« Last post by dennis on Today at 06:35:14 PM »
I wonder if dennis realized that he actually did answer my question, despite his attempt to establish a rationale for not answering it.
It is obvious if you look closely at said rationale; he declared that the nature and attributes of such an entity must be identical to his god otherwise it would be philosophically, spiritually, and logically ridiculous. Yet it is clear that it is not philosophically ridiculous, because philosophy often uses such questions as tools to help people think. It is equally clear that it is not logically ridiculous, because it is inherently illogical to argue that an analogy is invalid unless it refers to something which is identical to the thing being discussed. The whole point of analogies is that they use things which are not identical as the thing being discussed in order to make a point.
So we're left with "spiritually ridiculous". But we were not discussing this in terms of spirituality to begin with, so this is actually irrelevant, and now all three legs of his justification have fallen off, leaving only the statement that making such a comparison is ridiculous. This obviously is his personal opinion, because it is not shared by the people actually asking the question. So, if he finds it personally ridiculous to make such a comparison, it is reasonable to question why that is. However, the reason is evident from his post - because he states that such questions are ignorant, willful, provocative, etc.
However, all of these boil down to his opinion, that the person asking it is being ignorant, willful, provocative, etc. In short, he finds it offensive to be asked this question. And that is what makes the answer obvious. He is offended because of the idea that his god might be compared to something completely imaginary. In short, he is disturbed by this comparison, and therefore would be disturbed by someone who came to him talking about having a personal relationship with Hamlet, or with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or with Zeus - because he does not believe that any of those are supernatural beings like his god.
So, thanks for the answer, dennis. I'm especially thankful that you made it into a puzzle for me to unravel, as I enjoy solving puzzles. But since we both know what the answer is now, perhaps you could refrain from the posturing and hyperbole and simply admit that you find people talking about imaginary stuff as if it's real to be disturbing?
1. I am not disturbed, I just tend to ignore it. This based on experience because the questions usually come from people who want to provoke and argument, not promote discussion.
2. You are confusing spiritual and imaginary.