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.
You are the one making the assertion which means the onus is on you to defend your position. Expressing disagreement is not offerring a defence - it is an opinion. I have already offerred an undercutter that it is not unreasonable to expect that God and evil can co-exist to demonstrate that your assertion is false. At a minimum you need to argue why God and evil cannot co-exist to rebutt my argument.
I leave the definition of evil to you as you are the one defending it.
Edit:Wait, I think we're arguing the same thing, hah. I misread your original post. Sorry!
Unless you are 100% Realized right now, there is a very good chance that most anything you can think or say is just DRIPPING with ego.
Everyone’s mind is an ego projector of both stories, and worlds. Thinking you are the RIGHT GUY won’t save you. All egos think they are right. It comes with the territory. Proving someone else is the WRONG GUY won’t save you either. All egos think that wrong, is the other guy. Its okay we all fall into this at times. : ^ )
An absolutely hilarious hissy interruption! Ever thought of doing stand- up comedy, S9 ?
Come over here, come on, and give me a big warm hug. ; ^ )
Too difficult or not doable. Put it in a basket to be conveniently ignored.
I said that all attempts to prove the existence of god have failed, and the concept doesn't explain anything. I'm not sure what this has to do with difficulty or relevance, aside from the fact that a concept that doesn't explain anything isn't relevant to explanation.
A straw man is introduced when Santa Clause and God is grouped in the same category and then to proceed to prove the non existence of Santa, and by default applying to God as well.
No one has tried to make that argument, which makes your statement a straw man.
Let's say your premise is P and your conclusion is Q.
It's not a logical implication. It's a logical equivalence. To say that there's something that god can't do is equivalent to saying that it isn't omnipotent.
I said that all attempts to prove the existence of god have failed, and the concept doesn't explain anything. I'm not sure what this has to do with difficulty or relevance, aside from the fact that a concept that doesn't explain anything isn't relevant to explanation.
I do not wish to engage in a debate about proving god's existence just as it is for you to prove the existence of nirvana. It does not get us anywhere.
You said that the universe doesn't end until samsara ends. This implies (at least to me) that you are saying that the universe is subject to samara or subbordinate to it. I asked you to clarify your statement. Which part of my question is it that you do not understand?
It's not a logical implication. It's a logical equivalence. To say that there's something that god can't do is equivalent to saying that it isn't omnipotent.
You have to direct this to the poster who made it. I was just simplifying what was presented.
I do not wish to engage in a debate about proving god's existence just as it is for you to prove the existence of nirvana. It does not get us anywhere.
The original poster pointed out that speculating on the nature of god before you had any evidence of his existence was a waste of time. You made an irrelevant response, and I've been pointing out why your response is irrelevant. Now you're making an irrelevant response to my points. I said nothing about the existence of god. I only pointed out that attempts to prove his existence have failed, and the concept isn't necessary to explain anything.
You said that the universe doesn't end until samsara ends. This implies (at least to me) that you are saying that the universe is subject to samara or subbordinate to it. I asked you to clarify your statement. Which part of my question is it that you do not understand?
The part in which "the universe is subject to samara or subbordinate to it". How did you arrive at that? Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by "subject to" or "subordinate to", but I don't see the connection.
You have to direct this to the poster who made it. I was just simplifying what was presented.
The poster who made it was quoting someone else, without making any judgment about the form the logic took. You were the one who who accepted it as an implication.
What is your contention? I was making a point about co-existence and you are talking about prevention.
The "P" in the original post was that god was willing but unable to prevent evil. You made the statement that "At a minimum, you have to argue that God and evil cannot coexist for P to be true." All I'm doing is pointing out that this isn't true. I've mentioned prevention only when referring to the content of P, and only to the extent necessary to point out that your statement isn't true.
If you wish to have this kind of argument. Fine, have it your way.
I'm sorry if I offended you, but you stated that an argument made by Federica was a straw man. Since she didn't actually make the argument you described, your statement was a straw man. If this is not the sort of discussion you want to have, you probably shouldn't create this sort of discussion by telling other people that their arguments are straw men. Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. When some one uses a straw man argument, pointing it out clarifies the discussion and gives the person using the straw man argument an opportunity to switch to a stronger, more relevant argument. In this case it gives you an opportunity to reread what Fed wrote and respond to what she actually said, if you want to.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I do not wish to engage in a debate about proving god's existence just as it is for you to prove the existence of nirvana. It does not get us anywhere.
Nirvana is neither a place or a person.
You're contending an existence of God, which is to some, an approachable and existent Being.
I said that I equate the existence of God, for myself, on a par with the existence of maybe Santa Claus, or the Easter bunny.
You then said they were easy to refute.
I then asked you how.
You never answered.
Now you say you're not wishing to engage in a debate about proving God's existence, but if you tell me that you can refute the existence of both Santa and the Easter bunny, that's exactly what you were doing.
So you must accept that some would wish you to, in common parlance, put your money where your mouth is.
I'm sorry if I offended you, but you stated that an argument made by Federica was a straw man. Since she didn't actually make the argument you described, your statement was a straw man. If this is not the sort of discussion you want to have, you probably shouldn't create this sort of discussion by telling other people that their arguments are straw men. Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. When some one uses a straw man argument, pointing it out clarifies the discussion and gives the person using the straw man argument an opportunity to switch to a stronger, more relevant argument. In this case it gives you an opportunity to reread what Fed wrote and respond to what she actually said, if you want to.
I am not offended – I just feel that it was pointless to continue. I will put this in context by outlining the sequence of relevant postings :
<O:p</O:p
1. It is my understanding from Federica’s postings that god is non existent or irrelevant.
2. I challenged that this view will automatically preclude everything that is of god.
3. Federica’s posting (#27) confirmed her view including placing god in the same category as Santa. This categorization of god in my view infers either god like Santa is no more than man’s wild imagination or that Santa’s existence can be easily refuted and by categorization to god as well.
4. I pointed out (post #28) that this was a strawman argument.
5. Federica responded (post #31) that she was not trying to create a strawman and I could take it or leave it on the basis of her explanation
6. I decided to leave it as she clarified she had no intention to make such an argument. Her clarification was sufficient for my purpose. So we are squared.
7. Then Transmetaphysical (post #49) challenged me to refute Santa’s existence.
8. I then proceeded (post #55) to explain what is a strawman argument and demonstrated how Santa’s existence can be refuted. I also pointed out that the same argument cannot be applied to god. We are also squared.
9. You then joined in (post #105) pointing out my explanation in post #55 was not valid (I presume) on the basis that no one has tried to make that argument. This assertion in my view is worst then telling me my mother is a female. At least in that I know we are of the same planet. You have not offered any argument – just opinion. This does not move anything forward. I decided to leave it and responded (post #108) that you can have it your way. I feel that further exchange is senseless. This view is further reinforced by our exchanges on the samsara cycle which after 4 exchanges we have not moved an inch. I will separately address this in another posting.
<O:p</O:p
Concerning your current posting (post #112), this is what you have said, and I quote “but you stated that an argument made by Federica was a straw man. Since she didn't actually make the argument you described, your statement was a straw man. If this is not the sort of discussion you want to have, you probably shouldn't create this sort of discussion by telling other people that their arguments are straw men”
<O:p</O:p
I have explained this in points 4, 5 and 6.
<O:p</O:p
You further said, and I quote “Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. When some one uses a straw man argument, pointing it out clarifies the discussion and gives the person using the straw man argument an opportunity to switch to a stronger, more relevant argument. ”
<O:p</O:p
A strawman argument is to attack the strawman (weaker position) and thereby having seen to have attacked a stronger position. You seem to suggest the reverse. What is your point? Are you attempting to re-define what is a strawman argument?
<O:p</O:p
In any case what is the connection your present argument has with my post #55? How is my argument in post #55 invalidated?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
5. Federica responded (post #31) that she was not trying to create a strawman and I could take it or leave it on the basis of her explanation
6. I decided to leave it as she clarified she had no intention to make such an argument. Her clarification was sufficient for my purpose. So we are squared.
Nope. Because in the same post, you asserted that the existence of S.C and the E.B. could easily be refuted and I asked you how.
That's when things skewed off kilter, because you did not tell me exactly how you could do it.....
You're contending an existence of God, which is to some, an approachable and existent Being.
What are you saying here? Is it because Nirvana is not a place or a person, you do not need to prove their existence? Are you saying Nirvana is non existent unlike God is an existent being and therefore the standard of proof is different?
Are you saying Nirvana is non approachable and non existent? What are Buddhist trying to do when they say they want to attain Nirvana?
I said that I equate the existence of God, for myself, on a par with the existence of maybe Santa Claus, or the Easter bunny.
You then said they were easy to refute.
I then asked you how.
You never answered.
Now you say you're not wishing to engage in a debate about proving God's existence, but if you tell me that you can refute the existence of both Santa and the Easter bunny, that's exactly what you were doing.
So you must accept that some would wish you to, in common parlance, put your money where your mouth is
Please refer to my post #114 points 4,5,6,7 and 8. If you are still not satisfied, please point out what I have not addressed.
The part in which "the universe is subject to samara or subbordinate to it". How did you arrive at that? Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by "subject to" or "subordinate to", but I don't see the connection.
You said, and I quote "the universe doesn't end until samsara ends". My earlier attempts do not seem to work and so I will describe it another way. This appears to me that you are describing a condition precedent event because of the way you have phrased it. A condition precedent event is an event (samsara) that prededes another event (universe) by necessity because of some manner of causal linkage. Is this what you were intending to say or is it a case purely of not realising the implication of what was being said.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
What are you saying here? Is it because Nirvana is not a place or a person, you do not need to prove their existence? Are you saying Nirvana is non existent unlike God is an existent being and therefore the standard of proof is different?
Yes.
Are you saying Nirvana is non approachable and non existent? What are Buddhist trying to do when they say they want to attain Nirvana?
Nibbana is an elevated state of consciousness which is ephemeral and intangible. it cannot be comprehended in an unenlightened state...
When Christians talk of going to heaven, or being with god, they always ascribe the existence of a place their soul will go to, or an Deity their souls will be with. As Buddhists don't 'go anywhere' to 'be with anyone' and there is no soul, the two concepts are entirely different.
Please refer to my post #114 points 4,5,6,7 and 8. If you are still not satisfied, please point out what I have not addressed.
I just want to know how you will refute the existence of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and let me know how that still leaves God as credible.
I am not offended * I just feel that it was pointless to continue. I will put this in context by outlining the sequence of relevant postings :
1. It is my understanding... (snip)... This does not move anything forward. I decided to leave it and responded (post #108) that you can have it your way...
The relevant bits are these: You stated that statements made by Fed were a straw man argument. TMP challenged you on this, and you responded with
A straw man is introduced when Santa Clause and God is grouped in the same category and then to proceed to prove the non existence of Santa, and by default applying to God as well.
Neither Fed or TMP made this argument. This statement is therefore a strawman.
A strawman argument is to attack the strawman (weaker position) and thereby having seen to have attacked a stronger position.
A strawman argument also occurs when you alter someone's position in order to weaken it, and attack the altered, weakened version. In this case, neither Fed nor TMP claimed that proof for the non-existence of Santa Claus would also disprove the existence of god by default. They simply claimed that both belong in the category of imaginary items.
You said, and I quote "the universe doesn't end until samsara ends". My earlier attempts do not seem to work and so I will describe it another way. This appears to me that you are describing a condition precedent event because of the way you have phrased it. A condition precedent event is an event (samsara) that prededes another event (universe) by necessity because of some manner of causal linkage. Is this what you were intending to say or is it a case purely of not realising the implication of what was being said.
Neither. You're making the mistake of assuming that a logical connection is necessarily a causal connection.
