> [SA previously]
> Krimel, I still ask the same question. Notice in
> the post in which I question this same value that
> dmb
> has, and others, in which by improvement, are they
> saying 'in addition to' or 'options', as in
> biological
> doesn't have the option of intellect, unless we are
> talking about intellect which does involve
> biological.
> Inorganic is not biological, but biological does
> involve inorganic. This is all I gather, so far.
> [Krimel]
> Have betterness as your central thought is
> problematic. It leaves open the
> question of worseness. In theological circle similar
> arguments cause similar
> problems. The existence of evil has been used often
> as a proof for the
> non-existence of God. The devout offer up all kinds
> of theodicies to
> discount this critique but frankly they are all
> pretty lame. You are seeing
> basically the same thing here.
Would not betterness, as a central tenet, involve
a human being to want to be a part of this central
tenet, or have a human being believe that he/she is
thus logically this central tenet (for a central tenet
must work everywhere, right?), therefore a person may
begin to think they are this betterness. So, does
this mean others are NOT better, especially if they
don't realize this betterness on an intellectual
level? Wouldn't this leave room for arrogance, maybe?
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
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/
