Debunking a Creator

[Isimsiz Biri]

Its been debunked.

You are daydreaming

[RongzomFan]

Maybe they teach you a Creator started the universe in your science class, but in my high school they never taught it.

[Isimsiz Biri]

Maybe they teach you a Creator started the universe in your science class, but in my high school they never taught it.

To understand it, you should have a pure heart. With a rusty heart like yours, no school could have been able to teach you about the Creator.

[RongzomFan]

To understand it, you should have a pure heart. With a rusty heart like yours, no school could have been able to teach you about the Creator.

So you admit its not science?

[gatito]

Either a Creator changes or doesn't change.

 

Either way you are screwed.

 

Let me try a different approach:-

• You've set-up a fundamentally dualistic axiom (either:or) and assumed that premise represents the Truth and then you extrapolated from that false axiom using "mind" which is limited and dualistic (and also only a part of a universe which you yourself have also stated to be illusory). There are other possibilites (e.g. the Creator does not change but appears to cause change).
• If anyone is "screwed" here, it's actually you who is "screwed", because you're clearly speaking from the perspective of dualistic religion (belief system) rather than from a perspective of non-dualistic Knowledge (the Truth). Furthermore, you hope to obtain the Truth at a time other than the Present (i.e. in the bardo - from what you've said), so your perspective automatically admits to a time-bound viewpoint (again dual (dvaitic) rather than non-dual (advaitic).

Finally, your perspective on this is unhelpful to yourself (as well as others) and you seem determined to maintain your position despite it bringing you no Happiness. In other words, you'd rather be "right" than Happy (i.e. subject to karma/suffering/death and rebirth etc. rather than Liberated/Unbound/Happy/at Peace/in sahaja samadhi etc.).

 

So, ask yourself carefully whether you'd rather be "right" or you'd rather be Happy?

 

And I'll give you something else that may help in your particular case (as well as others):-

 

To make progress with advaitic self-inquiry it's usually helpful to grasp the concept of philosophical sublation

Edited December 15, 2013 by gatito

[RongzomFan]

There are other possibilites (e.g. the Creator does not change but appears to cause change).

 

That's just the Creator not changing. LMAO

[RongzomFan]

To make progress with advaitic

 

You do realize there is no Creator in Advaita Vedanta right?

 

You do realize there is no Creation story in Hinduism right?

[gatito]

That's just the Creator not changing. LMAO

 

Exactly

 

However, what you fail to spot is that this scenario doesn't debunk a Creator

[RongzomFan]

 

However, what you fail to spot is that this scenario doesn't debunk a Creator

You posited it as a different possibility, when its not.

[RongzomFan]

Why is an Advaitin arguing for a Creator?

 

There is no Creator in Advaita Vedanta.

[gatito]

You posited it as a different possibility, when its not.

 

OK - feel free to adopt that belief - you'll find no Liberation there any more than you've found it in in the thousands of books that you appear to have read.

 

Goodbye, good luck and best wishes

 

g

 

[RongzomFan]

 

OK - feel free to adopt that belief - you'll find no Liberation there any more than you've found it in in the thousands of books that you appear to have read.

 

Goodbye, good luck and best wishes

 

g

 

 

If you are a follower of Advaita Vedanta, why are arguing for a Creator?

 

You should be on my side.

[Brian]

Try,this, then -- an omnipotent & omnipresent creator, if one exists, would not be restricted by your limited concept of "reality," especially as it pertains to "cause & effect," would not be bound to your conception of "time," and could certainly be simultaneously changing & unchanged -- or neither changing or unchanged -- in fact, the very notion of "change" relies upon the principle of time, which would not be restrictive for an omnipotent and omnipresent creator pretty much by definition.

 

While such a creator is unprovable from a logical standpoint, it also cannot be disproved. This thread, however, is not about attempting to prove the existence of a creator but to debunk the possibility of one.

