h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Dear Jessica,
I have made it plain elsewhere, that I was *not* libelling pagans, when I said that the Hitler quote didn't reflect badly on, or say anything at all about pagans in general!

Jessica, what *is* bothering you?
<<- when you were exposed as an intolerant liar ->>
I was? When? Please give a link...
<>
*I* am a vindictive stalker? When have I stalked anyone - I'd love to know - actually, I have been stalked, by the strange guy who named me DTD. Sound like anyone you know? Tell me, what would be an honourable reason?
99% of people here use nicknames, and I reserve the right to (a) do so and (b) be called by the nickname I choose.

<>
Thanks Bouncy. About it being kept on the PS of all concerned, I heartily agree! But I get agitated when, having changed my name in the hope of leaving the squabble out of it all, I find myself pursued by the nasty nickname attached to my previous moniker, and that some do not want to (refuse to) acknowledge the change, even accusing me of changing for reasons that are "not honourable"!

<>
What did I say about Jez? I remember asking you at the time, what it was I had (allegedly) said about her. You didn't respond, so i have never known what it was that led Jessica to, for instance, go to my journal, find a link to a site where I have some short stories, invite Hoo/Member/Number/R5 etc for one, to ridicule the stories, which IMHO is pretty weird behaviour!
<>
No, there are many people I have never had a cross word from or with... there was never any trouble til about October '03. I wonder why?

<>
I have always assumed that it is (has to be) radically different to our life here!
I read a pamphlet once by an American woman about Heaven, and she made it seem like a weekend in suburban Illinois! Not my idea of fun...

Oh! Oh! Oh!

I figured that the whole 'debate' would devolve into crep . . .

Sigh . . . sigh . . . sigh . . . So, 'natural' and 'supernatural' are on the same continuum . . . so that 'supernaturalists' don't need to define *or* explain anything . . .


Peace, even though I'm as tired as Az about all this . . .

Tired? Have one of these:



Personally, I'd recommend the coffee. Moth always used to say I made the best coffee ever.

I miss Moth!


az

Good morning everyone.

Breakfast bar is open - and the cyanide for the trolls is in the sugar, so avoid the lumps.

Just to reassure you all again, no, I am not going to keep on at poster wahtever her number is, especially as she has now decided to call me Jessica (ROFLOL) which is certainly not my name!

Anyone who is sufficiently anal can go hunt out the various posts she is referring to.

I have come to the conclusion that she genuinely doesn't have the mind-set to understand why people don't like her making the sort of statements she makes.

Jez - heathen and witch, and not named Jessica

(Is there a smiley for rolling around on the floor splitting your sides laughing?)

Jemima, how are you?
So, you are not going to provide links to the postings where I hurt your feelings, upset you, lied about you etc. (I am still at a loss to know what on you are on about...
If you can find and identify the postings (If they exist outside your feelings) them, I invite you! Knock yoursdelf out.
BBITM, this is the last time *I* am cluttering this thread up with this tripe.

AL. Engaging as it all this repartee is, I guess it is sometimes reassuring to return to topic. I had lost the analogy with heaven at some point among the abstractions of domains and entities. It seems that these latter may have (at least metaphorical) application to a variety of topics. I suspect that Noggin has an extremely ambitious project in mind; but it's still too early in the day to put my speculations into text.

Cheers, toxx.

On the contrary, Chan. 'Supernaturalists' have all the work to do. I think Noggin and I may be doing some of it for them though. It would appear from our conversation so far that 'supernatural' may be defined as the existence of two (or more!) incompatible rules affecting the same entity or group of entities. The extra rule(s) would be properly a part of some other domain and in some sense 'ought' not to have application in this one. I speak only as I see these things and don't claim to represent Noggin's views. I don't know whether supernaturalism requires us to introduce metarules, supersets or what. This is only very preparatory thinking.

toxx

Chan



Not at all. The view of most people here is that 'supernatural' (taken as events not covered by the laws of physics) is a redundant category; no possible observation could confirm its existence. The remark by Jez (I think - might have been HS) to which you were responding can be taken as a factual statement about the behaviour of people, and can stand regardless of the actual status of the (presumed ) entities involved. Human experience, on the other hand, *is* a continuum, and while I'm sceptical about the external existence of the sort of entities posited in paganism, there are plenty of "socially/linguistically constructed quasi-entities" even in my worldview; (persons, as opposed to physical bodies are a good example in this context). Couldn't function without them.

