The Winding Path – 187

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.

[Continued from “The Winding Path – 186“]

TheBenballs99 – “So it’s not out of scorn that skeptics would find your label disconcerting, it is out of sheer uselessness.

Ignorance of a mature theology, and lack of aptitude or interest in its cultivation is your justification?

God as All. God as Existence. God as Experience. This understanding is not completed by just saying the words.

All I saw in Hitchens was somebody trying to tear down the elementary school because the students aren’t as “smart” as he is.

The “Deist” thing is not adequate because the Creator is not touched by Creation. The concept does not help open one’s heart to it’s latent identity with Root Infinitude.

TheBenballs99 – “new age psycho babble.”

Now there is a “useless” label.

You have made no effort to work out the meaning. Lack of practice I suppose.

I’d say you have been reciting the mantra of “show me the evidence” for so long, that the ability to do inquiry yourself has atrophied.

TheBenballs99 – “Everything you just said is garbled nonsense. Hitchens was arguing WITH A THEIST, a christian theist. His arguments therefore were directed at christian theism. Turek was giving unsubstantiated ‘data’ to sort of prove a deistic type god (argue semantics about deism if you like you know what I’m getting at) but Hitchens already knew that was not the god Turek believed in. Again, Hitchens said in almost every debate you can’t even try to disprove deism. But that aside, the god you are describing is so far removed from the idea of god that anyone has when they say the word ‘god’ that you might as well not use that term. Ignorance of mature theology? Don’t make me laugh. there is nothing mature in what you are saying. God is the root infinitude? Any Theist would say that too. Except you say that it’s not theism but you don’t give any real explanation of what it is. Without any real characteristics, if you just say god is everything, there is NO point in using the term god. You could just say everything is everything and leave god out of it. Why do you then choose to include some sort of obtuse deity if it is basically just ‘all’. Why not just be happy with the ‘all’ and leave the word god off? Unless you have some sort of additional ‘theology’ to prove it must be a god? In that case please provide reasoning and/or evidence… And stop blaming Hitchens for not arguing the argument you are having. Turek was arguing something TOTALLY different from what you are trying to (sort of) postulate. Hitchens isn’t debating you here. In fact, this god of everything is so broad and ill defined I doubt that anyone like hitchens or turek for that matter would take it seriously enough to bother with it.

TheBenballs99 – “You have not even explained what you are talking about in such a way that any sense can be made of it. If you are just saying that I need to (paraphrasing here) ‘look inside myself and find that connection to all things and that is god’, then there is no reason to call that god. God is a label and that label is so far removed from what you are trying to call it that the two do not line up enough to belong in the same sentence. I’m not so hardened with the idea that I need stacks of evidence to hear an idea. But you would have to put forth the idea in some intelligible way for it to be heard. All you are doing is giving the most broad and obtuse idea of god and with no explanation on how to identify this god other than a ‘sense of reverence.’ Well you’ll have to pardon me if I find that to be ill defined and incredibly weak. Certainly FAR from ‘mature theology’. Does your god of everything have a name by chance? Something tells me it does.

Your habits are really intruding on any chance of understanding this most simple of things.

Since it is not my habit to parse out the various concepts and names for God, but rather, to practice understanding that the-name-is-not-the-thing-itself, why would I adopt your practices?

Why would I fill my days trying to get people not to use the word “God’. Even though I find their use of the word inefficient. Recognizing that my own use of the word remains imperfect.

Abandoning the word “God” on your says so, would be like telling you, that since you don’t really comprehend “reality” you should stop using the term.

I am theistically inclined. You are not. There will be a difference in how we proceed about our business.

As for Turek, I recognized the process and integrity behind his words. Doesn’t matter that he is a Christian. The common ground is in the shared quest for understanding the big picture.

TheBenballs99 – “with absolutely no explanation of this god, or of how you seem to think he exists you have argued literally nothing. I’m not wrapped up in an a priori status of non-belief. I’m waiting to hear any intelligible sentence from you. The only thing you have argued is that some people automatically believe in a god and some don’t, essentially saying this feeling is born into us in some way that we have no control over. You then blame Hitchens for not being born with this innate ‘understanding’ even though you acknowledge it may be perfectly normal to be born without it… Also by saying that this innate feeling occurs in some and not others and that is just sort of a random thing with no control how can you say that you and turek are sharing a quest fro the bigger picture if you have no way of affirming that you are walking down the right road of discovery? If the bigger picture is that there is no ‘root infinitude’ then you are barking up the wrong tree no? And with no way to justify your belief other than ‘some of us are born with it’ then how can you have any confidence it is the right direction to begin your search?

[Note: Much of what TheBenballs99 says that I have said, (especially in the above comment), is projection. I have not tried to correct the assumptions. Hoping that it will be clear to others reading this.]

TheBenballs99 – “A priori beliefs are to not base your beliefs on any kind of evidence be it evidence that can be shared or evidence that can be experienced. If your beliefs come to you in this way then you have 0 justification for them and 0 reason to criticize others for not believing what you do…

It should not be that hard to find the logic and even science in the comments that I have made. The one previous to this, has some points that pretty much sum up where I stand.

If we continue, it will just be hashing over minutia of style and personal preference. What can be said, has been said, so I’m going to leave off until some fresher occasion presents.”

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.


Alms and Patronage

This entry was posted in logs. Bookmark the permalink.