Samsara is a phenomenon. From a Buddhist point of view, it is a real phenonemon. The universe is (according to my philosophical dictionary) space, time, and everything that has, does, and will exist in space and time. So by definition, as long as phenomena exist, the universe will exist. Therefore, as long as samsara exists, the universe will exist. To make the implication explicit, if samsara exists, the universe exists. By modus tollens, if the universe does not exist, then samsara does not exist. This is true by definition, and not because of a causal linkage.
Proving or disproving God’s existence is not possible – at least not empirically. The only way is to claim or be all knowing i.e. omniscient.
Yes, but you can logically demonstrate the probability or improbability. If God becomes no less plausible than invisible pink fairies in another dimension, it then becomes an absurd belief.
A straw man is introduced when Santa Clause and God is grouped in the same category and then to proceed to prove the non existence of Santa, and by default applying to God as well.
Your accusation of a strawman is a strawman. No one ever tried to apply the disproof of Santa to the disproof of God. When people talk about God and Santa, they are comparing the absurdity of the beliefs. Not that the conditions of their existence are the same.
The fundamental question is “when is absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence?”
There is no evidence for invisible pink unicorns, so should we be Agnostics with regards to that position as well? And for Zeus, Thor, and Apollo?
There are basically 2 criterion :
Evidence Expectation Criterion. If Santa exists, then we would expect there to be evidence for it.
Knowledge Expectation Criterion. If there were evidence of Santa, then we would expect to have knowledge of the evidence.
If Santa exist we should expect to see, but don’t, lots of evidence of that fact, including sightings, warehouses at the North Pole, large sleigh, unexplained distributed gifts and so forth. In short, in the absence of evidence, we can deny the existence of Santa only if we should expect to possess evidence sufficient to know that Santa exists but in fact lack it.
I agree, the Santa comparison is a bad example for the reasons you stated. Perhaps invisible fairies from another dimension are a more applicable comparison.
These criterion do not apply to God because God is a non physical being.
True, but why do people assume and believe "God" by default? We should regard God's existence as no different than Flying Spaghetti Monster. I can say he is a non-physical being outside of space-time and no one can disprove it. You can't have negative proof, only refutations of the arguments for God and positive arguments demonstrating the improbability of God.
I will stop here unless you want to apply the same standard of measure and the 100 % certainty rule to Karma
Karma means "action." I have no doubt that it exists, at least in what we think of as reality. It is also the same as the law of cause and effect.
, Samsara,
We are living in Samsara, which by the way is an illusion.
Nirvana, et al.
The thing with Buddhism is that nothing intrinsically exists anyways. There's not really anything to prove.
Russell argued that why we deny Santa Claus is because we do have evidence for their absence. He insisted that the situation is significantly different for other objects which are causally isolated from us. He then went on to use the teapot which circles about the sun, an object which is (for the most part) causally isolated from us.
Can we say it doesn’t exist? I think we know it doesn’t exist because it wasn’t put there by the Russian or American astronauts; and we know that matter in the universe does not self-organize into teapot shapes. We therefore have evidence that Russell’s teacup doesn’t exist .
Ok, I didn't really know that much about Russel's argument.
Nibbana is an elevated state of consciousness which is ephemeral and intangible. it cannot be comprehended in an unenlightened state...
When Christians talk of going to heaven, or being with god, they always ascribe the existence of a place their soul will go to, or an Deity their souls will be with. As Buddhists don't 'go anywhere' to 'be with anyone' and there is no soul, the two concepts are entirely different.
I just want to know how you will refute the existence of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and let me know how that still leaves God as credible.
This is what you quote in an earlier post "I've been on this planet for 53 years. I spent 40-odd years of that in the RC faith. I have books, encyclopaedias, literature, the internet and many other sources of information at my disposal. In all that time, nothing ever surfaced to make me believe absolutely 100% that God is existent." I am not interested in a description of Nirvana, I am interested in knowing what the standard of proof that you insist on to proof God's existence. The 100 % certainty that you are after. I would then ask that you use the same standard to proof the existence of Nirvana. Once we establish a common standard and not a double standard, we then have a common platform to discuss the existence of God. I am now letting you put your money where your mouth is.
Just remember that this is a debate I have said before that I do not want to have. You are the one forcing my hand. So let's have a debate but on equal ground.
Yes, but you can logically demonstrate the probability or improbability. If God becomes no less plausible than invisible pink fairies in another dimension, it then becomes an absurd belief.
Yes there are tons of argument out there to argue for the existence out God.
The Kalam Cosmological argument
The Teleological argument of fine tuning
The Ontological argument
The Intelligent Design arqument
The Axiological argument
The Experential argument
I just had no interest in doing it because there are so many debates already out there on this.
I do not wish to engage in a debate about proving god's existence just as it is for you to prove the existence of nirvana.
I will stop here unless you want to apply the same standard of measure and the 100 % certainty rule to Karma
Would probably be a good idea to educate yourself on these terms before bringing them up in debate, as you clearly have no idea what they refer to and see them as something mystical.
Your accusation of a strawman is a strawman. No one ever tried to apply the disproof of Santa to the disproof of God. When people talk about God and Santa, they are comparing the absurdity of the beliefs. Not that the conditions of their existence are the same.ffice:office"
I have already covered this in post #114 and I agree that no one actually proceeded to use the argument directly.
<O:p</O:p
There is no evidence for invisible pink unicorns, so should we be Agnostics with regards to that position as well? And for Zeus, Thor, and Apollo?
An invisible pink unicorn is illogical. If it is invisible, how is it pink? As for Zeus et al, are you talking about proving their existence as "gods" or proving their existence as fictional characters? How do we prove the existence of Spiderman or X-men? They certainly exist in comics. If you are referring to the former, I think one needs to look at the collective evidence if you are into the worship of Zeus. It is the onus on the people that worship Zeus to defend their worldview and beliefs. I have no problem defending the worldview of Jesus if you are interested.
I agree, the Santa comparison is a bad example for the reasons you stated. Perhaps invisible fairies from another dimension are a more applicable comparison.
If you are referring to invisible tooth fairies, I believe the tale is she collects teeth left under children’s pillows leaving behind a reward (usually money). Evidence we should expect to see if they existed then would be money left behind, stolen teeth, etc. Do we find such evidence? Well, no we don’t, but we would expect to if they existed.
<O:p</O:p
True, but why do people assume and believe "God" by default?
I think we have to be careful about generalizing. I always encourage to first understand the core beliefs of their worldview (whatever it may be) and whether it stands up to scrutiny and reason. I do not believe that people who belief in God is doing it blindly. Antony Flew, the famous Atheist philosopher became a Theist a few years ago. When asked why he changed his view. His answer was that he followed the evidence and where it leads him. Even Richard Dawkins has modified his views to include the possibility for the existence of God in a recent newspaper interview.
<O:p</O:p
We should regard God's existence as no different than Flying Spaghetti Monster. I can say he is a non-physical being outside of space-time and no one can disprove it. You can't have negative proof, only refutations of the arguments for God and positive arguments demonstrating the improbability of God.
The arguments are a look more complex and sophisticated these days with people like William Lance Craig and D’nesh D’Sousa. I think you should be open minded and look at the arguments, the evidence and the reasons.
<O:p</O:p
Karma means "action." I have no doubt that it exists, at least in what we think of as reality. It is also the same as the law of cause and effect.
The law of cause and effect is a basic Physics principle. No one is going to argue with that. However when you take the Karmic law and that it determines your re-birth, then it opens up a worldview that it should defend. For example:
(1) It’s first cause. Is it the chicken or the egg? Without an explanation, it is like trying to defend the concept of a one ended stick. There is an end but no beginning. It is incoherent although it may mean inconjectable.
(2) The evidence must support the concept. How do we account for an increasing global population? Where are all the re-births coming from?
I might not call it a Flying Spaghetti, maybe a flying one ended stick. It is easy to brush off another worldview but be prepared to defend your own, and using the same standard being set for others.
<O:p</O:p
The thing with Buddhism is that nothing intrinsically exists anyways. There's not really anything to prove.
I know – it is called impermanence. Why is any explanation acceptable other than proof? This expectation somehow works fine when proof of God’s existence is asked for.
I understand all your points being put forth and I am not being unreasonable. Not everything can be explained empirically or proven that way. Just don’t demand a standard unless one is prepared to live by it. This is not a debate I wanted to have in the first place but was forced upon to defend.
Neither. You're making the mistake of assuming that a logical connection is necessarily a causal connection.
I did not assume. I was trying to shape the question that may actually generate an answer from you. This causal connection was used in my third attempt. If you had answered the question based on the initial question, then this so call "assumption" would not have surfaced. It is as simple as that.
Samsara is a phenomenon. From a Buddhist point of view, it is a real phenonemon. The universe is (according to my philosophical dictionary) space, time, and everything that has, does, and will exist in space and time. So by definition, as long as phenomena exist, the universe will exist. Therefore, as long as samsara exists, the universe will exist. To make the implication explicit, if samsara exists, the universe exists. By modus tollens, if the universe does not exist, then samsara does not exist. This is true by definition, and not because of a causal linkage.
This is what I sum up from your answer.
Samsara = Universe. Is this correct? If no, please explain why. If you are not prepared to discuss further just say so and I will not press further. But please do not answer with a question.
Samsara = the ocean of suffering = is our phenomenon universe, where it characterized by the continue cyclic of formation, subsistence, destruction and void - the endless suffering of cyclic existence due to the minds of the living beings continues to clings to their craving and ignorance - blinded by their own illusions , unable to see the reality correctly ( example like the ignorance common mortals continue to seek outside themselve for salvation , blamed outside factor that made them suffering ... )
The Buddha explains Nirvāṇa as the liberated, secured, unconditioned mind, a mind that has come to a point of perfect lucidity and clarity due to the cessation of the production of volitional formations ( no longer clings by craving and ignorance - generated by our innate fundamental darkness or the illusions to our reality )
Very often when people claim to be disproving God, all that they are actually disproving is our human understanding of what God must be. Obviously most of our Gods are anthropomorphized versions of ourselves.
Isn’t the word God, His surrounding stories, and our explanations of what God must actually be like, simply our less than capable attempts to understand ‘What,’ (or ‘Who?’) is the Ultimate? Just perhaps, the human mind is not up to this task.
Is God just one more mental object that stands separate from us, and lends Its Self to scrutiny by the human mind, which separates everything up into little pieces? Or is God simply who we are in our own Wholeness, (AKA Holy) our Buddha Nature, or even our more Ultimate Being untouched, or explainable by mental conception?
In other words, in the end are we arguing with the word "God," and entirely missing what the word God, (the finger) is pointing at?
Where and when did Buddha ever teach 'nameless truth'?
How can something universal, namely, 'truth' be 'nameless'?
:eek2: :screwy:
OK... I am a Reform Taoist as well as a Buddhist so have a little insight into this querry... In the Tao Te Ching this question is answered in the first chapter:
NOTE: The term Tao can be altered to be God, Ultimate Truth, or whatever the reader relates to.
1. THE EMBODIMENT OF TAO
Even the finest teaching is not the Tao itself.
Even the finest name is insufficient to define it.
Without words, the Tao can be experienced,
and without a name, it can be known.
To conduct one's life according to the Tao,
is to conduct one's life without regrets;
to realize that potential within oneself
which is of benefit to all.
Though words or names are not required
to live one's life this way,
to describe it, words and names are used,
that we might better clarify
the way of which we speak,
without confusing it with other ways
in which an individual might choose to live.
Through knowledge, intellectual thought and words,
the manifestations of the Tao are known,
but without such intellectual intent
we might experience the Tao itself.
Both knowledge and experience are real,
but reality has many forms,
which seem to cause complexity.
By using the means appropriate,
we extend ourselves beyond
the barriers of such complexity,
and so experience the Tao.
