God and morality

[Alexis Jacobi]

There's a special subreddit for names like Pepperell Montague

As indeed there should be …

[Fanman]

Going back to the actual discussion... For transparency purposes, I will share some of the work I did on metaphysics with Microsoft Copilot.

I can see why that post would provoke discussion. It's making a challenge, not merely asserting a conclusion.
My honest thought is that the strongest part is not the comparison to "witch or wizard" (which will likely attract attention), but the challenge you pose afterward:

"Can any of the interlocutors provide a sound example of a distinctly metaphysical conclusive answer?"

That's a serious philosophical question.

However, I suspect a trained metaphysician would push back in the following way:

They would argue that metaphysics is not primarily about identifying "metaphysical events" or "metaphysical outcomes." Rather, it concerns questions about the fundamental nature of reality, existence, identity, causation, possibility, necessity, time, and being.

For example:
•Do objects persist through time?
•What is causation?
•Do universals exist?
•Is free will compatible with determinism?
•Why is there something rather than nothing?

A metaphysician might say:

"The answers themselves are metaphysical because the subject matter is metaphysical, even if they are reached through logic."

This connects directly to your omnipotence example.

You seem to be operating from a different criterion:

For an answer to qualify as metaphysical, it should involve something uniquely metaphysical in its method or evidential basis.

Under that criterion, metaphysics can appear elusive because many proposed answers end up relying on:

•logic,
•conceptual analysis,
•coherence,
•reasoning,
•linguistic clarification.

From that perspective, metaphysics risks becoming a container for questions rather than a producer of uniquely metaphysical answers.

I think that's the real issue you're circling.

In fact, your challenge can almost be reformulated as:

"Can anyone produce an answer that is recognisably metaphysical rather than logical, conceptual, theological, religious, spiritual, scientific, or linguistic?"

That's a much sharper challenge than asking whether metaphysics exists.

If I were a respondent, one possible counterargument would be:

"The answer 'causation is a real feature of reality rather than a psychological habit' is a metaphysical answer."

But then you might reasonably ask:

"What made that answer metaphysical rather than philosophical?"

And the debate would continue.

So I think your post is strongest when read not as an attack on metaphysics, but as a request for demarcation criteria:

What makes an answer metaphysical rather than merely philosophical?

That's a surprisingly difficult question, and I suspect many participants will find it harder to answer than they initially expect.

I haven't arrived at a sufficiently clear conceptual analysis to describe where I land, based on how Copilot responded to my prompt. However, I do plan to share something about it when I eventually form an opinion or perspective that I feel is both coherent and cogent.

So... copilot told you the conclusion of your argument is overblown - which I told you also.
It told you to ditch the challenge you issued - which I told you also.
And you seem to have it delicately sidstepping the issue if whether you have worked out what counts as a metaphysical question at all.

But you are still conspicuously not providing its answer that question for which I provided both a prompt and an AI's answer. I know you have asked, you couldn't possibly not given the way you depend on AI.

You should consider just swallowing the pride that threatens to drown you, admit to overreach with this whole line of argument, and watch the video I gave you.

Please verify your statements with facts - verbatim.

[Immanuel Can]

...the advanced religions are made up of people who are situated in the same world and reality.

"Advanced"? Interesting. So you differentiate between the "advanced" and...what, the "primitive"? The "unadvanced"?

And, of course, everybody lives in the same world. But we don't all agree what that world includes, consists of, or means. So the "advanced religions" are more different than similar.

There's an imperious side to that sort of relativism, too. It says, "Your traditions, you "advanced" ones -- Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, paganism, whatever -- are all the same in essence. None of you has anything unique to offer, and none of you has anything important the others do not also have. So we don't really need you: you're just a redundant option." And in this way, superficial tolerance becomes dismissal and scorn, instead. This doesn't seem a great way to respect the distinctives these various religions claim for themselves, nor a great way to deal with their disagreements and points of contest. Rather, it seems a way to subsume them all to the narrative of Western relativism and ignore their particulars entirely.

