Ask A Buddhist

[SteveVH]

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.

Sorry for jumping in here, but it seems your argument actually proves the existence of God. As you have demonstrated, we can observe from the natural world around us that nothing exists without something else causing it to exist. This is an objective truth. Another way to look at it is that something cannot come from nothing. Just using reason alone we must come to the conclusion that because there is “something” (the physical universe) and that it could not have come from nothing of its own power, that before anything existed there must be an uncaused cause. By reason alone we must conclude that there is a God.

As to why Buddhism says there can be no God:

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.

If God were a phenomena I would agree. But the God of Christianity is not a phenomena, but rather an all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present, uncreated, divine Being who has existed and will exist for eternity, not some impersonal energy force. God cannot be compared to anything created and is not subject to the laws of the physical universe. Your position that if God is permenant and unchanging then he is powerless to create assumes that he is subject to the laws of nature, when in fact he is above nature (supernatural) and therefore any comparison or analogy based upon the natural world fails. An all-powerful Being need not change in any way or go from one state to another in order to create. It requires only a simple act of his will.

God bless.

 

[robwar]

I think I may be the first Buddhist to officially be on this site, so I thought it might be cool to do a forum for people to ask any questions to clear up any questions or possible misconceptions about Buddhism.

Just as a little disclaimer, I am a lay Buddhist, but I think I should be strong enough in my understanding (or at least have enough reference materials) to answer any questions you may have. I will answer from a general perspective and from that of the Theravada sect(The one I follow.)

great idea and welcome. I am not very familiar with Buddhism so here are my questions:

what do you think of the Dali Lama? is he in your branch?

what did your family think and react to you when you left Lutheranism?

what attracted you to Buddhism over other non-diest faith such as confucianism or taoism?

How long have you been a Buddhist?

thanks

 

[iloveangels]

Sorry for jumping in here, but it seems your argument actually proves the existence of God. As you have demonstrated, we can observe from the natural world around us that nothing exists without something else causing it to exist. This is an objective truth. Another way to look at it is that something cannot come from nothing. Just using reason alone we must come to the conclusion that because there is “something” (the physical universe) and that it could not have come from nothing of its own power, that before anything existed there must be an uncaused cause. By reason alone we must conclude that there is a God.

If God were a phenomena I would agree. But the God of Christianity is not a phenomena, but rather an all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present, uncreated, divine Being who has existed and will exist for eternity, not some impersonal energy force. God cannot be compared to anything created and is not subject to the laws of the physical universe. Your position that if God is permenant and unchanging then he is powerless to create assumes that he is subject to the laws of nature, when in fact he is above nature (supernatural) and therefore any comparison or analogy based upon the natural world fails. An all-powerful Being need not change in any way or go from one state to another in order to create. It requires only a simple act of his will.

God bless.

No problem, Steve. Good comment.

 

[Zimm3r]

As an outside observer having read all ten pages here is what I am witnessing…

1. someone brought up that this thread has to be related to Christianity to be on a Catholic forum… no it doesn’t a) this is the non-catholic religious forums so it fits in this forums regardless b) second it still does relate at Catholicism is a religious philosophy and so is Buddhist. So it does have standing here and should be considered a valid thread even if Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth, and God were never mentioned.
2. iloveangels, I am not sure you mean to come off this way (though I think you are well aware of it and trying to) but from reading your reply’s you are being REALLY REALLY uncharitable! (I am restraining myself from using other words). I forget where I heard it but I am reminded of a quote, debate is where two sides come together to try and “win” by convincing the other, academic discourse is where a group of intellectuals come to discuss ideas and try to create charitable, respectful, enlightened, and fun discussion in the search of intellectual pursuit. In the end EVERYONE be charitable (if you are continue, if you aren’t start, and everyone strive to be even more charitable ).

3a) I think the disagreements are coming from the way people are approaching the discussion on god and the first cause etc. From my view one person is taking it as a debate and trying to convert others and “win” where as the other people are trying to explain their views and help each side come to a understanding (see debate vs discourse quote above).

3b) I think also much of the problems come from western philosophy and eastern philosophy where they two sides can have VERY different ideas on subjects.

and remember “in all things charity” (who said this: www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/augustine/quote.html )

 

[notself]

Zimm3r,

Well said. Thank you.

