For the context of the following comments please click on the hyperlinks above them.
Matthew Alton responding to Kevin Osborne –
“To say one part or another of the system does not exist is to choose to not see part of it.”
To say that a nonexistent part of the system exists is to indulge in delusion. Your burden here is to prove the existence of a god. I assure you that I am not obstinately choosing not to see the gods. I don’t see any gods for the same reason that I don’t see any unicorns. They don’t exist.
“Relativity, the mind, and God all have different definitions for each individual”
There is no question that Relativity exists. It is a universally accessible artifact. It has a single, well delineated definition. If your definition of Relativity diverges from the intended one, then it is simply incorrect. As for the existence of minds distinct from my own, the preponderance of evidence compels me to assign them a very high probability of existing. God is a delusion. These are three very different things.
We are each entitled to our own opinions. We are not each entitled to our own facts.
Kevin is giving you an improved definition of God. Your definition diverges from it. Is it therefore incorrect?
Matthew Alton – The Christian god Yahweh does not exist. All available evidence points convincingly to the assertion that he is a myth. Creating ad hoc definitions him is not going to change that.
Christianity is nothing if not a collection of absolutist dogmas. Does it strike anyone else as specious that Kevin is resorting to relativism here?
By the bye, do Christian apologists ever address the points made by the opposition?
There is the definition of an apple and there is the apple itself.
I am not interested in a short circuited debate about the existence of the apple if my opponent is talking about the definition of the apple.
If you get my point you should acknowledge it.
I am not a Christian apologist. Are they any different than proselytizing atheists.? If you are referring to other participants in this conversation, I suspect they are having the same problem that I am having. And then, there is your disrespect. It invalidates your arguments right out of the gate.
My interest is in the contemplation of God in co-operation with the process of enlightenment. I would be happy to teach you what I mean by this up to the limits of my own understanding.
As for Kevin. What on earth do you mean by “resorting” to relativism? If your ears are full of wax, is it his fault you cannot hear?
Kevin Osborne – Thank you for defending my honor, Mr. McKay. I am not a Christian, FYI, but am certain that the Christian God exists in its ultimate form, which is at least complete understanding.
In tracking down the larger system within this realm of God one sees that absolutism rules the day. We each are absolute and have no master.
Therefore a reasonable rule is never expect a person who is certain he is human to understand the absolute any more than to understand that the bell tolls for thee.
It will toll, nevertheless, but who hears that harmony?
In Yoga it is Kaivaliya (aloneness of being).
This exercise of engagement via writing is as much for my benefit as it is for anyone else.
I once heard a Zen master analogized the function of Sangha (congregation) as the stirring of boiled potatoes in a big pot so that they peeled themselves.
Much like these debates.
If someone wanders into the room, the lessons are tailored for them. Absolutely. All imperfection only seemingly so.