She starts of with an absurdity... and one that is "understood" she goes on to extoll more absurdities.
She goes from one dodgy hypothesis to jump a chasm of pseudo profundity to the next wobbly point. After transversing a sequence of "in other words" and "x which means y" to arrive at the desired conclusion of "guess there must be a "giver" if true" (which I certainly couldnt vouch for since I cant verify one link n the chain, little own all of them.
Does any one else feel Y's logic is worth deciphering, or is intentional scamming, or deception by mysticism?
or most likely just a dizzy theist trying to make it all sound logical?