Viviane
But I didn't criticize Cofty for that. I was only pointing out that those seemed to be the rules of this thread, and I was both attempting to operate within them, and pointing out their limitations.
How can you answer YES to #1 considering your YES answer to #2? That's surely a contradiction.
Your #3 addendum isn't logical or helpful. To say something is "a mystery" defines it in a persistent way. I've never proposed that.
That would be like a courtroom hearing part of the evidence and declaring the case closed as "a mystery" even though it acknowledges that there is currently insufficient evidence to make a ruling and/or that more evidence might become available. It is simply not a helpful or logical way of describing the available data.
However, to acknowledge (as you have) that there are factors involved that we are not capable of grasping would not make them irrelevant.
I return to the pet analogy. From the POV of the pet, the fact that it cannot grasp the intention behind what it perceives to be a cruel act does not make it irrelevant to the pet does it?
You say that whatever cannot be grasped is irrelevant. I say that there is no logic to that. If we are capable of determining that something might be outside of our sphere of knowledge, then we can certainly factor that into our decision making.
FG
