Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Buddha's Discourse That Refutes God

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2010 4:23:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
In this discourse, the Buddha refutes the existence of God including both personal and impersonal concepts.

====================================

Discourse by Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha):

"After taking his seat Anathapindika expressed a desire to hear a discourse on some religious subject.

"The Blessed Lord responding to his wishes raised the question, Who is it that shapes our lives? Is it God, a personal creator? If God be the maker, all living things should have silently to submit to their maker's power. They would be like vessels formed by the potter's hand. If the world had been made by God there should be no such thing as sorrow, or calamity, or sin; for both pure and impure deeds must come from him. If not, there would be another cause beside him, and he would not be the self-existent one. Thus, you see, the thought of God is overthrown.

"Again, it is said that the Absolute cannot be a cause. All things around us come from a cause as the plant comes from the seed; how can the Absolute be the cause of all things alike? If it pervades them, then certainly it does not make them.

"Again, it is said that the self is the maker. But if self is the maker, why did he not make things pleasing? The cases of sorrow and joy are real and objective. How can they have been made by self?
^^^
[Note: I think he is referring to a supreme spirit/soul (like a Holy Spirit I guess) because in English, "the self" refers to the Hindu notion of a soul (atman).]

"Again, if you adopt the argument, there is no maker, or fate in such as it is, and there is no causation, what use would there be in shaping our lives and adjusting means to an end?

"Therefore, we argue that all things that exist are not without a cause. However, neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker, but our deeds produce results both good and evil.

"The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout.

"Let us, then, surrender the heresies of worshiping God and praying to him; let us not lose ourselves in vain speculations of profitless subtleties; let us surrender self and all selfishness, and as all things are fixed by causation, let us practice good so that good may result from our actions."

Source: Culla Vagga 6:2; Tipitaka
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2010 4:42:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/22/2010 4:36:36 PM, mongeese wrote:
Too many non-sequiturs. It assumes that God would not create sorrow, but does not support this assumption logically.

Look again.

"If the world had been made by God there should be no such thing as sorrow, or calamity, or sin; for both pure and impure deeds must come from him. If not, there would be another cause beside him, and he would not be the self-existent one."

Sorrow comes from impure deeds. If God created sorrow, then God did an impure deed, but then he would be not omnibenevolent. But then, Buddha goes further saying, if impure deeds do not come from God (which maintains his omnibenevolence), then there would be another cause besides him and he would not be the self-existent one.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2010 4:52:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/22/2010 4:42:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/22/2010 4:36:36 PM, mongeese wrote:
Too many non-sequiturs. It assumes that God would not create sorrow, but does not support this assumption logically.

Look again.

"If the world had been made by God there should be no such thing as sorrow, or calamity, or sin; for both pure and impure deeds must come from him. If not, there would be another cause beside him, and he would not be the self-existent one."

Sorrow comes from impure deeds. If God created sorrow, then God did an impure deed, but then he would be not omnibenevolent. But then, Buddha goes further saying, if impure deeds do not come from God (which maintains his omnibenevolence), then there would be another cause besides him and he would not be the self-existent one.

But what makes the creation of sorrow an impure deed? For sorrow is a necessary contrast to happiness, or else we have neither.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2010 5:02:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
None of that is a refutation of God, it's just one theology vying against another... What's new?

There is no refutation of God, just like there is no confirmation of God. If something does not exist, you cannot give positive evidence of its nothingness.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2010 5:30:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/22/2010 4:52:15 PM, mongeese wrote:
But what makes the creation of sorrow an impure deed? For sorrow is a necessary contrast to happiness, or else we have neither.

Sorrow is evil, the opposite of good. God is omnibenevolent and can do no evil deed.

However, what you say is true. Without sorrow, we cannot have happiness because there needs to be contrast for either to exist. But Christianity doesn't acknowledge this and does not view evil as acceptable. If it viewed evil as necessary it wouldn't have such a harsh conviction of evil and desire to have it obliterated completely.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2010 5:36:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/22/2010 5:02:05 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
None of that is a refutation of God,

Bare assertion. You haven't demonstrated that to be the case.

There is no refutation of God, just like there is no confirmation of God.

Pitiful. The same old Agnostic dogmatic and irrational statements of faulty epistemology.

If something does not exist, you cannot give positive evidence of its nothingness.