 

[iloveangels]

As an outside observer having read all ten pages here is what I am witnessing…

1. someone brought up that this thread has to be related to Christianity to be on a Catholic forum… no it doesn’t a) this is the non-catholic religious forums so it fits in this forums regardless b) second it still does relate at Catholicism is a religious philosophy and so is Buddhist. So it does have standing here and should be considered a valid thread even if Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth, and God were never mentioned.
2. iloveangels, I am not sure you mean to come off this way (though I think you are well aware of it and trying to) but from reading your reply’s you are being REALLY REALLY uncharitable! (I am restraining myself from using other words). I forget where I heard it but I am reminded of a quote, debate is where two sides come together to try and “win” by convincing the other, academic discourse is where a group of intellectuals come to discuss ideas and try to create charitable, respectful, enlightened, and fun discussion in the search of intellectual pursuit. In the end EVERYONE be charitable (if you are continue, if you aren’t start, and everyone strive to be even more charitable ).

3a) I think the disagreements are coming from the way people are approaching the discussion on god and the first cause etc. From my view one person is taking it as a debate and trying to convert others and “win” where as the other people are trying to explain their views and help each side come to a understanding (see debate vs discourse quote above).

3b) I think also much of the problems come from western philosophy and eastern philosophy where they two sides can have VERY different ideas on subjects.

and remember “in all things charity” (who said this: www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/augustine/quote.html )

A certain number of people think that being logical is being uncharitable. I have no idea why that is, except that maybe it’s an American trait. Americans don’t like precision and logical discussion in general. They think it costs money or dilutes the number of votes you can get, one or the other, I think. And you know that’s what makes us tick.

I doubt very strongly that there are two completely distinct kinds of logic on this business of infinite regress and the nature of divinity that are equally acceptable from a logical point of view, like an East and a West. The reason I can say that is because of the nature of logic itself.

I’m talking strictly about the underlying philosophy now, not religious practice or family custom and all that. I know that there are different cultural traditions, but cultural traditions may or may not be just that and no more or less than that.

 

[Bakmoon]

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

I’m not posing a nihilistic word, and I am not claiming that the world does not exist. Re-read my argument carefully. You are either misunderstanding it or grossly characterizing it

 

[Shiranui117]

A certain number of people think that being logical is being uncharitable. I have no idea why that is, except that maybe it’s an American trait. Americans don’t like precision and logical discussion in general. They think it costs money or dilutes the number of votes you can get, one or the other, I think. And you know that’s what makes us tick.

You know, it’s possible to be logical without being snarky or blunt about it. And it’s possible to point out flaws in someone’s logic without being in their face about it.

Tact is just as important as fact when making a point.

 

[iloveangels]

I’m not posing a nihilistic word, and I am not claiming that the world does not exist. Re-read my argument carefully. You are either misunderstanding it or grossly characterizing it

I am familiar with thought-experiments. But the idea behind a thought-experiment is to pose a situation that does not actually obtain, in order to explore a point-and then to return to the situation that does actually obtain (the world) in order to discuss it. On the other hand, you are proposing a situation that does not obtain, but expecting to accept what you get as reality just like that–extended to the world–when it does not obtain in the world (because at the very least the universe does have things). See the difference?

There are several very famous thought experiments in philosophy like the “brain in a vat” experiment. But no philosopher is going to claim that he really doesn’t have legs or fingers when he leaves the campus. It’s an experiment.

To make the argument you apparently want to make, you would have to say something like, “Imagine a universe with nothing, no God, nothing.” Nihilism. Nihilism pure and simple, even definitional, and that’s all you could say about that scenario. That’s it. Which does not obtain as soon as you come out of the thought experiment because the world has things–causes and phenomena that we’ve been talking about all along–and that clearly exist. There’s no real conclusion, and it’s not even a good experiment. It’s kind of a pointless exercise if you want to know the truth. That’s the reality of nihilism as a philosophical view, and philosophers are well-acquainted with that. It’s not a new discovery. It’s the null case, sort of like dividing by zero–it doesn’t get you anywhere.

You could posit a universe with no God, nothing at all in it, and an observer. Which would either be an assertion contrary to fact, or a contradiction. You can’t have something and not have something at the same time. Remember P + not P is a contradiction. So that doesn’t get you anywhere either.

Or you can propose a scenario that has no God and some things. Then, you get an infinite regress, and that’s what we’ve been talking about.

 

[Contarini]

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.

This assumes that creation is a change in the creator. But you haven’t proven that, simply asserted it.

In the classical metaphysics inherited and adapted by Aquinas, the greatest Western Christian philosopher/theologian, “act” does not involve change. It just is. What involves change is “passion”–being acted on.

You seem to be assuming a quite different metaphysics and then declaring the Thomistic metaphysics wrong without arguing against it. That won’t work.

