Biological Design Argument?

[Aloysium]

No, you did not misunderstand. You missed the words “describing himself” in what I just posted. To get the full impact you need to read the appropriate section of the sutta. See the Brahmajala sutta, and look for “Wrong view 5” in the partly eternalist, partly non-eternalist section.

rossum

so you are calling Brahma a liar or a fool;
i don’t think so
i do not hold you as any authority on Buddhism

 

[nmgauss]

I remember you posting their is not a supreme Buddhist god? Did I misunderstand?

Is Brahman God?

“Brahman: the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world”[1], which “cannot be exactly defined”[2], but is Sat-cit-ānanda (being-consciousness-bliss)[3] and the highest reality.[4]"

 

[nmgauss]

so you are calling Brahma a liar or a fool;
i don’t think so
i do not hold you as any authority on Buddhism

Perhaps the following can promote a better understanding of Brahma:
Several Brahmās are named in the Buddhist texts. In light of the ambiguity of the term “Brahmā”, there is often some uncertainty about how to place these individuals within the cosmological context. In terms of the texts where they appear, they either are presented as figures of authority or as characters with an exaggerated sense of their own importance.

 

[buffalo]

Perhaps the following can promote a better understanding of Brahma:
Several Brahmās are named in the Buddhist texts. In light of the ambiguity of the term “Brahmā”, there is often some uncertainty about how to place these individuals within the cosmological context. In terms of the texts where they appear, they either are presented as figures of authority or as characters with an exaggerated sense of their own importance.

I am interested to know if there is a head one or are all the gods equal?

 

[Aloysium]

Perhaps the following can promote a better understanding of Brahma:
Several Brahmās are named in the Buddhist texts. In light of the ambiguity of the term “Brahmā”, there is often some uncertainty about how to place these individuals within the cosmological context. In terms of the texts where they appear, they either are presented as figures of authority or as characters with an exaggerated sense of their own importance.

not sure one can get a coherent understanding of eastern gods:

on the one hand, Brahma is the creator of the universe with Shiva as the destroyer and Vishnu the preserver and protector of the universe.

Vishnu also has a consort and ten avatars, that include Rama and Krishna

Vishnu sleeps in the waters and on the lotus that springs from his navel, is Brahma, the creator of the universe

and I guess in Buddhism Brahma et al. are seen as “characters with an exaggerated sense of their own importance”

 

[rossum]

so you are calling Brahma a liar or a fool;
i don’t think so
i do not hold you as any authority on Buddhism

I am not calling Brahma anything. I am quoting the Tripitaka.

rossum

 

[rossum]

and I guess in Buddhism Brahma et al. are seen as “characters with an exaggerated sense of their own importance”

Correct. The major role of the various gods in Buddhist texts is to applaud in the right places and to be converted to Buddhism by the teaching of the Buddha.

rossum

 

[nmgauss]

I am not calling Brahma anything. I am quoting the Tripitaka.

rossum

Please be aware of the difference between Brahman and Brahma. The first is pronounced BRAHman, and the second is pronounced braMAH, where capital letters denote emphasis.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Buddhism is fundamentally atheistic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

“As scholar Surian Yee describes, “the attitude of the Buddha as portrayed in the Nikayas is more anti-speculative than specifically atheistic”, although Gautama did regard the belief in God to be unhealthy.”

 

[tonyrey]

1. You have not explained how human beings set their own purposes.

Our ability to establish purposes does not explain itself. The most reasonable explanation is that it has a rational origin.

2. Design does not entail moving DNA molecules around.

Design of biological organisms does. Humans in laboratories do it.

The issue is the origin of human design.

3. Design entails creating the universe and the laws of nature, directing the course of development and intervening when necessary to ensure the preservation of life.

Then you have no objection to either abiogenesis or evolution because the universe is designed for life to originate and evolve?

I have no objection to any explanation based on Design because it implies that the origin and development of life are not accidents but have a rational source.

1. Do you have any experimental evidence of the spontaneous appearance of the universe, the laws of nature and the emergence of life with rational beings?Yes. We can observe the universe around us. Hence either this universe had an origin or the universe is eternal. The answer to that question depends on how we define “universe”.

How can a definition explain whether the universe had an origin or is eternal?

 

[rossum]

Our ability to establish purposes does not explain itself. The most reasonable explanation is that it has a rational origin.

We can observe that it exists. There are many things that we use that we cannot fully explain – we only have a partial explanation of gravity for example.

The issue is the origin of human design.

Is that “design of humans” or “design by humans”?

How can a definition explain whether the universe had an origin or is eternal?

The definition does not “explain”. The definition merely changes the answer to the question, “How did the universe originate?” For different definitions of ‘universe’ there are different answers to that question. Under some definitions the universe has an origin, such as “the current material universe”. With other definitions the universe is eternal, such as “all that exists”.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Our ability to establish purposes does not explain itself. The most reasonable explanation is that it has a rational origin.

We know that without reason we would be incapable of discussing its origin, gravity or any form of knowledge which distinguishes us from other forms of life.

The issue is the origin of human design.

Is that “design of humans” or “design by humans”?

Both! They are obviously related.

How can a definition explain whether the universe had an origin or is eternal?

