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
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/
