mosaic

Rainbow, I still think you're making the crucial error of prjecting the meaning you derive from something as the reason for its existence or happening. You do this when you posit a metapath. Because you learn from a natural disaster does not mean that was why there are natural disasters. Does rain exist ethereally so we could make umbrellas? You're jumping to an ethereal justification for disasters, when you've yet to demonstrate how they are in fact ethereal or have meaning onto themselves.

You keep saying we could not progress without error, etc but how does that transalte into being the reason for error? Your meta-payth is merely superimposed on a sequcne of events, as a possible hypothesis but with no reasoning. I agree that we progress. I agree that now is much better than the past but, you make the mistake of projecting divine meaning onto it.

Do you project the same meta-path for plants? Bacteria? By far the most willy life-form out there? Everything alive today as come to be by adapating, learning, shedding bad habits. The struglle to survive, to combat mortality( I really like where you're going with that, I fully agree) is inherent in life. Our inante ability to imagine and derive meaning aids in this respect. This does not mean, then we were created to be like this, that this was the only way possible, that we're put on this path for our own greater good. The nature of our existence demands that we imagine, create ideologies to combat he utter indifference nature shows to us. Concluding from the nature of our existence, that it was the "meaning" for it is nonsensical to me.

rainbow walking

[b]mosaic: Rainbow, I still think you're making the crucial error of prjecting the meaning you derive from something as the reason for its existence or happening. You do this when you posit a metapath. Because you learn from a natural disaster does not mean that was why there are natural disasters. Does rain exist ethereally so we could make umbrellas? You're jumping to an ethereal justification for disasters, when you've yet to demonstrate how they are in fact ethereal or have meaning onto themselves.

rw: It is one of a myriad number of interpretations...just like yours. Not a projection.

[b]Mosaic: You keep saying we could not progress without error, etc but how does that transalte into being the reason for error?

rw: I never said it did. Our ignorance is the reason for error.

mosaic: Your meta-payth is merely superimposed on a sequcne of events, as a possible hypothesis but with no reasoning. I agree that we progress. I agree that now is much better than the past but, you make the mistake of projecting divine meaning onto it.

rw: What divine meaning are you referring to? Do you mean man's GG? How is that divine?

mosaic: Do you project the same meta-path for plants? Bacteria? By far the most willy life-form out there? Everything alive today as come to be by adapating, learning, shedding bad habits.

rw: Not in the same way as man or in the same position...that's the distinction.

mosaic: The struglle to survive, to combat mortality( I really like where you're going with that, I fully agree) is inherent in life. Our inante ability to imagine and derive meaning aids in this respect. This does not mean, then we were created to be like this, that this was the only way possible, that we're put on this path for our own greater good. The nature of our existence demands that we imagine, create ideologies to combat he utter indifference nature shows to us. Concluding from the nature of our existence, that it was the "meaning" for it is nonsensical to me.

rw: And the nature of our existence is...?We were created either by nature or some other means...you prefer nature? Why should indifferent nature bother to complexify...to instill a set of genetic codices that regulate our drives and desires. Pain and pleasure triggers, replication, imagination? To anticipate our mortal needs before we arrive?

mosaic

Why should nature not do that rainbow? Moreover, why cant it do that? I think I said Ignorance is the reason for error in the last thread rainbow. It correlates nothing to your point, which is merely postulaing a metaphysical reason for a state of affairs. Because we learn from ignorance, does not mean we were created to be ignorant so we could strive to greater good. Any way you pull it back, all you're doing is superimposing ethereal meanings for a state of affairs. We learn from ignoarce,. Granted. Is that the reason for ignorance?

And the divine meaning, is your attempted rebuttal of the POE which states that merely states that this is the only logical state of affairs an omnimax being could create. How do you know this? By limiting the definition of omnimax, arguing from ignorance( you only know this state of affairs and because you cant think of any "logically" possible alternatives claim it is the reason for being so).

And you have to provide me a disticntion rainbow. "Not in the same way" does not cut it. I can very well create a meta-p[ath for plants and bacteria. Using the same argument you have. Even using ignorance. Plants are initially ignorant to bad environments arent they? And have developed creative ways to combat this? So what exactly is the difference between our metapaths? The have gaind knowledge, they are contiually acheiving a greater good for their species, and in fact they're living with each other probably better than we are. I mean, bee pollination is a magnificent thing isnt it? Or even pollination from digestion? And even much better wind? You can try to waltze in the conscioueness defense but you have to give me reason for this, not treating an anomaly, as something that could only come about for divine fiat.


