Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I certainly do not think that the God of the Jehovahs Witnesses is worth arguing about. Had five of them for tea a while back, and when I mentioned Buddhism and mysticism they became extremely uncomfortable. One was worried about me and said he'd be back with something to sort me out. Next day a single sheet of A4 was pushed through my letterbox, with an extract from an essay by some madman claiming that Buddhism was a load of nonsense. No explanation, no argument, and no grasp of the doctrine at all. Just the instruction not to go near it. Hysterical. This was supposed to have some impact on me.
I admire their dedication and commitment, but feel they do not do theism any favours. The God of @Silouan's post above would be my idea of a more meaningful metaphorical entity.
First, go back and read your citation, which says, "This holds true for either arguing party".
Yeah, so if I came up with an alternative to their assertion I'd also have a burden of proof on me. But if someone says "there is a God" and I say "prove it", the burden is only theirs.
Life does not operate under high school debating rules.
See, I have no problem with those who believe there is no God. That's their right. I won't try to convince them there is.
But I expect the same courtesy in return.
So Einstein wasn't religious? So what? I could list hundreds of famous people who are. That proves nothing. So Hawking doesn't believe in God? Okay. Fine. He's one man who may not have the most balanced view of why life is like it is.
I just wanted to expand on this post a bit.
Chrysalid seems to think that because Hawking doesn't believe in God, God does not exist. As far as I've been able to find, Hawking is not a Buddhist, either. Hence, using Chrysalid's logic, Buddhism is wrong.
Einstein made a very few (as in a few sentences) favorable comments about the nature of Buddhism. But, as far as I can find, he was not Buddhist. According to Wikipedia: "According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Einstein was more inclined to denigrate disbelievers than the faithful. Einstein said in correspondence, "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot bear the music of the spheres." Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."
Life does not operate under high school debating rules.
This was in response to your misapprehension of the wiki article on the philosophical burden of proof, and was entirely applicable to the discussion at hand.
Chrysalid seems to think that because Hawking doesn't believe in God, God does not exist. As far as I've been able to find, Hawking is not a Buddhist, either. Hence, using Chrysalid's logic, Buddhism is wrong.
Chrysalid thinks no such thing, and I'd appreciate you not putting words into my mouth.
I wasn't name dropping at random you know, nor citing people for their theological position. In my post I was pointing out that in defense of a non-theistic origin to the universe we have both advanced scientific equipment (I cited powerful telescopes and CERN's hadron collider) and powerful theories from great minds, such as Einstein and Hawking to call upon. Compare that to what theists have to call upon. That was the entirety of my point.
I'd also like to point out that I hold Jeffrey's view, live and let live. I'm not going to put forth my point of view unless someone starts a conversation about it now, vinlyn, take a look at the title of the thread...
I don't approve of the title of the article, either. It has a presumption in it that is not appropriate.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I've heard this too. It doesn't quite make sense to me because quantum fluctuations are not 'nothing". The grand total of energy can be said to equal itself out leaving an imaginary quantity we call "zero" but that doesn't fly. Hawking explains it like a pile of dirt being made. There must also be a hole being dug at the same time. The pile represents positive energy and the hole represents negative energy which would cancel each other out leaving a total of "zero" work. However, this is faulty because the dirt itself is not 'nothing".
Same here. To me the only explanation that would make sense would be the multiple universe theory. That could explain the quantum fluctuations that arise, but then again you have to explain what gave rise to the surrounding dimensions and there you are, back at square one again.
I think square one is all there really is. We just break it down to make it easier to manage. I could see there being a few different levels to a multiverse theory. Many big bangs, each having an infinite amount of possible timelines or alternate universes.
To me, the idea of an absolute starting point makes no sense. But that doesn't mean there isn't some sort of universal spark of awareness.
I believe that if there is a scientific, materialist explanation it would likely be beyond human understanding, at least at this point in our evolution.
I think it may be precisely what we are evolving towards. Everything is the result of information being shared in one way or another and we have grown intelligent enough to start making sense and manipulate the intelligence that is already there. (Intelligence being information).
I'm certainly not intelligent enough to really understand this kind of thing, but it is fascinating to think about. I love the relentless march of science and human understanding but we may as well say that the universe is the dream of Vishnu when we reach this level of abstraction.
That sounds like a good book @Florian. I may have to check that out.
I may have to as well.
To the prior point though, what if the universe itself is run on instinct and this instinct is evolving? It is said natural selection determines what thrives and what doesn't but what is it exactly that selects?
What if Brahman/Tao/God/the universe/us or whatever we call it is in the process of self discovery?