Once the Tao is spoken it is brought into form (word & thought) and loses it's power. For attempting to express it's essence makes it less than what it is.
The unmanifest becoming manifest. For once it is brought into context of another it loses it's purity, eternity and infinity. An attempt to express, define and capture that which "is" ceases to allow it to "be". In so doing all that "is" is being confined, which alters and minimizes the "isness" of Tao.
This is what I sum up from your answer.
Samsara = Universe. Is this correct? If no, please explain why. If you are not prepared to discuss further just say so and I will not press further. But please do not answer with a question.
Samsara is better understood as a process, not a place.
Samsara, literally "wandering on," is the potential for the arising of human [mental] suffering, while nibbana, literally, "extinguishing," is the cessation of that potential. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu puts it, "Samsara is a process of creating places, even whole worlds, (this is called becoming) and then wandering through them (this is called birth). Nirvana is the end of this process." Nirvana is "realized only when the mind stops defining itself in terms of place ... it's realized through unestablished consciousness."
I did not assume. I was trying to shape the question that may actually generate an answer from you. This causal connection was used in my third attempt. If you had answered the question based on the initial question, then this so call "assumption" would not have surfaced.
Your first attempt consisted of the statement that I had said something significant, which you described using the ambiguous terms "subject to" and "subordinate to". So my first response was to ask what the significance was. Your second attempt again was ambiguous. It just repeated the same terms. It wasn't until your third attempt that you explained that the significance you saw in my statements had to do with causality. So based on your statement that the significance you saw in the first post was causality, you were assuming causality in the first post but it took you three tries to say so.
This is what I sum up from your answer.
Samsara = Universe. Is this correct? If no, please explain why. If you are not prepared to discuss further just say so and I will not press further.
No. Here's what I said:
Samsara is a phenomenon. From a Buddhist point of view, it is a real phenomenon. The universe is (according to my philosophical dictionary) space, time, and everything that has, does, and will exist in space and time.
Samsara is one phenomenon. The universe is the aggregate of all phenomena.
Very often when people claim to be disproving God, all that they are actually disproving is our human understanding of what God must be. Obviously most of our Gods are anthropomorphized versions of ourselves.
Isn’t the word God, His surrounding stories, and our explanations of what God must actually be like, simply our less than capable attempts to understand ‘What,’ (or ‘Who?’) is the Ultimate? Just perhaps, the human mind is not up to this task.
Is God just one more mental object that stands separate from us, and lends Its Self to scrutiny by the human mind, which separates everything up into little pieces? Or is God simply who we are in our own Wholeness, (AKA Holy) our Buddha Nature, or even our more Ultimate Being untouched, or explainable by mental conception?
In other words, in the end are we arguing with the word "God," and entirely missing what the word God, (the finger) is pointing at?
"God" has a specific definition and therefore, we must discuss what is defined. God is a supreme omnipotent being and a creator. Maybe there is an "Ultimate reality" or a Universal force but don't call it "God." That is an equivocation of terms. I mean does "Ultimate Reality" create? Or does it simply just exists and is all-encompassing. If it's not a creator and separate from creation, then it's not called "God."
Whether a supreme being exists or not has no bearing on me because I reject all celestial dictators. I refuse to worship anyone or any authority. God is a self-imposed being who rules the Universe unelected. That is a tyrant dictatorship. This is what the word "God" implies.
The only time I use the word "God," is when I am referring to myself to denote that I am the highest authority over myself and the same is true for everyone else.
I have already covered this in post #114 and I agree that no one actually proceeded to use the argument directly.
An invisible pink unicorn is illogical. If it is invisible, how is it pink?
Exactly. Similar illogical conundrums happen with God as well.
As for Zeus et al, are you talking about proving their existence as "gods" or proving their existence as fictional characters? How do we prove the existence of Spiderman or X-men? They certainly exist in comics. If you are referring to the former, I think one needs to look at the collective evidence if you are into the worship of Zeus. It is the onus on the people that worship Zeus to defend their worldview and beliefs.
You know what Im talking about. Their existence in reality. If I say Yahweh exists in fiction, he doesn't exist at all. I don't know where you were going with that pedantry.
[size] I have no problem defending the worldview of Jesus if you are interested.
Which Jesus? The Biblical Jesus? Or the historical Jesus of the Gnostics?
I disagree with the former and agree with the latter.
If you are referring to invisible tooth fairies, I believe the tale is she collects teeth left under children’s pillows leaving behind a reward (usually money). Evidence we should expect to see if they existed then would be money left behind, stolen teeth, etc. Do we find such evidence? Well, no we don’t, but we would expect to if they existed.
Strawman. I made no mention of tooth fairies. You turned my unfalsifiable "invisible fairies" into falsifiable tooth fairies. Which means you changed the meaning of my argument and argued against it. I think you're missing the whole point of my examples. I'm not trying to focus on the specific entity, bit rather creating examples of beings that are UNFALSIFIABLE like invisible fairies and God. Niether can be 100% proven false.
I think we have to be careful about generalizing. I always encourage to first understand the core beliefs of their worldview (whatever it may be) and whether it stands up to scrutiny and reason. I do not believe that people who belief in God is doing it blindly.
I was a Christian for 17 years. I think it's fair to say that I have a good understanding of their core beliefs. And yes, people do blindly believe in God because that's what faith is. They say that they have "faith" that God exists, not that they've seen good logical and scientific eviidence for his existence.
Antony Flew, the famous Atheist philosopher became a Theist a few years ago. When asked why he changed his view. His answer was that he followed the evidence and where it leads him.
I thougt God wants people to have faith in him. That's the point. If there were real evidence for the world to see, then everyone would believe and the virtue of faith and belief would disappear.
Even Richard Dawkins has modified his views to include the possibility for the existence of God in a recent newspaper interview.
Not true. John Lennox started that rumor in a lecture which was covered in a newspaper. Dawkins was debating John Lennox and said that "perhaps a reasonable case can be made for the Deist God, not one that I support, but you have still got all your work ahead of you to go from proving the Deist God to the Christian God." His point was that Lennox didn't even believe in the most reasonable God, but rather believed in the Christian God. And another one of his points was that Christians do only argue for the Deist God and yet think they are also arguing for the Christian God. Btw, Dawkins has personally refuted the claims of that newspaper that tried misquoting him.
The arguments are a look more complex and sophisticated these days with people like William Lance Craig and D’nesh D’Sousa. I think you should be open minded and look at the arguments, the evidence and the reasons.
Yeah, I happen to be a fan of Lane Craig and D'Souza as I feel they are great and reasonable representatives of Chirstianity. (I also am aware of the many arguments for God.) I also think they are worthy and challenging opponents of the atheists. Unfortunately, not enough people of faith think as critically as these guys.
One of the problems I have is that almost everyone who believes in God don't do so because Kalams Cosmological Argument, etc. convinced them. They start off with the belief in God and then find or make arguments to justify their belief to others. If you ask, why do YOU believe in God, I doubt they'll say that logical syllogisms and scienific discoveries convinced them.
The law of cause and effect is a basic Physics principle. No one is going to argue with that. However when you take the Karmic law and that it determines your re-birth, then it opens up a worldview that it should defend. For example:
Rebirth is interpreted either literally or to refer to something else depending on the sect. There is no soul in Buddhism to really move on, so I'm fairly certain that it has a different meaning than the common conception.
(1) It’s first cause. Is it the chicken or the egg? Without an explanation, it is like trying to defend the concept of a one ended stick. There is an end but no beginning. It is incoherent although it may mean inconjectable.
Buddha rejected determinism and he did not he say the world began to exist. You are confusing deterministic cause and effect with Buddhist cause and effect. Deterministic cause and effect is like the domino effect or a billiard table where everything is a determined chain of events by a previous causal event. And in this model, there had to be that first domino that started the whole chain of events. This is not the Buddhist paradigm.
(2) The evidence must support the concept. How do we account for an increasing global population? Where are all the re-births coming from?
There are no souls and thus, there is no fixed population of eternal souls. Also, form and the self are illusory and ever changing. For this question to apply, we'd have to have a fixed in environment. However, Buddhism would never say that the population will stay the same forever, it would say that it would always be changing, nothing is permanent.
I might not call it a Flying Spaghetti, maybe a flying one ended stick. It is easy to brush off another worldview but be prepared to defend your own, and using the same standard being set for others.
Those arguments failed.
Are you saying it is not real or it cannot be proven? Either answer diminishes its credibility. Are you then going by blind faith?
I'm saying that it is not real, it's illusory. And you can't have faith in a negative. I am denying and rejecting intrinsic existence and such a position requires no faith. Also, quantum mechanics is actually demonstrating that this reality is illusory and holographic. Look into quantum superposition, wave-particle duality, double-slit experiment, Heisenberg Uncertainty, non-locality, and Bohm's works.
I know – it is called impermanence.
Actually, that's a separate concept but they are related.
Why is any explanation acceptable other than proof?
Because proof is for proving that something exists. You can't prove a denial of existence. It's a negative, and in formal logic, it's well known that you aren't required to prove a negative.
This expectation somehow works fine when proof of God’s existence is asked for.
To claim that something exists, you need proof.
I understand all your points being put forth and I am not being unreasonable. Not everything can be explained empirically or proven that way. Just don’t demand a standard unless one is prepared to live by it. This is not a debate I wanted to have in the first place but was forced upon to defend.
Thank you for engaging. It has been very interesting.
You know what Im talking about. Their existence in reality. If I say Yahweh exists in fiction, he doesn't exist at all. I don't know where you were going with that pedantry.
Zeus like Thor are fictional characters as far I am concern. I read a lot of them in comics when I was young. If someone is a Zeus worshipper, then they should be defending their worldview – not me. Just as I expect Buddhist to defend their worldview. I have no problem defending Yahweh in the Bible as a Christian. I just insist on the same standard being used when it comes to defending Karma, Samsara, and Nirvana.
<O:p</O:p
Strawman. I made no mention of tooth fairies. You turned my unfalsifiable "invisible fairies" into falsifiable tooth fairies. Which means you changed the meaning of my argument and argued against it. I think you're missing the whole point of my examples. I'm not trying to focus on the specific entity, bit rather creating examples of beings that are UNFALSIFIABLE like invisible fairies and God. Niether can be 100% proven false.
No it is not a strawman. Words have meaning and it can mean different things to different people. If someone wants to sell a story on fairies, then the description of the fairy will point to the evidence of its existence. The word fairy has no meaning by itself. What is there to prove or disprove? Prove something that is invisible with no description of what is being discussed beyond a name – please be reasonable. A toothfairy has more meaning and so we can be specific with what we are attempting to do.
In <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com[IMG]http://newbuddhist.com/forum/ /><st1:country-region alt=[/IMG]</st1:country-region>Japan, when you want to go through immigration, they divide incoming passengers into 2 streams; Japanese citizens and aliens. If you want to prove the existence of aliens, just go to <st1:country-region w:st="on">Japan</st1:country-region>. They handle thousands of them everyday. Words have meaning but in context. God in the Bible is described in 66 books. So we know a lot of what we are looking for.
I was a Christian for 17 years. I think it's fair to say that I have a good understanding of their core beliefs. And yes, people do blindly believe in God because that's what faith is. They say that they have "faith" that God exists, not that they've seen good logical and scientific eviidence for his existence.
I thougt God wants people to have faith in him. That's the point. If there were real evidence for the world to see, then everyone would believe and the virtue of faith and belief would disappear.
Nature and by that I mean people as well, can be represented in a bell curve. There are a range of reasons for their beliefs. Faith in Christianity is not blind but is of God. The scriptures are very clear on this. You should know since you said that you have a good understanding of the core beliefs.
<O:p</O:p
Not true. John Lennox started that rumor in a lecture which was covered in a newspaper. Dawkins was debating John Lennox and said that "perhaps a reasonable case can be made for the Deist God, not one that I support, but you have still got all your work ahead of you to go from proving the Deist God to the Christian God." His point was that <ST1:place w:st="on">Lennox</ST1:place> didn't even believe in the most reasonable God, but rather believed in the Christian God. And another one of his points was that Christians do only argue for the Deist God and yet think they are also arguing for the Christian God. Btw, Dawkins has personally refuted the claims of that newspaper that tried misquoting him.
I only saw the newspaper report. I have not heard the Lennox-Dawkins debate but I understand the debate was on the existence of God and not over a Christian God.
<O:p</O:p
Yeah, I happen to be a fan of Lane Craig and D'Souza as I feel they are great and reasonable representatives of Chirstianity. (I also am aware of the many arguments for God.) I also think they are worthy and challenging opponents of the atheists. Unfortunately, not enough people of faith think as critically as these guys.
One of the problems I have is that almost everyone who believes in God don't do so because Kalams Cosmological Argument, etc. convinced them. They start off with the belief in God and then find or make arguments to justify their belief to others. If you ask, why do YOU believe in God, I doubt they'll say that logical syllogisms and scienific discoveries convinced them.
The movement of faith seeking reason is basically to challenge the new atheist movement represented by Dawkins, Higgens, & Dennet. If you have heard some of the debates, the new atheist movement do not offer much substance beyond the ranting over the atrocities of God in the Old Testament. Dawkins just refuse to debate William Lane Craig.
Rebirth is interpreted either literally or to refer to something else depending on the sect. There is no soul in Buddhism to really move on, so I'm fairly certain that it has a different meaning than the common conception.
The point I was making is that when it comes to god, explanation is treated like it is taken from a fairy tale book – no credibility. What makes explanation like you just gave any different?
Buddha rejected determinism and he did not he say the world began to exist. You are confusing deterministic cause and effect with Buddhist cause and effect. Deterministic cause and effect is like the domino effect or a billiard table where everything is a determined chain of events by a previous causal event. And in this model, there had to be that first domino that started the whole chain of events. This is not the Buddhist paradigm.
Denying it is a paradigm doesn’t mean it isn’t. You just advocated that Christians should go on reason and evidence not faith only. Shouldn’t this apply to Buddhism as well? So far my understanding of Buddhist cause and effect is that no explanation has been given except it is inconjectable.
There are no souls and thus, there is no fixed population of eternal souls. Also, form and the self are illusory and ever changing. For this question to apply, we'd have to have a fixed in environment. However, Buddhism would never say that the population will stay the same forever, it would say that it would always be changing, nothing is permanent.
Impermanence means it is transitive. Water to steam and so on. There is a difference between a population that is transitive and growing. 100 years ago there were a different set of people as compared to today. Today we have a much bigger population and different set of people. Are you prepared to say that successive re-births are multiplicity in nature? Does the evidence support the concept?
<O:p</O:p
I'm saying that it is not real, it's illusory. And you can't have faith in a negative. I am denying and rejecting intrinsic existence and such a position requires no faith. Also, quantum mechanics is actually demonstrating that this reality is illusory and holographic. Look into quantum superposition, wave-particle duality, double-slit experiment, Heisenberg Uncertainty, non-locality, and Bohm's works.
So it is a decision based on ….? I have some understanding of Heisenberg Uncertainty – can you please explain how it is supportive of your argument.
<O:p</O:p
Because proof is for proving that something exists. You can't prove a denial of existence. It's a negative, and in formal logic, it's well known that you aren't required to prove a negative.
I do not agree but that will require a 2 page response. In any case, this only applies to Nirvana if my understanding is correct. I am trying to address this in another thread on this subject because we need more specifics to deal with this properly.
<O:p</O:p
However I do not believe Karma and Samsara are in the same category i.e. denial of existence.
Just because some people out there have wrongly defined what the word "God" means, or stands for, doesn’t mean by any means that we cannot rethink this issue. The whole idea of God may simply be a hypothesis in its early stages, which requires far more investigation before we come to any understanding of what exactly is beyond our own narrow definitions of God.
Hell, many of us do not have any real idea who we are, and this after years of living in our own company.
; ^ )
Rejecting this limited understanding of what God is/means, and thinking that is settled, may be almost as foolish as excepting God without question.
T: "God" has a specific definition and therefore, we must discuss what is defined.
S9: That is exactly my point. How do we know that our limited definitions should be taken so seriously that we let them hem us in, and limit our growth in this area?
T: God is a supreme omnipotent being and a creator.
S9: If this were true, what makes you think that YOU have any idea about what such 'Ultimate Being.' or what such an Inconceivable Process (or whatever) would be like? Doesn’t that strike you as just a little bit of 'over reaching' on your part? I seriously doubt that the limited human mind could take such a dimension in, understand it fully, and stand in judgment of it?
T: Maybe there is an "Ultimate reality" or a Universal force but don't call it "God."
S9: Why not call it God? Would not God at some point, if we stopped thinking of God as being a “Guy in the Sky,” outgrow our narrow definitions? We have to call this symbol of the Ultimate something don't we? Do you prefer the name George?
; ^ )
Obviously when people start thinking along these lines, or about this more limited guy called God, if they were to invest enough time and intention into discovery, while keeping an open mind and looking more directly in order to travel beyond all 2nd hand definitions, with just a drop or two of wisdom thrown in for good measure, this conceptual God-fellow might completely redefine Himself.
In other words drop the mistaken ideas, or concepts, and the label is no problem.
T: That is an equivocation of terms. I mean does "Ultimate Reality" create?
S9: My guess is yes, whether we call it the universe or God that is creating either material or imaginary worlds. Obviously something is taking place, even if it is simply a dream world, (my favorite paradigm).
T: Or does it simply just exists and is all-encompassing.
S9: The fact of change seems to point at creation. But this could ALL be simultaneous and eternal, rather than lineal as in time and space.
T: If it's not a creator and separate from creation, then it's not called "God."
S9: Why not? If God (the Ultimate) is a shift changer and/or everything is God’s imagination …what then? Can you see that we are out here swinging on a limb, and talking about possibilities that any science fiction writer might be proud of?
; ^ )
T: Whether a supreme being exists or not has no bearing on me because I reject all celestial dictators.
S9: That is a personification of something that may not define itself in human terms.
T: I refuse to worship anyone or any authority.
S9: So do I. But, just to prove I won’t bend a knee in worship, doesn’t tempt me to produce a fictitious Being that is easy to stand up against.
T: God is a self-imposed being who rules the Universe unelected. That is a tyrant dictatorship. This is what the word "God" implies.
S9: Of course your more limited definitions indicate what you want them to. When such definitions begin to pinch, maybe it is time to grow beyond them.
T: The only time I use the word "God," is when I am referring to myself to denote that I am the highest authority over myself and the same is true for everyone else.
S9: I agree. But, who are you? I personally believe that you ARE the Ultimate.
; ^ )
Incidently, so am I.
So now I ask, how come the definition of squirrel isn't considered limited and subject to change, yet God is? The word "God" can just be abused and used to define or assign it to whatever people want? Why can't people accept that perhaps the Ultimate Reality ISN'T God? Why can't they accept that the Absolute ISN'T God? This is certainly the position Buddhism takes. It would never tarnish or desecrate reality by attributing the word "God" to Ultimate Reality. What if everyone decided to call Ultimate Reality, "poop"? Wouldn't that be degrading to it as well as wholly inaccurate?
Yes there are tons of argument out there to argue for the existence out God.
The Kalam Cosmological argument
The premises are assumed. It assumes that there is a beginning. It assumes that this universe is the only universe to have arose. Otherwise, it makes a blatantly obvious syllogism that is entirely sound logically, but with invalid premises.
Also, the conclusion that there must be cause proves that there must be a first cause. This could be any infinite number of things. Why does he think he can automatically assume it is God?
The Teleological argument of fine tuning
See "Intelligent Design argument."
The Ontological argument
I think whoever made this argument was clearly joking. Basically it says, "God, by definition, exists." Really? Is that a serious argument?
The Intelligent Design arqument
Laughable. Evolution demonstrates that over time, things get increasingly complex. Also, even if there is evidence of intelligence or consciousness, it is closer to proving the Pantheist notion that the Universe itself is conscious.
The Axiological argument
1. If God does not exist, absolute moral values do not exist.
Fail. This is a bare assertion. Socrates' Euthyphro argument refuted this anyways. "Is it moral because God commands it? Or does God command it because it is moral?" If the former is true, then morals don't even exist. Because God could command things like genocide (he does multiple times in the Bible), and it would be considered moral simply because he commanded it. If the latter is true, then it proves that a moral standard exists outside of God and that God himself could violate a moral law.
2. Absolute moral values do exist.
Bare assertion.
3. Therefore God exist.
No. Faulty premises don't prove this conclusion.
The Experential argument
People can experience a bunch of things and come to the wrong conclusion. I could believe that a spirit is touching my shoulder, but if I turned around, I would realize it was a fan blowing at my back. Or I could hear voices and think I was talking to God, when really it was a radio in the far distance. I could even witness a real miracle right in front of my face, and this still doesn't prove God. It could have been Superman for all I know. There's many beings that I could name that can perform miracles. I could even conclude that Nature acts miraculous at times.
People can experience a bunch of things and come to the wrong conclusion. I could believe that a spirit is touching my shoulder, but if I turned around, I would realize it was a fan blowing at my back. Or I could hear voices and think I was talking to God, when really it was a radio in the far distance. I could even witness a real miracle right in front of my face, and this still doesn't prove God. It could have been Superman for all I know. There's many beings that I could name that can perform miracles. I could even conclude that Nature acts miraculous at times.
.
Well you've kind of answered your own rant. People can and DO believe many things. Does it really matter? The Buddha did not exhort Buddhists to "go out and save" people like Christianity (or Islam for that matter). I think you spend far too much time arguing with people over things when you could spend that energy working on your own spiritual path.
the only thing that can be a problem with discussion about god and an absolute being is it takes us away from the absolute actuality of suffering, and from our bodhicitta/bodhisattva activities..... . so thinking about god is not to stray off the path, but to think about a creator without the pure loving mind of salvation for one and all is, meditations in god can only be done through the permeating of love in all. maybe this was why buddha stood silent on these questions? sometimes god-delusion can be ridiculous, epitome of being entirely divorced from the here and now... but is all god thought just god-delusion? we must come face to face with the face that we've never truly faced!!! if there is a god, it is the orphans on the streets..
S9: Wow, why didn’t I just think of going to the dictionary instead of wasting decades in trying to understand such things in more depth or even intimately.
; ^ )
T: So now I ask, how come the definition of squirrel isn't considered limited and subject to change, yet God is?
S9: Perhaps because understanding squirrels isn’t quite as important to our own personal well being as understanding the more religious questions.
T: The word "God" can just be abused and used to define or assign it to whatever people want?
S9: Wait a minute. I thought that was my point. ; ^ )
T: Why can't people accept that perhaps the Ultimate Reality ISN'T God? Why can't they accept that the Absolute ISN'T God?
S9: Perhaps it is because just accepting something (even if it is on your say-so) comes awfully close to raw faith. People have to start where they are and come to see through their own present convictions. One good way to do this is to redefine what you thought you knew with the use of incoming facts.
T: This is certainly the position Buddhism takes.
S9: Are you promoting that we should switch and just have faith in Buddhism? That just seems like more of the same to me.
T: It would never tarnish or desecrate reality by attributing the word "God" to Ultimate Reality.
S9: Wait a minute, I am somewhat Buddhist (meaning I still do my own thinking) and I just did the whole God/Ultimate thingy. Just perhaps some Buddhist do think of the word God as just one more way to say Ultimate Truth.
T: What if everyone decided to call Ultimate Reality, "poop"?
S9: In my way of thinking, it wouldn’t matter much, just as long as they didn’t confine themselves to the “BIG POOP in the SKY,” and kept an open enough mind to remain receptive to incoming data through further investigation.
T: Wouldn't that be degrading to it as well as wholly inaccurate?
Q: Lin Chi, “As I see Buddha, he is like a hole in a privy.”
This is pretty close to your poop idea. ; ^ )
But, just perhaps his is trying to make us look beyond our simple definitions of the Buddha, much like I am counseling you to look beyond your more limited (fundamental definitions) of God or the Ultimate.
Very often masters have likened Liberation to "the open sky," does that mean that if we want to understand and/or be Liberated that we should tune into the weather channel?
; ^ )
The law of cause and effect is a basic Physics principle. No one is going to argue with that. However when you take the Karmic law and that it determines your re-birth, then it opens up a worldview that it should defend.
The Buddha defined kamma (literally "action") as intentional actions of body, speech and mind (AN 6.63) that have the potential to produce certain results, which, in turn, are experienced in pleasant and/or painful ways (AN 4.235). In the words of S. Dhammika:
... every intentional action modifies our consciousness, thus building our character and thereby influencing our behaviour, our experience and consequently our destiny. Positive intentional actions (motivated by generosity, love and wisdom) tend towards consequences that are experienced as positive while intentional negative actions (motivated by greed, hatred and delusion) tend towards consequences that are experienced as negative.
For example: (1) It’s first cause. Is it the chicken or the egg? Without an explanation, it is like trying to defend the concept of a one ended stick. There is an end but no beginning. It is incoherent although it may mean inconjectable.
I don't necessarily subscribe to the literal interpretation of rebirth, but just for the sake of argument, it's not as incoherent as it might appear. For example, the Buddha never said there's no beginning, only that a beginning point isn't evident (SN 15.11).
Also, it may very well be that there's no perceivable beginning because it's a cyclical phenomenon that doesn't have a beginning, much like a circle or an ever-repeating universe. In the context, the logic of dependent co-arising as it's presented in the Abhidhamma and commentaries precludes a first cause or a causeless cause since all things are interdependent, continually arising and ceasing through the influences of various conditions.
Therefore, rebirth or the renewal of being is better understood as a conditional process of ever-changing phenomena that will persist for as long as the conditions for its existence persist. In Buddhism, this general principle is called this/that conditionality (idappaccayata), the simplest formulation being:
When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn't, that isn't.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
According to the teachings on dependent co-arising — a process of conditionality that's understood to occur moment to moment and over multiple lifetimes — if there are sufficient conditions present, those conditions with inevitably result in future births. Kamma is what makes this entire process possible. In Bhikkhu Bodhi's words, "When ignorance and craving underlie our stream of consciousness, our volitional actions of body, speech, and mind become forces with the capacity to produce results, and of the results they produce the most significant is the renewal of the stream of consciousness following death" (Anicca Vata Sankhara).
So even if there's no beginning point, the process of rebirth can theoretically extend back into infinity while also having a potential ending point since it persists as long as the conditions for it's continuation are present and ends only when those conditions cease. As far as I can see, there's nothing inherently contradictory about this unless you also take a position that effectively denies the efficiency of causation in relation to duration, e.g., it's logically possible that "when this is [indefinitely], that is [indefinitely]."
(2) The evidence must support the concept. How do we account for an increasing global population? Where are all the re-births coming from?
Again, I don't necessarily subscribe to the literal interpretation of rebirth; nevertheless, as it's traditionally presented, rebirth isn't just limited to the visible realm of humans and animals, it also includes other realms that aren't visible to the naked senses (I tend to view these "realms" as metaphorical descriptions of mental states). In today's terminology, however, we can possibly think of these realms as extra dimensions of space (such as required by string theory).
An increase in the human "population" could easily be the result of beings from the others realms being reborn into this one due to the ripening of some past skillful kamma.
I don't necessarily subscribe to the literal interpretation of rebirth, but just for the sake of argument, it's not as incoherent as it might appear. For example, the Buddha never said there's no beginning, only that a beginning point isn't evident (SN 15.11).
As 5B pointed out elsewhere, mathematicians would say that it isn't bounded. (Look Ma, I'm doing math!)
An increase in the human "population" could easily be the result of beings from the others realms being reborn into this one due to the ripening of some past skillful kamma.
Usually, an increase in the human population is accompanied by a decrease in the populations of other sentient beings. An increase in the count of humans doesn't necessarily mean an increase in the count of sentient beings in this realm.
As 5B pointed out elsewhere, mathematicians would say that it isn't bounded. (Look Ma, I'm doing math!)
I'm not a mathematician, so to be honest, I don't really know what that means.
Usually, an increase in the human population is accompanied by a decrease in the populations of other sentient beings. An increase in the count of humans doesn't necessarily mean an increase in the count of sentient beings in this realm.
Yes, that's a good point. Also, there's no set number of beings posited in Buddhism, no finite number of "souls" to go around as it were, so they're many very well be an infinite number of potential beings scattered throughout various realms and world-systems, or even the potential of new beings being created without having to account for their preexistence. Of course, the latter would wreak havoc on the traditional interpretation of rebirth, but that's not really relevant to the present discussion.
The premises are assumed. It assumes that there is a beginning. It assumes that this universe is the only universe to have arose. Otherwise, it makes a blatantly obvious syllogism that is entirely sound logically, but with invalid premises.
Also, the conclusion that there must be cause proves that there must be a first cause. This could be any infinite number of things. Why does he think he can automatically assume it is God?
See "Intelligent Design argument."
I think whoever made this argument was clearly joking. Basically it says, "God, by definition, exists." Really? Is that a serious argument?
[/size]Laughable. Evolution demonstrates that over time, things get increasingly complex. Also, even if there is evidence of intelligence or consciousness, it is closer to proving the Pantheist notion that the Universe itself is conscious.
1. If God does not exist, absolute moral values do not exist.
Fail. This is a bare assertion. Socrates' Euthyphro argument refuted this anyways. "Is it moral because God commands it? Or does God command it because it is moral?" If the former is true, then morals don't even exist. Because God could command things like genocide (he does multiple times in the Bible), and it would be considered moral simply because he commanded it. If the latter is true, then it proves that a moral standard exists outside of God and that God himself could violate a moral law.
2. Absolute moral values do exist.
Bare assertion.
3. Therefore God exist.
No. Faulty premises don't prove this conclusion.
I do not intend to respond to each of your comments because we can go for months on each of these arguments. All of the arquments that I have outlined have been debated for years by philosophers from both end of the spectrum. It has been published in many professional Philosophy journals. They are not easily brushed aside as you seem to have imply. They have stood up to roboust peer review. There might be disagreement on the conclusion but certainly not in logic and the strength of their arquments.
People can experience a bunch of things and come to the wrong conclusion. I could believe that a spirit is touching my shoulder, but if I turned around, I would realize it was a fan blowing at my back. Or I could hear voices and think I was talking to God, when really it was a radio in the far distance. I could even witness a real miracle right in front of my face, and this still doesn't prove God. It could have been Superman for all I know. There's many beings that I could name that can perform miracles. I could even conclude that Nature acts miraculous at times.
I find it interesting that you can just brush aside other people's personal experience of an encounter as somehow delusional. You might not agree with the conclusion of others but on what basis do you argue that your view is correct and others are not? After all it is just your opinion.
I just want to understand on what basis did Buddha assert that he has attained Nirvana? Is there some kind of proof besides his claim like everyone else who has an encounter. If there is such a state as Nirvana, using your line of reasoning how do we know it is Nirvana, and not Xanadu or Krypton? Have you been there? Even if you have been there, how do you know that you and Buddha are talking about the same thing?
I know some people think that Brahman means God. But there are a good number of people on earth who believe Buddha means God, too. That doesn’t make it so, now does it?
People who believe Buddha means Buddha don't make sense either.
K: People who believe Buddha means Buddha don't make sense either.
S9: I quite agree. : ^ )
A really good quote:
“If you see the Buddha on the road, coming towards you, ‘ Kill Him.”
So often people confuse the fellow named Gautama with Liberation, and immediately start bending their knees, bowing their heads, and putting up statues to the man, himself.
Of course Buddha was trying to teach us to Liberate our selves from defining our selves as a man, even a very special man with all of the bells and whistles, and so it seems “upside down/backwards” to worship the fellow that the Buddha, himself, just threw off as being an illusion.
All of the arquments that I have outlined have been debated for years by philosophers from both end of the spectrum. It has been published in many professional Philosophy journals. They are not easily brushed aside as you seem to have imply. They have stood up to roboust peer review. There might be disagreement on the conclusion but certainly not in logic and the strength of their arquments.
The logic and strength of their arguments is exactly what has been disputed in the journals you mention.
I find it interesting that you can just brush aside other people's personal experience of an encounter as somehow delusional.
TMP didn't say that other people's experiences were delusional. He said that they were not good evidence for the existence of god, and people who use them as such are mistaken.
I just want to understand on what basis did Buddha assert that he has attained Nirvana? Is there some kind of proof besides his claim like everyone else who has an encounter. If there is such a state as Nirvana, using your line of reasoning how do we know it is Nirvana, and not Xanadu or Krypton? Have you been there? Even if you have been there, how do you know that you and Buddha are talking about the same thing?
By definition, nirvana is the cessation of duhkha. It can only be determined by subjective experience. The Buddha said that duhkha had ended. While this isn't proof (he might have been lying, or he might have been deluding himself), it's the only evidence possible.
One can argue that nirvana is impossible because man is psychologically incapable of being free of duhkha. Practically speaking, it would be very difficult to come up with strong support for that claim. Absolute freedom from any mental characteristic is extremely difficult to achieve, and nirvana is corresponding difficult to attain. But Buddhism doesn't claim otherwise.
The belief that J. Random Buddhist's nirvana is the same as the Buddha's is based on the belief that we can communicate subjective experience, which in turn is based on the belief that our subjective experiences are similar. Obviously, these things have been disputed, but there's evidence that we can communicate subjective experience.
B: I just want to understand on what basis did Buddha assert that he has attained Nirvana? Is there some kind of proof besides his claim like everyone else who has an encounter. If there is such a state as Nirvana, using your line of reasoning how do we know it is Nirvana?
S9: I think you make a good point here. The only proof that we can ever have that the Buddha’s words are anything more than just a delusional state, or that he is a Big Fat Liar, or maybe even that he had was subject to a massive psychosis is that we by following in his foots steps and come upon, and yes witness exactly what he witnessed. Even then we cannot be sure that we are not sharing in the same psychosis as he had, or a mass hypnosis of some kind shared by a long lineage of nutcases. So what is one to do?
All that we ever could do, from the beginning of time, was put one step in front of the other and "hope against hope" that we have done right in doing so. But, when you do come to the place where the Buddha came to, lets just say he did and you could too, if it all seems familiar and right to you, if it puts you in a place were you are finally content and wholly satisfied…well I guess that will have to do. ; ^ )
B: Have you been there?
S9: Actually yes, I have and so have you no doubt. In fact, what the Buddha was speaking of was the ‘Pure Consciousness without an object.’ The only real question is, can this be maintained as a constant, and how?
This peaceful state happens between every thought. We get a taste of it in meditation, when the mind slows down with its constant picture shows (dreams), and our discursive thoughts quiet down to a dull roar. In those blessed moments of calm relaxation, we actually taste the peace of simply 'Being,' and we want more.
B: Even if you have been there, how do you know that you and Buddha are talking about the same thing?
S9: If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, more than likely it is a duck. ; ^ )
But, it matters very little if what I call red is exactly what you call red (nirvana), that is if we, each one of us, is abundantly happy with our own personal red (nirvana). Nirvana does not seem to be something that we can do as a group, although we can each find it in an intimate experience.
