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.
The God Delusion
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Fair point. "The rebirth delusion" would be an interesting title for a book.:winkc:
P
From a description of the Multiple Worlds Interpretation In other words, our universe can have no effect on other universes postulated by MWI, and other universes can have no effect on our universe. If it were possible for one universe to have an effect on another, a cloned observer would have access to other universes other than her own.
In your first link, the author describes evidence that "another universe beyond the edge of our own" had some effect on our universe. First, this "universe" is included in the space that our universe is included in. By the definition of "universe", it is therefore part of our universe. Secondly, Mersini-Houghton speculates that this "universe" had an effect on our universe. If that is so, then it is not an alternate universe as predicted in the MWI, but is an entirely different phenomenon. It is, in fact, part of our universe, but not part of our known universe.
In the second link, the author is describing matter that was thrown out of the known universe during the Big Bang. The same comments apply: it is part of the universe, but not part of the known universe, and the fact that it is observable means that it isn't part of MWI. The author does use the word "Mulitiverse", but he's offering his own speculation rather than an opinion by a physicist, and he explicitly states that he's using "Multiverse" to mean unknown clusters of matter thrown out by the Big Bang.
Dawkins was referring to MWI when he referred to an interpretation that he thought was favored by physicists. I assumed that you were using "Multiverse" to mean the same as MWI. If you mean anything else, then you comments can't offer any defense of Dawkins' statements, since you and he are talking about different things.
I started with Isacc Newton, and got as far as Lema*tre without finding any evidence that any of them supported MWI. At that point I concluded that I was wasting my time looking for the evidence, and I gave up. Many of them support the expanding universe theory. Are you conflating expanding universe and MWI? If you believe that any of the articles that you linked to contain the evidence you think they contain, please quote the relevant text.
That's not full context, and that's not exactly what Tipler quoted him saying. Here's an example of "trivial", as used in science.
Lets look at the context. The only source for the Hawking quote is Frank Tipler, a physicist at Tulane University who believes that modern physics proves that at some point in the future God will resurrect everyone who was ever alive, preserve their brains as computer simulations, and put them in the paradise described in the New Testament. I'm not questioning Tipler's honesty, but he's quoting an oral statement from memory. Aside from the problems with that, there's the question of whether Hawking meant exactly what Tipler thought he meant.
Here's what Martin Gardner said about the quote.
From the Wikipedia article on Hawking that you linked to: So it appears that Hawking does not support interpretations that involve multiple universes. If he ever did support it, he seems to have found an alternative that he likes better.
And it probably isn't favored by most physicists. As I pointed out before, most physicists seem to avoid getting involved in this. What Dawkins *thinks* in this case seems to have more to do with his preferences, rather than evidence. We all do this, but the issue is whether it's rational, and I believe that it is not, even in cases where I do it.
True, and irrelevant. I never claimed that an appeal to authority in necessarily fallacious. You said that he wasn't making an appeal to authority, and I pointed out that you were wrong.
If you read the sutta, it clearly refers to this Earth, and not to the universe. Among other things, it refers to the sun and moon appearing. There can only be a sun and moon for an individual planet, not for an entire universe.
No it doesn't. By specifying "this world", the translator is making clear that the Buddha is not referring to other worlds.
In that case, you're not referring to MWI, which is something different. And in that case, your comments have nothing to do with Dawkins statements, which refer to MWI.
Universe (capital "U") refers to everything that exists. universe (lower case) refers to singularity points that have expanded or also known as Hubblespheres or "verses." In the context of the Multiverse, universe refers to the singularity points/Hubblespheres.
In one version of the Multiverse, verses can make collide and make contact with ours.
"A multiverse of a somewhat different kind has been envisaged within the multi-dimensional extension of string theory known as M-Theory ...our universe and others are created by collisions between p-branes (verses)" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
You are confusing terms. When in the context of the Multiverse, universe refers to our universe that was created by the Big Bang, as well as other universes created by a Big Bang.
There are multiple versions of the Multiverse, but it doesn't matter. Any evidence for any version will suffice to support the general idea of there being other universes outside of our own.
I got that list of scientists from the Wiki article on the Multiverse. Just go to the right and click "Show: Scientists." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
None of this stuff about that one quote matters. Hawking is explicitly a supporter of the Multiverse.
