Consultation‎

yes. There’s no point in it (I understand from you that there really is no point in it, unfortunately). As mentioned, it’s better to try and talk to these guys as early as possible, despite the widespread fear that at such an early stage there is hope that difficulties won’t arise, and then the fear is that these very talks could spark more problems that otherwise wouldn’t have arisen. The guy is a very intelligent, sharp, and very impressive debater (as is the case with many of those I meet, who don’t find answers in their own place and thus come to me). But my real feeling is that he was quite well-informed. His arguments are not unfounded, of course, but someone who is still at a stage where he is ready to be attentive, in my opinion, would not see them as good arguments. The way such arguments are is that there is no proof with absolute certainty. This is not pure logic (since there is always the question of the basic premises of the logical argument). There are rejections for every argument and claim, and the attitude towards such rejection depends on the degree of fundamental empathy. Someone who still believes but whose questions are beginning to arise will not treat a possible rejection as a decisive argument but will draw a conclusion according to what seems reasonable to him. But someone who has passed the stage and has come to the conclusion that he does not believe already sees these rejections as overwhelming arguments, and therefore it is very difficult to dissuade him from his position. And again, I’m not talking about lying or deliberately ignoring good arguments, but about an initial intuitive attitude towards basic premises that is influenced by the positions we already hold when we come to the discussion. This is human nature. For example, when I asked him how the special laws of the world were created and who created them? After all, it is unlikely that something so special could have been created by itself without a guiding hand? (And even if they always were – there is the question of sufficient reason) he replied that we have no experience with the laws of nature themselves because all our experience is with laws within nature. Note that this is a deferral (i.e. a statement that my words are not necessary because it is also possible to think differently). Indeed, there is room for such a deferral. But now the question is what do we do when we have two options, to apply or not to apply our experience to the laws of nature. It is clear that we usually all make generalizations from the known to the unknown. We never have experience with all things, because then everything we know would be the result of direct observation. This is not the case in science or in any other field. The basic premise is that the laws of nature on the moon and throughout the universe are the same as ours. Where does that come from? Because we make a generalization from what is familiar to us. So why is he not willing to understand that this is a mere refutation? Because the attitude towards such a refutation depends on your starting point: if you no longer believe, you will cling to this refutation and say that the claim based on the laws is not conclusive, and even very speculative. And indeed it is not conclusive and uncertain. But in my opinion, anyone who comes to the matter as a piece of paper understands that there is an argument here with significant weight (although of course not absolute and uncertain. There is no absoluteness in anything, and certainly not in these matters). I suppose that he himself would have accepted this argument a year or two ago, but now he no longer does. I am extending my answer to make people aware of the importance of perceiving difficulties in time and not waiting until the candle is no longer lit, and then it is difficult to fix. I thought quite a bit after our conversation, as happens to me a lot after many conversations, because the subject interests me a lot and provokes in me a lot of thoughts about how to properly treat such guys who used to be almost nonexistent (we have now established an institute to treat the difficulties of intelligent dropouts). All the best,