And the nature of our existence is one of profound ignorance, and a nature completely indifferent to us. That dosnt not mean that is the reason for our existence. I do not look at a hurricane as a neccesary element of life to progress either morally or intellectualy. Its merely an action of nature that we seek to understand so we cn overcome it. As many elements of life are. We form things in conceptual frameworks so we can control them. We are animals of meaning. But meaning itself, is a tool, and I see no need for some oither meaning behind it.

rainbow walking

[b]mosaic: Why should nature not do that rainbow? Moreover, why cant it do that? I think I said Ignorance is the reason for error in the last thread rainbow. It correlates nothing to your point, which is merely postulaing a metaphysical reason for a state of affairs. Because we learn from ignorance, does not mean we were created to be ignorant so we could strive to greater good. Any way you pull it back, all you're doing is superimposing ethereal meanings for a state of affairs. We learn from ignoarce,. Granted. Is that the reason for ignorance?

rw: Why not? All you've given me by way of counter-explanation is "brute fact". Is that the path to wisdom? Brute fact and goddunnit are two sides of the same coin. Both negate any further investigation. Both are commands to accept it, sit down and shut up. Isn't that what you want me to do? Why should you be so concerned if I'm trying to steer a course that facilitates more thorough philosophical consideration? Are you afraid of what might be un-earthed? This particular argument is designed to challenge the mindset that declares "brute fact" to the really hard questions. I'm sorry if I happen to be of a nature that can't accept that as final answer. I like to turn things over and upside down and inside out to see how they tick.

Mosaic: And the divine meaning, is your attempted rebuttal of the POE which states that merely states that this is the only logical state of affairs an omnimax being could create. How do you know this? By limiting the definition of omnimax, arguing from ignorance( you only know this state of affairs and because you cant think of any "logically" possible alternatives claim it is the reason for being so).

rw: Well, you have an open invitation to reliieve me of my ignorance and describe such an alternate state. You want to discredit my argument because I keep it in the confines of logic. You claim I've redefined an attribute. So what? If a redefinition brings out a certain possibility that we might otherwise have neglected...why should redefinion be cast in a negative light. Scientists do this all the time when they discover a new piece of data. The discovery forces a redefinition of the previous intrepretation.

mosaic: And you have to provide me a disticntion rainbow. "Not in the same way" does not cut it. I can very well create a meta-p[ath for plants and bacteria. Using the same argument you have. Even using ignorance. Plants are initially ignorant to bad environments arent they? And have developed creative ways to combat this? So what exactly is the difference between our metapaths?

rw: The difference is in their natures. Man is not a vegetable and vegetables are not men. Vegetables are entirely dependant on nature to escalate them in the event of an environmental change. Man's nature allows him to change his environment. Man is the only creature with some conscious control over his natural inclinations and drives. There are a number of differences. But if you wish to denigrate my argument by trying to create an appearance of absurditity be my guest. I'll rip your counter-argument to shreds right before your eyes.

mosaic: The have gaind knowledge, they are contiually acheiving a greater good for their species, and in fact they're living with each other probably better than we are.

rw: Plants behave exactly as their encoded data dictates and continue to do so as long as the environment in which they evolved remains fairly consistent. If another ice age arises who do you think stands a better chance of survival, man or vegetable? Actually, man will become the vegatable's savior because it serves man's utilitarian interest to do so. Pointing at the ecological relationship between all species doesn't prove any species has the capacity to willfully learn. Only man can do this in his own lifetime and doesn't have to wait on mutated genetics to show him how to fry and egg.

Mosaic: I mean, bee pollination is a magnificent thing isnt it? Or even pollination from digestion? And even much better wind? You can try to waltze in the conscioueness defense but you have to give me reason for this, not treating an anomaly, as something that could only come about for divine fiat.

rw: I don't know where you get the idea I think anything other than the peculair properties inherent in matter came about by divine fiat in this argument.


Mosaic: And the nature of our existence is one of profound ignorance, and a nature completely indifferent to us. That dosnt not mean that is the reason for our existence.


rw: Really? Why not? What is the meaning for our existence?

Mosaic: I do not look at a hurricane as a neccesary element of life to progress either morally or intellectualy.

rw: Yet cannot ignore the effects of a hurricane and the demand this places on you to learn both morally and intellectually...else you won't be looking at anything for very long.

Mosaic: Its merely an action of nature that we seek to understand so we cn overcome it. As many elements of life are. We form things in conceptual frameworks so we can control them. We are animals of meaning. But meaning itself, is a tool, and I see no need for some oither meaning behind it.

rw: Then I suggest you might be denying yourself an opportunity to investigate further than these voluntary blinders you've accepted over your own vision. You're appealing to brute fact and that's just another dead end interpretation.

Look at it this way...Only the primates seem to display this unusual phenomenon of imagination. The lower primates appear to have a limited form of imagination but for reasons unknown do not follow it out to more utilitarian conclusions. Man, alone, has followed the lead of his imagination down out of the trees, out of the caves and into the 21st century. Now man has come to place, brought here by his imagination, where he appears to be constricted between two invisible imaginary walls, both products of his imagination. One wall is an old, traditional wall that has followed, and sometimes led, him along his journey. The other has also always been there but has just recently begun to gain a momentum of its own. Neither walls provide all the questions or answers. If you try to impale me to either wall as the wall to hang my hat on, I'm going to react like the electron that changes polarity whenever it contacts another particle of like polarity. I won't allow my imagination to be hemmed in by these two walls...period. Thus you have post modernism beginning to arise as a reaction to these restrictions and in observation of their restrictive attributes.

