The Philosophy Now Forum

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 6:54 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2026 9:05 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2026 2:47 pm
At the moment, I'm asking you whether you believe your conclusion follows from my statement.

And I'm letting you have space to speak for yourself...

Mr Can, yet again you have made simple logical errors that you are too proud to admit.

Show error, please.

Ooopsie! Manny makes another one!

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 3:33 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 6:54 am Mr Can, yet again you have made simple logical errors that you are too proud to admit.

Show error, please.

Mr Can, since it was in the same post to which you are responding, it is at least possible that you have read this:

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 6:54 am Well, on the basis that you might actually be too stupid to understand your mistakes, this for example:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 2:52 pmSo you weren't suggesting that the disconnect you described is in any way problematic?

Okay. No problem...

does not follow from this:

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 12:35 pm I am not complaining about anything a god I do not believe in may or may not do.

Were it the case that you have read the above, "Show error, please" would be an odd request if all you ask is for an example.
As with any data set, there are a number of possible explanations.
It may be that some glitch prevented that part of the post reaching you.
You might instead have read it, but failed to appreciate that it is an example of errors you routinely make.
It is also possible that having been given an example of your mistakes, you do not understand why it is a mistake, and that "Show error, please" is asking me to explain. However, that would require you admitting that you do not understand, so I think we can safely rule it out.
More likely, I think, that you did read it, understood that it is intended as an example, but believe you can demonstrate that your conclusion follows. If so, good luck with that.
Long story short: I don't believe in god. What you describe as a "disconnect":

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2026 10:53 amSo a Christian who starts a war is not "an errant and confused person", they're just a person. Three Hail Marys, or whatever propitiations you believe efficacious, will fix that.

was ridiculing that part of Christian morality which, in my view, is an entirely human nonsense and therefore nothing to do with the behaviour of a god I don't believe in.
Here's where you really lost the plot:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2026 2:43 pmDevoid of the bitter language, what you're complaining about is that God might forgive sinners. You don't want Him to do that, because it seems too easy to you, too trivial, too inadequate to deal with the situation. I get that. But let me ask you this: what is it that you are disappointed about? What would you expect that a righteous God should do, or should have done instead, that you feel this disappointment or contempt for what you perceive to be this easy forgiveness?

Mr Can, have I mentioned that I do not believe in god?

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 8:14 pm Long story short:

Yes, please.

I don't believe in god. What you describe as a "disconnect":

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2026 10:53 amSo a Christian who starts a war is not "an errant and confused person", they're just a person. Three Hail Marys, or whatever propitiations you believe efficacious, will fix that.

was ridiculing that part of Christian morality which, in my view, is an entirely human nonsense and therefore nothing to do with the behaviour of a god I don't believe in.

So there's no problem. You are now saying you're ridiculing a thing that does not come in for any ridicule. It's not happening. There is no God, no wrongness to a war that starts (since secularists have no grounds for any conception of objective wrong), and it's not actually surprising if something as superficially Catholic as "Three Hail Marys" banishes the whole issue. In fact, the issue is moot even before the "Hail Marys."

So now you've lost your grounds for ridicule. You something that, at first glance, looked like a joke, but didn't work. It was simply incoherent.

Here's where you really lost the plot:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2026 2:43 pmDevoid of the bitter language, what you're complaining about is that God might forgive sinners. You don't want Him to do that, because it seems too easy to you, too trivial, too inadequate to deal with the situation. I get that. But let me ask you this: what is it that you are disappointed about? What would you expect that a righteous God should do, or should have done instead, that you feel this disappointment or contempt for what you perceive to be this easy forgiveness?

Mr Can, have I mentioned that I do not believe in god?

Yes, you have. It was your irrational joke that was deceptive. I had the bizarre impression you thought you had something worth ridiculing. But now I see you never did.

My apologies. You actually said nothing. There was no critique implied.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 10:44 pmYou are now saying you're ridiculing a thing that does not come in for any ridicule. It's not happening. There is no God, no wrongness to a war that starts (since secularists have no grounds for any conception of objective wrong), and it's not actually surprising if something as superficially Catholic as "Three Hail Marys" banishes the whole issue.

Mr Can, do you believe that people who once started a war are beyond salvation?

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 8:55 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 10:44 pmYou are now saying you're ridiculing a thing that does not come in for any ridicule. It's not happening. There is no God, no wrongness to a war that starts (since secularists have no grounds for any conception of objective wrong), and it's not actually surprising if something as superficially Catholic as "Three Hail Marys" banishes the whole issue.

Mr Can, do you believe that people who once started a war are beyond salvation?

An interesting question.

Jesus forgave thieves, traitors and prostitutes. Early disciples included ex-adulterers, ex-homosexuals, ex-drunkards, ex-gossips...and inevitably, many of these hurt other people in the process of their sinfulness. However, the point of salvation is not the punishment of sin, but the offer of forgiveness for it and deliverance from its grip. And there is no sin -- short of rejecting salvation itself -- that God cannot and will not forgive, upon repentance and faith. That's how the Bible tells the story.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 3:11 pm And there is no sin -- short of rejecting salvation itself -- that God cannot and will not forgive, upon repentance and faith. That's how the Bible tells the story.

Uh ....... how about a sin committed while consciously thinking "OK to do this because I will be forgiven"

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 4:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 3:11 pm And there is no sin -- short of rejecting salvation itself -- that God cannot and will not forgive, upon repentance and faith. That's how the Bible tells the story.

Uh ....... how about a sin committed while consciously thinking "OK to do this because I will be forgiven"

"Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart." God said that to Samuel, when he was selecting a new king for Israel, actually. You may have read the passage. The NT also says, "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows, that he shall also reap." Seems fair, doesn't it?