[MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Steve,

While I would quibble with some of your interpretations of mine and 
Arlo's positions I agree that "Quality is not a person."

Regards,
Platt 


On 16 Nov 2009 at 9:49, Steven Peterson wrote:

> Hi Arlo, (Platt)
> 
> Platt has tried to paint your veiw of emergence as "oops" while your
> view of emergence is more like "aha." I haven't read most of this
> thread, but I'm fairly certain that he has you wrong when he says that
> you are promoting a view of the universe as the product of chance. I
> think you've just been saying that though the creative process is
> unpredictable, it is the accumulation of preferences rather than rolls
> of dice.
> 
> I don't know how much Platt is promoting a sort of Qualigod. His
> responses to me suggest that he is not. Is Qualigod something that
> hears his prayers? I don't think so. But I suspect that Platt would
> like to preserve as much as he can in Christianity without the notion
> that God is a person-like entity. I think "God" for Platt is a
> metaphor for the creative aspect of the universe, for DQ, but he
> doesn't like hearing us liberal atheists peering down our noses at
> those for whom the "God as person" metaphor has meaning, since it is
> still better than the "oops" metaphor that he likes to paint you as
> supporting, and because DQ is a mystery anyway. The choice of one
> metaphor or another is a personal one that doesn't need defending
> until one starts to say that he knows what God wants other people to
> do.
> 
> 
> 
> Arlo:
> > In either event, what's your take on this? Do you see my point that saying
> > "Quality created carbon atoms" implies and intential force that removes free
> > value preferences from the subatomic particles?
> >
> > Let me ask this way, what is the *difference* in saying "God created carbon
> > atoms" and "Quality created carbon atoms"?
> 
> Steve:
> I think the difference is just what you say. God "implies an intential
> force" while Quality has no plan, it is just a preference for
> betterness. But I do see DQ as referring to the creative aspect of the
> universe. I know what you are getting at, but I don't have a problem
> with the "create" metaphor. It does leave open the possibility of
> misunderstanding, but if we agree that Quality is not a person, then
> we shoudl have no problem.
> 
> Best,
> Steve