3000 gods but only yours exists

[PRmerger]

God is Himself alive,

God is not alive. “Alive” is a term that refers to body/soul union. It is a term reserved for created beings only.

God has no body/soul.

(Now it is true that the saints in heaven are “alive” without their bodies, but that is fodder for a different thread).

as the Psalm said: “the living God”.

This is simply a reference to God being True, not like the inanimate pagan gods.

If God is Himself alive, then it is impossible for God to create the first living thing, since He Himself is the first living thing.

Even if we grant your premise that God is “alive” as you mean it, your comment here is still a nonsequitur. God being “alive” as you mean it doesn’t mean that God is created.

As such, it makes your comment nonsensical.

(And if God were created, then it just pushes the train back one more car, and you’ll need to explain who created this created god.)

 

[Peter_Plato]

If an entity is not a ‘thing’ then it is ‘no-thing’ and a ‘non-entity’.

Does your God exist? Then He is an entity that exists - a thing.

Then He is non-existent and dead. Do you follow a dead God who does not exist? No, I didn’t think so. You need a better argument here than mere Humpty Dumpty redefinitions of the meanings of words.

rossum

This seems very dogmatic…

…I mean, for a Buddhist.

Perhaps it is a koan to say that God is no-thing?

 

[987mk]

(And if God were created, then it just pushes the train back one more car, and you’ll need to explain who created this created god.)

…and you’ve solved this dilemma by simply proclaiming that your God is an uncasued cause.

A massive assumption and a wave of a magic wand if you ask me.

 

[PRmerger]

…and you’ve solved this dilemma by simply proclaiming that your God is an uncasued cause.

A massive assumption and a wave of a magic wand if you ask me.

You still need an explanation for how something came from nothing, mk.

What is yours?

 

[PRmerger]

Define the universe as “All that exists”. Does your God exist? Now ask your question again: “Who made the universe?”

No, rossum. The universe is all space-time reality.

If you restrict the meaning of universe to the STEM universe of science, then you need to change your “who made” to a “what caused”.

Why is that?

At any rate, I can go with the “what” rather than the “who”.

The answer might be the multiverse, colliding branes, strings or some other cosmological hypothesis. Ask in the cosmology department of your local university.

rossum

Sure, and when evidence is presented for the multiverse, etc, I will consider it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

…and you’ve solved this dilemma by simply proclaiming that your God is an uncasued cause.

A massive assumption and a wave of a magic wand if you ask me.

What is an “uncasued cause?”

Actually, it might appear that Uncaused Cause is “a massive assumption and a wave of a magic wand” for those who cannot follow the logic, just as it might appear to be magic that flicking a light switch turns on a light, but that isn’t the fault of the logic or the light switch that some cannot follow it.

Actually, it is all detailed very well, right here…

amazon.com/Who-Designed-Designer-Rediscovered-Existence/dp/1586179691

… but the problem is we have to assume the conceptual capacity and persistence of those who might otherwise beat hasty retreats to decrying “magic wands” and “massive assumptions” rather than grapple with exercising the intellectual virtues necessary to fully grasp the logical tightness of a full explanation.

You might also try engaging with the Summa Contra Gentiles of Aquinas. Not an easy read for modernist types who think the truth is necessarily a two by four between the eyes or nothing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Define the universe as “All that exists”. Does your God exist? Now ask your question again: “Who made the universe?”

If you restrict the meaning of universe to the STEM universe of science, then you need to change your “who made” to a “what caused”. The answer might be the multiverse, colliding branes, strings or some other cosmological hypothesis. Ask in the cosmology department of your local university.

rossum

The problem with the multiverse scenario is that it doesn’t explain anything at all.

In fact, it would be just as likely that we exist in a young earth creationist universe which is only a few thousand years old and meant to fool us into thinking it is much older than we live in a universe which can be sufficiently explained by a complete and intelligible accounting.

