Hey Ham -- playing the same game,. [Platt] > > Your uncreated Creator is self-contradictory and therefore > > illogical. So it cannot be the basis of a rational argument. > > Strike One.
[Ham] > It's time to call in the umpire. What is "self-contradictory" about an > uncreated creator? Surely it makes more sense than unrealized Quality or > an > evolving universe with nothing to create it. (Foul ball.) It's an assertion created by Ham that denies creation -- like the multiculturist who asserts all views are equal except those that contradict his multiculturist view. Strike One as called. [Platt] > > You have written that without experience nothing exists. > > Since nothing exists without experience, there can be > > nothing beyond experience, like an uncreated Creator, > > to "bring value into the world" or "give man the capacity > > for discretionary judgment. Strike Two. [Ham] > I have also written that existence is not Essence but a finite > representation of essential value. No "things" exist without experience. > What we call "reality" is the appearance of "beingness" -- a system of > differentiated things in process. Not even scientists can refute the fact > that all knowledge is experiential and all conclusions about objective > reality are based on this knowledge. (Outside pitch.) >From your book "Seizing the Essence, page 35. "In truth, nothing can be said to exist that is not capable of being experienced." -- emphasized by italics. Your uncreated Creator is transcendent, i.e., incapable of being experienced. Therefore, by your own assertion, it cannot exist. Strike Two as called. [Platt] > > Experience exists. Experience is Quality. Quality is value. > > These principles offer a better explanation of the emergence > > of life and evolution than your uncreated Creator or the > > biologist's miraculous "Shazam." [Ham] > Your premises are not "principles", and neither is the assumption that > experience, value, and reality are equivalent. Why not? [Ham] > Experience is the > cognitive > perception of a phenomenon. It is value-sensibility relative to a > specific > space/time locus and exists only in subjective consciousness. (Another > wild > pitch.) What phenomenon in your subjective consciousness led you to believe in the existence of a transcendent (non-phenomenal) uncreated Creator? Knuckle ball for Strike Three. [Ham] > Until I know what you mean by the "biologist's 'Shazam'", the count stands > at 3 balls, ? strikes. A biologist's "Shazam" is his exclamation at witnessing a miracle, the same sort of reaction your may have had when you created the notion of an uncreated Creator. It's equivalent to "Eureka" and "Oops." > Shall we try another game? I'm game. :-) Maybe wrestling? Best, Platt 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/