 

Has been kinda fun to watch you try, though!

[RongzomFan]

Try,this, then -- an omnipotent & omnipresent creator, if one exists, would not be restricted by your limited concept of "reality," especially as it pertains to "cause & effect," would not be bound to your conception of "time," and could certainly be simultaneously changing & unchanged -- or neither changing or unchanged -- in fact, the very notion of "change" relies upon the principle of time, which would not be restrictive for an omnipotent and omnipresent creator pretty much by definition. While such a creator is unprovable from a logical standpoint, it also cannot be disproved. This thread, however, is not about attempting to prove the existence of a creator but to debunk the possibility of one. Has been kinda fun to watch you try, though!

 

Columbia PhD in Ancient History, Richard Carrier, has a recent blog post on this:

 

Ergo God Maximally Enjoys Getting Gangbanged

 

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4932

[gatito]

If you are a follower of Advaita Vedanta, why are arguing for a Creator?

 

You should be on my side.

 

I'm not arguing for a Creator - the issue simply doesn't arise for me.

 

The only helpful position for you to adopt would be that of agnostic but you have chosen atheism, which you'veclearly found to be as unhelpful as theism.

 

You're stuck here and here you will remain until you make a more intelligent choice.

[RongzomFan]

 

I'm not arguing for a Creator - the issue simply doesn't arise for me.

 

The only helpful position for you to adopt would be that of agnostic but you have chosen atheism, which you'veclearly found to be as unhelpful as theism.

 

You're stuck here and here you will remain until you make a more intelligent choice.

I am agnostic about elves, leprechauns, gnomes, unicorns etc.

[gatito]

I am agnostic about elves, leprechauns, gnomes, unicorns etc.

 

Good

 

Now adopt that position with "a Creator" as an experiment for a few months and see what happens (e.g. do you become happier, do you receive any other confirmation during that time that it is a more intelligent choice).

 

If it doesn't help, you can always return to being a fervent atheist

 

Give it a fair go though

[RongzomFan]

You're stuck here and here you will remain until you make a more intelligent choice.

Why do I have to believe in this Western myth?

 

I wasn't raised in Western religion.,

[gatito]

Why do I have to believe in this Western myth?

 

I wasn't raised in Western religion.,

 

You don't have to believe in anything - that's the whole point

 

You, however have chosen to believe in your interpretation of small sections of Buddhism, which are there to unstick a particular sticking point during a process of self-inquiry.

 

They are not there to be turned into a dognmatic belief system.

 

Have you looked up sublation?

[RongzomFan]

 

You don't have to believe in anything - that's the whole point

 

You, however have chosen to believe in your interpretation of small sections of Buddhism, which are there to unstick a particular sticking point during a process of self-inquiry.

 

They are not there to be turned into a dognmatic belief system.

 

Have you looked up sublation?

 

So I have to be open to every myth in the world?

 

The ancient Greek cosmology and creation?

[gatito]

No.

[RongzomFan]

 

You don't have to believe in anything - that's the whole point

No, you are asking me to be open to all sorts of world-wide myths.

[RongzomFan]

No.

What aren't you open to ancient Greek cosmology and creation?

 

Why are you so closed minded?

[thelerner]

So I have to be open to every myth in the world?

 

The ancient Greek cosmology and creation?

 

 

You don't have to believe in anything - that's the whole point

 

You, however have chosen to believe in your interpretation of small sections of Buddhism, which are there to unstick a particular sticking point during a process of self-inquiry.

You don't have to believe in anything - that's the whole point repeated again. You also have to learn to be cool with those who don't buy into your particular interpretations. As logical as they seem to you. They seem semantic to us and pushed with the emphasis of any old fundamentalist.

[gatito]

Let me repeat myself: -

 

You don't have to believe in anything - that's the whole point

 

It's a complete non-issue - however, for you, it's your current sticking-point and you'll have to work through it or remain stuck here.