This is not true, nor is it particularly coherent (the italicized remark sounds a bit misleading and not pertinent to discussion). You can in fact demonstrate non-existence and you can in fact demonstrate a positive claim to be false. Do you deny that one can prove a positive claim false?

Things that are logically contradictory and things that are contradicted by science are false and non-existent, or at least can be demonstrated to be the case.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2010 5:43:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/22/2010 5:36:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If something does not exist, you cannot give positive evidence of its nothingness.

This is not true, nor is it particularly coherent (the bolded remark sounds a bit misleading and not pertinent to discussion).

*Edit.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2010 6:00:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/22/2010 5:30:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/22/2010 4:52:15 PM, mongeese wrote:
But what makes the creation of sorrow an impure deed? For sorrow is a necessary contrast to happiness, or else we have neither.

Sorrow is evil, the opposite of good. God is omnibenevolent and can do no evil deed.

But the creation of sorrow as a contrast to happiness isn't necessarily evil in and of itself.

However, what you say is true. Without sorrow, we cannot have happiness because there needs to be contrast for either to exist. But Christianity doesn't acknowledge this and does not view evil as acceptable. If it viewed evil as necessary it wouldn't have such a harsh conviction of evil and desire to have it obliterated completely.

Obliterated completely? I don't think there are any Christians that claim that God never should have created evil, for the same reason that sorrow must exist.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2010 6:17:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think people like innomen (who believe in impersonal concepts of God) should definitely take note of this:

"Again, it is said that the Absolute cannot be a cause. All things around us come from a cause as the plant comes from the seed; how can the Absolute be the cause of all things alike? If it pervades them, then certainly it does not make them."

I think this point here effectively refutes the impersonal God. A composite entity cannot be the cause of its components.

(pervade: "to spread through or throughout, esp subtly or gradually; permeate; to become spread throughout all parts of" -- Dictionary.com)
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2010 7:08:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Bare assertion. You haven't demonstrated that to be the case.:

Because it can't be demonstrated, that's the whole goddamn point! Since this is your declaration, the burden of proof is in your court. So please explain how obscure passages somehow refute God.

Pitiful. The same old Agnostic dogmatic and irrational statements of faulty epistemology.:

Oh, I'm sorry, by ALL means, prove definitively that there is no God. Hint: Citing obscure passages does not constitute proof, you friggin' hack.

This is not true, nor is it particularly coherent (the italicized remark sounds a bit misleading and not pertinent to discussion). You can in fact demonstrate non-existence and you can in fact demonstrate a positive claim to be false. Do you deny that one can prove a positive claim false?:

If something doesn't exist, you can't prove it doesn't exist. But if you'd like to learn a valuable lesson in futility, perhaps you can indulge us. Prove that invisible teapots aren't orbiting Venus.

Things that are logically contradictory and things that are contradicted by science are false and non-existent, or at least can be demonstrated to be the case.:

And what is God supposed to be? Supernatural. What does science do? Explains particular "how" questions regarding matters of physics (i.e. pertaining to the natural world). You're comparing apples to oranges.

Secondly, yes, one could demonstrate internal inconsistencies about, say, the bible, but that does nothing to refute God as an abstract concept. That only brings in to question one version of God. In case you have forgotten, no one owns the patent on what God is or isn't.

You cannot disprove the existence of God. You can only make logical inferences that make it reasonably implausible to believe in God. So for you, it seems so illogical that a God could exist. Great, you're not alone. But that's a far cry from proof.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 12:51:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/22/2010 7:08:55 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Bare assertion. You haven't demonstrated that to be the case.:

Because it can't be demonstrated, that's the whole goddamn point! Since this is your declaration, the burden of proof is in your court.

False. I made a post that is inherently an attempt to refute God, and now you have to demonstrate that it fails to refute God so the burden is on you.

So please explain how obscure passages somehow refute God.

It's a logical discourse using argumentative methods to refute a certain belief-claim. Surely you don't deny that logical argumentation is a valid method of refuting specific propositions. If so, why the hell are you on Debate.org if you deny the effectiveness of argumentation to affirm or negate a proposition?

Pitiful. The same old Agnostic dogmatic and irrational statements of faulty epistemology.:

Oh, I'm sorry, by ALL means, prove definitively that there is no God. Hint: Citing obscure passages does not constitute proof, you friggin' hack.

Hint: It's not an obscure passage, it's a logical discourse which is a valid method of refuting God.

