[MD] The Quest for Quality

[Magnus Berg]

Ham

> Pirsig would have been "temerararious" had he denied a Creator.  That he 
> simply dismisses it, and has nothing to offer but DQ as his primary 
> source, is hardly a "daring" position for a philosopher in our 
> nihilistic age.

First of all, it's not DQ that is the *primary* source, it's Q. DQ is a part of 
Q, not the other way around.

Then, if you apply Occam's razor you seem so fond of to a Creator vs. Q, what is 
most likely?

* That a walking, talking magician has always been around and suddenly decides 
to create the universe. And that's a pretty daunting task. As far as we know, 
there are around 100 billion galaxies, the Milky Way has around 200 billion 
stars, each with an average of about 5 planets with a bunch of moons each. 
That's 100*10^9 * 200*10^9 (not counting planets or moons). Then if we count the 
number of seconds since the Big Bang (~ 15 billion years ago), we get 15*10^9 * 
365 * 24 * 60 * 60 = 4,73*10^17. That means this creator had 0,000023652 seconds 
to create each star in the universe. But the bible claims it took 6 days to 
create just the earth, but later "interpretations" have extended that time to 
6000 years or whatever.

* Or that DQ (which is the changing/creating part of Q) initiated the spark that 
we call the Big Bang and that the universe has developed more or less like 
science has laid out since then.

As you said:

Come on, get REAL.


> I do not "insist upon" my definitions being accepted by others

Yeah right!

But you do keep the discussion as far from the MoQ as you possibly can.

Sometimes, I'm very sorry that some of the people here *are* here, and can't 
refrain from talking about everything *but* the MoQ. It's not just the pollution 
of the mailing list with irrelevant and often childish nonsense. The worst part 
is that it keeps serious people interested in the MoQ away. We know that a very 
large percentage of the list is just lurking, but if some of you really want to 
discuss the MoQ, I'm sure we can raise the bar significantly.

Everyone should think of the MD as a specific forum dedicated to discussing the 
MoQ. But since Ham admits that he's not interested in the MoQ, the proper thing 
to do would be to take his theories elsewhere. Feel free to tell us where you go 
and those that are interested are of course free to join that discussion as well.

>  By the way, none of us has access
> to absolute truth or  knowledge, nor do I claim to "know" the 
> ineffable.  I think the MD participants are aware that philosophical 
> cosmologies are theory.

Yes, I'm sure we are all aware of that. But here on the MD, we're supposed to 
discuss the MoQ as if we were sure it *is* the final word on reality.

I'm sure you think that's a very naive standpoint, but the MoQ is still very 
young and fragile. It must be allowed to grow before we can stick our heads up 
and start advocating it on other scenes. But you're not allowing it to grow, 
you're trying to kill a defenseless infant.

Go away.

	Magnus