Of course: to the extent that he actually believes this is the extent to which my respect for his intelligence diminishes.
But, just out of curiosity, would someone here please take the time to note the most effective challenges he made to the points I raised in my own discussions with him?
Instead, as with felix, it was basically “wiggle, wiggle, wiggle” all the way.
But, sure, I’m willing to give him one more chance. And, if not now, maybe later:
The “points I raised” regarding Christ and the Power in Mayfield:
Yeah, I can play games here. I can shift into my polemicist persona, for example.
But I can also “raise points” in a philosophy venue that are meant to avoid all that.
And anytime Bob and Felix are willing to end their “make it all about iambiguous” game and address the points I raised above in an intelligent and civil discussion, we can take it from there.
In an alternative fantasy you can walk up and down the streets of Mayfield exclaiming “ain’t it awful” lest they find ways of “comforting and consoling” each other.
By the way the temperature there last night reached the freezing point so anything anyone can do to provide power or heat for the people there will be appreciated. Surprisingly power was restored to some people in the area on Sunday.
Look, you and Bob are basically arguing that even if the points I made above are intelligent and reasonable and relevant relating to the “act of God” that devastated Mayfield, they would only make the victims there feel worse.
Again, as though the whole point of philosophy – of being wise – is to comfort and console people instead.
As a mere mortal, what could I possibly know with any degree of certainty about that? Instead, I’m interested in how those who insist that their own God is loving, just and merciful, rationalize events in Mayfield that, if mere mortals were responsible for them, they’d be called grossly, savagely unjust, unloving, and merciless.
Why, re the first chapter in Genesis, did God [the God of Moses] create planet Earth to be an excruciating hellhole for millions over and over and over again. God and the twister. God and the covid-19 virus. God and the “any day now” super volcano under Yellowstone.
Sure, many will, in all sincerity, fall back on God’s “mysterious ways” and accept it all subjectively in a leap of more or less blind faith. In church, for example.
But in a philosophy venue – or, rather, what’s left of this one – the discussions are able to go deeper.
If deeper is actually where some here want to go.
Again, with all that is at stake here on both sides of the grave.
I know! Ain’t it awful? Hell or no hell not withstanding, won’t you be happier dead? I think non-existence will suit you nicely, compared to how awful life is to your Dasein.
Actually I can. I can prove it with my spirit. But that’s not what you’re asking. You want me to prove it with rudimentary words.
So I will.
What happens if existence ever blinks out of existence?
You exist right? You wouldn’t be here.
Same with your spirit.
If your spirit blinked out of existence… you wouldn’t be here.
But let’s go further. Existence is not symmetrical. If existence were symmetrical every ‘particle’ would have an anti particle and all this would be nothing from beginning to end.
You are not symmetrical either.
If you were created. Something came from nothing. Impossible. You were never born, you were never created, and you will never die.
Hell does exist. The question is what lands you there and how much.
Consent violation lands you in hell. Everyone has no choice but to do consent violation. Some are better than this than others, so, they get a lesser hell if they violate consent like a soft whisper.
People like them. Karma is just how much people like you.
How do I explain this in human terms? Give me a moment.
Existence is imagination. Heaven and hell are pure imagination. Also contracts. You do not ever want to end up in a place where pure imagination wants to make you suffer.
Since I agree with You in form, I do not need to clarify at least not verbally because I think formal recognition connects perceptive realization with postscriptive logical understanding.
I do agree to formal arguments You propose and not as countered by such platitudes that religion and religious philosophy are mere cop outs to cuddle up with.