We truly could be the ones we've been waiting for all this time.
Hello, if you have gone all the way on the 8fold path, you can enter the brahmaic planes. So did i and in every meditation of the 8fold pathe i achieve it. He talks to me and so do i talk to him. What do i need all these scienes, to proof that, if i can expererience it by myself. This is the greatest science of all of them.
I think it's great what the creative scientific mind is doing. Someone comes up with a theory, and if it fits, everyone goes along with it, but there are always some exceptions to the rule that require further investigation, and until a new scientific description of the world changes to fit the perceived reality, it remains a theory with holes in it.
Here is my way of overthinking it. He is talking about the mathematical constants that define the material world/universe. However, the material world/universe is just an illusion - a buddhist would probably talk about about dukkha interdependence and annata, but you all know this. The delusion is that there is something material.
Now when you immerse yourself in the delusion taking measurements, etc. The deluded mind won't find anything that is not in line with it's thinking, as it is arising as observer and object dependent on each other. If those mathematical constants are wildly out from here there or anywhere, then this universe cannot exist, as it doesn't fit the math; and that will shatter the delusion, which is what deluded mind needs to exist, is it any wonder then that the porridge is just right? So if the deluded mind can find a way of positing its existence, and reference and prove it to something outside itself, god in this case, delusion reign's supreme, because god is inevitable according to scientists now.
Now who wants to hear one more bed-time story, before you go to sleep? It's called 'shattering delusions, by A. N. Atman' lol
Hello, if you have gone all the way on the 8fold path, you can enter the brahmaic planes. So did i and in every meditation of the 8fold pathe i achieve it. He talks to me and so do i talk to him. What do i need all these scienes, to proof that, if i can expererience it by myself. This is the greatest science of all of them.
anando
Science isn't when one person achieves something in their mind.
'God' is a funny subject, but there's lots of different meanings of it, from the vulgar strawman that Dawkins presents, and knocks down, to more 'Buddhist' like understandings of the word, such as the non-dual Great Reality.
And I think that asking science to prove or disprove God is a bit like asking science to prove or disprove Nirvana. And maybe even both are the same? There are plenty of Christian mystics who see similarities with Buddhism - Thomas Merton wasn't only a Trappist monk, but he spent years in dialogue with Zen teachers.
Hello, if you have gone all the way on the 8fold path, you can enter the brahmaic planes. So did i and in every meditation of the 8fold pathe i achieve it. He talks to me and so do i talk to him. What do i need all these scienes, to proof that, if i can expererience it by myself. This is the greatest science of all of them.
There are many who make the assertion that man made God, and Christos Yannaras in his "Elements of Faith" touches upon this topic, so from a certain perspective I understand why this is so.
The Christian West, in its spiritual environment has de-emphasized and progressively ignored the truth of the person, which is a fundamental presupposition in order to approach Christian revelation. And the loss of the truth of the person is not the result of accidental co-incidences, attitudes of mind, or currents and tendencies which have been cultivated in the west- such as intellectualism and the demand for "objective" certainties. All these are consequences, basically, of an ethical failure, of the inability of westerners, for some time past, to exist and to express themselves ecclesially, that is, to realize life and the expression of life as an event of communion. They have separated the Church from the triadic mode of existence, they have changed it into a "religion" which each one accepts individually and to whose dogmas, organization and rules he decides to submit himself as an individual. Thus life and truth are transformed from an event of relationship and communion into anthropocentric subjectivism. The truth has become knowledge subject to the conceptual demands of the subject and life, likewise, a subjective realization of utilitarian goals. God himself has been understood as an absolute Subject (with which understanding man has transformed him into an object, transcendent certainly, but subject to the rules of correct reasoning). God owes his existence to his given Essence, while the Persons of the triadic revelation function simply as modes (modi) of activity or as "internal relationships" of the Essence, seeing that the unique character is attributed-as is logically necessary-to this objectified Subject. And when both God and man are understood as subjects or individuals, as beings in themselves beyond dynamic relationship or communion, then the one "images" the other with objectively given qualitative analogies. We refer to the absolute and we attribute to God the marks which characterize the human subject-and finally God is even created "in the image and likeness" of man, instead of the other way.
There are many who make the assertion that man made God, and Christos Yannaras in his "Elements of Faith" touches upon this topic, so from a certain perspective I understand why this is so.
