Debunking a Creator

[RongzomFan]

Monotheism started with humanity.

 

 

Polytheism started with humanity

[ralis]

 

You are the one who said:

 

As far as I know, Ein-sof predates any religious doctrine or belief system.

 

Why do you always play these games ralis?

 

I am saying the same thing in both instances.

[Simple_Jack]

Ein-sof is discussed in the Kabbalah which does not mean that the Kabbalah is the origin of Ein-sof. According to your logic, Buddhism is older and therefor superior. Dates mean nothing relative to the age of the universe.

 

Buddhists or anyone else do not posses ownership as to what is the nature of existence.

 

Where is this "existence"? By using the absolute term 'is' you have stated an absolute.

[Aetherous]

Then the Creator changes and is a demiurge.

 

What's your understanding of the word "demiurge"...and also why do you use "a" instead of "the"?

[RongzomFan]

What's your understanding of the word "demiurge"...and also why do you use "a" instead of "the"?

 

A secondary / fake Creator like Brahma.

[ralis]

Where is this "existence"? By using the absolute term 'is' you have stated an absolute.

 

Ein-sof is discussed in the Kabbalah and that is a fact. The use of 'is' to make absolute assertions as to the nature of existence falls in the dichotomy of yes/no which leaves no room for discussion. This thread being fraught with such limitations.

[Isimsiz Biri]

Believing in a Creator is Mara. There is a whole book on this by Dudjom Rinpoche called "A Torch Lighting the Way to Freedom".

 

 

You are an approved liar. One has to read that book first.

[RongzomFan]

Ein-sof is discussed in the Kabbalah and that is a fact. The use of 'is' to make absolute assertions as to the nature of existence falls in the dichotomy of yes/no which leaves no room for discussion. This thread being fraught with such limitations.

 

You do realize that is Buddhist talk right?

 

Jigme Lingpa, as translated by Erik Kunsang, page 417 of Wellsprings of the Great Perfection:

 

Beliefs in biased "is" and "isn't" fully crumble

Edited December 7, 2013 by RongzomFan

[RongzomFan]

You are an approved liar. One has to read that book first.

 

I have quoted the book several times on this forum.

[Simple_Jack]

Ein-sof is discussed in the Kabbalah and that is a fact. The use of 'is' to make absolute assertions as to the nature of existence falls in the dichotomy of yes/no which leaves no room for discussion. This thread being fraught with such limitations.

 

Limitations which are irrelevant to understanding the perpetuation of afflicted experience according to Dharmic religions; limitations which are fraught in Abrahamic religions.

[Aetherous]

A secondary / fake Creator like Brahma.

 

Secondary to what, if it's eternal? What makes it "fake"?

[RongzomFan]

Secondary to what, if it's eternal? What makes it "fake"?

 

If the "Creator" changes, that involves cause and effect, making the so called "Creator" a conditioned being like Brahma.

[Aetherous]

If the "Creator" changes, that involves cause and effect, making the so called "Creator" a conditioned being like Brahma.

 

I think it would depend on what way the Creator changes. For instance, it could be an eternal being with an intelligence that responds to the creation, and an action which modifies what is created based on that intelligence. That it's an eternal being means it's not conditioned in the same sense as all of creation.

[RongzomFan]

An uncaused creator is beyond cause and effect, and would have no way of interacting with our universe.

 

It would be like trying to run Windows 8.1 on an Intel 286 from the 1980's.

Edited December 7, 2013 by RongzomFan

[zerostao]

An uncaused being is beyond cause and effect, and would have no way of interacting with our universe.

 

It would be like trying to run Windows 8.1 on an Intel 286

"A truely eternal being is beyond cause and effect, and would have no way of interacting with our universe."

 

this makes no sense, offer proof please.

[Aetherous]

An uncaused being is beyond cause and effect, and would have no way of interacting with our universe.

 

It would be like trying to run Windows 8.1 on an Intel 286

 

Already covered that...it's based on a false premise. Why is it a false premise? Because it's possible that an uncaused being could interact with the universe, by being a creator (initiating causes).

 

To make your argument, you'd have to logically prove how it's absolutely true that something uncaused can't possibly interact with the universe or initiate anything. Uncaused does not mean uncausing.

[RongzomFan]

 

Already covered that...it's based on a false premise. Why is it a false premise? Because it's possible that an uncaused being could interact with the universe, by being a creator (initiating causes).

Something beyond cause and effect, cannot interact with a universe that relies on cause and effect.

[Aetherous]

Covered that. Please reread my posts and try to understand. You're just repeating what you already said.

Edited December 7, 2013 by turtle shell

[RongzomFan]

Covered that. Please reread my posts and try to understand. You're just repeating what you already said.

 

Reread my post, and understand. You are just repeating what you already said.

[Isimsiz Biri]

I have quoted the book several times on this forum.

 

Yet nobody has read it. No surprise. You are poisoning everything.

[Aetherous]

Reported for trolling.

[Isimsiz Biri]

An uncaused creator is beyond cause and effect, and would have no way of interacting with our universe.

 

It would be like trying to run Windows 8.1 on an Intel 286 from the 1980's.

 

Unrelated analogy.

[RongzomFan]

 

Already covered that...it's based on a false premise. Why is it a false premise? Because it's possible that an uncaused being could interact with the universe, by being a creator (initiating causes).

Intiating causes requires change i.e. cause and effect.

[zerostao]

Reported for trolling.

i am seeing a glitch. i tried to quote RF and it gave me your post, more than once.

let me notify a tech.

on the trolling, this is always a difficult call,

spam is an easier call but the spam here could be the glitch i experienced.

there are a couple of things i would like to highlight but i am getting glitched.

interesting.

in the meanwhile RongzomFan be mindful of trolling your own thread

[Aetherous]

Intiating causes requires change i.e. cause and effect.

 

Cause and effect means that whatever is being discussed is an effect of other causes, and causes other effects. Like you...you were caused by your parents (you are the effect of your parents), and you cause this discussion to happen (this discussion is the effect of you). This is being part of cause and effect.

 

If something is uncreated (eternal), it's not an effect of other causes by definition. So an initiating creator being doesn't require both cause and effect...it is only a type of causing. The other type of cause being previous effects.

 

This is how it's possible for something beyond cause and effect to influence cause and effect.

 

I'm not going to keep saying this same idea in different words, and respond to any of the same arguments from you. They were already said, everyone understood them, so it's pointless.

 

If we start using logic I'll become more interested in further discussion, because then there's not room for repeating false statements.

Edited December 7, 2013 by turtle shell