BTW: I personally do not believe that "The peace beyond all understanding," which Jesus (the Christ) can upon was any different than the peace of Nirvana, which Gautama (the Buddha) witnessed.
Comments
Edit:Wait, I think we're arguing the same thing, hah. I misread your original post. Sorry!
An absolutely hilarious hissy interruption! Ever thought of doing stand- up comedy, S9 ? :screwy:
.
I tried that, and it didn't make your statements any more relevant.
What significance are you attaching to it?
Nonsense. There's nothing about god being willing but unable to prevent evil that requires god and evil to be incompassable.
Then pass it if the penny did not drop.
You said that the universe doesn't end until samsara ends. This implies (at least to me) that you are saying that the universe is subject to samara or subbordinate to it. I asked you to clarify your statement. Which part of my question is it that you do not understand?
If you wish to have this kind of argument. Fine, have it your way.
The issue isn't the penny dropping or not dropping. The issue is the irrelevance of your statements.
The part in which "the universe is subject to samara or subbordinate to it". How did you arrive at that? Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by "subject to" or "subordinate to", but I don't see the connection.
The "P" in the original post was that god was willing but unable to prevent evil. You made the statement that "At a minimum, you have to argue that God and evil cannot coexist for P to be true." All I'm doing is pointing out that this isn't true. I've mentioned prevention only when referring to the content of P, and only to the extent necessary to point out that your statement isn't true.
You're contending an existence of God, which is to some, an approachable and existent Being.
I said that I equate the existence of God, for myself, on a par with the existence of maybe Santa Claus, or the Easter bunny.
You then said they were easy to refute.
I then asked you how.
You never answered.
Now you say you're not wishing to engage in a debate about proving God's existence, but if you tell me that you can refute the existence of both Santa and the Easter bunny, that's exactly what you were doing.
So you must accept that some would wish you to, in common parlance, put your money where your mouth is.
I am not offended – I just feel that it was pointless to continue. I will put this in context by outlining the sequence of relevant postings :
<O:p</O:p
1. It is my understanding from Federica’s postings that god is non existent or irrelevant.
2. I challenged that this view will automatically preclude everything that is of god.
3. Federica’s posting (#27) confirmed her view including placing god in the same category as Santa. This categorization of god in my view infers either god like Santa is no more than man’s wild imagination or that Santa’s existence can be easily refuted and by categorization to god as well.
4. I pointed out (post #28) that this was a strawman argument.
5. Federica responded (post #31) that she was not trying to create a strawman and I could take it or leave it on the basis of her explanation
6. I decided to leave it as she clarified she had no intention to make such an argument. Her clarification was sufficient for my purpose. So we are squared.
7. Then Transmetaphysical (post #49) challenged me to refute Santa’s existence.
8. I then proceeded (post #55) to explain what is a strawman argument and demonstrated how Santa’s existence can be refuted. I also pointed out that the same argument cannot be applied to god. We are also squared.
9. You then joined in (post #105) pointing out my explanation in post #55 was not valid (I presume) on the basis that no one has tried to make that argument. This assertion in my view is worst then telling me my mother is a female. At least in that I know we are of the same planet. You have not offered any argument – just opinion. This does not move anything forward. I decided to leave it and responded (post #108) that you can have it your way. I feel that further exchange is senseless. This view is further reinforced by our exchanges on the samsara cycle which after 4 exchanges we have not moved an inch. I will separately address this in another posting.
<O:p</O:p
Concerning your current posting (post #112), this is what you have said, and I quote “but you stated that an argument made by Federica was a straw man. Since she didn't actually make the argument you described, your statement was a straw man. If this is not the sort of discussion you want to have, you probably shouldn't create this sort of discussion by telling other people that their arguments are straw men”
<O:p</O:p
I have explained this in points 4, 5 and 6.
<O:p</O:p
You further said, and I quote “Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. When some one uses a straw man argument, pointing it out clarifies the discussion and gives the person using the straw man argument an opportunity to switch to a stronger, more relevant argument. ”
<O:p</O:p
A strawman argument is to attack the strawman (weaker position) and thereby having seen to have attacked a stronger position. You seem to suggest the reverse. What is your point? Are you attempting to re-define what is a strawman argument?
<O:p</O:p
In any case what is the connection your present argument has with my post #55? How is my argument in post #55 invalidated?
That's when things skewed off kilter, because you did not tell me exactly how you could do it.....
Are you saying Nirvana is non approachable and non existent? What are Buddhist trying to do when they say they want to attain Nirvana? Please refer to my post #114 points 4,5,6,7 and 8. If you are still not satisfied, please point out what I have not addressed.
You said, and I quote "the universe doesn't end until samsara ends". My earlier attempts do not seem to work and so I will describe it another way. This appears to me that you are describing a condition precedent event because of the way you have phrased it. A condition precedent event is an event (samsara) that prededes another event (universe) by necessity because of some manner of causal linkage. Is this what you were intending to say or is it a case purely of not realising the implication of what was being said.
Nibbana is an elevated state of consciousness which is ephemeral and intangible. it cannot be comprehended in an unenlightened state...
When Christians talk of going to heaven, or being with god, they always ascribe the existence of a place their soul will go to, or an Deity their souls will be with. As Buddhists don't 'go anywhere' to 'be with anyone' and there is no soul, the two concepts are entirely different.
I just want to know how you will refute the existence of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and let me know how that still leaves God as credible.
A strawman argument also occurs when you alter someone's position in order to weaken it, and attack the altered, weakened version. In this case, neither Fed nor TMP claimed that proof for the non-existence of Santa Claus would also disprove the existence of god by default. They simply claimed that both belong in the category of imaginary items.
Samsara is a phenomenon. From a Buddhist point of view, it is a real phenonemon. The universe is (according to my philosophical dictionary) space, time, and everything that has, does, and will exist in space and time. So by definition, as long as phenomena exist, the universe will exist. Therefore, as long as samsara exists, the universe will exist. To make the implication explicit, if samsara exists, the universe exists. By modus tollens, if the universe does not exist, then samsara does not exist. This is true by definition, and not because of a causal linkage.
Yes, but you can logically demonstrate the probability or improbability. If God becomes no less plausible than invisible pink fairies in another dimension, it then becomes an absurd belief.
Your accusation of a strawman is a strawman. No one ever tried to apply the disproof of Santa to the disproof of God. When people talk about God and Santa, they are comparing the absurdity of the beliefs. Not that the conditions of their existence are the same.
There is no evidence for invisible pink unicorns, so should we be Agnostics with regards to that position as well? And for Zeus, Thor, and Apollo?
I agree, the Santa comparison is a bad example for the reasons you stated. Perhaps invisible fairies from another dimension are a more applicable comparison.
True, but why do people assume and believe "God" by default? We should regard God's existence as no different than Flying Spaghetti Monster. I can say he is a non-physical being outside of space-time and no one can disprove it. You can't have negative proof, only refutations of the arguments for God and positive arguments demonstrating the improbability of God.
Karma means "action." I have no doubt that it exists, at least in what we think of as reality. It is also the same as the law of cause and effect.
We are living in Samsara, which by the way is an illusion.
The thing with Buddhism is that nothing intrinsically exists anyways. There's not really anything to prove.
Ok, I didn't really know that much about Russel's argument.
Just remember that this is a debate I have said before that I do not want to have. You are the one forcing my hand. So let's have a debate but on equal ground.
As for Santa, I have already addressed it.
Yes there are tons of argument out there to argue for the existence out God.
The Kalam Cosmological argument
The Teleological argument of fine tuning
The Ontological argument
The Intelligent Design arqument
The Axiological argument
The Experential argument
I just had no interest in doing it because there are so many debates already out there on this.
Would probably be a good idea to educate yourself on these terms before bringing them up in debate, as you clearly have no idea what they refer to and see them as something mystical.
<O:p</O:p I think we have to be careful about generalizing. I always encourage to first understand the core beliefs of their worldview (whatever it may be) and whether it stands up to scrutiny and reason. I do not believe that people who belief in God is doing it blindly. Antony Flew, the famous Atheist philosopher became a Theist a few years ago. When asked why he changed his view. His answer was that he followed the evidence and where it leads him. Even Richard Dawkins has modified his views to include the possibility for the existence of God in a recent newspaper interview.
<O:p</O:p The arguments are a look more complex and sophisticated these days with people like William Lance Craig and D’nesh D’Sousa. I think you should be open minded and look at the arguments, the evidence and the reasons.
<O:p</O:p The law of cause and effect is a basic Physics principle. No one is going to argue with that. However when you take the Karmic law and that it determines your re-birth, then it opens up a worldview that it should defend. For example:
(1) It’s first cause. Is it the chicken or the egg? Without an explanation, it is like trying to defend the concept of a one ended stick. There is an end but no beginning. It is incoherent although it may mean inconjectable.
(2) The evidence must support the concept. How do we account for an increasing global population? Where are all the re-births coming from?
I might not call it a Flying Spaghetti, maybe a flying one ended stick. It is easy to brush off another worldview but be prepared to defend your own, and using the same standard being set for others.
<O:p</O:p Are you saying it is not real or it cannot be proven? Either answer diminishes its credibility. Are you then going by blind faith?
<O:p</O:p I know – it is called impermanence. Why is any explanation acceptable other than proof? This expectation somehow works fine when proof of God’s existence is asked for.
I understand all your points being put forth and I am not being unreasonable. Not everything can be explained empirically or proven that way. Just don’t demand a standard unless one is prepared to live by it. This is not a debate I wanted to have in the first place but was forced upon to defend.
Samsara = Universe. Is this correct? If no, please explain why. If you are not prepared to discuss further just say so and I will not press further. But please do not answer with a question.
The Buddha explains Nirvāṇa as the liberated, secured, unconditioned mind, a mind that has come to a point of perfect lucidity and clarity due to the cessation of the production of volitional formations ( no longer clings by craving and ignorance - generated by our innate fundamental darkness or the illusions to our reality )
Very often when people claim to be disproving God, all that they are actually disproving is our human understanding of what God must be. Obviously most of our Gods are anthropomorphized versions of ourselves.
Isn’t the word God, His surrounding stories, and our explanations of what God must actually be like, simply our less than capable attempts to understand ‘What,’ (or ‘Who?’) is the Ultimate? Just perhaps, the human mind is not up to this task.
Is God just one more mental object that stands separate from us, and lends Its Self to scrutiny by the human mind, which separates everything up into little pieces? Or is God simply who we are in our own Wholeness, (AKA Holy) our Buddha Nature, or even our more Ultimate Being untouched, or explainable by mental conception?
In other words, in the end are we arguing with the word "God," and entirely missing what the word God, (the finger) is pointing at?
Warm Regards,
S9
OK... I am a Reform Taoist as well as a Buddhist so have a little insight into this querry... In the Tao Te Ching this question is answered in the first chapter:
NOTE: The term Tao can be altered to be God, Ultimate Truth, or whatever the reader relates to.
1. THE EMBODIMENT OF TAO
Even the finest teaching is not the Tao itself.
Even the finest name is insufficient to define it.
Without words, the Tao can be experienced,
and without a name, it can be known.
To conduct one's life according to the Tao,
is to conduct one's life without regrets;
to realize that potential within oneself
which is of benefit to all.
Though words or names are not required
to live one's life this way,
to describe it, words and names are used,
that we might better clarify
the way of which we speak,
without confusing it with other ways
in which an individual might choose to live.
Through knowledge, intellectual thought and words,
the manifestations of the Tao are known,
but without such intellectual intent
we might experience the Tao itself.
Both knowledge and experience are real,
but reality has many forms,
which seem to cause complexity.
By using the means appropriate,
we extend ourselves beyond
the barriers of such complexity,
and so experience the Tao.
Once the Tao is spoken it is brought into form (word & thought) and loses it's power. For attempting to express it's essence makes it less than what it is.
The unmanifest becoming manifest. For once it is brought into context of another it loses it's purity, eternity and infinity. An attempt to express, define and capture that which "is" ceases to allow it to "be". In so doing all that "is" is being confined, which alters and minimizes the "isness" of Tao.
Samsara is better understood as a process, not a place.
Samsara, literally "wandering on," is the potential for the arising of human [mental] suffering, while nibbana, literally, "extinguishing," is the cessation of that potential. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu puts it, "Samsara is a process of creating places, even whole worlds, (this is called becoming) and then wandering through them (this is called birth). Nirvana is the end of this process." Nirvana is "realized only when the mind stops defining itself in terms of place ... it's realized through unestablished consciousness."
No. Here's what I said: Samsara is one phenomenon. The universe is the aggregate of all phenomena.
Then how do you suggest that I deal with ambiguous questions?
"God" has a specific definition and therefore, we must discuss what is defined. God is a supreme omnipotent being and a creator. Maybe there is an "Ultimate reality" or a Universal force but don't call it "God." That is an equivocation of terms. I mean does "Ultimate Reality" create? Or does it simply just exists and is all-encompassing. If it's not a creator and separate from creation, then it's not called "God."
Whether a supreme being exists or not has no bearing on me because I reject all celestial dictators. I refuse to worship anyone or any authority. God is a self-imposed being who rules the Universe unelected. That is a tyrant dictatorship. This is what the word "God" implies.
The only time I use the word "God," is when I am referring to myself to denote that I am the highest authority over myself and the same is true for everyone else.
.
Exactly. Similar illogical conundrums happen with God as well.
You know what Im talking about. Their existence in reality. If I say Yahweh exists in fiction, he doesn't exist at all. I don't know where you were going with that pedantry.
Which Jesus? The Biblical Jesus? Or the historical Jesus of the Gnostics?
I disagree with the former and agree with the latter.
Strawman. I made no mention of tooth fairies. You turned my unfalsifiable "invisible fairies" into falsifiable tooth fairies. Which means you changed the meaning of my argument and argued against it. I think you're missing the whole point of my examples. I'm not trying to focus on the specific entity, bit rather creating examples of beings that are UNFALSIFIABLE like invisible fairies and God. Niether can be 100% proven false.
I was a Christian for 17 years. I think it's fair to say that I have a good understanding of their core beliefs. And yes, people do blindly believe in God because that's what faith is. They say that they have "faith" that God exists, not that they've seen good logical and scientific eviidence for his existence.
I thougt God wants people to have faith in him. That's the point. If there were real evidence for the world to see, then everyone would believe and the virtue of faith and belief would disappear.
Not true. John Lennox started that rumor in a lecture which was covered in a newspaper. Dawkins was debating John Lennox and said that "perhaps a reasonable case can be made for the Deist God, not one that I support, but you have still got all your work ahead of you to go from proving the Deist God to the Christian God." His point was that Lennox didn't even believe in the most reasonable God, but rather believed in the Christian God. And another one of his points was that Christians do only argue for the Deist God and yet think they are also arguing for the Christian God. Btw, Dawkins has personally refuted the claims of that newspaper that tried misquoting him.
Yeah, I happen to be a fan of Lane Craig and D'Souza as I feel they are great and reasonable representatives of Chirstianity. (I also am aware of the many arguments for God.) I also think they are worthy and challenging opponents of the atheists. Unfortunately, not enough people of faith think as critically as these guys.
One of the problems I have is that almost everyone who believes in God don't do so because Kalams Cosmological Argument, etc. convinced them. They start off with the belief in God and then find or make arguments to justify their belief to others. If you ask, why do YOU believe in God, I doubt they'll say that logical syllogisms and scienific discoveries convinced them.
Rebirth is interpreted either literally or to refer to something else depending on the sect. There is no soul in Buddhism to really move on, so I'm fairly certain that it has a different meaning than the common conception.
Buddha rejected determinism and he did not he say the world began to exist. You are confusing deterministic cause and effect with Buddhist cause and effect. Deterministic cause and effect is like the domino effect or a billiard table where everything is a determined chain of events by a previous causal event. And in this model, there had to be that first domino that started the whole chain of events. This is not the Buddhist paradigm.
There are no souls and thus, there is no fixed population of eternal souls. Also, form and the self are illusory and ever changing. For this question to apply, we'd have to have a fixed in environment. However, Buddhism would never say that the population will stay the same forever, it would say that it would always be changing, nothing is permanent.
Those arguments failed.
I'm saying that it is not real, it's illusory. And you can't have faith in a negative. I am denying and rejecting intrinsic existence and such a position requires no faith. Also, quantum mechanics is actually demonstrating that this reality is illusory and holographic. Look into quantum superposition, wave-particle duality, double-slit experiment, Heisenberg Uncertainty, non-locality, and Bohm's works.
Actually, that's a separate concept but they are related.
Because proof is for proving that something exists. You can't prove a denial of existence. It's a negative, and in formal logic, it's well known that you aren't required to prove a negative.
To claim that something exists, you need proof.
Thank you for engaging. It has been very interesting.
<O:p</O:p Zeus like Thor are fictional characters as far I am concern. I read a lot of them in comics when I was young. If someone is a Zeus worshipper, then they should be defending their worldview – not me. Just as I expect Buddhist to defend their worldview. I have no problem defending Yahweh in the Bible as a Christian. I just insist on the same standard being used when it comes to defending Karma, Samsara, and Nirvana.
<O:p</O:p The Bible Jesus. No it is not a strawman. Words have meaning and it can mean different things to different people. If someone wants to sell a story on fairies, then the description of the fairy will point to the evidence of its existence. The word fairy has no meaning by itself. What is there to prove or disprove? Prove something that is invisible with no description of what is being discussed beyond a name – please be reasonable. A toothfairy has more meaning and so we can be specific with what we are attempting to do.
In <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com[IMG]http://newbuddhist.com/forum/ /><st1:country-region alt=[/IMG]</st1:country-region>Japan, when you want to go through immigration, they divide incoming passengers into 2 streams; Japanese citizens and aliens. If you want to prove the existence of aliens, just go to <st1:country-region w:st="on">Japan</st1:country-region>. They handle thousands of them everyday. Words have meaning but in context. God in the Bible is described in 66 books. So we know a lot of what we are looking for. Nature and by that I mean people as well, can be represented in a bell curve. There are a range of reasons for their beliefs. Faith in Christianity is not blind but is of God. The scriptures are very clear on this. You should know since you said that you have a good understanding of the core beliefs.
<O:p</O:p I only saw the newspaper report. I have not heard the Lennox-Dawkins debate but I understand the debate was on the existence of God and not over a Christian God.
<O:p</O:p The movement of faith seeking reason is basically to challenge the new atheist movement represented by Dawkins, Higgens, & Dennet. If you have heard some of the debates, the new atheist movement do not offer much substance beyond the ranting over the atrocities of God in the Old Testament. Dawkins just refuse to debate William Lane Craig. The point I was making is that when it comes to god, explanation is treated like it is taken from a fairy tale book – no credibility. What makes explanation like you just gave any different? Denying it is a paradigm doesn’t mean it isn’t. You just advocated that Christians should go on reason and evidence not faith only. Shouldn’t this apply to Buddhism as well? So far my understanding of Buddhist cause and effect is that no explanation has been given except it is inconjectable. Impermanence means it is transitive. Water to steam and so on. There is a difference between a population that is transitive and growing. 100 years ago there were a different set of people as compared to today. Today we have a much bigger population and different set of people. Are you prepared to say that successive re-births are multiplicity in nature? Does the evidence support the concept?
<O:p</O:p How so? Please explain. So it is a decision based on ….? I have some understanding of Heisenberg Uncertainty – can you please explain how it is supportive of your argument.
<O:p</O:p I do not agree but that will require a 2 page response. In any case, this only applies to Nirvana if my understanding is correct. I am trying to address this in another thread on this subject because we need more specifics to deal with this properly.
<O:p</O:p
However I do not believe Karma and Samsara are in the same category i.e. denial of existence.
Just because some people out there have wrongly defined what the word "God" means, or stands for, doesn’t mean by any means that we cannot rethink this issue. The whole idea of God may simply be a hypothesis in its early stages, which requires far more investigation before we come to any understanding of what exactly is beyond our own narrow definitions of God.
Hell, many of us do not have any real idea who we are, and this after years of living in our own company.
; ^ )
Rejecting this limited understanding of what God is/means, and thinking that is settled, may be almost as foolish as excepting God without question.
T: "God" has a specific definition and therefore, we must discuss what is defined.
S9: That is exactly my point. How do we know that our limited definitions should be taken so seriously that we let them hem us in, and limit our growth in this area?
T: God is a supreme omnipotent being and a creator.
S9: If this were true, what makes you think that YOU have any idea about what such 'Ultimate Being.' or what such an Inconceivable Process (or whatever) would be like? Doesn’t that strike you as just a little bit of 'over reaching' on your part? I seriously doubt that the limited human mind could take such a dimension in, understand it fully, and stand in judgment of it?
T: Maybe there is an "Ultimate reality" or a Universal force but don't call it "God."
S9: Why not call it God? Would not God at some point, if we stopped thinking of God as being a “Guy in the Sky,” outgrow our narrow definitions? We have to call this symbol of the Ultimate something don't we? Do you prefer the name George?
; ^ )
Obviously when people start thinking along these lines, or about this more limited guy called God, if they were to invest enough time and intention into discovery, while keeping an open mind and looking more directly in order to travel beyond all 2nd hand definitions, with just a drop or two of wisdom thrown in for good measure, this conceptual God-fellow might completely redefine Himself.
In other words drop the mistaken ideas, or concepts, and the label is no problem.
T: That is an equivocation of terms. I mean does "Ultimate Reality" create?
S9: My guess is yes, whether we call it the universe or God that is creating either material or imaginary worlds. Obviously something is taking place, even if it is simply a dream world, (my favorite paradigm).
T: Or does it simply just exists and is all-encompassing.
S9: The fact of change seems to point at creation. But this could ALL be simultaneous and eternal, rather than lineal as in time and space.
T: If it's not a creator and separate from creation, then it's not called "God."
S9: Why not? If God (the Ultimate) is a shift changer and/or everything is God’s imagination …what then? Can you see that we are out here swinging on a limb, and talking about possibilities that any science fiction writer might be proud of?
; ^ )
T: Whether a supreme being exists or not has no bearing on me because I reject all celestial dictators.
S9: That is a personification of something that may not define itself in human terms.
T: I refuse to worship anyone or any authority.
S9: So do I. But, just to prove I won’t bend a knee in worship, doesn’t tempt me to produce a fictitious Being that is easy to stand up against.
T: God is a self-imposed being who rules the Universe unelected. That is a tyrant dictatorship. This is what the word "God" implies.
S9: Of course your more limited definitions indicate what you want them to. When such definitions begin to pinch, maybe it is time to grow beyond them.
T: The only time I use the word "God," is when I am referring to myself to denote that I am the highest authority over myself and the same is true for everyone else.
S9: I agree. But, who are you? I personally believe that you ARE the Ultimate.
; ^ )
Incidently, so am I.
Warm Regards,
S9
From Dictionary.com:
God [noun]
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god
squirrel [noun]
1. any of numerous arboreal, bushy-tailed rodents of the genus Sciurus, of the family Sciuridae. - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/squirrel
So now I ask, how come the definition of squirrel isn't considered limited and subject to change, yet God is? The word "God" can just be abused and used to define or assign it to whatever people want? Why can't people accept that perhaps the Ultimate Reality ISN'T God? Why can't they accept that the Absolute ISN'T God? This is certainly the position Buddhism takes. It would never tarnish or desecrate reality by attributing the word "God" to Ultimate Reality. What if everyone decided to call Ultimate Reality, "poop"? Wouldn't that be degrading to it as well as wholly inaccurate?