Human concerns are precisely the same all across the world and throughout history, insofar as humans are largely the same.

That will only be relevant in the case that the "religion" in question is merely a figment of human imagining, rather than any objective truth.

But to say “all religious approaches” are equal, is absurd. And it is not something I would say.

Well, it would obviously be untrue.

No religion, or people, or culture that we can refer to, should be roundly condemned in broad terms by one who is attempting to evangelize them.

Why would that be?

If that religion is errant and dangerous, and if it misleads, it's surely deserving of condemnation by anybody. Whether that person is "attempting to evangelize" or not would not be of any consequence at all, if that religion is itself wrong. Who cares why he is doing it? Whoever he is, he's simply dispatching a dangerous error. So concern for the welfare of those possibly misled by it would surely be a correct decision. Why would we refuse to hear him?

Moreover, why would you exempt any religion -- even a true one -- from critique? Surely the truth can stand up to a few questions, no?

And too, each people, every culture, have cultural, religious, philosophical and spiritual values and perspectives that can be, should be, appreciated and understood.

From which religious or ideological perspective did you launch that "should"? Who says a belief "should be appreciated" merely for being a "perspective" of somebody, if it's errant and dangerous? Is it not better it should be criticized and debunked, so people are not misled by it?

I do not think what I point out is “unremarkable” but I will agree that it is pretty basic and commonsensical.

It seems rather the opposite: you're proposing to deny critics the opportunity to examine the beliefs of others. That seems unwise.

The “act of dismissal” or of condemnation is not precisely wrong (in some cases),

In which cases is it appropriate? The "primitive" religions only? But how did you decide that?

Have I indeed said “essentially nothing”?

Not any more. Now you've said something that looks dead wrong. It sounds like you're exempting some "religions," without examination, from reasonable critique. That doesn't at all seem wise...or safe. And at the same time, you've arbitrarily grouped some others as "primitive" or "unadvanced," and then excoriated any critics as "immature," or wrongly motivated or "provincial", and ignored whether or not what they say is true.

You've said something now, alright...I'm just not sure how you can think it's wise.

[FlashDangerpants]

Going back to the actual discussion... For transparency purposes, I will share some of the work I did on metaphysics with Microsoft Copilot.



I haven't arrived at a sufficiently clear conceptual analysis to describe where I land, based on how Copilot responded to my prompt. However, I do plan to share something about it when I eventually form an opinion or perspective that I feel is both coherent and cogent.

So... copilot told you the conclusion of your argument is overblown - which I told you also.
It told you to ditch the challenge you issued - which I told you also.
And you seem to have it delicately sidstepping the issue if whether you have worked out what counts as a metaphysical question at all.

But you are still conspicuously not providing its answer that question for which I provided both a prompt and an AI's answer. I know you have asked, you couldn't possibly not given the way you depend on AI.

You should consider just swallowing the pride that threatens to drown you, admit to overreach with this whole line of argument, and watch the video I gave you.

Please verify your statements with facts - verbatim.

I quoted you in full already. I'm not here to teach you to read.

[Fanman]

So... copilot told you the conclusion of your argument is overblown - which I told you also.
It told you to ditch the challenge you issued - which I told you also.
And you seem to have it delicately sidstepping the issue if whether you have worked out what counts as a metaphysical question at all.

But you are still conspicuously not providing its answer that question for which I provided both a prompt and an AI's answer. I know you have asked, you couldn't possibly not given the way you depend on AI.

You should consider just swallowing the pride that threatens to drown you, admit to overreach with this whole line of argument, and watch the video I gave you.

Please verify your statements with facts - verbatim.

I quoted you in full already. I'm not here to teach you to read.

Are you alright? Can't you see the inconsistency between what Copilot stated and what you stated? That's why I asked you to verify your statements with facts — verbatim.