This is not true, nor is it particularly coherent (the italicized remark sounds a bit misleading and not pertinent to discussion). You can in fact demonstrate non-existence and you can in fact demonstrate a positive claim to be false. Do you deny that one can prove a positive claim false?
But if you'd like to learn a valuable lesson in futility, perhaps you can indulge us. Prove that invisible teapots aren't orbiting Venus.

It's a possibility because there are no inherent contradictions with the proposition. It is very possible for teapots to be orbiting Venus that are undetectable by current scientific instruments that can scan the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

However, further scientific advancement may in fact prove that objects that exist on a frequency that exceeds the electromagnetic spectrum can't possibly be affected by the gravitational force of objects that do exist on a different frequency, and thus, it would be possible to disprove invisible orbiting teapots around Venus.

Things that are logically contradictory and things that are contradicted by science are false and non-existent, or at least can be demonstrated to be the case.:

And what is God supposed to be? Supernatural. What does science do? Explains particular "how" questions regarding matters of physics (i.e. pertaining to the natural world). You're comparing apples to oranges.

False. Young Earth Creationism asserts a young earth, yet science has proved it wrong. The Bible says that the earth is flat, but science has proved that wrong. Many religions propose a soul, but neuroscience is well on its way to disproving that notion (some say it already has). Christianity says that man was created by God at the beginning of the universe, but science disproves that with the theory of evolution that says man started out with simple origins in the beginning, and man didn't arise til the end of the (current) timeline, not the beginning. I could go on.

Secondly, yes, one could demonstrate internal inconsistencies about, say, the bible, but that does nothing to refute God as an abstract concept. That only brings in to question one version of God.

Nope. There are many arguments that show the logical inconsistency of God, without ever invoking the Bible or Quran.

In case you have forgotten, no one owns the patent on what God is or isn't.

God cannot be whatever you want it to be. God has a specific definition (or at least within the confines of a couple variations) and cannot be changed by the whims of whomever. My theology defines God as a piece of divine cheese, but does that mean my definition is valid? No.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself. Monotheism is the view that there is only one such God."

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "God is the greatest possible being; it is in the very nature of God that he essentially (and necessarily) possess all compossible perfections."

You cannot disprove the existence of God. You can only make logical inferences that make it reasonably implausible to believe in God. So for you, it seems so illogical that a God could exist. Great, you're not alone. But that's a far cry from proof.

Proof: to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument. -- Dictionary.com
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 2:58:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
False. I made a post that is inherently an attempt to refute God, and now you have to demonstrate that it fails to refute God so the burden is on you.:

And your discourse fails. It presumes to know what a God SHOULD be like, a priori, without the slightest hint of validation. That's not proof. Do you really not understand the difference between proof and an unsubstantiated assertion? Proof is made by measurable data. Please show me where any measurable data was offered.

It's a logical discourse using argumentative methods to refute a certain belief-claim. Surely you don't deny that logical argumentation is a valid method of refuting specific propositions. If so, why the hell are you on Debate.org if you deny the effectiveness of argumentation to affirm or negate a proposition?:

In the end, is any of it verifiable? No, it isn't. Today, tomorrow, and the day after that, people are still going to believe in God because they want to. And you're still not going to believe in God, because you don't want to. In a year from now, the argument will still continue, with or without us, because neither side will be able to definitively affirm their position with empirical certainty.

For the sake of an argument or debate, you may be able to convince people that the concept of God is more illogical than is logical. If so, congratulations. My main contention here is that this discourse does not constitute proof, and you need to know the difference between bald assertions and proof. It has no scientific rigor, whatsoever.

It's a possibility because there are no inherent contradictions with the proposition. It is very possible for teapots to be orbiting Venus that are undetectable by current scientific instruments that can scan the entire electromagnetic spectrum.:

Precisely my point. So could not the same be said of God? Is it also not possible that every theory concerning God is wrong? Does God necessarily have to be compartmentalized the way he/she/it is now in modern theology?

However, further scientific advancement may in fact prove that objects that exist on a frequency that exceeds the electromagnetic spectrum can't possibly be affected by the gravitational force of objects that do exist on a different frequency, and thus, it would be possible to disprove invisible orbiting teapots around Venus.:

No, because you would be assuming rules for something you don't even know exists! In other words, for God and for the teapot, you assume they should exist in a certain manner, none of which you can verify.