It leaves the possibility of a full explanation to the very miniscule chance event that we live in a fully explicable universe rather than live in the myriad of other “possible” universes that have no consistent explanation, but just are as they are for no reason except that they are “possible” in the vague and attenuated sense upon which the entire “theory” is grounded.

The whole concept is absurd to anyone with an ounce of intellectual integrity – which is precisely the character trait being traded away by anyone purchasing the “theory.”

 

[808Catholic]

Everything changes and everything dies, eventually. The gods may be vastly longer lived than humans, but all the gods (yes, even yours) die eventually and are reborn, unless they have attained enlightenment during their current lifetime.

Not difficult. Any living being that does not attain nirvana will outlast the current physical universe and be reborn in the following physical universe. Buddhism follows a version of the oscillating universe hypothesis with alternating Big Bangs and Big Crunches.
Yes so with your God and with everything else. All things have causes. It is not your God that is infinite, but the chain of causation that is infinite and without origin: “A beginning point is not evident.”

rossum

Shrinking down your dogma to make a point. All what you describe as your belief is, in the opinion of others, just man made. “Enlightenment”, “Nirvana”, “oscillating universe”, etc. They’re all man made constructs. We believe in total different religions: Christianity believes in a God that is loving and created everything while Buddhism believes in no god but an existential universe that does moves without direction yet somehow has rules for man that lives within.

 

[PRmerger]

This seems very dogmatic…

…I mean, for a Buddhist.

Perhaps it is a koan to say that God is no-thing?

Shrinking down your dogma to make a point. All what you describe as your belief is, in the opinion of others, just man made. “Enlightenment”, “Nirvana”, “oscillating universe”, etc. They’re all man made constructs. We believe in total different religions: Christianity believes in a God that is loving and created everything while Buddhism believes in no god but an existential universe that does moves without direction yet somehow has rules for man that lives within.

Yes. There are already 3 of us here who see the peculiarity of a poster who presents so dogmatically his assertions, while also maintaining that there is no absolute truth.

It certainly seems as if he believes in absolute truth. I dunno…

What say you, rossum? Are your assertions here true, but only for you? Or are you asserting that what you profess is true for us too?

 

[808Catholic]

…and you’ve solved this dilemma by simply proclaiming that your God is an uncasued cause.

A massive assumption and a wave of a magic wand if you ask me.

Scientific theories posited by men are based on logic yet there must be some kernel of truth or we run the risk of perpetuating fantasy as fact. The theory of God, if you will, has been put forth, deliberated, and pondered WAY before the theories of science as a means to understand what is beyond the purely physical observations of men. A rock falls to the ground. Why? In modern day, we say gravity is the cause. Yet, we have to ask “what causes gravity?” Mass of the material. Any physical material has mass and so a clump of said material is the source of gravitational pull. And then we recently discovered there are particles without mass! And there are also sub-atomic attraction. And electrical attraction. For tens of thousands of years, man has tried to solve the mysteries of the Universe and come up with theories to understand and attempt to predict the moving of the Universe and it’s only recently some men believe the Universe is self creating and somehow the laws that govern it is whimsical or capricious. Those who believe “science” somehow created the Universe are superstitious and must believe in magic as they have no proof that the Universe can and does create itself. Nor can the Universe somehow create the laws that govern itself.

 

[808Catholic]

If an entity is not a ‘thing’ then it is ‘no-thing’ and a ‘non-entity’.

Does your God exist? Then He is an entity that exists - a thing.

Then He is non-existent and dead. Do you follow a dead God who does not exist? No, I didn’t think so. You need a better argument here than mere Humpty Dumpty redefinitions of the meanings of words.

rossum

I thought Buddhists believe in more than physical attributes that define life? Is a song real thought you cannot touch it? How about a thought? Or emotions? How about a political movement?

 

[Rau]

An atheist friend of mine posted this

“there have been 3000 gods so far but only yours actually exists. The others are silly made up nonsense, but yours, yours is real”

Of course hes speaking sarcastically. What are good arguments to make against this. The idea that because many gods have been proven false over the years therefore God is false as well

Faith in God is just that - Faith. Notwithstanding all the substantial evidence, ultimately “we believe”. We don’t claim a “proof” that others could not muster.