[FlashDangerpants]

Please verify your statements with facts - verbatim.

I quoted you in full already. I'm not here to teach you to read.

Are you alright? Can't you see the inconsistency between what Copilot stated and what you stated? That's why I asked you to verify your statements with facts — verbatim.

Did copilot say your argument succeeded in demonstrating that you should think of metaphysical statements as equivalent to the propositions of withcraft, or did it politely push that to ther side? The quote you provided shows the latter. The quotes you refuse to provide also show the latter of course.

In your original post, did you imply that if you are mistaken, then somebody can demonstrate that by making a purely metaphysical conclusive argument? Did copilot not politely redirect you to just ask "Can anyone produce an answer that is recognisably metaphysical rather than logical, conceptual, theological, religious, spiritual, scientific, or linguistic?"

And your original argument is presumably not actually a request for "demarcation criteria" regarding metaphysics given the insistence that it collapses into spirituality etc...? That sort of assumes you already have sufficient demarcation criteria doesn't it?

I criticised you for making an absurdly broad statement about metaphysics without appearing to have much idea about what metaphysics is (the see the part about demarcation criteria which correpsonds to my point)

And I criticised you for demanding "a sound example of a distinctly metaphysical conclusive answer" as the terms for demonstrating mistakes in your reasoning when the actual issue is that your own argument is invalid. The toothless request for ... "Can anyone produce an answer that is recognisably metaphysical rather than logical, conceptual, theological, religious, spiritual, scientific, or linguistic?" makes your case pointless, but at least it removes the silly challenge.

This should not require so much typing tbh. You should be able to spot that you are being redirected away from perilous positions without needing this level of exegesis from me. This shit is blindingly obvious. Just as it was blindingly obvious that the demarcation of metaphysics is a metaphysical question, so you can't base an argument that metaphysics doesn't answer questions on it without begging the question.

Basic entry level stuff is what you are tripping over. The actual subtext of this portion of our conversation is that if you quietly let copilot guide you out of the swamp you are trying to walk into, you will be safe. But you won't be doing anything new, and you won't make any moves that can't be predicted by a fairly average philosophy grad like me. Your methods tools and limits don't match your apparent ambition. I personally recommend improving your basic skills before trying to take on major problems. I've seen a lot of people come through this site who invariably need the exact same advice. Never seen what happens if one of them is smart enough to take it.

[Fanman]

I quoted you in full already. I'm not here to teach you to read.

Are you alright? Can't you see the inconsistency between what Copilot stated and what you stated? That's why I asked you to verify your statements with facts — verbatim.

Did copilot say your argument succeeded in demonstrating that you should think of metaphysical statements as equivalent to the propositions of withcraft, or did it politely push that to ther side? The quote you provided shows the latter. The quotes you refuse to provide also show the latter of course.

In your original post, did you imply that if you are mistaken, then somebody can demonstrate that by making a purely metaphysical conclusive argument? Did copilot not politely redirect you to just ask "Can anyone produce an answer that is recognisably metaphysical rather than logical, conceptual, theological, religious, spiritual, scientific, or linguistic?"

And your original argument is presumably not actually a request for "demarcation criteria" regarding metaphysics given the insistence that it collapses into spirituality etc...? That sort of assumes you already have sufficient demarcation criteria doesn't it?

I criticised you for making an absurdly broad statement about metaphysics without appearing to have much idea about what metaphysics is (the see the part about demarcation criteria which correpsonds to my point)

And I criticised you for demanding "a sound example of a distinctly metaphysical conclusive answer" as the terms for demonstrating mistakes in your reasoning when the actual issue is that your own argument is invalid. The toothless request for ... "Can anyone produce an answer that is recognisably metaphysical rather than logical, conceptual, theological, religious, spiritual, scientific, or linguistic?" makes your case pointless, but at least it removes the silly challenge.