False. Young Earth Creationism asserts a young earth, yet science has proved it wrong.:

Right, because a specific argument has been debunked using measurable data. Proving young-earth pseudoscience wrong does not refute God, it just refutes the theory that the earth is young. You seriously don't understand the difference?

Many religions propose a soul, but neuroscience is well on its way to disproving that notion (some say it already has).:

No, because what is a soul? You're making assumptions about what a soul should be, and then look for ways to poke holes in it. That's setting up a straw man, then dutifully mowing it down.

Christianity says that man was created by God at the beginning of the universe, but science disproves that with the theory of evolution that says man started out with simple origins in the beginning, and man didn't arise til the end of the (current) timeline, not the beginning. I could go on.:

Wow, you're so indoctrinated to think about God in a certain way that you're blind to the futility of it. Who says that the Christian God is an accurate depiction of God, besides Christians? The concept of God could be limitless.

Nope. There are many arguments that show the logical inconsistency of God, without ever invoking the Bible or Quran.:

Oh? Then by all means demonstrate what God is. Meanwhile, you have been invoking the God of the bible, and poking holes through young-earth creationism, which does not disprove God, rather it disproves a young-earth theory. Do you understand the difference?

God cannot be whatever you want it to be. God has a specific definition:

Says who??? Since when would a God be beholden to our limited conceptions? What cosmic law says God is limited to your finite understanding?

My theology defines God as a piece of divine cheese, but does that mean my definition is valid? No.:

Could be. The point is there is really no way of knowing that for sure, and that's the point of the exercise.

Proof: to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument. -- Dictionary.com:

Which you have not done, whatsoever. You cannot give positive evidence for things that do not exist, because there is no way to corroborate the claim.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 3:27:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 2:58:03 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
And your discourse fails. It presumes to know what a God SHOULD be like, a priori, without the slightest hint of validation.

Nope. It doesn't presume anything. It merely rejects the God that is most commonly believed in. (It is therefore based on others say God is, not what he presumes it to be.)

That's not proof. Do you really not understand the difference between proof and an unsubstantiated assertion?

It's not unsubstantiated, it's substantiated by logic and philosophical argumentation. And as I already have shown, proof can come in the form of argumentation.

Proof is made by measurable data. Please show me where any measurable data was offered.

Nope. I already showed you the dictionary definition, and it includes argumentation as a form of proof.

For the sake of an argument or debate, you may be able to convince people that the concept of God is more illogical than is logical. If so, congratulations. My main contention here is that this discourse does not constitute proof, and you need to know the difference between bald assertions and proof.

Again, no one has made bald assertions, the very nature of discourse is to provide
argumentation for claims.

It has no scientific rigor, whatsoever.

Philosophy and logic are valid on their own terms.

Precisely my point. So could not the same be said of God?

No, because God is not possible. An orbiting invisible teapot is.

Is it also not possible that every theory concerning God is wrong?

No, because if we are talking about something other than the current concepts of God, we are not talking about God at all. We are talking about something else.

Does God necessarily have to be compartmentalized the way he/she/it is now in modern theology?

Yes. Again, God cannot be defined at the whims of people's desire to change it.

Right, because a specific argument has been debunked using measurable data. Proving young-earth pseudoscience wrong does not refute God, it just refutes the theory that the earth is young. You seriously don't understand the difference?

Apparently you highly susceptible to amnesia. Did you forget that I am responding to this?: "And what is God supposed to be? Supernatural. What does science do? Explains particular "how" questions regarding matters of physics (i.e. pertaining to the natural world). You're comparing apples to oranges." -- You

The whole point of that exercise was to demonstrate that science can indeed be used to refute religious claims. I never once said that the refutation of specific religious claims refute the existence of God. I was merely making the point that science can disprove religious claims contrary to your implications.

No, because what is a soul? You're making assumptions about what a soul should be, and then look for ways to poke holes in it. That's setting up a straw man, then dutifully mowing it down.

How am I committing a strawman assumption of a "soul" if I never even made an attempt to define "soul"? Seriously, this is just laughable.

Wow, you're so indoctrinated to think about God in a certain way that you're blind to the futility of it. Who says that the Christian God is an accurate depiction of God, besides Christians?