Hawking Explains the Multiverse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFUgMXVj0js
"In a 1983 interview Hawking also said he regarded the MWI as "self-evidently correct" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
"Penrose agrees with Hawking that QM applied to the universe implies MW" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
You implied that Dawkins was being irrational with his use of appealing to authority, but that would only be true if it was a logical fallacy to do so. If Dawkins didn't commit an appeal to authority fallacy, then why are you using it against him?
Uh, you honestly think that Buddha believed in an expanding and contracting Earth? Come on now.
"Our theory of the universe could be based upon the Buddhist concepts of samvatta-kappa, vivatta-kappa (Anguttara nikaya, Agganna sutta) and paticca-samuppada. Vivatta-kappa could be translated as the expansion in time and samvatta- kappa could be translated as the contraction in time.
This cycle of samvatta and vivatta is called a kappa (kalpa in Sanskrit) which can be roughly translated as an inconceivably long period of time or an eon. In fact the cycle could be further divided in to four parts: The period of or expansion (vivatta-kappa), the period in which the universe remains in a state of expansion (vivatta-ttháyí), the period of contraction (samvatta-kappa) and the period in which the universe stays contracted (samvatta-ttháyí)." - http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=7,6188,0,0,1,0
As far as I have read, Buddha uses "universe" and "world" interchangably. As do scientists when they say "Many Worlds Interpretation" and "Multiple universes."
I'm referring to the Multverse no matter what version, whether it be multiple p-branes, or multiple singularity points, or multiple universes of different wave functions. The concept is that there are multiple worlds or universes outside of our observable universe/singularity point/Hubblesphere.
You can see the different versions here:
.
P
Religion in some places of the world, has deep roots in politics and social interaction. The dominant religion has a very strong opinion on what is wrong and what is right.
including but not limited too:
-What day you have to rest -
-When and with whom you can have intercorse-
-Are men and women equal/ to be treated equal?
-With whom you are alowed to mary-
-What clothes should you wear? -
So I think these intelectuals use the only means of fighting this influence: arguments
I think the main goal of these gentlemen is not to erase all religion, but rather to decrease the power of these religions and to promote and protect secularism. And I think this is a noble cause. The intrument their using is rather blunt and misses it's target somewhat, but reactionary movements usualy are.
EDIT: and yeah, I've (partially) read confessions of a budhist atheist but that's just one man's account
The Buddha spoke English?
i agree with this completely.
in my opinion, it's important for people to have arguments against christianity's views. they are a powerful presence in america who have deemed themselves the righteous and this can be really dangerous. my hope would be that it keeps them assessing their beliefs to save them from complete blind faith.
here's an example of christian america at it's most ignorant:
in my public high school when we learned about evolution, some of my classmates actually CRIED they were so upset. they couldn't stand that we were being forced to learn something that so violated their faith. the icing on the cake was when my biology teacher told us that he didn't believe in evolution either but was being "forced" to teach it. he followed it up with some information on how he keeps his faith strong against arguments like this. :skeptical
obviously, i know not all christians feel this strongly about this and i also know quite a few that support evolution... i just feel like without interference from opposing views every now and then, people could possibly convince themselves of anything. i know i have been forced to explain my views and sometimes even abandon them because of arguments, i feel better because of it.
Amen...
I just want to be a good to others, and as happy as I can be, and if there is something beyond the physical change we call death, probably it will be ok. (of course as a Pure Land Buddhist, albeit not one who takes the PL literally, I think it will be perfect whatever it is....or isn't
Regarding the Atheist "movement", I had a facebook friend very involved in this sort of thing sending emails and spam about meetings and petitions and so on. I removed him as a fb friend simply because I was tired of the spam.
He sort of reminds me of a very over-zealous fundamentalist Christian or a Jehova's Witness imposing his ideas on me....I don't send him emails about Buddhist events, so why is he trying to impose his anti-religious ideas on me?
Regarding re-birth. On some level it holds up to scientific scrutiny rather well. Energy doesn't die, but merely changes form, science says. So when my body is "dead" it changes form, but the energy remains...just manifest differently.
Consciousness is also energy, so presumably if this law is true for physical manifestations of energy, it is also true for consciousness. Which would mean the consciousness does not go on in the same form, but the energy will be manifest in different forms. Is this not essentially re-birth given a non belief in an eternal individual soul?
Now if the question is more about things like "I was JS Bach in a previous life" well I think that holds very little water myself, and tends to be more of a Hindu sort of interpretation of re-birth.