I've always had an interest in the psychology of religion - why people believe what they do. It seems to me that human existence is very precarious and uncertain, and that death as extinction is a source of great anxiety for many people. So from that point of view it's perhaps not surprising that people have sought comfort in ideas like God and the afterlife - in other words people have a great need to believe in something. It doesn't prove that these ideas aren't true, but it raise some interesting questions.
I'm interested in that subject as well, and the same can be said of Buddhism. With regards to soothing the anxiety of death, anxiety, like the passions, is rooted in attachment to a self, and I think there is an understandable assumption among some Buddhists that Christians believe taking comfort in God is related to a desire for the preservation of self or individual.
I have met many Christians who hold the view that person is synonymous with individual and the self is the soul and body, and that the soul is eternal even from traditions that teach that the soul is not eternal by nature and practice the letting go of this self-attachment through self-emptying where the mystery of person is revealed and experienced in dispassionate loving relationships and communion with others.
The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can be reduced to nothing less than a mystery where death is transcended by personal relationship with God and not by some form of "survival" after death.
From Mark 8:35-"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it."
This whole mystery of person and relationship may seem like non-sense to some, but I see some parallels with Parinibbana, which the Buddha said was difficult to express describing it as a flame that doesn’t burn. There is a sense of mystery about it, but it obviously can be spoken about and experienced otherwise why mention it. It seems to me it refers to the complete cooling of the burning passions similar to dispassion and perfect repose or rest experienced and spoken of in the Christian East.
@fivebells said:
lamaramadingdong: Yes, the implicit assumption is that we are in some way special, therefore anything on which our evolution depended must be special, too.
Why are we so special though? Because we have consciousness and higher intelligence? Isn't this just why humans evolved? Other animals can think too (probably in ways that we can't even comprehend) and other animals do things better than us such as running, strength,etc.
If there is an intelligent designer that created the universe, how did he come to be? Wouldn't be like the successive russian dolls?
Also, we need math and science to understand the universe and has had profound implications such as helping people (such as medicine) and help us create tools to make our lives easier (technology), but isn't all this based on our understanding? What if what we are understanding is an illusion, but we wouldn't know it because we can't help but understand things a certain way? For example, we know that the universe is infinite and we are finite beings. I don't think we can really understand what infinite is if we are finite ourselves. We can use analogies to describe what infinite is, but can we really understand it? So, in relation to God (and scientific evidence for God), how do we really know that that's the evidence for God?
@Tosh said:
'God' is a funny subject, but there's lots of different meanings of it, from the vulgar strawman that Dawkins presents, and knocks down, to more 'Buddhist' like understandings of the word, such as the non-dual Great Reality.
And I think that asking science to prove or disprove God is a bit like asking science to prove or disprove Nirvana. And maybe even both are the same? There are plenty of Christian mystics who see similarities with Buddhism - Thomas Merton wasn't only a Trappist monk, but he spent years in dialogue with Zen teachers.
Thich Nhat Hanh gave a very interesting comparison in Living Buddha, Living Christ
"The final problem is more personal. If we are nothing but physical beings originating by chance in a random universe, then there really can be no ultimate purpose in our lives. This is not only bad news for us individually, it undermines the ethical and moral underpinnings of society and civilization."
Comments
I admire their dedication and commitment, but feel they do not do theism any favours. The God of @Silouan's post above would be my idea of a more meaningful metaphorical entity.
Chrysalid seems to think that because Hawking doesn't believe in God, God does not exist. As far as I've been able to find, Hawking is not a Buddhist, either. Hence, using Chrysalid's logic, Buddhism is wrong.
Einstein made a very few (as in a few sentences) favorable comments about the nature of Buddhism. But, as far as I can find, he was not Buddhist. According to Wikipedia: "According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Einstein was more inclined to denigrate disbelievers than the faithful. Einstein said in correspondence, "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot bear the music of the spheres." Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."
Suggest you also check out (as one example): http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html
That doesn't mean there is a God, but if you want to throw names around, both sides can...and it proves nothing.
I wasn't name dropping at random you know, nor citing people for their theological position. In my post I was pointing out that in defense of a non-theistic origin to the universe we have both advanced scientific equipment (I cited powerful telescopes and CERN's hadron collider) and powerful theories from great minds, such as Einstein and Hawking to call upon. Compare that to what theists have to call upon.
That was the entirety of my point.
I'd also like to point out that I hold Jeffrey's view, live and let live. I'm not going to put forth my point of view unless someone starts a conversation about it now, vinlyn, take a look at the title of the thread...
To me, the idea of an absolute starting point makes no sense. But that doesn't mean there isn't some sort of universal spark of awareness. I think it may be precisely what we are evolving towards. Everything is the result of information being shared in one way or another and we have grown intelligent enough to start making sense and manipulate the intelligence that is already there. (Intelligence being information). I may have to as well.