Edwin

 

[SteveVH]

As an outside observer having read all ten pages here is what I am witnessing…

1. someone brought up that this thread has to be related to Christianity to be on a Catholic forum… no it doesn’t a) this is the non-catholic religious forums so it fits in this forums regardless b) second it still does relate at Catholicism is a religious philosophy and so is Buddhist. So it does have standing here and should be considered a valid thread even if Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth, and God were never mentioned.
2. iloveangels, I am not sure you mean to come off this way (though I think you are well aware of it and trying to) but from reading your reply’s you are being REALLY REALLY uncharitable! (I am restraining myself from using other words). I forget where I heard it but I am reminded of a quote, debate is where two sides come together to try and “win” by convincing the other, academic discourse is where a group of intellectuals come to discuss ideas and try to create charitable, respectful, enlightened, and fun discussion in the search of intellectual pursuit. In the end EVERYONE be charitable (if you are continue, if you aren’t start, and everyone strive to be even more charitable ).

3a) I think the disagreements are coming from the way people are approaching the discussion on god and the first cause etc. From my view one person is taking it as a debate and trying to convert others and “win” where as the other people are trying to explain their views and help each side come to a understanding (see debate vs discourse quote above).

3b) I think also much of the problems come from western philosophy and eastern philosophy where they two sides can have VERY different ideas on subjects.

and remember “in all things charity” (who said this: www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/augustine/quote.html )

There are some, who when their beliefs are challenged, interpret it as being uncharitable. If I were simply interested in what a Buddhist believes I would go to a Buddhist site or read a book. This is a forum, a Catholic forum at that. One cannot expect to propose a belief system that is contradictory to Christian beliefs without being challenged. Otherwise I suppose the conversation would go something like “Oh, that’s what you believe, how nice.” :yawn:

 

[Bakmoon]

You can propose a scenario that has no God and some things. Then, you get an infinite regress, and that’s what we’ve been talking about.

No, that’s not what I am doing. I am proposing a scenario in which there is nothing at all, no God, no universe, no space, no time, no matter, no energy, no anything. This hypothetical situation (which is most definitely not the situation we are in) does not logically contradict itself. Let us deem this hypothetical (Which is clearly not the case) situation N. The question “why is there a universe” is answered by theists as “Because God created it” but this ultimately does not answer why there is a universe, because it does not account for why situation N is not the case.

That is what I am saying.

 

[LamarT]

Nice to see a place for spiritual exchange across religions.
I came back into the Church after 25 years of devoted Buddhist studies in America, China and Canada. There are many very beautiful things about Catholicism and Buddhism that relate to one another, most importantly are the true teachings of peace, compassion, charity, good deeds, honesty, love, the causes of suffering, contemplation, evils of vice and absence of compassion, the spirit of the Beatitudes, the value of all life.
Then of course there are the very big ones of the Trinity and all things the Prophets and the Gospels. When we meditate or say the rosary we are brought into a closer communing with God. When we repeat phrases in the rosary or meditation it just makes a person feel good. Once you start feeling that life is of supreme value and that all life must be respected then the need to kill or harm others vanishes. Learning to love beyond the need to be loved, and to apply this love to all of our actions helps to build a better society from the individual on into the social community. Freeing ourselves from greed releases us from the impulse to steal, to cheat, to harm the lives of others in order to build our own lives, this freedom from being dominated by physical desires is very much on equal grounds between the two religions. Buddhism is a religion. Some people like to play a game of equalization by saying that Buddhism is just a philosophy. It is both a religion and a philosophy as is Catholicism. There are the writings of Milarepa and there are the writings of D.T Suzuki that show the West the spiritual and the philosophical sides of Buddhism.
It was the writings of Thomas Merton and a very deep spiritual shift in my beliefs that brought me back into the Faith. Of course there are bad apples in every barrel, the ones who require demoralizing others to justify any and all arguments, or who are just gnostics and rhetoricians bent on destroying other belief systems. There are mean Buddhists, just watch as the Abbot in a Buddhist monastery whacks an errant acolyte during recitations of the Sutras/prayers. I mistakenly laughed the first time I experienced this. And there are mean Catholics, of course, since we are all very human we are all flawed in many ways. The problems of course arise with those who claim no flaws and are devoted to tearing others down in order to build themselves up. Humans, all too human. But we do try to live in imitation of Christ, as do Buddhist seek to live in imitation of the Buddha. We strive to become better people and better Catholics.