Did you miss the part where I explicitly said "Christianity says..."? I know quite obviously that God is not bound by Christian doctrine. I am aware of many variations and concepts of God, which should be made entirely evident by my initial post which acknowledged both impersonal and personal concepts of God, that predated Christianity! Seriously, get a grip.

Oh? Then by all means demonstrate what God is.

I already have (which you tried to ignore in my previous post).

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself. Monotheism is the view that there is only one such God."

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "God is the greatest possible being; it is in the very nature of God that he essentially (and necessarily) possess all compossible perfections."

Meanwhile, you have been invoking the God of the bible, and poking holes through young-earth creationism, which does not disprove God, rather it disproves a young-earth theory. Do you understand the difference?

Again, I already told you that I was merely showing that science can reject religious claims, not that YEC or the Christian God have any bearing on the general, philosophical concept of God.

Says who???

Says linguistics.

Since when would a God be beholden to our limited conceptions? What cosmic law says God is limited to your finite understanding?

Non-cognitivist fallacy.

Could be. The point is there is really no way of knowing that for sure, and that's the point of the exercise.

Non-cognitivist fallacy.

Proof: to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument. -- Dictionary.com:

Which you have not done, whatsoever.

Really? I have provided no argumentation whatsoever? That's news to me.

You cannot give positive evidence for things that do not exist, because there is no way to corroborate the claim.

I already explained this to you.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 2:22:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/22/2010 5:36:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
You can in fact demonstrate non-existence...
Whaaaaaa? Care to explain?

Again, God cannot be defined at the whims of people's desire to change it.
Isn't it funny that that's exactly what God seems to be?

So I guess one could say that god, as GeoLaureate8 defines him to be, is not possible.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 1:04:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Bump for Ren and innomen to read because Ren understands Buddhism to be Theistic and innomen criticized me for being a Buddhist Atheist.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 7:51:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/22/2010 4:23:44 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"Again, it is said that the Absolute cannot be a cause. All things around us come from a cause as the plant comes from the seed; how can the Absolute be the cause of all things alike? If it pervades them, then certainly it does not make them.

Unfounded assumption. Refutation fails.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 7:53:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 7:51:32 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 8/22/2010 4:23:44 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"Again, it is said that the Absolute cannot be a cause. All things around us come from a cause as the plant comes from the seed; how can the Absolute be the cause of all things alike? If it pervades them, then certainly it does not make them.

Unfounded assumption. Refutation fails.

Which assumption is that? Your reply isn't specific enough.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 8:01:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 7:53:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Which assumption is that? Your reply isn't specific enough.

That God is a natural entity. In order for it to logically follow, God must be a natural entity subject to the workings of nature as we observe. Otherwise, the argument is nonsensical.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 8:23:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 8:01:59 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 11/3/2010 7:53:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Which assumption is that? Your reply isn't specific enough.

That God is a natural entity. In order for it to logically follow, God must be a natural entity subject to the workings of nature as we observe. Otherwise, the argument is nonsensical.

I think you misunderstand the argument. He does not assert that God is a natural entity nor does he assert that God is subject to the workings of nature (i.e. cause and effect).

Look.

"Again, it is said that the Absolute cannot be a cause. All things around us come from a cause as the plant comes from the seed; how can the Absolute be the cause of all things alike? If it pervades them, then certainly it does not make them."

The Buddha is saying, if all things in the natural order are already caused by other natural causes, how can the Absolute be the cause of everything. That would simply be adding an unnecessary element.

Then the Buddha addresses the argument that the Absolute pervades all things, but the Buddha retorts that if the Absolute pervades all things, logically it cannot also be the creator of all things or cause of all things. The principle this reasoning is based on is that a composite entity cannot be the cause of it's components.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 8:33:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 8:23:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I think you misunderstand the argument. He does not assert that God is a natural entity nor does he assert that God is subject to the workings of nature (i.e. cause and effect).

Look.

"Again, it is said that the Absolute cannot be a cause. All things around us come from a cause as the plant comes from the seed; how can the Absolute be the cause of all things alike? If it pervades them, then certainly it does not make them."

The Buddha is saying, if all things in the natural order are already caused by other natural causes, how can the Absolute be the cause of everything. That would simply be adding an unnecessary element.

Then the Buddha addresses the argument that the Absolute pervades all things, but the Buddha retorts that if the Absolute pervades all things, logically it cannot also be the creator of all things or cause of all things. The principle this reasoning is based on is that a composite entity cannot be the cause of it's components.