To the prior point though, what if the universe itself is run on instinct and this instinct is evolving? It is said natural selection determines what thrives and what doesn't but what is it exactly that selects?
What if Brahman/Tao/God/the universe/us or whatever we call it is in the process of self discovery?
We truly could be the ones we've been waiting for all this time.
if you have gone all the way on the 8fold path, you can enter the brahmaic planes. So did i and in every meditation of the 8fold pathe i achieve it. He talks to me and so do i talk to him.
What do i need all these scienes, to proof that, if i can expererience it by myself.
This is the greatest science of all of them.
anando
Here is my way of overthinking it. He is talking about the mathematical constants that define the material world/universe. However, the material world/universe is just an illusion - a buddhist would probably talk about about dukkha interdependence and annata, but you all know this. The delusion is that there is something material.
Now when you immerse yourself in the delusion taking measurements, etc. The deluded mind won't find anything that is not in line with it's thinking, as it is arising as observer and object dependent on each other. If those mathematical constants are wildly out from here there or anywhere, then this universe cannot exist, as it doesn't fit the math; and that will shatter the delusion, which is what deluded mind needs to exist, is it any wonder then that the porridge is just right? So if the deluded mind can find a way of positing its existence, and reference and prove it to something outside itself, god in this case, delusion reign's supreme, because god is inevitable according to scientists now.
Now who wants to hear one more bed-time story, before you go to sleep? It's called 'shattering delusions, by A. N. Atman' lol
Mettha
And I think that asking science to prove or disprove God is a bit like asking science to prove or disprove Nirvana. And maybe even both are the same? There are plenty of Christian mystics who see similarities with Buddhism - Thomas Merton wasn't only a Trappist monk, but he spent years in dialogue with Zen teachers.
I've always had an interest in the psychology of religion - why people believe what they do. It seems to me that human existence is very precarious and uncertain, and that death as extinction is a source of great anxiety for many people. So from that point of view it's perhaps not surprising that people have sought comfort in ideas like God and the afterlife - in other words people have a great need to believe in something.
It doesn't prove that these ideas aren't true, but it raise some interesting questions.
With regards to soothing the anxiety of death, anxiety, like the passions, is rooted in attachment to a self, and I think there is an understandable assumption among some Buddhists that Christians believe taking comfort in God is related to a desire for the preservation of self or individual.
I have met many Christians who hold the view that person is synonymous with individual and the self is the soul and body, and that the soul is eternal even from traditions that teach that the soul is not eternal by nature and practice the letting go of this self-attachment through self-emptying where the mystery of person is revealed and experienced in dispassionate loving relationships and communion with others.
The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can be reduced to nothing less than a mystery where death is transcended by personal relationship with God and not by some form of "survival" after death.
From Mark 8:35-"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it."
This whole mystery of person and relationship may seem like non-sense to some, but I see some parallels with Parinibbana, which the Buddha said was difficult to express describing it as a flame that doesn’t burn. There is a sense of mystery about it, but it obviously can be spoken about and experienced otherwise why mention it. It seems to me it refers to the complete cooling of the burning passions similar to dispassion and perfect repose or rest experienced and spoken of in the Christian East.
Why are we so special though? Because we have consciousness and higher intelligence? Isn't this just why humans evolved? Other animals can think too (probably in ways that we can't even comprehend) and other animals do things better than us such as running, strength,etc.
If there is an intelligent designer that created the universe, how did he come to be? Wouldn't be like the successive russian dolls?
Also, we need math and science to understand the universe and has had profound implications such as helping people (such as medicine) and help us create tools to make our lives easier (technology), but isn't all this based on our understanding? What if what we are understanding is an illusion, but we wouldn't know it because we can't help but understand things a certain way? For example, we know that the universe is infinite and we are finite beings. I don't think we can really understand what infinite is if we are finite ourselves. We can use analogies to describe what infinite is, but can we really understand it? So, in relation to God (and scientific evidence for God), how do we really know that that's the evidence for God?
Thich Nhat Hanh gave a very interesting comparison in Living Buddha, Living Christ
"The final problem is more personal. If we are nothing but physical beings originating by chance in a random universe, then there really can be no ultimate purpose in our lives. This is not only bad news for us individually, it undermines the ethical and moral underpinnings of society and civilization."
this is nothing but conjecture its self. lame
@sean, if everything is conjecture then what is this world?
there is no world
in that case, there is no conjecture.