[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ham]
However, speculating on the "motive" for Creation is beyond the 
capacity of human reasoning.

[Arlo]
Really? Really?? You have hundreds of pages of "speculation" on your 
Essence and yet this one thing is "beyond" your capacity to even 
speculate? This reminds me of our previous dialogue when I asked if 
there existed a time deep in human history, in some distant primate 
line, when consciousness did not exist. You said, "yes". Fair 'nuf, I 
said, since that is your claim, then I ask "what changed?" Since you 
had emphatically denied that the appearance of consciousness was 
biological (due to some genetic mutation) or social (due to human 
interactions), and yet being obvious that _something_ had to change, 
I asked "what?" Although you were quite comfortable denying what it 
could be, when pressed (and facing the realization that your only 
option was to admit outright that "Essi-god poofed consciousness into 
man") you tried to fall back behind a string of ridiculous "that's 
beyond my ability to answer" rhetoric. Maybe. But yet you were quite 
comfortable in unequivocally denying certain possibilities 
(apparently answering is not wholly beyond your ability, since you 
are able to discern what could not be the reason). And then in a 
second line of questioning, where you claimed succinctly that 
"consciousness evolves" over the history of the species, I asked 
simply "how?" You denied again that it was biological (genetic 
transference from parent to child), and that it was social (latter 
generations being born to a greater social milieu), and yet 
_something_  has to be transferred between generations somehow for 
"consciousness" to evovle. Why the only other option would be that 
"Essigod" simply bestows new and updated models of consciousness on 
subsequent generations of humans, an option you (correctly) realized 
reveals the God in your "metaphysics". So, again, while you were 
happily and clearly able to "speculate" about all the things it could 
NOT be (since those things suppport ideologies opposed to your own), 
you get strangely "I can't speculate on that" when you realize that 
presenting what it COULD be. Why is that? (That's rhetoical, of 
course). I wonder if the same applies here? Obviously, you attribute 
the creation of "man" to assuage a certain "need" in Essence, if not 
directly that at least hold that "autonomous agent" as a special 
creation deliberately enabled to "discern value". And while I see you 
suddenly realizing the need to bolster allegiances, and (happily) 
backing away from the narcissism of a need-to-be-loved Essigod, you 
still have yet to honestly and directly answer another of my 
questions, did the "plan to make man" precede man's existence?