.
The premises are assumed. It assumes that there is a beginning. It assumes that this universe is the only universe to have arose. Otherwise, it makes a blatantly obvious syllogism that is entirely sound logically, but with invalid premises.
Also, the conclusion that there must be cause proves that there must be a first cause. This could be any infinite number of things. Why does he think he can automatically assume it is God?
See "Intelligent Design argument."
I think whoever made this argument was clearly joking. Basically it says, "God, by definition, exists." Really? Is that a serious argument?
Laughable. Evolution demonstrates that over time, things get increasingly complex. Also, even if there is evidence of intelligence or consciousness, it is closer to proving the Pantheist notion that the Universe itself is conscious.
1. If God does not exist, absolute moral values do not exist.
Fail. This is a bare assertion. Socrates' Euthyphro argument refuted this anyways. "Is it moral because God commands it? Or does God command it because it is moral?" If the former is true, then morals don't even exist. Because God could command things like genocide (he does multiple times in the Bible), and it would be considered moral simply because he commanded it. If the latter is true, then it proves that a moral standard exists outside of God and that God himself could violate a moral law.
2. Absolute moral values do exist.
Bare assertion.
3. Therefore God exist.
No. Faulty premises don't prove this conclusion.
People can experience a bunch of things and come to the wrong conclusion. I could believe that a spirit is touching my shoulder, but if I turned around, I would realize it was a fan blowing at my back. Or I could hear voices and think I was talking to God, when really it was a radio in the far distance. I could even witness a real miracle right in front of my face, and this still doesn't prove God. It could have been Superman for all I know. There's many beings that I could name that can perform miracles. I could even conclude that Nature acts miraculous at times.
.
Well you've kind of answered your own rant. People can and DO believe many things. Does it really matter? The Buddha did not exhort Buddhists to "go out and save" people like Christianity (or Islam for that matter). I think you spend far too much time arguing with people over things when you could spend that energy working on your own spiritual path.
Unless of course, you enjoy arguing.....
Respectfully,
Raven
Debating and philosophical discourse is my spiritual path.
Lol. Yes, it is something I enjoy as I participate in formal debates and watch many of them as well.
.
dhammachick - back, I say! I am enjoying this. :coffee:
In any event, he did not go out seeking a Christian to debate this with - a Christian came here. And, after all, it is a discussion forum.
Don't fear debate!
Oh I don't fear debate, I was thinking more along the lines (for Trans) of never argue with a fool :P
Respectfully,
Raven
T: From Dictionary.com: God [noun]
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god
S9: Wow, why didn’t I just think of going to the dictionary instead of wasting decades in trying to understand such things in more depth or even intimately.
; ^ )
T: So now I ask, how come the definition of squirrel isn't considered limited and subject to change, yet God is?
S9: Perhaps because understanding squirrels isn’t quite as important to our own personal well being as understanding the more religious questions.
T: The word "God" can just be abused and used to define or assign it to whatever people want?
S9: Wait a minute. I thought that was my point. ; ^ )
T: Why can't people accept that perhaps the Ultimate Reality ISN'T God? Why can't they accept that the Absolute ISN'T God?
S9: Perhaps it is because just accepting something (even if it is on your say-so) comes awfully close to raw faith. People have to start where they are and come to see through their own present convictions. One good way to do this is to redefine what you thought you knew with the use of incoming facts.
T: This is certainly the position Buddhism takes.
S9: Are you promoting that we should switch and just have faith in Buddhism? That just seems like more of the same to me.
T: It would never tarnish or desecrate reality by attributing the word "God" to Ultimate Reality.
S9: Wait a minute, I am somewhat Buddhist (meaning I still do my own thinking) and I just did the whole God/Ultimate thingy. Just perhaps some Buddhist do think of the word God as just one more way to say Ultimate Truth.
T: What if everyone decided to call Ultimate Reality, "poop"?
S9: In my way of thinking, it wouldn’t matter much, just as long as they didn’t confine themselves to the “BIG POOP in the SKY,” and kept an open enough mind to remain receptive to incoming data through further investigation.
T: Wouldn't that be degrading to it as well as wholly inaccurate?
Q: Lin Chi, “As I see Buddha, he is like a hole in a privy.”
This is pretty close to your poop idea. ; ^ )
But, just perhaps his is trying to make us look beyond our simple definitions of the Buddha, much like I am counseling you to look beyond your more limited (fundamental definitions) of God or the Ultimate.
Very often masters have likened Liberation to "the open sky," does that mean that if we want to understand and/or be Liberated that we should tune into the weather channel?
; ^ )
I think not! : ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
The Buddha defined kamma (literally "action") as intentional actions of body, speech and mind (AN 6.63) that have the potential to produce certain results, which, in turn, are experienced in pleasant and/or painful ways (AN 4.235). In the words of S. Dhammika:
I don't necessarily subscribe to the literal interpretation of rebirth, but just for the sake of argument, it's not as incoherent as it might appear. For example, the Buddha never said there's no beginning, only that a beginning point isn't evident (SN 15.11).
Also, it may very well be that there's no perceivable beginning because it's a cyclical phenomenon that doesn't have a beginning, much like a circle or an ever-repeating universe. In the context, the logic of dependent co-arising as it's presented in the Abhidhamma and commentaries precludes a first cause or a causeless cause since all things are interdependent, continually arising and ceasing through the influences of various conditions.
Therefore, rebirth or the renewal of being is better understood as a conditional process of ever-changing phenomena that will persist for as long as the conditions for its existence persist. In Buddhism, this general principle is called this/that conditionality (idappaccayata), the simplest formulation being:
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn't, that isn't.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
According to the teachings on dependent co-arising — a process of conditionality that's understood to occur moment to moment and over multiple lifetimes — if there are sufficient conditions present, those conditions with inevitably result in future births. Kamma is what makes this entire process possible. In Bhikkhu Bodhi's words, "When ignorance and craving underlie our stream of consciousness, our volitional actions of body, speech, and mind become forces with the capacity to produce results, and of the results they produce the most significant is the renewal of the stream of consciousness following death" (Anicca Vata Sankhara).
So even if there's no beginning point, the process of rebirth can theoretically extend back into infinity while also having a potential ending point since it persists as long as the conditions for it's continuation are present and ends only when those conditions cease. As far as I can see, there's nothing inherently contradictory about this unless you also take a position that effectively denies the efficiency of causation in relation to duration, e.g., it's logically possible that "when this is [indefinitely], that is [indefinitely]."
Again, I don't necessarily subscribe to the literal interpretation of rebirth; nevertheless, as it's traditionally presented, rebirth isn't just limited to the visible realm of humans and animals, it also includes other realms that aren't visible to the naked senses (I tend to view these "realms" as metaphorical descriptions of mental states). In today's terminology, however, we can possibly think of these realms as extra dimensions of space (such as required by string theory).
An increase in the human "population" could easily be the result of beings from the others realms being reborn into this one due to the ripening of some past skillful kamma.
Usually, an increase in the human population is accompanied by a decrease in the populations of other sentient beings. An increase in the count of humans doesn't necessarily mean an increase in the count of sentient beings in this realm.
I'm not a mathematician, so to be honest, I don't really know what that means.
Yes, that's a good point. Also, there's no set number of beings posited in Buddhism, no finite number of "souls" to go around as it were, so they're many very well be an infinite number of potential beings scattered throughout various realms and world-systems, or even the potential of new beings being created without having to account for their preexistence. Of course, the latter would wreak havoc on the traditional interpretation of rebirth, but that's not really relevant to the present discussion.
I find it interesting that you can just brush aside other people's personal experience of an encounter as somehow delusional. You might not agree with the conclusion of others but on what basis do you argue that your view is correct and others are not? After all it is just your opinion.
I just want to understand on what basis did Buddha assert that he has attained Nirvana? Is there some kind of proof besides his claim like everyone else who has an encounter. If there is such a state as Nirvana, using your line of reasoning how do we know it is Nirvana, and not Xanadu or Krypton? Have you been there? Even if you have been there, how do you know that you and Buddha are talking about the same thing?
People who believe Buddha means Buddha don't make sense either.
K: People who believe Buddha means Buddha don't make sense either.
S9: I quite agree. : ^ )
A really good quote:
“If you see the Buddha on the road, coming towards you, ‘ Kill Him.”
So often people confuse the fellow named Gautama with Liberation, and immediately start bending their knees, bowing their heads, and putting up statues to the man, himself.
Of course Buddha was trying to teach us to Liberate our selves from defining our selves as a man, even a very special man with all of the bells and whistles, and so it seems “upside down/backwards” to worship the fellow that the Buddha, himself, just threw off as being an illusion.
Warm Regards,
S9
TMP didn't say that other people's experiences were delusional. He said that they were not good evidence for the existence of god, and people who use them as such are mistaken.
By definition, nirvana is the cessation of duhkha. It can only be determined by subjective experience. The Buddha said that duhkha had ended. While this isn't proof (he might have been lying, or he might have been deluding himself), it's the only evidence possible.
One can argue that nirvana is impossible because man is psychologically incapable of being free of duhkha. Practically speaking, it would be very difficult to come up with strong support for that claim. Absolute freedom from any mental characteristic is extremely difficult to achieve, and nirvana is corresponding difficult to attain. But Buddhism doesn't claim otherwise.
The belief that J. Random Buddhist's nirvana is the same as the Buddha's is based on the belief that we can communicate subjective experience, which in turn is based on the belief that our subjective experiences are similar. Obviously, these things have been disputed, but there's evidence that we can communicate subjective experience.
B: I just want to understand on what basis did Buddha assert that he has attained Nirvana? Is there some kind of proof besides his claim like everyone else who has an encounter. If there is such a state as Nirvana, using your line of reasoning how do we know it is Nirvana?
S9: I think you make a good point here. The only proof that we can ever have that the Buddha’s words are anything more than just a delusional state, or that he is a Big Fat Liar, or maybe even that he had was subject to a massive psychosis is that we by following in his foots steps and come upon, and yes witness exactly what he witnessed. Even then we cannot be sure that we are not sharing in the same psychosis as he had, or a mass hypnosis of some kind shared by a long lineage of nutcases. So what is one to do?
All that we ever could do, from the beginning of time, was put one step in front of the other and "hope against hope" that we have done right in doing so. But, when you do come to the place where the Buddha came to, lets just say he did and you could too, if it all seems familiar and right to you, if it puts you in a place were you are finally content and wholly satisfied…well I guess that will have to do. ; ^ )
B: Have you been there?
S9: Actually yes, I have and so have you no doubt. In fact, what the Buddha was speaking of was the ‘Pure Consciousness without an object.’ The only real question is, can this be maintained as a constant, and how?
This peaceful state happens between every thought. We get a taste of it in meditation, when the mind slows down with its constant picture shows (dreams), and our discursive thoughts quiet down to a dull roar. In those blessed moments of calm relaxation, we actually taste the peace of simply 'Being,' and we want more.
B: Even if you have been there, how do you know that you and Buddha are talking about the same thing?
S9: If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, more than likely it is a duck. ; ^ )
But, it matters very little if what I call red is exactly what you call red (nirvana), that is if we, each one of us, is abundantly happy with our own personal red (nirvana). Nirvana does not seem to be something that we can do as a group, although we can each find it in an intimate experience.
BTW: I personally do not believe that "The peace beyond all understanding," which Jesus (the Christ) can upon was any different than the peace of Nirvana, which Gautama (the Buddha) witnessed.
Respectfully,
S9