Message: 2
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 04:44:40
-0700 (PDT)
From: Georges Metanomski <Zgmet@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Digest Number
350
Bruce,
In our Forum Constitution existed as the set of
Rules,
of course created and accepted by the Forum.
Any proposal had to
comply with the Rules, i.e.with
the 'Constitution'.
Rules themselves were
subject to challenge and, once
the challenge accepted by voting, all current
problems
were suspended.
Stability was insured by a relatively high level
of
Consensus required for Rules modifications.
Regards
Georges.
---
Bruce Eggum <eggy@comfortable.com> wrote:
> I would like to address the second
issue brought by
> Ignace Snellen.
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 08:25:03
-0700 (PDT)
From: Georges Metanomski <Zgmet@yahoo.com>
Subject: (unknown)
Hi Daniel and all
interested,
You seem to like quizzes. Here is another one. It goes
to the
guts of the phenomenon of religion without
whose understanding it is vain to
even start chatting
about DD.
Here it comes:
At the base of
monotheistic religions one finds a
'Theological Antinomy', a
proposition postulating the
existence of an omniscient and omnipotent
entity
called
God. This proposition appears to be a contradictio
in
adiectum.
Indeed, if God is omniscient, He knows every detail
of
the cosmos and cannot change it without contradicting
His own
knowledge: an omniscient entity appears to be
necessarily impotent. On the
other hand, an omnipotent
entity appears to be essentially ignorant, as
all
objects of its knowledge are constantly submitted to
arbitrary changes
due to its own illimited freedom and
power.
>From the traditional logical point of view omniscience
and
omnipotence are mutually exclusive i.e. they may
be assigned to the same
entity only if related with
the operator ORR ("either-or", "exclusive or").
The
Theological Antinomy relates them however with the
operator AND, thus
becoming a logical contradiction.
Logic claims to be the
base of human intelligence.
According to this claim logical contradictions
are
banished from the human universe of discourse.
Consequently, all
religions should have vanished due
to
the Theological Antinomy which, from
the traditional
logical point of view, seems to prove that God
cannot
possibly exist.
However, strangely enough, humanity does not
seem to
care in the least about the claims of logic and has
never ceased
to be religiously minded. Should we
conclude that humanity is hopelessly
unintelligent
with exception of a few logicians? Or should we
rather
look for some explanation making on the one
hand
religious ideologies not necessarily incompatible
with
human intelligence while, on the other
hand,
somehow
restricting the olympic claims of
logic?
Well, there you are. Good
luck.
Georges.
“Forum” wrote on: Monday, April 09, 2001 12:03 PM
<snip>
On the other hand, I think it is my democratic right to express myself with all the possible means, as Bold letters, italics, underlining or whatever I would use in the intonation of my oral speech in order to help the reader or persuade him.I am going to propose a change in this totaliristic clause of our Founding Documents, which I never thought that it could be used against our Freedom of expressions.
Therfore,could you maybe accept at first a change
in our FD for a collective Spokemanship by two members in close
cooperation, which will solve all issues? I think that this collective
responsibility sounds more Direct Democratic than the two different capacities
with hierarchy between them, which remembers me of the existing order of
the Representative Democracy.
In any way , I
think that the final voting should follow our discussion
about my proposal about the 2004 Olympic DD project and I need to read
your and everybody's comments about it, because it is essential for my
ineterst for the capacity of Spokesperson of WDDM. So, could we postpone
it according to our FD that oblige us for discussions of 2 weeks before voting?
George Kokkas
“Forum” wrote on Saturday, April 07, 2001 9:03 PM