For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
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.“
Could the message have been, that you blame others for your own shortfalls?
Getting what you expect to get, or possibly even require yourself to get? Out of “habit”? I’m sure that I did mention this at least once.
I suppose I could do a little housecleaning since I’m back at this anyway. Address some things I was going to let pass rather than have to fend off the pending snark-fest.
So here goes…
TheBenballs90 – “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.“
No reason not to either, and to tip the balance in God’s favour, there are mountains of testimony, language, practices, and insights for comparison and inspiration. The process described, is after all, what the term “God” is for.
Of course you would probably have to cultivate an actual and sincere curiosity. Also be willing go where the journey takes you.
TheBenballs90 – “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.“
The idea of God should always remain as vague as possible.
Certainty of details, descriptions, and agendas is a sure sign that you are starting to cling to fabrications, yours or other peoples. The sense of reverence is simply background motivation, and by its increase, a way to calibrate progress.
Touching “THE REAL” is what we are talking about. It is within our capacity.
There is no such thing as a “god of everything”. Everything and nothing IS God. It is within our capacity to understand this in a non-abstracted way. There is no separation. Our ignorance as well as our enlightenment are woven into that fabric.
The names I use are “God”, “Entirety”, “Singularity”, “Infinitude”, “The Real”, “Tao” etc. Are you still hung-up over this point?!
TheBenballs90 – “…with absolutely no explanation of this god, or of how you seem to think he exists you have argued literally nothing.“
What I am talking about does not exist. It is Existence and the potential to Exist. No difference.
But you might say that science has it covered. I say, doesn’t seem that way to me. Based on the problems I’m having getting you free of the “slice-and-dice” mindset, there is an unrecognised fault-line. This way is about, NOT chopping up the whole into parts, and thinking you can then understand it. There is an obvious counterpoint to that, by way of knowing the undivided whole.
In broader terms than you seem use to, it is called the path of enlightenment.
TheBenballs90 – “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.“
I don’t know where you got this from what I said. But people move between spiritual and material, theistic and atheistic orientations quite fluidly throughout their lives. Strengthening of one or the other mode will be influenced by attitude. This can be a quality thing, or quite the opposite. The results will reflect this.
Again, Curiosity and the breadcrumbs of understanding lead the way. There is a feedback loop. The spiritually inclined person knows this as “Grace”, “Kismet”, “Synchronicity”. I don’t know what the atheists might call it, or if they notice it at all. Maybe just a sense of “enthusiasm”, or “team spirit”. The “Zone”? (often dismissed as “just chemistry”)
TheBenballs90 – “You’ve said literally nothing, especially nothing to do with science.“
I beg to differ. More accurately, you’ve heard “literally nothing”. But this is not for lack of effort on my part. It is just the way it is.
As with science, the best results come from alert, objectively honest, rational and repeatable experience. Building upon that, step by step, throughout life. The practice of non-attached witnessing leads to freedom from the limiting confusion of an abstracted separate identity. Ego subsiding, the door opens. We see through the “eyes of God”.
Our original nature.