Noggin

toxx

I've got some RL stuff to see to for an hour or two, but I'll be back with a reply in due course

Noggin

Hi Toxx,

I've a question for you. If you think that the possibility of the existence of God despite the problem of suffering springs from God having "the first rule: create moral agents", WHY do you think that would be given primacy?

Firstly, it seems to me that for God to choose such a rule it must be that it is a good rule to have.

That means that it must be valuable in some way.

Value is not an inherent quality, I think, but rather is a quality which is contingent on the perception of agents. What I mean is that something is only valuable if it is valuable TO somebody.

Secondly, it seems to me that if God were the only sentient being in existence and that no other being could exist without his willing it to be so, then that would make God the only ethically relevant being at that point. Other beings would not be relevant since they would not be affected by God's decision to not create. What I'm trying to say here is that "potential beings" are only ethically relevant to the extent that we have an expectation of their existence.

The conclusion to arise from those two things is that God would only create moral agents if it was beneficial for God for other moral agents to exist.

So that raises the question, how could a perfect being possibly benefit from creating other moral agents? A thing is beneficial for a being if it makes them happy and/or relieves their suffering. But a perfect and immortal God has no physiological needs, and being perfectly wise presumably has no unfulfilled spiritual needs.

Do you have a suggested answer to that, or do you disagree with some part of the reasoning in this post?

I'd really appreciate an answer, and (pretty) please can you also post the answer to my personal space and/or let me know the posting number on this thread? I only ask 'cos I won't be able to give this thread as much time as I would like so I'm likely to miss your response. Indeed I may have already if the question has already been asked!

metta,

Bod

Hi there, Bod. Always happy to do my best in response to such a question.



That is where I think (part orthodoxy, part me) you go wrong. Let's remember that God is outside time. Therefore He has to judge the rightness of His (perfectly good) behaviour in terms of things that, for us, would not yet exist. I guess He has to envisage all the future possible worlds and pick the best one.

It appears that He concluded that a universe with numerous moral agents is better than one with only Himself. Maybe because that results in more appreciation of that which deserves to be appreciated. Compare the old example of whether there is any value to the most beautiful island in existence if nobody experiences it. Is it of any more value than some grotty tip? However, your question suggests that you already have a similar point in mind.

In that sense, I venture to suggest that you more-or-less answer your own question in formulating it.

Cheers, toxx

toxx



Two points. (1) Is an entity anything other than a complete list of its properties? ie the rules by which it interacts with other entities? (2) If none of the rules in a domain apply to an entity then by definition it's in a separate domain (since we're defining domains in terms of what rules they follow)



Not sure how that would work if (1) above is accepted.



This is the closest to a possible nub of your gist (though not my gist ). But it's essentially a question about consistency. What would an "inconsistency" in the description of the behaviour of an entity, derived from observations of said behaviour, look like?

Noggin

Yo Nogg. Hope RL was cool.



OK. Here's an example scenario. Take a domain much like ours in which objects which become detached and unsupported fall downwards in the familiar way. Suppose that this applies to the fruit of all coconut trees. Then, one day, a holy man walks below such a tree and a nut in what would normally be the initial conditions for falling downwards fall sideways a touch. Had this not been so, the holy man would have been killed by the falling nut.

Either we would have to say that more than one rule applies with the consequential inconsistency (supernatural?) or that there is a higher rule that explains both behaviours. Science would, with a familiar form of justification, assume the latter. Such justification is defeasible though......

If nothing else, I hope we've done some work on providing conceptual underpinnings for thought about such a phenomenon.

toxx