I like some aspects of his claims but find the ex nihilo quality of the endeavor annoying. There is a vast, and in my opinion very valuable, literature in philosophy addressing this question. It dates back to Kant and before. But this guy cites a lawyer and a priest, which seem to me very poor places to start on a metaphysical question. Furthermore, there are important and obvious problems with his view which philosophers have already recognized and addressed, but which he misses and his cited scholars miss.
On Apr 29, 12:40 am, [email protected] wrote: > ...And what might it mean in the future? > > http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/dvorsky20090429/ > > Frank > > Check out my web page at:http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin2/link3.htm > > "To be truly radical is to make hope possible, rather than despair > convincing." > - Raymond Williams > ____________________________________________________________ > Diabetic and on Medicare? Get Your Free Diabetes Supplies > Now.http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/jZBdzA5MhhN79PrUQINuQymnn... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
