From: Samantha Atkins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jul 29 2006 - 18:41:26 MDT
On Jul 26, 2006, at 2:38 PM, Joel Pitt wrote:
> On 7/27/06, R. W. <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Yes. ACCEPTING mortality. I don't expect love or even
>> rationality. In
>> fact, I don't expect any response. What good is there in
>> outliving all the
>> stars in the universe?
> If we accept mortality then we could all just suicide and save
> ourselves alot of trouble. Plus save alot of earth's resources for
> species that don't have this existential question with living.
Huh? How does this follow? I don't expect to be around forever, at
least not in a matter that I today would recognize as still "me".
But I am sure not in any hurry to end. This is a false dichotomy. I
put not a little energy into being around as long as possible. I
support efforts to extend life span indefinitely.
>> Even if I could create or destroy universes at will, that still
>> would not
>> make me G-d.
>> Extremely intelligent-- yes. Extremely powerful -- yes. But
>> still not G-d.
>> The best answer that I can come up with for justifying infinite
>> transcendence is that it would be fun! What other purpose is
>> there once
>> you've crossed the boundary of all necessity?
> What is the point of life if not fun and survival? One could easily
> argue that life is pointless which seems a small step from your
It seems to me that RW expressed the very point you are making.
> And about God - that is YPOV. If I had the power you speak of then I
> don't think some mere mortal human is going to argue that I'm not a
Personally I find it distasteful and silly that tiny brained mortals
are even quibbling about such.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 25 2013 - 04:01:00 MDT