Hello all,
Although it may be an interesting topic to discuss, the existence or
nonexistence of God is irrelevant to the MOQ - Pirsig does not address it
because it is not an issue. Whether God exists or not will not be decided
by reason or argument; it is a matter of faith and belief. While there is
nothing inconsistent in the MOQ concerning God, there is nothing that
requires God to exist - it is simply not a question for the metaphysics of
Quality.
marty j
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of drose
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 6:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MD Dynamic Quality and God
Hi, Matt, Platt and MoQers all!
Still not able to intelligently discuss Spinoza, so I will leave your
summation for now.
The reply style is one I have adopted over the years, it saves the time of
restating the original argument and allows for time-pressed li'l ole me to
participate.
Any of the 3 premises (God, accident,something-but-not-God) is unproveable.
Any worldview is, at its heart, based on faith. As the universe-as-accident
premise is untenable, that leaves one of the other two. Because the
something-but-not-God worldview could just as easily be explained by the
existence of God, I choose to argue (if that's the word) from that
perspective. Again, your view of the nature of God is not really germane, I
merely point to God as premise here. Unless you are specifically interested,
I wouldn't get into arguments over the attributes of God. As Platt says,
there is much "baggage" associated with the subject and there are other
forums.
To ask for a proof of God's existence is futile, although I will say that
the evidence is at least better than the evidence against, and I am in
pretty good company. As to the exclusivity of the Catholic faith, all I can
say is you'd be really surprised if you looked a little more closely - I
know I was.
Finally, the statement that God is the whole ball of wax, creator of
everything, does not preclude Him from being a distinct entity, which (and I
shall have to ask Fr. Borawski) leaves me safely in the orthodox camp.
Platt -
Truth does not boil down to paintings in a gallery. There is, after all an
objective standard for some of us. vbg ;-) Is the vision of Beaugeraux (sp)
any truer than that of Monet? The paintings are merely imperfect and
individual representations of Truth. That is why there are as many
worldviews as there are people. See the Church's teaching on "natural
religion."
The infinite regress argument assumes that something created God. It is not
logically necessary for there to be a creator of God for God to exist - and
, yes I know the ramifications of that argument. So do you. Which is why I
guess you brought it up.
This is still fun, but now I shall certainly be late for work.
drose
BTW, Matt - I say stupid stuff all the time. It's one of the hazards of
exercising your mind in open discussion. I am either mature enough or stupid
enough not to worry too much about it, I guess. :-)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
