The Winding Path – 048

For the context of the following comments please click on the hyperlinks above them.

2014-01-27 11:12

Note: This and the following comment are in regards to an interesting discussion between Anton and Matthew Alton on John Shore’s blog at   Starting Here

Anton, I resisted inserting myself into your conversation with Mr. Alton. It would have detracted from the quality of the dialogue.

I have however made an offering of my own take on things below. In case you are interested.

2014-01-27 11:03

In earlier comments you relegated “compartmentalization” to the realm of the religious.


As regards the full spectrum of human “sensorium”; what is empiricism if not extreme compartmentalization?


Matthew Alton – Scientific progress is asymptotic. Science cannot prove, only disprove.“.

And yet, no contemplation of God can avoid an encounter with infinitude. The “ineffable

Do you expect that science will disprove infinity?

As regards “prayer” and “cause and effect”; one must first explain self awareness in relation to infinity.

No matter what stages of flat-worldian speculation humans have passed through, in either realm, theological or empirical, absolute reality is unchanged.

The “first 10^-29 seconds of time” remains with us as the singularity of Now.

And before that, the Void of undifferentiated potentiality. Still present as the Entirety. Infinite. Ineffable.


The maturing of both, theology and science, leads to this. Both in understanding and experience.

The foundation of both, understanding and experience, is self awareness. The foundation of self awareness is infinite potentiality. Awareness. The emergent characteristic of infinitude.

The sum of the whole greater than the sum of the parts.

This is God.

Who is Man?

2014-01-28 09:10

Note: This follows another session of debate between Anton and Matthew Alton.   I am responding to Matthew Alton.

I liked this post. However, you have not actually won the debate.

What you have managed, is to stay true, as far as I can tell, to your method, but are applying it “outside” of it’s scope.

The following is an excerpt from your response to my post above. It was part of your refutation of my use of compartmentalization in regards to empiricism.

Matthew Alton – Insofar as they are not testable they lie outside the scope of our method.

If there is an “outside”, then it satisfies my sense of the term “compartmentalization”. And I will stress the use of “my sense of”.

They are in the realm of unicorns and garden fairies. They are claims without evidence.

I will ignore the demeaning intention evident in your choice of associations. It’s probably not very scientific. What really interests me is:

Conveniently unfalsifiable propositions amounting to unwarranted hypotheses.

Again, with the limitations!

Admitting the “imperfection” of science, you still wish to apply it to debunking the imperfection you find in religious beliefs. Lumping together the entire human inquiry into the meaning of existence. You dump it into the category of “unwarranted hypotheses”.

I will leave it to Anton and other capable advocates from this site to help you understand how they understand Jesus.

What I want to point out is that there is an artificial limit inhibiting your ability to “get” the God thing. It can be illustrated by a comparison of how you and I use the term “infinity”.

For you, it is the mathematical construct. Used to describe infinite sets of numbers. Of which there are many.

To me, this is the “finite” version of infinity. It only has meaning in its relationship to all the other infinities..

When I talk of the infinitude of God. I am talking about the “infinite” infinity. The Singularity.

As for the Entirety, if your method can not get it’s head around it, try your common sense.

Humans have Intuition for a purpose. Just like emotions as well as reason.

So I will repeat:

As regards the full spectrum of human “sensorium”; what is empiricism if not extreme compartmentalization?

This entry was posted in logs and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.