The definition does not “explain”. The definition merely changes the answer to the question, “How did the universe originate?” For different definitions of ‘universe’ there are different answers to that question. Under some definitions the universe has an origin, such as “the current material universe”. With other definitions the universe is eternal, such as “all that exists”.

Which answer do you favour - and why?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey
**
Which answer do you favour - and why?**

The Buddhist answer will be “eternal.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Then, according to Dr Dembski’s Explanatory Filter, God arises by chance. Things that are a) not the result of natural laws and b) not complex have arisen by chance.

Only things that arise, i.e., are contingent, fall into the category of things to which Dembski’s filter applies. No one has claimed that God “arose” or came into existence, so there is no need to think his coming into existence needs this kind of explanation. Classical theism holds God is uncaused and necessary, not contingent and in need of an explanation from contingency.

You also have the problem of where the simple intellect stores the complex design before instantiating that design. The storage/memory must be complex enough to hold the entirety of the design. I assume that your simple intellect has a memory? If it is omniscient then it must have a massive, and so massively complex, storage capacity.
rossum

This assumes what you are trying to prove. Simply because we experience inFORMation as encapsulated within matter does not mean that the forms of things (essentially what information is) requires matter to exist. Form may, quite reasonably, supercede matter and not require massive space or material to exist. Perhaps the information in matter (limited forms which matter can take) merely make information appear limited from our perspective because of our nature as biologic beings. No reason to think form is inherently limited to what matter allows. You would have to prove that notion first before we would need to accept your conclusion that omniscience requires an infinitely massive housing and storage facility.

 

[ngill09]

Our ability to establish purposes does not explain itself. The most reasonable explanation is that it has a rational origin.

And what do you know, humans are rational. The human mind as the source of human purpose is sufficient. The only arguments against this I’ve seen compare humans to inanimate objects

 

[rossum]

We know that without reason we would be incapable of discussing its origin, gravity or any form of knowledge which distinguishes us from other forms of life.

We do not need reason to make use of gravity. Birds drop snails onto stones to break the snail’s shells and get at the meat inside.

Both! They are obviously related.

I see no relation. One has ample evidence, such as the computer I am typing this on. The other has no evidence.

Which answer do you favour - and why?

Are we discussing astronomy or theology?

rossum

 

[rossum]

Only things that arise, i.e., are contingent, fall into the category of things to which Dembski’s filter applies.

The creator is contingent. Any creator is contingent on the created. The material universe is 13.7 billion years old. 20 billion years ago there cannot have bee a “creator of the universe” because if there were, then the universe would have existed for 20 billion years. Effects are contingent on their causes. Causes are equally contingent on their effects. If something has no effect the it cannot be a cause.

Classical theism holds God is uncaused and necessary, not contingent and in need of an explanation from contingency.

I am aware of that. My position is that classical theism is incorrect. Any active God must be changing and contingent. Hence the plethora of different emanations used in Kaballah to try to explain how an unchanging God can interact with a changing world. Buddhist analysis concentrates on the mismatch between action and unchangingness. That which acts must change. That which does not change cannot act.

This assumes what you are trying to prove.

I disagree. Dembski closely relates complexity and information. He does not necessarily involve matter. The information must exist, and whether it is in material or non-material form is not important. If there is information then there is also complexity; the two are inseparable. Hence any simple mind can only hold small amounts of information. Any mind that can hold large amounts of information must ipso facto be complex.

It is unsatisfactory to attempt to explain the origin of complexity by starting with an already complex entity:

Q. How do I make a small fortune?

A. Start with a large fortune.

rossum

 

[nmgauss]

The average person could not care less about cause and effect or consistency in reasoning. If they pray hard, they feel God. That is all that matters to them.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The creator is contingent. Any creator is contingent on the created. The material universe is 13.7 billion years old. 20 billion years ago there cannot have bee a “creator of the universe” because if there were, then the universe would have existed for 20 billion years. Effects are contingent on their causes. Causes are equally contingent on their effects. If something has no effect the it cannot be a cause.

This is a semantic claim, not an ontological one. Yes, created things require a creator, but that does not mean the “Creator” could not exist in its own right as Being prior to (in a logical not chronological sense) the act of creation.

For your logic to work the creator could be “nothing but” a creator in order to depend completely on its creation to define its essence. No, “Creatorship” need not be the defining characteristic of God, but only an accidental characteristic. You are simply wrong that any creator is contingent upon the created. That would only be true is the only characteristic of the Creator is as creator. God, as ontological being, is not necessarily defined only as Creator, but by his essential characteristics of which Creatorship need not even be a necessary one. If not a necessary one, then not a defining one.

I happen to wear shoes, that does not necessarily make me a “shoe wearer,” when I don’t wear them. “Shoe wearer” does not define what I essentially am just because I happen to wear shoes at some time. Likewise, God is Creator when he creates, but that, like wearing shoes, need not be an essential characteristic of God. He could, and very likely is, mor than a Creator, just as I am more than a “shoe wearer.”

 

[tonyrey]

Our ability to establish purposes does not explain itself. The most reasonable explanation is that it has a rational origin.

Rationality is more likely to be wishful thinking if we have emerged from unthinking processes.

The human mind as the source of human purpose is sufficient.

Is the human mind self-explanatory?

The only arguments against this I’ve seen compare humans to inanimate objects.

If they are derived from inanimate objects it is a valid argument! How could the immense gulf be crossed?