Ask A Buddhist

[iloveangels]

I think you are misunderstanding my argument, so let me cover it in some more detail. Imagine a scenario in which there is nothing. There is no God, there is no universe, there is no space or time or anything else whatsoever.

I can’t. It’s contrary to fact and I wouldn’t be here to imagine it if I didn’t exist.

This scenario is hypothetically possible.

No it’s not. It’s called nihilism.

The explanation that the universe was created by God does not answer why this is not the case, namely why it isn’t the case that there isn’t a God. Please not that I am not asking “what caused God” or “where did God come from” which can both be dismissed with the response “God is Eternal and Self-Sufficient.” I am saying “why is it the case that there is a God, rather than there not being anything at all?” which is something that God’s eternity and self-sufficiency does not answer.

It’s only because there was a first cause that there can be anything at all. But there clearly is. You’re physically here!

You can’t argue contrary to fact in this way. Arguing contrary to fact in this way is a logical fallacy. There is no possible state of affairs that could be posited by YOU in which YOU couldn’t have existed. That’s a contradiction. And an egregious one. You would be silencing yourself by attempting it, by definition, if you had it in your power. But you don’t. The world and all the things in it are here, whether you acknowledge them or not.

 

[iloveangels]

…
There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

What happens if you go out and stand on the freeway with a truck coming? Do you just think you hurt when it hits?

And if you just think you die as a result of thinking you are injured, is it the case that you just think you go onto the next life as a result? Or in your view, can you go onto an actual incarnation after only thinking death? Where does your thinking it and it happening separate into two different things?

 

[ebonykawai]

Causes and conditions cause things. Okay.

What exactly caused those causes and conditions?

And how many causes and conditions can there be? And if you know that, how exactly do you know that?

Since it is aparent that you do not fully understand the concept, I’ll explain as best I can in an easy way. And incidentally, you may be “old” (I am too, actually, LOL) and have learned a lot of things from life as you said (so have I, and most older people have as well), but that is no excuse to treat others with disrespect. Since you are Catholic, one would think that you would put into practice the whole “do unto others” thing, but it’s certainly not the first time I’ve encountered that in a Christian, and I’m quite confident that it won’t be the last.

As to your questions:

What exactly caused those causes and conditions? Everything is produced by something else. It rains because the clouds become heavy with moisture, because the atmosphere chages, because the temperature goes up or down, because of other causes that are due to other causes, and on and on and on. What causes this? The physical world in which we live, that’s what causes it. Life on earth.

And how many causes and conditions can there be? That is impossible to count or guess, obviously.

And if you know that, how exactly do you know that? How would I know that, no one knows the number of causes and conditions there have been since…when exactly? The birth of our solar system? The birth of the universe? When?

As to why Buddhism says there can be no God:

God, as you have said earlier in this thread “needs nothing else to exist. God pre-existed everything and created everything.” This would mean that God is permanent, correct? Permanent is fixed and unchanging. It is exactly what it is, throughout time, and never changes. An impermanent thing is not fixed and can change. Therefore, only an impermanent phenomena can produce something that does not already exist. A plant can produce a bud, which produces a flower, which produces pollen, etc. It is not static, it is impermanent and can cause other phenomena to come into being by causes and conditions.

A permanent phenomena cannot produce anything because it cannot go from one state to another, or have any changes in itself whatsoever. It stays exactly the same and never changes. If it is (for instance) a plant, it stays a plant. It doesn’t produce a bud or a flower or anything. It stays exactly the same as it always was. In the same line of thought, God cannot exist as a phenomena that produces anything, because a permanent phenomena is static and cannot go from one state to another, or change in any way. It doesn’t do anything except exist. It does not create. Causes and conditions for the production of something that does not already exist can only be brought about by impermanent phenomena. Therefore, a permanent creator god cannot exist.

 

[iloveangels]

What exactly caused those causes and conditions? Everything is produced by something else. It rains because the clouds become heavy with moisture, because the atmosphere chages, because the temperature goes up or down, because of other causes that are due to other causes, and on and on and on. What causes this? The physical world in which we live, that’s what causes it. Life on earth.

And how many causes and conditions can there be? That is impossible to count or guess, obviously.

Going back how far? And exactly what determines what kind of causes there can be? I mean, can there be ANYTHING at all? Can there be pink spotted dragons doing the charleston and drinking gin, and should I not be surprised if one waltzes through here any time now?

And if you know that, how exactly do you know that? How would I know that, no one knows the number of causes and conditions there have been since…when exactly? The birth of our solar system? The birth of the universe? When?

Again, any idea as to the rules that govern what kinds of causes there can be? You are telling me that theoretically, anything could happen. Why doesn’t it then? Something more important than it–which qualifies as a cause prior to it–constrains it. This is the infinite regress.

As to why Buddhism says there can be no God:

God, as you have said earlier in this thread “needs nothing else to exist. God pre-existed everything and created everything.” This would mean that God is permanent, correct? Permanent is fixed and unchanging. It is exactly what it is, throughout time, and never changes. An impermanent thing is not fixed and can change. Therefore, only an impermanent phenomena can produce something that does not already exist. A plant can produce a bud, which produces a flower, which produces pollen, etc. It is not static, it is impermanent and can cause other phenomena to come into being by causes and conditions.

A permanent phenomena cannot produce anything because it cannot go from one state to another, or have any changes in itself whatsoever. It stays exactly the same and never changes. If it is (for instance) a plant, it stays a plant. It doesn’t produce a bud or a flower or anything. It stays exactly the same as it always was. In the same line of thought, God cannot exist as a phenomena that produces anything, because a permanent phenomena is static and cannot go from one state to another, or change in any way. It doesn’t do anything except exist. It does not create. Causes and conditions for the production of something that does not already exist can only be brought about by impermanent phenomena. Therefore, a permanent creator god cannot exist.

Again, you completely miss the definition for God, according to the major world religions. God is pre-existent and unconstrained. He is the original cause. There were no “rules”–no causes prior–before him.

 

[ebonykawai]

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

With respect, the term “ultimate” is causing the confusion here. Most westerners do not understand what is meant by this term. I think a better term would be “permanent” or “unchanging”. We are talking about emptiness here, which only means that (and forgive me for putting in western terms, but it makes it easier for people to understand) “everything is relative to something else.”

Emptiness doesn’t mean we don’t really exist, or that the world is a figment of our imagination. It only means that all things exist because of causes and conditions. All things are empty of a ‘self’ that is permanent and never-changing.

 

[iloveangels]

With respect, the term “ultimate” is causing the confusion here. Most westerners do not understand what is meant by this term. I think a better term would be “permanent” or “unchanging”. We are talking about emptiness here, which only means that (and forgive me for putting in western terms, but it makes it easier for people to understand) “everything is relative to something else.”

Emptiness doesn’t mean we don’t really exist, or that the world is a figment of our imagination. It only means that all things exist because of causes and conditions. All things are empty of a ‘self’ that is permanent and never-changing.

That’s exactly what I’m asking you: What causes and conditions? And what causes those causes and conditions? And what causes those causes and conditions? And on and on and on, ad infinitum. What determines what those can be? Or can they be anything? Like pink waltzing dragons? And speeding trucks on the freeway that hit a person and don’t change them, or maybe do–no one has answered that one yet.

And when does it all end? Or doesn’t it? (which is the infinite regress)

 

[ebonykawai]

Going back how far? And exactly what determines what kind of causes there can be? I mean, can there be ANYTHING at all? Can there be pink spotted dragons doing the charleston and drinking gin, and should I not be surprised if one walzes through here any time now?

What exists and can be created obviously are of the basic nature of what created it. So no, of course you can’t get those things unless it was created by a pink spotted dragons that love the charleston and drink gin. What an odd question. I feel like I’m speaking to a child.

Again, any idea as to the rules that govern what kinds of causes there can be? You are telling me that theoretically, anything could happen. Why doesn’t it then? Something more important than it–which qualifies as a cause prior to it–constrains it. This is the infinite regress.

**No, I’m not saying that anything can happen. Where do you even get this? I’m saying that phenomena are produced by other phenomena. Why is this so difficult to understand. Do you walk around with your eyes closed? How do you not know this?? **

Again, you completely miss the definition for God, according to the major world religions. God is pre-existent and unconstrained. He is the original cause. There were no “rules”–no causes prior–before him.

**Nope, I quoted your definition of God, I didn’t miss it at all. In Buddhist thought, nothing permanent can be unconstrained. Unconstrained would mean that it could change in some way. A permanent phenomena doesn’t change. And if there were no causes, how did this phenomena come into existance? Something cannot create itself. **
.

 

[ebonykawai]

That’s exactly what I’m asking you: What causes and conditions? And what causes those causes and conditions? And what causes those causes and conditions? And on and on and on, ad infinitum. What determines what those can be? Or can they be anything? Like pink waltzing dragons? And speeding trucks on the freeway that hit a person and don’t change them, or maybe do–no one has answered that one yet.

And when does it all end? Or doesn’t it? (which is the infinite regress)

I already answered this. You’re a terrible debater, LOL.

 

[Bakmoon]

I can’t. It’s contrary to fact and I wouldn’t be here to imagine it if I didn’t exist.

No it’s not. It’s called nihilism.

It’s only because there was a first cause that there can be anything at all. But there clearly is. You’re physically here!

You can’t argue contrary to fact in this way. Arguing contrary to fact in this way is a logical fallacy. There is no possible state of affairs that could be posited by YOU in which YOU couldn’t have existed. That’s a contradiction. And an egregious one. You would be silencing yourself by attempting it, by definition, if you had it in your power. But you don’t. The world and all the things in it are here, whether you acknowledge them or not.

I will respond to your responses point by point because I don’t know how to do the multiple quote boxes.

1. I am giving a hypothetical to make a point. Can suppose a thought experiment simply for the sake of argument? It actually leads to somewhere.
2. I am by no means arguing that this is actually the case. I am merely saying that it is not self-contradictory.
3. It is not by any means fallacious to demonstrate something by means of hypotheticals. I repeat, I am not asserting that nothing exists. I believe the opposite. I am merely saying that ultimately believing in the existence of a creator does not explain why this is the case.

 

[iloveangels]

I already answered this. You’re a terrible debater, LOL.

Actually, you didn’t.

 

[iloveangels]

I will respond to your responses point by point because I don’t know how to do the multiple quote boxes.

1. I am giving a hypothetical to make a point. Can suppose a thought experiment simply for the sake of argument? It actually leads to somewhere.
2. I am by no means arguing that this is actually the case. I am merely saying that it is not self-contradictory.
3. It is not by any means fallacious to demonstrate something by means of hypotheticals. I repeat, I am not asserting that nothing exists. I believe the opposite. I am merely saying that ultimately believing in the existence of a creator does not explain why this is the case.

You cannot pose a nihilistic world and get away with it, no. The world exists, and you exist with it, as do I.

 

[ebonykawai]

Actually, you didn’t.

Yeah, I really did. Try post 124.

 

[ebonykawai]

You cannot pose a nihilistic world and get away with it, no. The world exists, and you exist with it, as do I.

Nothing in Buddhism disagrees with this.

 

[iloveangels]

What exists and can be created obviously are of the basic nature of what created it. So no, of course you can’t get those things unless it was created by a pink spotted dragons that love the charleston and drink gin. What an odd question. I feel like I’m speaking to a child.

How do you know there aren’t those things and you just haven’t seen any yet?

No, I’m not saying that anything can happen. Where do you even get this? I’m saying that phenomena are produced by other phenomena. Why is this so difficult to understand. Do you walk around with your eyes closed? How do you not know this??

Again, how do you know there aren’t those things and you just haven’t seen any yet? How do you know that anything can’t happen if there are no boundaries as to what CAN happen?

Nope, I quoted your definition of God, I didn’t miss it at all. In Buddhist thought, nothing permanent can be unconstrained. Unconstrained would mean that it could change in some way. A permanent phenomena doesn’t change. And if there were no causes, how did this phenomena come into existance? Something cannot create itself.

But the definition of God in the other major religions is that God is permanent and unconstrained. And that only he is primal, permanent and unconstrained. That is precisely his nature. Not only that, something of this type is the only way to explain the fact that an infinite regress is not actually the case, a thing which would be non-sensical.

 

[iloveangels]

Yeah, I really did. Try post 124.

Well, let’s put it this way. You really tried.

 

[ebonykawai]

I give up. This debate, if that’s what is actually was, has gone into the realms of complete ridiculousness.

 

[ebonykawai]

Well, let’s put it this way. You really tried.

It’s not my fault if you can’t understand. The english is plain enough.

 

[iloveangels]

I give up. This debate, if that’s what is actually was, has gone into the realms of complete ridiculousness.

Not a debate, a philosophical discussion. And if you want to talk about causes in public, a philosophical discussion of causes is what you need to expect sometimes. It’s only fair and reasonable if you’re not going to insist on a one-sided interchange.

I appreciate your willingness to discuss it, though. The combination of logical thought and open-mindedness, both working together, is a good thing.

 

[Shiranui117]

You hit the nail on the head. This is the primary reason why Buddhism rejects such a concept of the self.

Actually attaining the ability to recall one’s past lives would probably require practicing intensive meditation specifically for that purpose. Most Theravadins would consider this to be a waste of time because that time could be spent meditating for the purpose of moving closer to enlightenment. However it is possible to gain such powers through normal meditation too, though much rarer.

The biggest difficulty in estimating how many people can actually recall their past lives is that the people who are the most likely to be able to do this (Theravada forest monks) are the least likely to reveal this as the monastic rules strictly forbid monks letting laypeople know about what attainments they have.

In addition to this, it should be noted that in many Theravada circles the subject of these kinds of powers is rather taboo. Some of the most famous monks who are widely believed to have been enlightened in modern times have refused to confirm or deny this even with their closest disciples, so for all we know, lots of people can remember their past lives but don’t talk about it, although I rather doubt this

Alright, understood. Thank you.

You cannot pose a nihilistic world and get away with it, no. The world exists, and you exist with it, as do I.

“Nihilistic” doesn’t mean “non-existant.” Nihilism refers to the rejection of established systems and ways of thought.

And quite frankly, if you’re not even willing to go along with a simple, elementary hypothetical, then you have no business participating in a philosophical debate. :ehh:

To play Devil’s Advocate, if God is ever-existing, then why can’t the universe be ever-existing as well?

 

[iloveangels]

Alright, understood. Thank you.

“Nihilistic” doesn’t mean “non-existant.” Nihilism refers to the rejection of established systems and ways of thought.

And quite frankly, if you’re not even willing to go along with a simple, elementary hypothetical, then you have no business participating in a philosophical debate. :ehh:

To play Devil’s Advocate, if God is ever-existing, then why can’t the universe be ever-existing as well?

Nihilism: “Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.”
iep.utm.edu/nihilism/

And the impulse to destroy would even betray a contradiction for a true nihilist. Not a bad definition. True nihilism is a lot bigger than the denial of conventional ideas. The denial of conventional ideas only is the “parlor” version.

The universe was created by God, according to the major religions, and he does with it as he sees fit. The universe is not, however, God and so it is not necessarily permanent, primal and unchanging. Only God has those properties in the major religions, particularly the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism & Islam).