ObjectiveBob, I'm looking for the audio of an old DBH lecture that used to be on this channel. Is there a way I can reach out to you by email or private message?
8:15 While being an altogether amicable position, this is begging the question in a way that is so typical of these theistic presentations: "before" you are going to set into motion a creation, there is no one there to be charitable with. So there is no way there could have been a motivation to set in motion creation for the sake of fulfilling a need from the side of non-existent creatures. So if love was the motivation for creation, there would ultimately have to be a net _subjective_ win from existing for every single _permanent_ creature that would come into being. It would _ultimately_ have to be impossible for any creature to look back and say: _"I wish I would never have been created"_ . I guess that is sufficient to make a doctrine of eternal hell irresolvably inconsistent with this view of creation being motivated by love.
That's a possible argument for universalism and against eternal hell, and Pound might agree with it. It's not immediately clear to me, though, that creatures in an eternal hell _would_ look back and say "I wish I had never been created."
@@worldnotworld _"It's not immediately clear to me, though, that creatures in an eternal hell would look back and say "I wish I had never been created." "_ lol, it isn't ? You're funny.
@@worldnotworld How would somebody even know what thinking is if he cannot see the obviousness of wishing one had never existed if he eternally undergoes _only extreme suffering_ ? It‘s quite possible that a schizophrenic assumes that his madness is „thinking“ but I would rather choose not to support his delusions by interacting with him in his pretense of reason. Oh and BTW, do you _really_ believe that someone having majored in mathematical logic _(involving ideas far more extreme, yet rational, than any non-mathematician is even capable of)_ as one of two best of his graduation year at the LMU is an "unthinking" person ? Or do you just use personal insult whenever your own limitations become obvious ? Which, of course, would be a sign of a rather "thoughtless" person, you know, in the pathological sense.
Ah, my academic mentor at a distance who doesn't know me. His work on the Eucharist and using Lacanian thought makes him a man after my own heart.
Great shame you don't post videos anymore...!
ObjectiveBob, I'm looking for the audio of an old DBH lecture that used to be on this channel. Is there a way I can reach out to you by email or private message?
👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻
8:15 While being an altogether amicable position, this is begging the question in a way that is so typical of these theistic presentations: "before" you are going to set into motion a creation, there is no one there to be charitable with. So there is no way there could have been a motivation to set in motion creation for the sake of fulfilling a need from the side of non-existent creatures. So if love was the motivation for creation, there would ultimately have to be a net _subjective_ win from existing for every single _permanent_ creature that would come into being. It would _ultimately_ have to be impossible for any creature to look back and say: _"I wish I would never have been created"_ . I guess that is sufficient to make a doctrine of eternal hell irresolvably inconsistent with this view of creation being motivated by love.
That's a possible argument for universalism and against eternal hell, and Pound might agree with it. It's not immediately clear to me, though, that creatures in an eternal hell _would_ look back and say "I wish I had never been created."
@@worldnotworld _"It's not immediately clear to me, though, that creatures in an eternal hell would look back and say "I wish I had never been created." "_
lol, it isn't ? You're funny.
@@TheSoteriologist My bad. I thought you were a thinking person.
@@worldnotworld How would somebody even know what thinking is if he cannot see the obviousness of wishing one had never existed if he eternally undergoes _only extreme suffering_ ? It‘s quite possible that a schizophrenic assumes that his madness is „thinking“ but I would rather choose not to support his delusions by interacting with him in his pretense of reason.
Oh and BTW, do you _really_ believe that someone having majored in mathematical logic _(involving ideas far more extreme, yet rational, than any non-mathematician is even capable of)_ as one of two best of his graduation year at the LMU is an "unthinking" person ? Or do you just use personal insult whenever your own limitations become obvious ? Which, of course, would be a sign of a rather "thoughtless" person, you know, in the pathological sense.
@@TheSoteriologist "One of the two best of his graduation year at the THE LMU"? My stars, you really are special!