This should not require so much typing tbh. You should be able to spot that you are being redirected away from perilous positions without needing this level of exegesis from me. This shit is blindingly obvious. Just as it was blindingly obvious that the demarcation of metaphysics is a metaphysical question, so you can't base an argument that metaphysics doesn't answer questions on it without begging the question.

Basic entry level stuff is what you are tripping over. The actual subtext of this portion of our conversation is that if you quietly let copilot guide you out of the swamp you are trying to walk into, you will be safe. But you won't be doing anything new, and you won't make any moves that can't be predicted by a fairly average philosophy grad like me. Your methods tools and limits don't match your apparent ambition. I personally recommend improving your basic skills before trying to take on major problems. I've seen a lot of people come through this site who invariably need the exact same advice. Never seen what happens if one of them is smart enough to take it.

I don't accept your statement as an accurate representation of what occurred. I think that Copilot's response, verbatim, is the accurate response to my original post, which was:

"In my experience, metaphysics doesn't operate in a domain where we can say a certain event or outcome is actually metaphysical. If we claim something is metaphysical, it usually collapses into another subject, such as religion, spirituality, or esotericism.

Consequently, when someone claims to be a metaphysicist, from my perspective the label carries no more practical meaning than witch or wizard.

However, I could be mistaken. If I am, can any of the interlocutors provide a sound example of a distinctly metaphysical conclusive answer?"

Note that I did not claim, "AI says I am right, so I agree with the AI." So that shoots that narrative out of the, er, sky.

[FlashDangerpants]

Are you alright? Can't you see the inconsistency between what Copilot stated and what you stated? That's why I asked you to verify your statements with facts — verbatim.

Did copilot say your argument succeeded in demonstrating that you should think of metaphysical statements as equivalent to the propositions of withcraft, or did it politely push that to ther side? The quote you provided shows the latter. The quotes you refuse to provide also show the latter of course.

In your original post, did you imply that if you are mistaken, then somebody can demonstrate that by making a purely metaphysical conclusive argument? Did copilot not politely redirect you to just ask "Can anyone produce an answer that is recognisably metaphysical rather than logical, conceptual, theological, religious, spiritual, scientific, or linguistic?"

And your original argument is presumably not actually a request for "demarcation criteria" regarding metaphysics given the insistence that it collapses into spirituality etc...? That sort of assumes you already have sufficient demarcation criteria doesn't it?

I criticised you for making an absurdly broad statement about metaphysics without appearing to have much idea about what metaphysics is (the see the part about demarcation criteria which correpsonds to my point)

And I criticised you for demanding "a sound example of a distinctly metaphysical conclusive answer" as the terms for demonstrating mistakes in your reasoning when the actual issue is that your own argument is invalid. The toothless request for ... "Can anyone produce an answer that is recognisably metaphysical rather than logical, conceptual, theological, religious, spiritual, scientific, or linguistic?" makes your case pointless, but at least it removes the silly challenge.

This should not require so much typing tbh. You should be able to spot that you are being redirected away from perilous positions without needing this level of exegesis from me. This shit is blindingly obvious. Just as it was blindingly obvious that the demarcation of metaphysics is a metaphysical question, so you can't base an argument that metaphysics doesn't answer questions on it without begging the question.

Basic entry level stuff is what you are tripping over. The actual subtext of this portion of our conversation is that if you quietly let copilot guide you out of the swamp you are trying to walk into, you will be safe. But you won't be doing anything new, and you won't make any moves that can't be predicted by a fairly average philosophy grad like me. Your methods tools and limits don't match your apparent ambition. I personally recommend improving your basic skills before trying to take on major problems. I've seen a lot of people come through this site who invariably need the exact same advice. Never seen what happens if one of them is smart enough to take it.

I don't accept your statement as an accurate representation of what occurred. I think that Copilot's response, verbatim, is the accurate response to my original post, which was:

I have questioned your ability with subtext before but that made you angry. But if you can't see what I am seeing as very obvious there, I just don't think you are good with subtext. Sorry, but you not being able to see it isn't all that surprising.

Note that I did not claim, "AI says I am right, so I agree with the AI." So that shoots that narrative out of the, er, sky.

Sure... but you did all of these so frankly you are nuts if you think that is an unfair characterisation of your behavior

Based on my understanding, I don't perceive a substantive reason to disagree with Copilot.

I have recently and independently checked my post you're referring to with Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini. Both report/recoginse that my post was aiming for objectivity. I can share the AIs' output on the forum if you prefer or if you have any doubts in that respect. I respect your opinion. However, in this case, since both models' findings were so clear, I agree with the two independent AIs that I used.

Microsoft Copilot did not perceive any problems with my interpretations. AI output is epistemically significant when the prompt is neutral.

Why do you believe I would take your word, epistemology, and tone as having veracity? Rather than what I have worked on extensively and collaboratively with Microsoft Copilot for the past few days? Wisdom trusts its resources, not its detractors.

And of course... the copilot doesn't agree with you, so you reject it...

Update to my post: I was discussing the particulars of the paradox and the responses I received from the interlocutors with Microsoft's Copilot. It formulated this as a potential critique, which, on the surface, seems to hold water: "The physics-based analysis fails because omnipotence, as employed in the paradox, is not constrained by physical reality." My initial response to that was: "I would argue that the only reason it is a paradox is that it engages [conceptually] with physical reality."

[Fanman]

Did copilot say your argument succeeded in demonstrating that you should think of metaphysical statements as equivalent to the propositions of withcraft, or did it politely push that to ther side? The quote you provided shows the latter. The quotes you refuse to provide also show the latter of course.

In your original post, did you imply that if you are mistaken, then somebody can demonstrate that by making a purely metaphysical conclusive argument? Did copilot not politely redirect you to just ask "Can anyone produce an answer that is recognisably metaphysical rather than logical, conceptual, theological, religious, spiritual, scientific, or linguistic?"

And your original argument is presumably not actually a request for "demarcation criteria" regarding metaphysics given the insistence that it collapses into spirituality etc...? That sort of assumes you already have sufficient demarcation criteria doesn't it?

I criticised you for making an absurdly broad statement about metaphysics without appearing to have much idea about what metaphysics is (the see the part about demarcation criteria which correpsonds to my point)

And I criticised you for demanding "a sound example of a distinctly metaphysical conclusive answer" as the terms for demonstrating mistakes in your reasoning when the actual issue is that your own argument is invalid. The toothless request for ... "Can anyone produce an answer that is recognisably metaphysical rather than logical, conceptual, theological, religious, spiritual, scientific, or linguistic?" makes your case pointless, but at least it removes the silly challenge.

This should not require so much typing tbh. You should be able to spot that you are being redirected away from perilous positions without needing this level of exegesis from me. This shit is blindingly obvious. Just as it was blindingly obvious that the demarcation of metaphysics is a metaphysical question, so you can't base an argument that metaphysics doesn't answer questions on it without begging the question.

Basic entry level stuff is what you are tripping over. The actual subtext of this portion of our conversation is that if you quietly let copilot guide you out of the swamp you are trying to walk into, you will be safe. But you won't be doing anything new, and you won't make any moves that can't be predicted by a fairly average philosophy grad like me. Your methods tools and limits don't match your apparent ambition. I personally recommend improving your basic skills before trying to take on major problems. I've seen a lot of people come through this site who invariably need the exact same advice. Never seen what happens if one of them is smart enough to take it.

I don't accept your statement as an accurate representation of what occurred. I think that Copilot's response, verbatim, is the accurate response to my original post, which was:

I have questioned your ability with subtext before but that made you angry. But if you can't see what I am seeing as very obvious there, I just don't think you are good with subtext. Sorry, but you not being able to see it isn't all that surprising.

Note that I did not claim, "AI says I am right, so I agree with the AI." So that shoots that narrative out of the, er, sky.

Sure... but you did all of these so frankly you are nuts if you think that is an unfair characterisation of your behavior

Based on my understanding, I don't perceive a substantive reason to disagree with Copilot.

I have recently and independently checked my post you're referring to with Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini. Both report/recoginse that my post was aiming for objectivity. I can share the AIs' output on the forum if you prefer or if you have any doubts in that respect. I respect your opinion. However, in this case, since both models' findings were so clear, I agree with the two independent AIs that I used.

Microsoft Copilot did not perceive any problems with my interpretations. AI output is epistemically significant when the prompt is neutral.

Why do you believe I would take your word, epistemology, and tone as having veracity? Rather than what I have worked on extensively and collaboratively with Microsoft Copilot for the past few days? Wisdom trusts its resources, not its detractors.

And of course... the copilot doesn't agree with you, so you reject it...

Update to my post: I was discussing the particulars of the paradox and the responses I received from the interlocutors with Microsoft's Copilot. It formulated this as a potential critique, which, on the surface, seems to hold water: "The physics-based analysis fails because omnipotence, as employed in the paradox, is not constrained by physical reality." My initial response to that was: "I would argue that the only reason it is a paradox is that it engages [conceptually] with physical reality."

All of that is your opinion, Flash.I don't have to agree with AI.

[Fanman]

I continued my discussion with Copilot so as not to sidestep the issue . Based on those discussions, I reached the conclusion that the answer is not conclusive.

One way of looking at the matter is that questions classified as metaphysical may receive answers through logic, conceptual analysis, science, mathematics, or other methods and schools of thought. On that view, it is not obvious that the resulting answer is uniquely metaphysical.

Another way of looking at it is that if a question properly belongs to the category of metaphysics, then an answer to that question remains metaphysical regardless of the methods used to arrive at it.

Both positions appear to have reasonable arguments in their favour and reasonable objections against them. As articulated through my discussions with Microsoft Copilot, I was unable to identify a conclusive basis for preferring one classification over the other.

As a formality, I checked with Copilot if it was happy for me to share its analysis of our work, it replied, thus:

"Copilot's assessment was that there is no conclusive answer to whether an answer to a metaphysical question is thereby a metaphysical answer, particularly when the reasoning employed is logical and conceptual rather than distinctively metaphysical."

And:

"No, I don't think there is a conclusive answer to whether your omnipotence formulation should be classified as a metaphysical answer, a logical answer, or both. The classification depends on deeper assumptions about what metaphysics actually is, and those assumptions are themselves philosophically disputed."

My current personal view is that there is considerable room for discussion and debate on this subject. In my opinion, it poses a challenging philosophical question.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't accept your statement as an accurate representation of what occurred. I think that Copilot's response, verbatim, is the accurate response to my original post, which was:

I have questioned your ability with subtext before but that made you angry. But if you can't see what I am seeing as very obvious there, I just don't think you are good with subtext. Sorry, but you not being able to see it isn't all that surprising.

Note that I did not claim, "AI says I am right, so I agree with the AI." So that shoots that narrative out of the, er, sky.

Sure... but you did all of these so frankly you are nuts if you think that is an unfair characterisation of your behavior

Based on my understanding, I don't perceive a substantive reason to disagree with Copilot.

I have recently and independently checked my post you're referring to with Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini. Both report/recoginse that my post was aiming for objectivity. I can share the AIs' output on the forum if you prefer or if you have any doubts in that respect. I respect your opinion. However, in this case, since both models' findings were so clear, I agree with the two independent AIs that I used.

Microsoft Copilot did not perceive any problems with my interpretations. AI output is epistemically significant when the prompt is neutral.

Why do you believe I would take your word, epistemology, and tone as having veracity? Rather than what I have worked on extensively and collaboratively with Microsoft Copilot for the past few days? Wisdom trusts its resources, not its detractors.

And of course... the copilot doesn't agree with you, so you reject it...