Anyway, I'm really not very bright, so I'm sure some intellectual will bebunk my post with ease....and I'm ok with that. I think I'll just go and pet my cats and recite the Nembutsu
Apart from this statement, you seem luminous to me
Keeping ones head in the clouds blinds them to the sufferings down here, all these petty argument about an invisible man in the sky who demands your obidence has been the bane of human existance for countless thousands of years and in all this time god has decided to not reveal himself...suprise suprise.
If a so called creator of the universe wants to make himself known then let him personally speak now or forever hold his silence !
Is it too much to ask people for proof ???
I suppose I should contribute to the discussion...
I agree with the points Johnathan quoted from Caz, if these were to be put forward to a theist I'd be interested in the reply :skeptical:facepalm:
Kind regards,
Nickidoodle Jellybean
The points made in return my friend are usually quotations from scripture and pretending they havent heard you from my own experience friend...Rational debate is something people should learn. Of course you should never destroy the faith of another if it in turn helps them become a better person.
A lot of atheists, I've noticed, ignore the issue of conciousness at a really fundamental level. When they describe their view of reincarnation, they explain it from a completely materialistic view point. They see their selves as the brain or the internal voice and not just being, not just existing. They say, "I die, I decay, my nutrients feed a tree and worms, and I become the tree and the worms. That doesn't really explain how "your" concious experience can become incorporated into another organism or does anything to explain what happens after the ego rots away with the brain, What is the self. How much of the mind can be taken away till you're not you anymore? Is the self just empty space? Is the self just a partition within a greater self or ocean of potential for self that becomes a self when a functioning brain occupies it momentarily? Many atheists don't contemplate this. The preference of rigid, four dimensional thinking can become an ideology in itself and has nothing to do with believing in a personal god or not believing in one. To me, understanding the nature of conciousness on a deeper level is crucial for forming a rational basis for morality.
Aaah but DO we? I haven't died yet so I can't say :P
To be serious though, I often question this because when you look at practises that are taught to deal with the six bardos after death, we are supposed to be conscious of our dying and strive for clear mind so we can experience a "good" rebirth. In my (probably flawed) opinion, if we have to do this and the emphasis I have seen on the clear nature of the mind, then the mind goes on. So does this mean consciousness goes on if it lives in the mind?? *confused*
I'm not being a smartass either, this is a genuine question for those more knowledgeable than me.
In metta,
Raven
Raven,
I think it is a good question. I haven't any memory of having died either but I know I shall be doing it sometime sooner or later. Before I went up to university, I asked friends who were already up what it was like and I set up some contacts in advance. I'd like to do the same around death but I have yet to get any sort of feedback from the already dead - it all comes from the not yet dead and so is of dubious value, and horribly contradictory.
We may have one or more members who have useful input. Any tulkus prepared to help?
Interested question, if we are to be serious, and what I can not, alas, answer :-/
Im a Christian, and these statements made by Dawkis show His lack of understanding for the God of Christianity. Injustice committed against God is rightly repaid with the justice deserved. Some receive justice. Some receive mercy, but nobody recieves injustice (as all have sinned against God according to Romans 3:23). While the God of the Old testament may come off as all these things, it is a gross misrepresentation of His character. Furthermore, while God will vindicate his dominion as governor of the universe, He will not be "vindictive".
This is not an 'official' view (for those of us who have no Chyristian background). Many believe very different things. What is more, many reject the notion of God being a gendered notion.
Take it a step further: Who can say the Buddha even existed as a real historical figure?
We know the teachings exist, but that is perhaps as far as we can know.
If scripture is interpreted in light of the context, you will find that its teachings are quite clear. But when people (like our Fathers often did, and many do today) isolate certain texts, and use the Bible as a sort of Encyclopedia, many different "views" can come about. There are dozens of views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one.
As far as gender goes, all I can say is that the Bible does teach that Gods gender is Male, not female, and not neutral-gendered. Everything in Creation is meant to teach us a spiritual principle. Let me ask you something, what is the love between man and a woman about? Well, the Bible teaches that marriage is meant to show us of the covenant between God and His people, and God has revealed Himself as a male for reasons corresponding to these principles. That's the biblical model. Not the culture's motto, not what many men imagine in this generation, but it has always been God's created order, from the beginning.
I hope not to offend thee in asking, but what's your personal opinion on who God's people are?
