 
but I'm telling you honestly that I do not see the point. See, if you answer 
questions like this, I might have some pretty good clues about what you're 
saying. I'm not rejecting your ideas so much as criticizing your 
communicaton skills. If I knew what you were talking about I'd have a real 
chance to agree or disagree with it. Maybe then I could try to avoid it, but 
right now I don't even know what your point is. I'm not even sure what the 
topic is anymore.

Maybe you're the one who is doing the avoiding here, eh? I have repeatedly 
asked for explantions and repeatedly complained that your comments are too 
vague. Remember the joke about that? I'd complained that your assertions 
looked to me like a bad birthday card. I don't know if you have been trying 
to conceal the extent to which these concepts come from "religious thought" 
or what. Don't you suppose that it would've been helpful to explain what 
these terms mean in the religious context from which they are drawn?

_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC.  Get a free 90-day trial!  
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail