[MD] for Arlo

[Hamilton Priday]

Hi Kevin --

My response was to Arlo who suggested that a balanced energy system could 
give rise to an asymmetrical universe whose energy forces were then 
unbalanced.

You said:
> I'm still confused.  But not about what your saying.
> I don't understand why you're telling me this.
>
> Previously I asked,
>
> "If the ultimate source connotes anything does it also connote
> the thing's opposite?  If not then what is the source of the opposite?"
>
> And you responded,
>
> "This is a restatement of the fundamental theist issue, how can "evil" 
> derive from an "All Good" source? How can "immorality" derive from
> an all moral source?"
>
> Why did you introduce theism?  I hope you're not saying I'm making 
> the argument you describe.  Because I'm not.

I'm not introducing theism.  Morality is not theistic; it reflects the 
values of man and is relative.

[Kevin]:
> I said previously,
>
>  "I responded to Marsha's question the way I did because, for me,
>  the ultimate source is the source of all things; good, bad, life, 
> death, loss, renewal, etc.  The judgement of moral or immoral
> is our doing."
>
> In other words, for me, the ultimate source is amoral.

I agree that the source (Essence, DQ?) is amoral.  It has to be so if man is 
free to pursue his values.  So we have no argument on this issue.

[Kevin]:
> My understanding is that [How can X arise from a non-X source?]
> was first posited as a theistic problem, how can "evil" derive from a
> God that is "Pure Good"? As I said, many have tackled the question
> and advanced different solutions. But it continues to get rephrased
> in every dialogue.
>
> And you're saying I rephrased it?
>
> You seem to be confusing me with a strawman.
> It wasn't me who flipped that question

I'm sorry, but my PC gave out last week, so I can't retrieve the message 
you're referring to.  However, it was Arlo's statement, not yours, that 
prompted my response.  I did not intend to accuse you of rephrasing the 
morality issue.

Peace,
Ham