> He used "I don't" at the end of this claim.

He did!
I knew :-).

But
That was not what I was addressing.

The point at issue was

        " ... Otherwise it's all kind of pointless ... "

ie *IF* there is no absolute external refere    nce then 
there is no "point" to ANYTHING.
No right or wrong.
No must or should.
No true or beautiful or evil or perverted or warped.

Everything just "is". Or, it would be if this assumption was 
true :-)

And, unlike most people, he clearly recognises this.
This makes no statement at all about whether God (or Gods or 
gods or whatever) exist(s) externally - just that if not, 
then our system is unable to produce absolutes. And, without 
absolutes all the above are just convenient figments of our 
creation.

Unmaned_list_owner claims that we can create local systems 
of absolute absolueness to serve our own purposes. I 
understand what he means BUT he's demonstrably wrong. All I 
have to say is eg "No - that's a load of rubbish!" and the 
ensuing conversation proves my point :-).
But, he's not convinced. Of course :-)


        Russell


> I knew that inevitably that the conversion will come to 
> the question of
> GOD's existance or not :)

It yet may.
But, it didn't at that point.


> We don't have a perfect argument or logical explanation 
> yet that will prove
> whether there is one ultimate power or not.

Please speak for your own relatively referenced  self :-).

> Our current accumulated
> scientific or religious knowledge just use assomptations 
> on extreme points
> of the subject.

As above :-)


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist