untitled
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:21:10 -0400
From: Mike Ryder
Subject: A rebuttal to shadow extract - part 1
To: [Family member B]
Cc: [Family member A]
Hi
Thanks for the reply. And taking the time and effort to address the
issues you have chosen to address.
I intend to reply in short bursts in the interest of remaining on topic
and addressing each point raised.
First: I am interested in your comments on any numeric significance you
perceive in regard to the 7/7 bombings. And if you perceive no
significance - why not.
Second: My previous missive was an attempt to (mis?)understand what you
meant by "God's grace". I am still hoping you will explain your meaning.
Addressing your latest email.
---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:45:02 -1200
>From: [Family member B]
>Subject: RE A world in shadow extract.
>To: Mike Ryder
>
>Hi Mike,
> I share your concerns about the observed
interactions of animate and
>inanimate forces, that is to say, various life forms with nature
itself.
>It is apparent that these forces often clash with undesirable
effects,
>in some cases to the degree portrayed in your extract.
I agree with the above statement except for the term "undesirable".
This implies some thwarted purpose. I would contend that
"indiscriminate" would be more accurate.
>However, the problem essentially reduces to the question of whether
the
>world and its inhabitants (animal and human) could have been
constructed
>in a more beneficent manner.
I note that you have not addressed the theist answer to this
question. To be fair, we need to also address this. Since
you have postulated a atheist response I shall address this first.
>For the atheist or agnostic I assume that the answer to that
question
>must be NO.
For the atheist or agnostic the question as it has been framed seems to
be loaded by using the "construction" concept. The atheist would
posit that "construction" implies the existence of a constructor (=
creator). So, as presented, the beneficent aspect of the question would
remain unaddressed.
However I would like to address it and, if you will permit, will
restate it in non-theistic terms as follows:
"However, the problem essentially reduces to the question of whether
the planet could have formed and its inhabitants (animal and human)
could have evolved in a more beneficent manner."
Contrary to your stated assumption the answer to this is a self-evident
and unequivocal YES. The planet ( indeed all planets) could have
formed in any number of configurations, most less beneficent, but some
more beneficent to eventual life.
Life could have likewise have evolved in any number of ways. Again most
less beneficent, but some more beneficent.
Again I disagree in the strongest terms. As sentient beings in a
coordinated society we have a moral responsibility to acknowledge
(complain of) maleficence (suffering) and seek ways to reduce it to the
betterment of all involved.
>I am astonished when such people react by blaming God - who they
profess
>not believe in.
This comment is patently absurd if applied to an atheist (Agnosticism
does not profess a non belief in mystical gods) point of view as it
implies a contradiction in terms. To seriously "react by blaming God"
one must logically first believe that there is/are REAL god(s) upon
which to place that blame. Such a belief by definition makes the
holder a Theist. It is a logical impossibility to simultaneously
be both an atheist and a theist.
I suggest to you that someone is lying
The THEISTS response to your question (original framing):
>However, the problem essentially reduces to the question of whether
the
>world and its inhabitants (animal and human) could have been
constructed
>in a more beneficent manner.
I think the answer is YES
Using the following theistic assumptions and logic:
1. There is a real supernatural creator (SC)
2. SC is all powerful
3. SC is all knowing
4. SC is not constrained by pesky things like space, time, the laws of
physics, etc
Therefore SC can create whatever, wherever, whenever SC feels like.
It therefore follows that (from the theist point of view) our reality
is, was, and will be EXACTLY as SC intended. It is logically
impossible for it to be otherwise. (Incidently assigning the
blame to "original sin" offers no recourse as this MUST have been
foreseen by SC and therefore 100% intended).
What astonishes me is that THEISTS can abrogate their respective
god(s)'s DIRECT responsibility and intent for the
maleficence evident in the world. Yet they readily assign credit
for good things (from their perspective). This hypocracy astounds me.
I am interested in your response
Mike
bravenet.com