The Compassionate heart of Buddhism is as warm and healing as the Compassionate Heart of Jesus, with the very huge difference being that Buddha was not the Son of God.
You will not find a true Buddhist wielding a rifle or poison pen, as one would not find a Trappist Monk with weapons and war machines. I am devoted to peace theology and contemplative prayer. By this aspect there is more common ground between Catholicism and Buddhism than between Catholicism and Evangelical Christianity.

The “Ask A Buddhist” presence here is enriching. I think that we will find ways of loving and expressing God in our lives in even better and more altruistic ways through a deeper understanding of how the two religions relate and how they differ. Thanks for being here.

 

[Bakmoon]

Just to be crystal clear here, I am not advancing this as an argument against the existence of God. I am merely trying to show that a theistic explanation for the existence of the universe has no more explanatory power than an infinite regress.

 

[iloveangels]

No, that’s not what I am doing. I am proposing a scenario in which there is nothing at all, no God, no universe, no space, no time, no matter, no energy, no anything. This hypothetical situation (which is most definitely not the situation we are in) does not logically contradict itself. Let us deem this hypothetical (Which is clearly not the case) situation N. The question “why is there a universe” is answered by theists as “Because God created it” but this ultimately does not answer why there is a universe, because it does not account for why situation N is not the case.

That is what I am saying.

See post #150. It either posits nihilism, imposes a contradiction or produces an infinite regress, depending on how you pose your situation.

Your “N” is nihilism. Anyone with eyes can see that nihilism is not the case.

The great religions don’t posit the existence of the universe which is obvious. The problem is explaining not only why there are certain things which are obvious, but why there isn’t everything.

 

[Bakmoon]

The “Ask A Buddhist” presence here is enriching. I think that we will find ways of loving and expressing God in our lives in even better and more altruistic ways through a deeper understanding of how the two religions relate and how they differ. Thanks for being here.

I found your post very touching. I am very glad to be here too, and very glad that there has been so much response to this thread. I thought no one would be interested at first

 

[Contarini]

I have graduate degrees in philosophy. I know what a paradox is technically, and I can assure you that this is a contradiction.
.

This is an argumentum ad auctoritatem.

How about you respond to what I actually said?

If, as the limited secondary literature I’ve read on Nagarjuna indicates, he was making a point about the limits of language to express reality, then this is a paradox and not a contradiction.

Did any of your graduate work include Nagarjuna? My own understanding of his work is very limited. The philosophers I know best are the medieval Christian scholastics, particularly Aquinas. Frequently people think Aquinas doesn’t make sense because they can’t be bothered to take the time to figure out what he’s up to.

Someone accused you of a lack of charity in this thread. I think that the term “uncharitable” gets used too broadly around here, as if it were the same thing as “rude.” But insofar as you are uncharitable, it’s that you’re not giving the kind of care to your analysis of Buddhist ideas that you would want a non-Christian to give to their examination of apparently (to them) nonsensical Christian ideas.

God bless,

Edwin

 

[Bakmoon]

See post #150. It either posits nihilism, imposes a contradiction or produces an infinite regress, depending on how you pose your situation.

Your “N” is nihilism. Anyone with eyes can see that nihilism is not the case.

I also assert that N is not the case. All I am saying is that a creationist model of the universe cannot explain why N is not the case any better than an infinite regress can.

 

[iloveangels]

I also assert that N is not the case. All I am saying is that a creationist model of the universe cannot explain why N is not the case any better than an infinite regress can.

It’s not necessary. N is clearly not the case. On that, we agree.

 

[notself]

There are some, who when their beliefs are challenged, interpret it as being uncharitable. If I were simply interested in what a Buddhist believes I would go to a Buddhist site or read a book. This is a forum, a Catholic forum at that. One cannot expect to propose a belief system that is contradictory to Christian beliefs without being challenged. Otherwise I suppose the conversation would go something like “Oh, that’s what you believe, how nice.” :yawn:

I would like to point out that this whole discussion has been round and about a belief or justification for a god to start the universe.

Buddhists don’t give a flip about what started the universe. It is immaterial to the ending of suffering here and now. The cause of the universe could have been something from nothing. The cause could have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Buddhism just doesn’t care.

This is what Buddhism cares about:

*"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:[1] Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.

“And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.” - SN 56.11*

It seems to me that it would be more productive to discuss the above, i.e. stress and the ending of stress, than to go round and round on the origin of the universe.

Of course, my advice may fall on deaf ears, since people actually cling to the stress of argument. It must be something about the adrenaline rush that comes with stress.