I know that sounds rude, but I mean it in the politest manner,
Joe
And yet God proclaims his own jealousy (e.g., Exo 20:4-6, Exo 34:14, etc.) and exhibits brutal intolerance towards other tribes (e.g., Deut 20:16-18). Are you kosher with his command to exterminate all the tribes of Canaan in an ancient act of religious genocide?
God ordered the death of every man, woman and child in Canaan. Every single one of them. What could those children possible have done to deserve such a judgment? Sure, the various tribes of Canaan may have had some barbaric beliefs compared to the Israelites, and they may have been occupying land that the Isrealites considered their own, but seriously, even in the context of war, how can such an act not be considered detestable and depraved?
That people actually find such an act to be just and morally acceptable simply because it was supposedly ordered by God truly scares me. I mean, would you support such a thing today? If not, why?
To be honest, I have a real hard time understanding how people can respect and worship a being who orders mass murder. If God's morality is timeless, then how can such an act be considered morally acceptable then but not now? And if it is acceptable now, then what a truly frightening thought considering that approximately 55% of the world's population worships the God of Abraham.
Does God have a penis? If so, since God is infinite, is it infinitely big? :eek:
its quite alright, ask me anything you want. I want to point out that the scriptures age doesn't necessarily make it fallible. In human terms this would be quite likely. But the Bible claims to be a book written by men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. This does not mean that God dictated every word. Rather his Spirit so pervaded the mind of the human writer that he chose out of his own vocabulary and experience precisely those words, thoughts and expressions that conveyed God's message with precision. In this sense the words of the human authors of Scripture can be viewed as the word of God. The Bible confirms its divine origin again and again as it makes sense out of our experience in the real world and points the way to harmony.
Gods people? Well, in the Old testament God saves the Israelites from Egyptian slavery. This is figurative language for
Matthew 15:24 when Jesus says “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
The question of how God chooses these people is a complicated matter, and I would be happy to explain it further if you wish, but to answer your question Israel in the Old testament is figurative language for Gods people and the reality of their salvation. When God saves someone he brings them out of the evil dominion of slavery (sin), and to the promised land (heaven).
And please do explain
Do you believe God created everything or that there is a naturalistic explanation for everything? If you believe God created everything, how do you reconcile that belief with current science?
Yes, God is jealous for His own glory (Isaiah 42:8). Thats why we commanded to worship Him, and not idols (Exodus 20:3)
There are two reasons, I think, why we may stumble over God's love for his own glory and his zeal to get men to praise him for it. One is that we don't like humans who act that way, and the other is that the Bible seems to teach that a person ought not to seek his own glory. (1 Corinthians 13:5) So people take offense at God's self-exaltation both because of their own everyday experience, and also because of some Scripture.
Why don't we like all that? I think it is because all those people are inauthentic. They are what Ayn Rand calls "second handers." They don't live from the joy that comes through achieving what they value for its own sake. Instead, they live second-hand from the praise and compliments of others. And we don't admire second-handers. We admire people who are composed and secure enough that they don't feel the need to shore up their weaknesses and compensate for their real deficiencies by trying to get as many compliments as possible.
And for many the teaching that God is seeking praise and wants to be admired and is doing things for his own name's sake does in fact seem to put God in such a category. But should it? One thing we may say for certain: God is not weak and God has no deficiencies: "All things are from him and through him and to him" (Romans 11:36). He always was, and whatever else is, owes its being to him and so can add nothing to him which is not already flowing from him. That is simply what it means to be the eternal God and not a creature. Therefore, God's zeal to seek his own glory and to be praised by men cannot be owing to his need to shore up some weakness or compensate for some deficiency. He may seem, at a superficial glance, to be in the category of second-handers, but he is not like them and the superficial similarity must be explained another way.
The answer which I want to try to persuade you is true is this: because God is unique as the most glorious of all beings and totally self-sufficient, he must be for himself in order to be for us. If he were to abandon the goal of his own self-exaltation, we would be the losers. His aim to bring praise to himself and his aim to bring pleasure to his people are one aim and stand or fall together. I think we will see this if we ask the following question:
In view of God's infinitely admirable beauty and power and wisdom what would his love to a creature involve? Or to put it another way: What could God give us to enjoy that would show him most loving? There is only one possible answer, isn't there? HIMSELF! If God would give us the best, the most satisfying, that is, if he would love us perfectly, he must offer us no less than himself for our contemplation and fellowship. This was precisely God's intention in sending his Son. (Ephesians 2:18)
This particular war was to prevent resurgence at the midinite clans. Firstly, I want you to know that Gods great plan of redemption is to use ALL sin for a greater good. Take the crucifixion of Christ. The worst sin committed in the history of mankind. Yet God used it to bring salvation for His people. Secondly, this war was intended to exterminate a particularly vile people. Who committed such sins as the sacrifice of children to their God molech, having sex with animals and causing disease to spread like wildfire, and cannibalism. But heres the thing. While it would have been perfectly within the confines of Gods justice to wipe this people off the map with their first sin, he gave them not one... not two... but 300 YEARS TO REPENT!!! Quite merciful if you ask me.