I think I see what you're getting at, but I'm still sure that my response was applicable. First, explain to me what "pervade" means in this context. Feel free to use analogies.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 2:33:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
*Bump* so that Cosmic can see what the Buddha said about God.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 2:39:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This does not refute anything that I say, as it has nothing to do with what I am saying.

You still don't get what I'm talking about ;p
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 2:41:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you have any other Buddhist "scriptures", go ahead and post them.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 8:44:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2010 4:23:44 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
In this discourse, the Buddha refutes the existence of God including both personal and impersonal concepts.

====================================

Discourse by Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha):

"After taking his seat Anathapindika expressed a desire to hear a discourse on some religious subject.

"The Blessed Lord responding to his wishes raised the question, Who is it that shapes our lives? Is it God, a personal creator? If God be the maker, all living things should have silently to submit to their maker's power. They would be like vessels formed by the potter's hand. If the world had been made by God there should be no such thing as sorrow, or calamity, or sin; for both pure and impure deeds must come from him. If not, there would be another cause beside him, and he would not be the self-existent one. Thus, you see, the thought of God is overthrown.

"Again, it is said that the Absolute cannot be a cause. All things around us come from a cause as the plant comes from the seed; how can the Absolute be the cause of all things alike? If it pervades them, then certainly it does not make them.

"Again, it is said that the self is the maker. But if self is the maker, why did he not make things pleasing? The cases of sorrow and joy are real and objective. How can they have been made by self?
^^^
[Note: I think he is referring to a supreme spirit/soul (like a Holy Spirit I guess) because in English, "the self" refers to the Hindu notion of a soul (atman).]

"Again, if you adopt the argument, there is no maker, or fate in such as it is, and there is no causation, what use would there be in shaping our lives and adjusting means to an end?

"Therefore, we argue that all things that exist are not without a cause. However, neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker, but our deeds produce results both good and evil.

"The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout.

"Let us, then, surrender the heresies of worshiping God and praying to him; let us not lose ourselves in vain speculations of profitless subtleties; let us surrender self and all selfishness, and as all things are fixed by causation, let us practice good so that good may result from our actions."

Source: Culla Vagga 6:2; Tipitaka

Debate?
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 8:58:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2010 6:17:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
innomen believes in impersonal concepts of God

Impersonal gods don't answer prayers or perform miracles - both of which Jesus allegedly did... how can he be a Catholic who believes in an impersonal god?! *shakes head* lol wow I can't keep up. Anyyway /derail.
President of DDO
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:12:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 8:58:28 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 8/22/2010 6:17:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
innomen believes in impersonal concepts of God

Impersonal gods don't answer prayers or perform miracles - both of which Jesus allegedly did... how can he be a Catholic who believes in an impersonal god?! *shakes head* lol wow I can't keep up. Anyyway /derail.

Fvckin magnets, Lwerd.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 1:28:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 2:39:42 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
This does not refute anything that I say, as it has nothing to do with what I am saying.

You admitted that you believe in the Panentheist God and that's exactly what he refuted when he was talking about the "Absolute."

Anyways, to equate God with reality really is just semantic sabotage, an unnecessary notion, and superfluous language.

Regarding scriptures, I could just give you links to the entire Tipitaka as well as many of the Mahayana Sutras.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 1:29:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 9:12:52 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 2/16/2011 8:58:28 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 8/22/2010 6:17:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
innomen believes in impersonal concepts of God

Impersonal gods don't answer prayers or perform miracles - both of which Jesus allegedly did... how can he be a Catholic who believes in an impersonal god?! *shakes head* lol wow I can't keep up. Anyyway /derail.

Fvckin magnets, Lwerd.

...universe in general?
signature
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 1:33:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 8:58:28 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 8/22/2010 6:17:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
innomen believes in impersonal concepts of God

Impersonal gods don't answer prayers or perform miracles - both of which Jesus allegedly did... how can he be a Catholic who believes in an impersonal god?! *shakes head* lol wow I can't keep up. Anyyway /derail.

LMAO. That's true. I wonder what innomen thinks of that.

I do know that in philosophy, Paul Tillich attempted to depersonalize the Christian God and referred to him as the "ground of Being," but I think he fails.

Plus, I doubt innomen subscribes to Tillich's theorem.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat