Ask A Buddhist

[iloveangels]

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.

…
Yeah, well I can understand if you don’t want to discuss it. There are real problems here, from a logical point of view.

So, now we’re going to talk about stress-management techniques. Okay.

 

[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.

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.

But what’s wrong with an infinite regress?

 

[notself]

Yeah, well I can understand if you don’t want to discuss it. There are real problems here, from a logical point of view.

So, now we’re going to talk about stress-management techniques. Okay.

Actually, we should discuss stress eradication techniques.

 

[Zimm3r]

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.

I never stated that being logical is uncharitable, please do not put words in my mouth. Also you stereotyping and pidgeon-holing of all of american culture is extremely arrogant (let alone assuming that I am an american)!

I also never claimed that there where two different types of logic, just two types of logic for example it was pointed out that in eastern cultures the idea of ultimate truth is seen different than in western cultures. Also you are not talking about pure logic you are talking about logic through the idea’s of western philosophy.

Yes you are talking about philosophy from a western presumably catholic influence, that is very different than from a Buddhist’s view. As for cultural traditions they are relevant as they shape many things including the meaning of words and ideas some that have to do with philosophy.

I believe it was Peter Kreeft who states something along the lines of “often times people do not deny Christianity because of Christ or because logic dictates it is false but because of Christians”

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 never said having proper discourse and discussion on religious ideas and their difference was bad or “uncharitable” but even if I did that is impossible because charity has to do with how you do something you can even uncharitably help someone if you do it begrudgingly. Also to correct you last part, this is a catholic site but this is the non catholic forum and no one should not expect to not be challenged on their views but there is a difference in challenging someones views with charity and attacking them and their views. Also respecting other people’s views is a good thing, stop being so arrogant.

 

[iloveangels]

But what’s wrong with an infinite regress?

Logically, it’s an automatic sign that you have a bad line of reasoning. It means that what you’re saying is circular. In other words, your explanation needs an explanation, but that needs an explanation, but that needs an explanation…and so on. Which means it’s no explanation at all. At the very worst, later levels of explanation depend on earlier levels and it turns into a big knot of dirty string.

From California State University:

courses.csusm.edu/fallacies/infiniteregress.htm

 

[Bakmoon]

Logically, it’s an automatic sign that you have a bad line of reasoning. It means that what you’re saying is circular. In other words, your explanation needs an explanation, but that needs an explanation, but that needs an explanation…and so on. Which means it’s no explanation at all. At the very worst, later levels of explanation depend on earlier levels and it turns into a big knot of dirty string.

From California State University:

courses.csusm.edu/fallacies/infiniteregress.htm

But a theistic model can’t account for it either because it can’t account for why there is a God.

 

[iloveangels]

But a theistic model can’t account for it either because it can’t account for why there is a God.

Not necessary, because there has to be a prime mover, logically, in order to escape nihilism which is demonstrably untrue, and the infinite regress which explains nothing.

The challenge that the theistic model has to accept is who God is (his character, his preferences, the nature of his power and intervention and so on), not that he exists. And indeed, these things differentiate those religions from each other.

 

[Bakmoon]

Not necessary, because there has to be a prime mover, logically, in order to escape nihilism which is demonstrably untrue, and the infinite regress which explains nothing.

That’s circular reasoning. I ask what is wrong with infinite regress, you say because it ultimately can’t explain the existence of the universe, I say that ultimately neither can a theistic model because it leaves the existence of God unexplained, and you say there must be a prime mover because otherwise you would have an infinite regress, which is back where we started.

 

[notself]

Not necessary, because there has to be a prime mover, logically, in order to escape nihilism which is demonstrably untrue, and the infinite regress which explains nothing.

The challenge that the theistic model has to accept is who God is (his character, his preferences, the nature of his power and intervention and so on), not that he exists. And indeed, these things differentiate those religions from each other.

Why does the prime mover have to be a god? Why could it not be an event?

Doesn’t “cause” or “mover” denote space/time"? How could the mover be before space time?

Why does this mover have attributes. Doesn’t “attributes” denote form before form came to exist?

Why does this mover have to have powers beyond the start event of the universe?

 

[iloveangels]

That’s circular reasoning. I ask what is wrong with infinite regress, you say because it ultimately can’t explain the existence of the universe, I say that ultimately neither can a theistic model because it leaves the existence of God unexplained, and you say there must be a prime mover because otherwise you would have an infinite regress, which is back where we started.

The page I directed you to is about the Infinite Regress. The infinite regress is a logical fallacy and it is the essence of circular reasoning.

You don’t need to explain the fact that the universe exists because–tada–it’s all around you. A logical person doesn’t need to explain the mere fact that things happen, because they do. Rather, they need to explain why some things happen, and some don’t, and sort out the difference between the two kind of things. This is what all of the things you learn about all your life are about.

I know the infinite regress doesn’t work. So…

For instance I know that purple dragon insurance is probably a non-starter, something I should not invest in. Auto insurance is a far better deal. Auto accidents really happen and I might need it. Purple dragons not so much. This is because there are rules in the universe that make it so that some things happen and some don’t. Those rules didn’t create themselves.

I’ll tell you what’s weird. Expecting that out of some imagined nothingness that something-ness could just pop into existence, ahead of itself, on its own steam. Things, rules, events, people. POP. Anytime without warning. Now that’s weird. And if that could happen, anything could happen. Be glad it doesn’t. Be glad it can’t. Why not? Because the infinite regress can’t happen. It’s false.

Silly, yes. But you can explain all kinds of ordinary things like this using the logic we’ve been talking about. Well, it applies to religious ideas too. You can take for granted that the world exists, in every sort of practical sense. [Don’t be so much of a nihilist that you go stand on the freeway to see what happens!] You can also continue to avoid the infinite regress because it doesn’t work with religion any better than it works in daily life.

Explanations for demonstrable things, that don’t really offer an explanation after all, aren’t useful and in fact can be downright deleterious to your life, and that includes your religious life.

 

[notself]

The page I directed you to is about the Infinite Regress. The infinite regress is a logical fallacy and it is the essence of circular reasoning.

You don’t need to explain the fact that the universe exists because–tada–it’s all around you. A logical person doesn’t need to explain the mere fact that things happen, because they do. Rather, they need to explain why some things happen, and some don’t, and sort out the difference between the two kind of things. This is what all of the things you learn about all your life are about.

I know the infinite regress doesn’t work. So…

For instance I know that purple dragon insurance is probably a non-starter, something I should not invest in. Auto insurance is a far better deal. Auto accidents really happen and I might need it. Purple dragons not so much. This is because there are rules in the universe that make it so that some things happen and some don’t. Those rules didn’t create themselves.

I’ll tell you what’s weird. Expecting that out of some imagined nothingness that something-ness could just pop into existence, ahead of itself, on its own steam. Things, rules, events, people. POP. Anytime without warning. Now that’s weird. And if that could happen, anything could happen. Be glad it doesn’t. Be glad it can’t. Why not? Because the infinite regress can’t happen. It’s false.

Silly, yes. But you can explain all kinds of ordinary things like this using the logic we’ve been talking about. Well, it applies to religious ideas too. You can take for granted that the world exists, in every sort of practical sense. [Don’t be so much of a nihilist that you go stand on the freeway to see what happens!] You can also continue to avoid the infinite regress because it doesn’t work with religion any better than it works in daily life.

Explanations for demonstrable things, that don’t really offer an explanation after all, aren’t useful and in fact can be downright deleterious to your life, and that includes your religious life.

The logical fallacy: Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: “reduction to absurdity”) is a common form of argument in which a proposition is purported to be disproved by reduction to absurdity in reasoning or consequence. Wiki.

 

[iloveangels]

Why does the prime mover have to be a god? Why could it not be an event?

Doesn’t “cause” or “mover” denote space/time"? How could the mover be before space time?

Why does this mover have attributes. Doesn’t “attributes” denote form before form came to exist?

Why does this mover have to have powers beyond the start event of the universe?

Okay, here’s the interesting part. There are certain properties this “prime mover” must have in order not to be just one more cog in an infinite regress. Since the infinite regress doesn’t obtain, this thing, whatever it is isn’t part of it.

YOu can call him or it anything you want at this point.

It’s permanent but it’s unconstrained. Meaning that it can be anywhere at any time and do anything and know anything. And it never was created; it never goes away. This is because it doesn’t depend on anything or anyone else for its power or existence.

Call that anything you want. The definitional name for that used by the major religious is God. This is what the other major religions are based upon. The rest is revelation and tradition as told by the major religious bodies.

 

[Bakmoon]

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

Hi there! Your questions are welcome anytime.

I think that the Dalai Lama is a good and holy man. We are not actually part of the same branch of Buddhism. I follow Theravada Buddhism, which is a fairly early form of Buddhism that focuses mainly on teachings that are common to all schools of Buddhism and the Dalai Lama is the de facto leader of the Gelugpa sect of Tibetean Buddhism which has a lot of figures and practices that are unique to Tibet.

My family took it quite well, actually, although they were rather surprised.

The big reason why I chose Buddhism over other non-theistic religions is that its principles are based more directly on the mind and more psychological principles than some others.

I have been a Buddhist for about five years now.

 

[iloveangels]

The logical fallacy: Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: “reduction to absurdity”) is a common form of argument in which a proposition is purported to be disproved by reduction to absurdity in reasoning or consequence. Wiki.

Yes, that’s another logical fallacy. There will probably be a list of them there.

A line of reasoning where the results turn out to be ridiculous is probably flawed.

The infinite regress produces this kind of result. I mean. a world with cause based on cause, based on cause, based on cause, ad infinitum, with no way to regulate the types of causes you might get, could yield virtually anything at all. A world based on causes that don’t explain anything isn’t explained at all. A world where things can just pop into and out of existence with no warning is an absurd world.

 

[Contarini]

Why does the prime mover have to be a god? Why could it not be an event?

God is not a god.

You could describe God as an event–an eternal event. God is pure act (following Aquinas).

Doesn’t “cause” or “mover” denote space/time"?

No. Only in the sense that all our language properly refers to space/time, and hence only analogically refers to God.

How could the mover be before space time?

Again, we use the word “before” not in its proper sense (since there is no time in God) but to mean “not conditioned by.” It’s logical, not temporal.

Why does this mover have attributes. Doesn’t “attributes” denote form before form came to exist?

Aquinas says that God’s attributes are simply our descriptions of ways in which perfections we see in creation reflect God. So in a sense God doesn’t “have” attributes. Attributes are imperfect but true ways of describing the one reality that is God.

Why does this mover have to have powers beyond the start event of the universe?

Because creation involves preservation. In Thomistic thought, when God is said to create that means not just “get started” but cause the totality of the thing he creates (i.e., of everything not Himself). Our entire temporal existence, our entire being is caused, in an unconditioned and unqualified way, by the eternal Act that is God.

Edwin

 

[notself]

Okay, here’s the interesting part. There are certain properties this “prime mover” must have in order not to be just one more cog in an infinite regress. Since the infinite regress doesn’t obtain, this thing, whatever it is isn’t part of it.

YOu can call him or it anything you want at this point.

It’s permanent but it’s unconstrained. Meaning that it can be anywhere at any time and do anything and know anything. And it never was created; it never goes away. This is because it doesn’t depend on anything or anyone else for its power or existence.

Call that anything you want. The definitional name for that used by the major religious is God. This is what the other major religions are based upon. The rest is revelation and tradition as told by the major religious bodies.

I think I’ll call it Bang with the attribute of Big. From Bang, all else comes into existence.

 

[Bakmoon]

I know the infinite regress doesn’t work.

We may be using these terms diferently. When I am using the term infinite regress here, I am talking about an eternal universe, such as a big bang preceded by a big crunch preceded by a big bang preceded by a big crunch ad infinitem, each caused by an event before it.

Are you arguing that such a scenario is not possible?

 

[iloveangels]

God is not a god.

You could describe God as an event–an eternal event. God is pure act (following Aquinas).

Only if the event or act is on-going and perpetual. To say otherwise would be to constrain this thing in time and space, and to avoid the regress, that isn’t possible. This thing must be in charge of its own existence, activity and power.

No. Only in the sense that all our language properly refers to space/time, and hence only analogically refers to God.

If you’re saying that God is outside human understanding because we are not gods ourselves and can’t constrain him, then I would agree with you.

Again, we use the word “before” not in its proper sense (since there is no time in God) but to mean “not conditioned by.” It’s logical, not temporal.

Ok, as long as it’s not used in a temporal sense in any way. Be careful, it’s sneaky. YOU are bound by time and space.

Aquinas says that God’s attributes are simply our descriptions of ways in which perfections we see in creation reflect God. So in a sense God doesn’t “have” attributes. Attributes are imperfect but true ways of describing the one reality that is God.

Yes, and no. There are things God must logically be. He can’t be dictated to by a higher power or factor or rule in any way, or the infinite regress shows up again.

As to the difference between how I describe God and how he really is–and I think this is what you’re getting at–my description is remote as it must be so mine is the poorer by definition. Of course. I cannot constrain anything about God.

Because creation involves preservation. In Thomistic thought, when God is said to create that means not just “get started” but cause the totality of the thing he creates (i.e., of everything not Himself). Our entire temporal existence, our entire being is caused, in an unconditioned and unqualified way, by the eternal Act that is God.

Edwin

Logically, yes. That would have to be the case. We do not bring ourselves into existence of our own power in any way. Nothing does. Things don’t just pop into and out of existence that way.

 

[iloveangels]

We may be using these terms diferently. When I am using the term infinite regress here, I am talking about an eternal universe, such as a big bang preceded by a big crunch preceded by a big bang preceded by a big crunch ad infinitem, each caused by an event before it.

Are you arguing that such a scenario is not possible?

No, as long as the cause is the prime mover.

 

[iloveangels]

I think I’ll call it Bang with the attribute of Big. From Bang, all else comes into existence.

Careful. Bang’s still hanging around. Because you can’t make him go away.