On 3/7/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tom Caylor wrote: > > > > > I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what > > > gives meaning. The source of meaning is not "living forever" in time > > > (contrary to the trans-humanists) but is timeless. However, the quote > > > > > makes a bad assumption when it talks about losing value. The real > > > problem is how there can be any true objective value to love in the > > > first place (other than the so-called "irrefutable" first person: > > > "It's all about me"). > > > > Why should there be? Values are relative to people. Love is our > > word. We invented it to describe what we feel. Having some Platonic form > > of LOVE out there is superfluous. You're just making up a requirement for > > "the really real ding-an-sich" so that you can say God provides it. > > > > You could replace "love" with "chocolate" and "God" with "the chocolate > fairy". You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can be > explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology etc., only > the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating > experience. > > Stathis Papaioannou >
I hope that didn't come across as facetious, Tom. These are serious questions and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss them with an intelligent and scientifically well-informed theist. Stathis --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
