Activity

@lausten: superpositioning, I use it metaphorically.  The Cheshire Schrödinger God is such a usage.  God exists and does not, grounds being and does not.  And of course that is not a balanced dichotomy.  There is no rational reason whatsoever to posit that He does.  It’s a matter of desire, disposition.  A well that can run dry as you have found.  Although… all the infinities and reasons begin to obliterate reason do they not?  Something is infinitely more complex than nothing for a start.  The answer to Leibniz’ why is there anything lies to the north of the north pole, not in the quantum vacuum emerging above preveniently unstable nothingness.  Existence is uncaused.  That it might be intentional is only another absurdity on top of that one.  Don’t worry.  No apologetics work at all, the fourth rate William Lane Craig’s or the second rate Alvin Platinga’s.  McGrath and McGrath’s The Dawkins DELUSION? awaits my derision in front of me. For all too many years I though that people who could do propositional logic in Latin knew something I didn’t.  But desire… desire met by making the proposition of a decent God work in the text as the decent Chalke does has me in a spin, well two actually, superpositioned opposite ones.

I lined up Anil Seth to go yesterday @write4u, thanks.  Look forward to it, to adding it to my TED favourites along with David Steindl-Rast.