Debunking a Creator

[RongzomFan]

 

 

This is a typical Jewish lie

 

 

 

 

Here we go with the Jew stuff.

[Simple_Jack]

Simple Jack,

 

Yes, I suppose you could say that is biased. But I prefer to think of myself as being open minded and able to consider multiple points of view, or traditions, at once. Unless something is shown to be absolutely true, I don't believe 100% in it.

 

Blind belief is not a factor for accepting the tenets of Dharmic religions; Dharmic religions are predicated off of yoga of various kinds. What's needed is an unbiased examination practiced within the context of its own tradition.

 

 

 

RongzomFan,

 

Do you have the capacity to respond to my last post for you? By the way, reported for insulting the intelligence of other members without any reasoning behind it. I realize this is a common Buddhist turn of phrase, but that doesn't make it less insulting (and untrue).

 

'Capacity' in Buddhism, does not necessarily point towards the intellectual capacity of an individual, but a combination of conditional factors such as wisdom and merit accumulation, past-life connection to teachings, etc.; determining the readiness on the part of the individual to understand, accept, put the teachings into practice, the outcome of obstacles towards progress and the rate at which the individual progresses.

 

Within Buddhism, there are also factors which determine the type of bodhi at which an individual aspires towards: such as the capacity for the bodhi of an arhat, pratekyabuddha and that of a samyaksambuddha which is arrived at through the bodhisattvayana.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[gatito]

 

Here we go with the Jew stuff.

 

John Levey was a Jew

 

Anyway..........

 

Has anyone managed to debunk a creator yet?

 

Hmmmm............thought not

[Simple_Jack]

John Levey was a Jew

 

Anyway..........

 

Has anyone managed to debunk a creator yet?

 

Hmmmm............thought not

 

Has anyone managed to debunk the meaninglessness of a creator god to Dharmic religions in understanding the perpetuation of afflictions?

 

Hmmmm...........thought not

[gatito]

John Levey was a Jew

 

Anyway..........

 

Has anyone managed to debunk a creator yet?

 

Hmmmm............thought not

 

OOPS! Typo!

 

I meant John Levy - no "e" (author of The Nature of Man According to the Vedanta)

 

 

PS I'm seriously interested in hearing from anyone who considers that they could sucessfully Debunk a Creator because, to date, I've been unable to find anyone who can.

[Jeff]

OOPS! Typo!

 

I meant John Levy - no "e" (author of The Nature of Man According to the Vedanta)

 

 

PS I'm seriously interested in hearing from anyone who considers that they could sucessfully Debunk a Creator because, to date, I've been unable to find anyone who can.

 

As long as one admits that something "exists", there is no way to debunk a creator.

[Brian]

BTW, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems were mathematically proven earlier this year...

 

[RongzomFan]

Creator was debunked right here:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/page-65#entry504134

[Brian]

You are certainly welcome to believe that if it makes you more comfortable.

[RongzomFan]

You are certainly welcome to believe that if it makes you more comfortable.

 

 

You are welcome to disbelieve it, if it makes you more comfortable.

Edited December 11, 2013 by RongzomFan

[RongzomFan]

 

As long as one admits that something "exists", there is no way to debunk a creator.

If you negate the root view of existence, you automatically debunk all realist (Buddhist definition) views.

[Brian]

First off, this universe is completely equivalent with illusion, like a lucid dream. So to speak of a Creator is meaningless.

 

If you can't fathom that, think about this. There is an ad infinitum regression of cause and effect. Logically the Big Bang has causes, which in itself has causes, which in itself has causes etc.

 

There is no place for a Creator in an ad infinitum regression of cause and effect.

^^^ This was the opening assertion.

 

You have not demonstrated that the universe is completely equivalent with illusion (first assumption) or that this would render the concept of a creator meaningless if true (second assumption). You have also not demonstrated that there is an infinite regression of cause and effect (third assumption) or that cause and effect rules out a creator (fourth assumption). Additionally, you have not defended against Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which has been proven.

 

All you have done is state your opinion and then present other people who share your opinion.

[RongzomFan]

^^^ This was the opening assertion.

 

You have not demonstrated that the universe is completely equivalent with illusion (first assumption) or that this would render the concept of a creator meaningless if true (second assumption). You have also not demonstrated that there is an infinite regression of cause and effect (third assumption) or that cause and effect rules out a creator (fourth assumption). Additionally, you have not defended against Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which has been proven.

 

All you have done is state your opinion and then present other people who share your opinion.

 

 

[Simple_Jack]

BTW, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems were mathematically proven earlier this year...

 

 

We're discussing religion here, which mainstream physicalist science considers as superstitious nonsense.

 

You are certainly welcome to believe that if it makes you more comfortable.

 

Likewise, against the assertions of the theists, for the necessity of a creator god in understanding the perpetuation of afflicted experience.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[gatito]

<snip>

 

All you have done is state your opinion and then present other people who share your opinion.

 

Perhaps this is another typo and it should read: -

 

"All you have done is state your opinion and then present another person who shares your opinion."

 

??????

[Simple_Jack]

All you have done is state your opinion and then present other people who share your opinion.

 

Which means this applies to gatito, ralis, adept, turtle shell, etc. by default.

[Simple_Jack]

Perhaps this is another typo and it should read: -

 

"All you have done is state your opinion and then present another person who shares your opinion."

 

??????

 

Perhaps, you should admit to your logical fallacies and double standards by now??????

[gatito]

We're discussing religion here, which mainstream physicalist science considers as superstitious nonsense.

 

 

Likewise, against the assertions of the theists, for the necessity of a creator god in understanding the perpetuation of afflicted experience.

 

Many mainstream physicists/mathematicians consider that there's no inconsistency.

 

However, it's important to distinguish religion (a belief system) from practical methods, which have spawned those belief systems.

[RongzomFan]

Either a Creator changes or doesn't change.

 

Either way you are fucked.

 

End of Thread.

[Simple_Jack]

Many mainstream physicists/mathematicians consider that there's no inconsistency.

 

However, it's important to distinguish religion (a belief system) from practical methods, which have spawned those belief systems.

 

What about Stephen Hawking and New Atheism cohorts?

 

Please, don't attempt to dissociate "Direct Path Advaita" from the Vedas and Upanishads which spawned the Vedanta traditions.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[gatito]

Either a Creator changes or doesn't change.

 

Either way you are fucked.

 

End of Thread.

 

I am indeed very happily married (to a Buddhist), however I think that's probably technically off-topic.

[Isimsiz Biri]

Of course it does

 

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad

Satanic web site

[RongzomFan]

Satanic web site

 

That's terrorist talk

[Isimsiz Biri]

Either a Creator changes or doesn't change.

 

Either way you are fucked.

 

End of Thread.

RongzomFan is server of Mara.

[RongzomFan]

RongzomFan is server of Mara.

But you are not a Buddhist.