Update to my post: I was discussing the particulars of the paradox and the responses I received from the interlocutors with Microsoft's Copilot. It formulated this as a potential critique, which, on the surface, seems to hold water: "The physics-based analysis fails because omnipotence, as employed in the paradox, is not constrained by physical reality." My initial response to that was: "I would argue that the only reason it is a paradox is that it engages [conceptually] with physical reality."

All of that is your opinion, Flash.I don't have to agree with AI.

They are direct quotes. Verbatim.

You expect others to agree with AI at your whim, and then you don't agree with it, also at your whim. Sometimes it is epistemically significant, other times, the times when it doesn't agree with you, it is not....

So the characterisation that you complained about: "AI says I am right, so I agree with the AI." Is obviously correct. If you wanted it to be some other way, you would need to be consistent in your approval of AI and accept the losses that you would incur when it goes against you. But instead you are self-serveing and underhanded. And easily caught.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

Nearly all that you write in your commentary, not everything but certainly most, amounts to deliberate misconstruing. I think that because you are a narcissist and a fanatic you cannot do else.

So you differentiate between the "advanced" and...what, the "primitive"? The "unadvanced"?

I certainly do differentiate. Late Vedanta is distinct from earlier, Medieval religious concepts. Modern Buddhist ethics are also late and in that sense advanced. When compared to antiquated forms. And certainly late Christian forms, perhaps divorced from overt superstitions, are similarly “advanced”.

And, of course, everybody lives in the same world. But we don't all agree what that world includes, consists of, or means. So the "advanced religions" are more different than similar.

Here you also misconstrue. I would not ever say that people have conceived of the same world and universe. And I do not negate or discount differences. I said very different things.

This doesn't seem a great way to respect the distinctives these various religions claim for themselves, nor a great way to deal with their disagreements and points of contest. Rather, it seems a way to subsume them all to the narrative of Western relativism and ignore their particulars entirely.

I am glad that you here imply potential respect for what is admirable in other non-Christian traditions. That is how I look at things as well. Both critical examinations, and examinations with a more benevolent attitude, render better understanding.

Human concerns are precisely the same all across the world and throughout history, insofar as humans are largely the same.

That will only be relevant in the case that the "religion" in question is merely a figment of human imagining, rather than any objective truth.

No, it is simply a way to examine “humanity” through a generalizing lens. And this strategy has a purpose: it is to find and accentuate similarities and avoid focusing on differences. Though both have a place.

No religion, or people, or culture that we can refer to, should be roundly condemned in broad terms by one who is attempting to evangelize them.

Why would that be?

I direct this to you personally. You see, you evoke as it were a mood of correction of your narcissistic, condemning attitude, borne of monomaniacal fanaticism.

I am attempting to help you become a better evangelist.

If that religion is errant and dangerous, and if it misleads, it's surely deserving of condemnation by anybody.

Now you can better understand why I spend time trying to educate and correct you. You know that I value much content that is Christian. I have made this clear. But I am horrified when I cone face-to-face with one like you. You provoke two currents of reaction: 1) that of clarification of what is sound 2) mercilessly critiquing and correcting your personality defects. You are in some senses errant & dangerous. I’d say more destructive than dangerous. (Though certainly Christian Zionists are maddened and very dangerous.)

From which religious or ideological perspective did you launch that "should"?

Did you mamá not teach you: “Immanuel, you should not pass gas at the dinner table?” It is a type of conditional imperative, no? One “should” have intelligence, understanding and balance In the assessments one makes of other traditions.

As an evangelist you “should” build bridges instead of destroying them. (Etc etc etc).

[Fanman]

I have questioned your ability with subtext before but that made you angry. But if you can't see what I am seeing as very obvious there, I just don't think you are good with subtext. Sorry, but you not being able to see it isn't all that surprising.



Sure... but you did all of these so frankly you are nuts if you think that is an unfair characterisation of your behavior








And of course... the copilot doesn't agree with you, so you reject it...

