[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Arlo, Yes.
You bet I agree with you on those all being valid issues / questions,
and ones on which we pretty much share a view ...

I was just acknowledging / recognizing the issues, I haven't time to
dig deep in this thread on Ham's thesis whilst still focussing on Bo's
logical concerns.
Ian

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [IG]
> Ooooh Errr ... the anthropic view. We get to the "ooops vs god" debate
> again.
>
> [Arlo]
> My main points are these, Ian, I think you'd mostly agree. (1) Any
> "metaphysics" that, at best, simply ignores the historical timeline, or at
> worst is rendered absurd by observable history (but yet asks us to just
> forget about that absurdity) is not one to take seriously. (2) There are
> certainly better options that the dichotomous "oops" or "God" (which is, in
> effect, what Ham (and Platt) both offer). I myself do so adore "Aha!". But
> when we make claims about being here "for a reason", or that "man apart from
> the cosmos" was so ordained to exist to serve (in some capacity) the Primary
> Source, one must consider these claims as they are made reasonable or absurd
> by what we know about history. Example. Ham claims "man" was created by a
> needy God for the sole purpose of worshipping the Source's "magnificence".
> It is wholly fair to ask, what was the "purpose" served by other creations
> that for millions and millions of years held dominance in the timeline? Were
> they a mistake? There to one day produce "man" his oil? If, as Ham claims,
> "man" was created to fill the void in a needy "God", why did that "God"
> (Essence) wait millions and millions and even billions of years to produce
> man? Why not just start with man right off the cuff. Even if one says "time
> is nothing to a Primary Source", I'd ask, still then why do we see ANY
> preceding "world" to "man" at all? Was the entirety of pre-history solely
> made for the purpose of "setting the stage for man"?
>
> I also think it holds significance to ask "was/is man alone in the cosmos
> with his pre-ordained and deliberated existence?" The Occidental tradition
> (discounting Gnostic interpretations) tends to view "man" as the sole
> valuable creation in the cosmos, giving man dominance over all other things.
> If man wipes out a species of buffalo, its of no great concern, as they were
> simply intended as "resources" for man to use as he so chooses. The
> metaphysics Ham espouses tends to (from what I can tell, as I get no
> straight answer) view the cosmos in this same way. "Man" was intended to
> worship the Primary Source, all other things are conveniences and resources
> for him to exploit. If it is NOT this way, if (say) "oak trees" also serve
> some special role and were "intended" by the Source for reasons that have
> nothing to do with "man", then that (I think) would tend to inform a wholly
> different approach to the world (one I side with, a gardener metaphor, as
> oppposed to the miner-metaphor described above). So making a claim about the
> "intendedness of man" begets further inquiry, fair inquiry.
>
> Ham also claims that "consciousness evolves" (a claim I agree with). And yet
> one must offer some form of "process", some mechanism, some "way" this
> occurs. My opinion is that the growing-complexity of the social milieu, into
> which successive generations are born, accounts for the evolving
> consciousness in the species. To date, the BEST Ham has offered is that
> subsequent generations of humans hold more evolved consciousnesses because
> The Primary Source doles out better versions to each generation. I think to
> this it is also fair to ask, even if its for speculation, "why?" Why does
> Essence give my daughter a "better consciousness" that He gave to some
> distant Neanderthal?
>
> All fair, and necessary, questions.
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>