 

[rossum]

This is simply a reference to God being True, not like the inanimate pagan gods.

Humpty-Dumpty arguing again. I know what the word “living” means. The Bible translators knew what the word “living” means. Do you know more Hebrew that the Bible translators? Find me a translation that uses “true” or a synonym rather than “living” or a synonym and you might have a point.

Even if we grant your premise that God is “alive” as you mean it, your comment here is still a nonsequitur. God being “alive” as you mean it doesn’t mean that God is created.

That is not my point.

• God is alive.
• God did not create Himself.
• Therefore God did not create life.

A living entity cannot create life, because life must already exist. At best the living entity can create a second living entity.

rossum

 

[rossum]

No, rossum. The universe is all space-time reality.

That is the STEM universe of science. Both you and I accept that there is more to existence than the material STEM universe. Hence, when in a philosophical discussion, I prefer to use the All That Exists (ATE) universe.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The problem with the multiverse scenario is that it doesn’t explain anything at all.

And the problem with the God hypothesis is that it doesn’t explain anything at all.

Q: What caused the universe?

A: God/the multiverse.

Q: What caused God/the multiverse?

A: Ermmm…

Both God and the multiverse are different versions of an uncaused cause. There is not a lot of difference between them in that sense.

rossum

 

[rossum]

All what you describe as your belief is, in the opinion of others, just man made. “Enlightenment”, “Nirvana”, “oscillating universe”, etc. They’re all man made constructs.

No, they are man-discovered entities. They existed before men discovered them.

We believe in total different religions: Christianity believes in a God that is loving and created everything while Buddhism believes in no god but an existential universe that does moves without direction yet somehow has rules for man that lives within.

Buddhism has many more gods than Christianity; there are tens of thousands of gods in the Mahayana sutras.

I have difficulty in believing that the Christian God is a loving God. He kills far too many people – unborn and children included – to be described as loving. Have a read through Buddhist scriptures and count up how many people the Buddha kills. compare that with the number of people the Christian God kills.

As a minor point: it is a very common error for Christians to say that their God “created everything”. He didn’t. At most He created everything except Himself. A very common error, which shows a habit of careless thinking among Christians.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I thought Buddhists believe in more than physical attributes that define life?

Correct. A human consists of five parts: form, feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness. Only the first, form, is physical. The other four are non-physical.

We do not believe in a soul, but we do accept non-physical elements of reality.

rossum

 

[808Catholic]

No, they are man-discovered entities. They existed before men discovered them.

Buddhism has many more gods than Christianity; there are tens of thousands of gods in the Mahayana sutras.

I have difficulty in believing that the Christian God is a loving God. He kills far too many people – unborn and children included – to be described as loving. Have a read through Buddhist scriptures and count up how many people the Buddha kills. compare that with the number of people the Christian God kills.

As a minor point: it is a very common error for Christians to say that their God “created everything”. He didn’t. At most He created everything except Himself. A very common error, which shows a habit of careless thinking among Christians.

rossum

So Buddhism is a pagan religion? You believe in many god but we cannot believe in One God. How is that logical to you???

 

[Rau]

…As a minor point: it is a very common error for Christians to say that their God “created everything”. He didn’t. At most He created everything except Himself. A very common error, which shows a habit of careless thinking among Christians.

Seriously? The thread descended to word games some time ago. The end must be close at hand.

 

[rossum]

So Buddhism is a pagan religion? You believe in many god but we cannot believe in One God. How is that logical to you???

You can believe in as many gods as you want. The gods are not important. Their main function in Buddhist scriptures it to applaud in the right places when the Buddha is speaking.

No god can attain enlightenment for you. It is something you have to do for yourself. Buddhism is an “enlightenment by works” religion.

rossum