[Ham]
However, speculating on the "motive" for Creation is beyond the
capacity of human reasoning.
[Arlo]
Really? Really?? You have hundreds of pages of "speculation" on your
Essence and yet this one thing is "beyond" your capacity to even
speculate? This reminds me of our previous dialogue when I asked if
there existed a time deep in human history, in some distant primate
line, when consciousness did not exist. You said, "yes". Fair 'nuf, I
said, since that is your claim, then I ask "what changed?" Since you
had emphatically denied that the appearance of consciousness was
biological (due to some genetic mutation) or social (due to human
interactions), and yet being obvious that _something_ had to change,
I asked "what?" Although you were quite comfortable denying what it
could be, when pressed (and facing the realization that your only
option was to admit outright that "Essi-god poofed consciousness into
man") you tried to fall back behind a string of ridiculous "that's
beyond my ability to answer" rhetoric. Maybe. But yet you were quite
comfortable in unequivocally denying certain possibilities
(apparently answering is not wholly beyond your ability, since you
are able to discern what could not be the reason). And then in a
second line of questioning, where you claimed succinctly that
"consciousness evolves" over the history of the species, I asked
simply "how?" You denied again that it was biological (genetic
transference from parent to child), and that it was social (latter
generations being born to a greater social milieu), and yet
_something_ has to be transferred between generations somehow for
"consciousness" to evovle. Why the only other option would be that
"Essigod" simply bestows new and updated models of consciousness on
subsequent generations of humans, an option you (correctly) realized
reveals the God in your "metaphysics". So, again, while you were
happily and clearly able to "speculate" about all the things it could
NOT be (since those things suppport ideologies opposed to your own),
you get strangely "I can't speculate on that" when you realize that
presenting what it COULD be. Why is that? (That's rhetoical, of
course). I wonder if the same applies here? Obviously, you attribute
the creation of "man" to assuage a certain "need" in Essence, if not
directly that at least hold that "autonomous agent" as a special
creation deliberately enabled to "discern value". And while I see you
suddenly realizing the need to bolster allegiances, and (happily)
backing away from the narcissism of a need-to-be-loved Essigod, you
still have yet to honestly and directly answer another of my
questions, did the "plan to make man" precede man's existence?
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/