Nom

My sentiments exactly. The Bible -- New Testament and Old -- contains examples of God hindering or punishing man for improving himself as well as exhortations to ignore the material world because the next is what counts. Nor do I think rw would get much support from your average Christian for tossing out everything but the gospel of Mark.

What I see here isn't a Christian argument against PoE, but a sort of "theistic humanist" response to PoE. And as such I really don't have a problem with it. But, unless Christians are willing to reject a great deal of standard belief and tradition, I don't see much of a solution to the PoE here.

Lotta good discussion, tho. Sorry to interrupt. Please, continue...

rainbow walking

posted by Nom
My sentiments exactly. The Bible -- New Testament and Old -- contains examples of God hindering or punishing man for improving himself as well as exhortations to ignore the material world because the next is what counts.



rw: Hi Nom, I'm not aware of humans being punished for imrpoving their lot, only for doing so via bad behavior traits, like pillage and robbery. And the exhortations against materialism revolve around allowing it to dominanate ones thoughts and dictate ones behavior.


Nom: Nor do I think rw would get much support from your average Christian for tossing out everything but the gospel of Mark.

rw: It's a give & take world

Nom: What I see here isn't a Christian argument against PoE, but a sort of "theistic humanist" response to PoE. And as such I really don't have a problem with it. But, unless Christians are willing to reject a great deal of standard belief and tradition, I don't see much of a solution to the PoE here.

rw: I could probably strain pretty much everything but the history of the Jews outta the precepts contained in Mark, but I agree, not many christians are likely to view this as an advantage to their estate.

Nom: Lotta good discussion, tho. Sorry to interrupt. Please, continue...

rw: Thnx...and I agree, including your contribution. Jump in any time you wish. I'm like a pinball machine, I stand with my back against the wall and take on all comers.

mosaic

Rainbow, we dont act like we're encoded? So what is imagination? This ability is not brain-centered?


You seem to be asking me why we're ignorant and why nature is indifferent. I can give reason for our ignorance( our exietcne neccesitates constant experience for knowledge, we have the potential to know but dont know everything). I supect you might agree but then use this as the reason for nature being indifferent. Superimposing a why on what is merely mechanical. Why does the wind not care about us? If I tell you how wind forms, this doesnt answer the question sicne thats not what you're looking for. You want some metaphysical reasonn for this, and as I have no knowledge of metaphysics I'm not going to venture their. I can tell you wind is not conscious, and the natural reaosn why itsnt conscious would not suffice since you seem to want some grander meaning for why that is so.


And accepting things as natural events is not the same as god did it. Fo one, I can study natural events to see how they cme to be but I cannot study god so instead I have to ask your line of questions. A moral line of questioning about why god would do something, not how. We can understand how things come to be, and hence why, but we cannot answer some supranatrional *why* to it.

Nom

Hey, anyone who still knows what a pinball machine is, is cool by me...

Well, there's that whole Adam & Eve thing. And yes, you can read it simply as "see what ya get when you disobey the Big Guy?" but I also think that the myth's choice of the type of disobediance, the acquisition of knowledge (specifically of good and evil), is telling. The Old Testament, IMHO, is rife with anti-intellectualism; blind obedience to the Almighty's diktats is prefererred to thinking/questioning/seeking (example: Abraham (almost) sacrificing his son). And those with the temerity to question God get condemnation in response. Job asks God why he's getting shafted and God replies (I'm paraphrasing here), who are you to question me, ya little pissant?

In short, I think the Bible is at odds with the idea of a "meta-path." It suggests not that we have growing to do, but rather that we were created with a single purpose -- namely, to glorify God -- which was achieved with the simple act of our creation.

Your argument also identifies man's political development as a marker of his moral advancement, yet everyone's favorite omnimax deity okays such activities as genocide and slavery, hardly tenets of progressive governments. It was those pagan bastiges in Greece who came up with democracy. Maybe we shouldn't have been so quick to toss Zeus and his ilk out the window.

Yeah...because the end is coming. We've been in the "end times" for 2K years and there are still some people who think it's gonna happen annnnnnny day now. But the point was that one should let go of worldly things because there wasn't going to be a world real soon. I submit that a God interested in mankind's greater good would not be directing the authorship of apocalyptic screeds (He/She/It would rather be writing the Athenian Constitution).

Now, if you want to found a religion based on the idea that God is basically a humanist who's been inspiring democracy, equality, liberty, and fraternity throughout the ages the best way he knows how (namely, by making life tough, in the best tradition of Capt. James "risk is our business" Kirk), hey, sign me up. If we're going to create God in our own image, this beats the crap out of the last few thousand years of images people have come up with. But I wouldn't bother trying to ground the idea in the Bible or Christianity, because they're going to brand you a heretic whether you do or not. And on that Bible subject...

And then some guy like me is going to come along and point out how much of that wonderful piece of epic fiction was Homer, not Mark, and the Christians (or at least the fundies) are really going to start calling for wood, stakes, and torches.