For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
[The following is some critique of a YouTube video called: “Does God Exist? (Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens)]
[Responding to Marjangeh.Yankee who held a completely different view.]
Turek was the rational one through 90% of the thing. Only at the end did the utter autism of Hitchens’ scorn for Christianity and self righteous indifference to credible theology get the better of his poise.
Ground Koala Soap – “God is outside of time, space and matter and therefore can create the three.“
Time, space and matter are not in truth “three” things. They are dynamic relative attributes of one existence.
Where I felt that Turek fell short, was in not emphasising the infinitude of primordial Nothingness. The other side of that, is the infinitude of Singularity. The dualistic nature of the “religion” he aligns with, prevents a full understanding of this. God outside of creation rather than God as the Entirety.
As for Hitchens, the man seemed nearly deranged by antipathy for Christianity. His take on that, being of the most primitive and distorted interpretation he could summon up.
I was quite impressed with Turek on the whole, and only disappointed by a few points that he either did or did not make.
Hydee G – “Christianity is the only belief that gives each person intrinsic value.”
That is an ignorant statement. You make the defence of theistic temperament even more difficult to justify. Probably helped create a couple of new atheists as well.
+WeMissDimebag – “Space, time, and matter did all have to begin, yes. The fact that they had to begin does not prove God, and that’s the issue.“
Time, space and matter are not in truth “three” things. They are dynamic, relative attributes of one existence.
Thinking in terms of “God” or “no god”, is an attitude not a description of reality.
The real question Is, does the Universe, which includes the phenomena experienced as “you”, life, consciousness, galaxies and Monday night football, inspire a sense of reverence?
WeMissDimebag – “There was nothing before the bang, no space, no matter, no time.“
Consider that absolute “nothing” is the essence of Infinitude. It is unbounded potential. And that the emergent characteristic of that, is “existence/experience” i.e. awareness.
WeMissDimebag – “All of it comes into existence at the moment the bang does.“
Key word here is “moment”. The thing about time is that the initial “infinitude” remains the foundation. Everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, occurs in the dimensionless Now.
This is Eternity.
WeMissDimebag – “…infinities are really just never ending sequences, and sequences are made up of individual points.“
The type of “infinity” that you are describing here, is the mathematical kind. It is “relative” infinity and requires some other set of points to shape it’s meaning.
This is not the same as the absolute infinitude of Singularity. The set of the Entirety. Which equates to Nothing.
If you isolate something called “our universe” in relationship to the “multiverse” what are you really doing. To me the Universe must be the Entirety. So these words are fuzzy.
The same with God or gods. Where do you want to draw the line of your personal understanding?
[note: I saw that you use the word “eternalverse”. That is interesting, and I will have to look into it.]
TheBenballs99 – “B.R. McKay First of all, we both know that the god Mr. Turek is arguing for is the christian god. So in what way is Hitchens wrong in referencing christian texts to refute this god or Mr. Turek and his arguments for that god?
Second, how do you know of god in such a way without these revelations as to be able to say that they have nothing to do with him? I’m not saying that this question can’t be answered but I would like to know (as hitchens often said) what information has been made available to you that can’t be made available to me about this god?”
Turek did his best to talk from the broader, and therefore more accurate, conceptualization. Hitchens made no effort.
The whole point of my comment revolves around the most reasonable definition of what gets called God.
The Entirety. Not the idea of “The Entirety”, but the reality of that.
When people refer to “the Christian God” or to “Thor” or to surrogates like “Unicorns”, they are beating a dead horse. Though don’t seem to have noticed the stench.
Christians of a certain ilk are famous for practising this as well. It shows up in the duality laden theology behind “God as the creator”, is outside of creation. Or, that the Bible is the “word of God”, and nothing else will do. Christianity is the “one true” religion. etc.
To his credit Turek came close to articulating the more rational and holistic view during the majority of the debate. It was Hitchens that wanted to back him into the corner of talking from his personal paradigm. That’s as deep as it gets for Hitchens. His scorn will have it no other way.
As for my statement, “Relatively speaking Christianity is no-more-and-no-less relevant to God than the Dow Jones Industrial Average.” I’m dramatizing the relationship of relative to absolute aspects of the Entirety.
If I try to say more, it will trigger reflexive “deepity” deflections for the rest of the day. The prevailing habit of general scorn will have it no other way.
TheBenballs99 – “You’ve said literally nothing, especially nothing to do with science. The amount of words you were able to spew without actually delivering any kind of message is literally staggering. You should work for a newspaper.“