Sam,
I said earlier that I wouldn’t be engaging with you further, and I meant it (as it’s clearly not a productive exchange for either of us—or for anyone following the thread).
But since you’ve continued posting long strings of demands and challenges, I’ll take a moment to restate the central question I’ve been asking throughout this discussion:
Is it morally just to condemn someone for not believing something they sincerely find unconvincing—even after honest searching, or where God himself has decided to withhold the potential for belief from that person?
That’s it. That’s the heart of it. Not a trap. Not a trick. A moral question. And after countless verses, accusations, analogies, and theological declarations, I’ve yet to hear a response that seriously engages with it.
Now, because you’ve continued to insist, I’ll briefly respond to your latest barrage:
- Yes, the question is multifaceted. That’s why I’ve been discussing it patiently with others in good faith.
- The standard I’m using is this: moral judgment requires moral agency. If belief isn’t a choice, then punishing someone for unbelief is not justice—it’s cruelty.
- I don’t claim to define justice infallibly. But if your God punishes people for being psychologically incapable of believing, I reserve the right to call that unjust. You may disagree. That’s the debate.
- Involuntary belief doesn’t mean beliefs are beyond critique. It just means we’re morally responsible for how we pursue truth, not for whether we end up persuaded.
- Sincerity isn’t the whole moral picture—but in the case of belief, it’s the only relevant part. If belief isn’t chosen, sincerity of search is what matters.
- Phrases like “axiological frameworks” and “epistemic humility” may sound profound, but in this context they’ve functioned more like distractions than arguments. Academic-sounding language isn’t a substitute for clarity.
- I’ve never claimed to have perfect knowledge. I’m not demanding omniscience—just asking whether it’s just to condemn someone for honestly failing to be persuaded and not being willing to lie about it.
You haven’t really answered that question. Instead, you’ve posted slabs of dense technical philosophy and theology in perfect prose interspersed with messages that read like they were typed by a chatbot or teenager.
I don’t say that to mock you—but to explain why this doesn’t feel like a real dialogue. Conversation requires mutual understanding and a shared willingness to engage in good faith. That’s not what’s happening here.
Of course you have every right to post whatever you wish, but respectfully, I wont be replying to any more copy/pasted lists of demands.
I wish you well, but conversation requires consent—and what we’re doing in these exchanges is not conversation.