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

[John Carl]

Hi Steve,


>  I haven't read most of this
> thread,



You oughta, it's a good'un.



>  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.
>
>
That *would *be a grave mistake.  Unless, you know, God actually told you to
tell 'em.  Otherwise you're taking his name in vain.  3rd commandment.  a
big no-no.  Thanks for the heads-up.


>
>
> 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.



isn't a preference for betterness kind of  a plan?  I think there is an
aspect of intentionality to betterness that  you  atheists are dodging.
 Like Marsha's "praise goodness", it peeks through the seams.



> 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.
>
>
Quality isn't a person, Quality creates persons.  Quality isn't a God,
Quality creates God(s).

Do we have a problem?