Dg west deptford wrote:Incase you don't grasp my argument against your use of "hypocrisy " or any "wrong"
Absent an absolute moral authority independent of fallible humans, the only meaning “wrong” could have (pertaining to conduct) would be “in opposition to X,” or “falling short of X’s standards,” which are only persuasive to those who have already accepted X.
For someone who can identify someone who is "currently incapable of understanding truth" you should be able to grasp this.
Give account for truth & quit hiding cowardly behind folly & boasts of superior intellect
How can I discuss truth with someone who can't even contemplate what is or isn't already known?
We as a species have acquired a great deal of "knowledge"... much of it is based on axioms which aren't known for certain as to whether they are true or not. (Edit: Those who are careful, label the knowledge as such).
You are basically saying I should concede, and say that a being higher than me knows, so I should cease in my desire for further understanding because I'll never achieve that beings level of knowledge... which sounds like an argument of a defeatist. I certainly hope I am misinterpreting your suggestion.
Further, every bit of "truth" you claim to believe in, you claim it's fundamentally based on the belief that this being exists and is necessarily true.
I'm saying I think you're 99.99999999999999999 ... percent wrong.
I have to leave a little margin in case you are correct, but I won't hold my breath on it.
If you can ditch the dogma, and allow it that the greater being does not care whether I seek knowledge or not... or whether I exist or not... or whether even we as a species exists or not, I can probably drop a few 9s off that.
Basically as the probability against a hypothesis goes to infinity, it will continue to get closer and closer the more subjectivity and errant logic you add to it.