People have a tendency to look at the love of God because of all the benefits it brings them, but then they ignore the justice of God.
Okay then, what are you doing on a Buddhist forum?
I believe God created everything. He alone created beings, because He alone has the 'power of being'. Some may go as far as to say matter is eternal, and they can divinize the created order all they want, but Infinity is traditionally seen as an incommunicable attribute of God. And if matter is eternal than it would be self maintaining. But the physical universe is highly differentiated in terms of hot and cold. these differences interact, the interaction continues until sameness is reached and sameness remains sameness. it cant return to differentiation. Ie. matter changes and requires unchanging point of reference to validate it.
Furthermore, Naturalistic explanations do not account for the origin of life. As far as my knowledge of evolution is concerned, there are many components of Darwinian evolution that are completely valid - in fact, I would say most evolutionary concepts are valid and observable. The problem arises when atheists attempt to extrapolate these principles to say all life evolved through evolutionary mechanisms, from basic organic molecules billions of years ago to the present biosphere. Honestly, nothing could be more absurd. Just start with the first biomolecules - the odds of these forming "spontaneously" is almost infinitely remote. The theory only gets harder to support from there.
In Romans 1:20 it says "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
Divine revelation is both perpetual ("since the creation") and perspicuous ("clearly perceived"). Divine invisibility, eternity, and power are all expressed in and through the created order. The invisible God is revealed through the visible medium of creation. This revelation is manifest. It is not obscured, but "clearly seen". but people resist what they see (Rom 1:18-20). The universe is like a poem about God which pours forth a stream of perpetual testimony.
Good question
I am here for the purpose of evangelicalism, and to learn more about how Buddhists think in regards to the Bible.
So how is Dawkins mistaken in his characterization of God as jealous, bloodthirsty, etc.?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this basically seems like a long-winded (albeit poetic) way of saying that God is a narcissistic attention whore whose vanity somehow benefits humanity because he is so great and our happiness lies in telling him so. Do I have that right?
So his solution was to have the Israelites kill the children themselves? And that's somehow better and more just? :wtf:
Thank God for that!
God is jealous, but how Dawkins chooses to interpret this is not biblically correct, but a gross misrepresentation of the Christian faith. And like I said, Gods is just. Whatever calamity he allows to befall humanity, he does so it perfect accordance with His justice. We can always tolerate injustice, so long as it is not committed against us...
You are correct. And this is precisely why heaven is such a wonderful place to the born again Christian. To worship God is the fulfillment of our joy. is it not true that when we admire something we praise it? "Isn't she beautiful", or "that was amazing"!
Except exceptional creative miracles, God always uses an indirect means to accomplish something. For example: God opened the Red Sea by a strong east wind that blew all night (Exodus 14). God used Joshua to conquer the promised land. God used Esther to save the Jews from extinction. God could have sent His written word down directly, but used prophets to write it.
He is the hidden God who reveals Himself.
And the odds of there being an all-knowing, all-powerful being who created organic molecules billions of years ago — who also happens to approve of murdering children if he doesn't like what their parents are doing — are greater? I'll bet you that scientists will find other places in the universe where organic molecules have formed via natural chemical reactions before the second coming of Christ (which I bet will be never unless scientists are somehow able to clone his DNA).
Wow. OK. Good to know then.
To put this as succinctly as possible, God is the only logical explanation. Everything else is really just laughable. And you continue to miss the mark on the differentiation between injustice, and justice. Indifference to sin is a moral blemish, and in Gods eyes, those who do not hate it are moral lepers. How could He who is the Sum of all excellency look with equal satisfaction upon virtue and vice, wisdom and folly? How could He who is infinitely holy disregard sin and refuse to manifest His "severity" (Rom. 9:12) toward it? How could He who delights only in that which is pure and lovely, loathe and hate not hate that which is impure and vile?