All of that is your opinion, Flash.I don't have to agree with AI.

They are direct quotes. Verbatim.

You expect others to agree with AI at your whim, and then you don't agree with it, also at your whim. Sometimes it is epistemically significant, other times, the times when it doesn't agree with you, it is not....

So the characterisation that you complained about: "AI says I am right, so I agree with the AI." Is obviously correct. If you wanted it to be some other way, you would need to be consistent in your approval of AI and accept the losses that you would incur when it goes against you. But instead you are self-serveing and underhanded. And easily caught.

Flash, in the quotes you posted of my writing, I never stated: "AI says I am right, so I agree with the AI." That's your interpretation, your narrative, and your creation. Therefore, it is also your opinion. That's conclusive. I am not bound by it, duh.

[FlashDangerpants]

All of that is your opinion, Flash.I don't have to agree with AI.

They are direct quotes. Verbatim.

You expect others to agree with AI at your whim, and then you don't agree with it, also at your whim. Sometimes it is epistemically significant, other times, the times when it doesn't agree with you, it is not....

So the characterisation that you complained about: "AI says I am right, so I agree with the AI." Is obviously correct. If you wanted it to be some other way, you would need to be consistent in your approval of AI and accept the losses that you would incur when it goes against you. But instead you are self-serveing and underhanded. And easily caught.

Flash, in the quotes you posted of my writing, I never stated: "AI says I am right, so I agree with the AI." That's your interpretation, your narrative, and your creation. Therefore, it is also your opinion. That's conclusive. I am not bound by it, duh.

It is entirely justified paraphrasing and I have provided ample evidence.

You are an obtuse little man and clearly do not have what it takes to become any better. This conversation has bored me.

[Fanman]

They are direct quotes. Verbatim.

You expect others to agree with AI at your whim, and then you don't agree with it, also at your whim. Sometimes it is epistemically significant, other times, the times when it doesn't agree with you, it is not....

So the characterisation that you complained about: "AI says I am right, so I agree with the AI." Is obviously correct. If you wanted it to be some other way, you would need to be consistent in your approval of AI and accept the losses that you would incur when it goes against you. But instead you are self-serveing and underhanded. And easily caught.

Flash, in the quotes you posted of my writing, I never stated: "AI says I am right, so I agree with the AI." That's your interpretation, your narrative, and your creation. Therefore, it is also your opinion. That's conclusive. I am not bound by it, duh.

It is entirely justified paraphrasing and I have provided ample evidence.

You are an obtuse little man and clearly do not have what it takes to become any better. This conversation has bored me.

You're trying to accuse me of something based on your interpretation of what I wrote and attach a narrative to me. But I haven't actually stated, "AI says I am right, so I agree with the AI" on the forum — that's the most important factor, obviously; even a child would understand that. They are your words, not mine. And, to make things worse for you, you clearly have a bias and have invested quite a lot of time in what you're doing. The evidence (of that) is, let's say, abundant (putting it mildly). Feel free to carry on; that doesn't affect me in the slightest because what you're doing has no epistemic force (opinion doesn't, unless supported by facts; you don't have any facts). It just makes you look, let me think... Unreasonable because your evidence is what I haven't actually said. You haven't even shown that my words are unreasonable, incoherent, illogical, or incorrect; you seem to convey that you're right by fiat. That's hilarious because you've taken the position of an arbiter, but you're just an interlocutor like the rest of us.

It's funny, the image you've created of yourself from our 'discussion' is possibly the biggest misrepresentation of an interlocutor that I have ever seen. I would never call anyone stupid or unintelligent holistically, but in the biblical sense, the word for you is: a fool.

NB: You can't really escape the claim that you're acting (acting ) as an arbiter because you're claiming that your interpretation is evidence: Your interpretation is evidence of what you think; what you think is your opinion. An opinion unsupported by factual evidence doesn't have binding force on anyone but you.