Design

[rossum]

Restricted free will is not free will.

Then no human has free will. I cannot leap tall buildings with a single bound, nor am I faster than a speeding bullet. There are limits to my free will.

On the other hand, faster than a speeding building or leaping tall bullets…

rossum

 

[Bradski]

The guy’s flash might be wrong. He is not God so he cannot know with certainty. The gun seller know full well in his business there is a possibility that someone will use a gun he sells for nefarious purposes. So he bears some responsibility for being in the business.

You do realise, I presume, that avoiding giving an answer gives just as much as information as answering it.

And I also presume that you understand the concept of hypothetical questions. In which case, saying ‘he might be wrong’ isn’t valid. The guy is in exactly the same position as God. He knows something bad is going to happen, something that depends on a third parties free will yet refuses to prevent it.

The person selling the gun is beyond any doubt whatsoever, complicit in the death of your wife. There isn’t a person on the planet who would deny it. Although there may be a few people who might want to avoid answering the question.

 

[tonyrey]

No. Buddhism is tens of thousands of gods further from atheism than Christianity. You are one God away from atheism; I am a lot further:
Sakra, the ruler of the celestials, with twenty thousand gods, his followers, such as the god Chandra (the Moon), the god Surya (the Sun), the god Samantagandha (the Wind), the god Ratnaprabha, the god Avabhasaprabha, and others; further, the four great rulers of the cardinal points with thirty thousand gods in their train, viz. the great ruler Virudhaka, the great ruler Virupaksha, the great ruler Dhritarashtra, and the great ruler Vaisravana; the god Ishvara and the god Maheshvara, each followed by thirty thousand gods; further, Brahma Sahdmpati and his twelve thousand followers, the Brahmakayika gods, amongst whom Brahma Sikhin and Brahma Gyotishprabha, with the other twelve thousand Brahmakayika gods.

– Saddharmapundarika sutra, Chapter Onerossum

This belief grossly violates the principle of economy. Buddhists may take geat delight in superabundance but Occam’s Razor cuts the number to **One **Creator.

 

[inocente]

God could intervene as he likes to alter the course of history. He has done this many times. But he also has refrained from doing this many times on the principle that actions have consequences.

God set up the universe in such a way that laws exist, and these laws were planned in such a way that we would sooner or later exist. Humankind is not accidental, but rather inevitable.

If God did not create the laws as we know them, we would not exist. Even chance would not allows us to exist.

Your god doesn’t seem necessary for the world to keep going. He puts it on autopilot and only intervenes occasionally “as he likes”. He could just walk away, and leave the universe to run itself using laws which he baked into it

Whereas for Aquinas, God continually sustains all motion and all existence, because if he didn’t then creation would cease to exist. The laws of nature are how God sustains with order, not an alternative. God is in everything at all times, not just in interventions. Whereas the intelligent designer is a part-time deity.

 

[STT]

…Whereas for Aquinas, God continually sustains all motion and all existence, because if he didn’t then creation would cease to exist…

Why matter should cease to exist if God doesn’t sustain it? Are you putting limitation on God or saying that it is logically impossible that to create a matter which can sustain itself?

 

[inocente]

Why matter should cease to exist if God doesn’t sustain it? Are you putting limitation on God or saying that it is logically impossible that to create a matter which can sustain itself?

You quoted me saying Aquinas said it. I didn’t say it, Aquinas said it.

“why do things exist now or at any given point? This is the question that Thomas Aquinas posed. Aquinas was interested not in a beginning cause but in a sustaining cause, for he believed that the universe could be eternal—although he believed on the basis of revelation that it was not eternal. He constructed his cosmological arguments around the question of what sustains things in the universe in their existence.” - plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

And just to avoid any further confusion, let’s be clear that not me saying it, that’s Aquinas.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No. Buddhism is tens of thousands of gods further from atheism than Christianity. You are one God away from atheism; I am a lot further:

Sakra, the ruler of the celestials, with twenty thousand gods, his followers, such as the god Chandra (the Moon), the god Surya (the Sun), the god Samantagandha (the Wind), the god Ratnaprabha, the god Avabhasaprabha, and others; further, the four great rulers of the cardinal points with thirty thousand gods in their train, viz. the great ruler Virudhaka, the great ruler Virupaksha, the great ruler Dhritarashtra, and the great ruler Vaisravana; the god Ishvara and the god Maheshvara, each followed by thirty thousand gods; further, Brahma Sahdmpati and his twelve thousand followers, the Brahmakayika gods, amongst whom Brahma Sikhin and Brahma Gyotishprabha, with the other twelve thousand Brahmakayika gods.

– Saddharmapundarika sutra, Chapter One

rossum

These are not how gods are defined except in the polytheistic pagan sense.

They are more like the gods of Mount Olympus, whom the Greeks finally abandoned as unworthy of being called gods.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

God is in everything at all times, not just in interventions. Whereas the intelligent designer is a part-time deity.

Since God is the Intelligent Designer, how can he be part-time?

 

[Vonsalza]

The person selling the gun is beyond any doubt whatsoever, complicit in the death of your wife. There isn’t a person on the planet who would deny it. Although there may be a few people who might want to avoid answering the question.

Is the Toyota dealership also complicit when someone is hit with one of their cars?

As someone who used to hold a class 3 license in the US - if you have reasonable suspicion that someone is buying a firearm with malicious intent, you are obligated to refuse the sale.

 

[rossum]

This belief grossly violates the principle of economy. Buddhists may take geat delight in superabundance but Occam’s Razor cuts the number to **One **Creator.

Then you deny that Leonardo created the Mona Lisa, because there is only one creator?

Occam’s Razor stops us multiplying entities beyond the minimum necessary. In the case of creators, the minimum necessary is obviously greater than one.

I would also point out that by Occam’s Razor a Pope is not necessary. Both the Eastern Orthodox Church and Hinduism, to pick just two examples, have survived perfectly well without a Pope, so by your own logic one Pope is one too many.

rossum

 

[rossum]

These are not how gods are defined except in the polytheistic pagan sense.

They are more like the gods of Mount Olympus, whom the Greeks finally abandoned as unworthy of being called gods.

That piece was from a description of the audience to which the Buddha preached the Lotus sutra. The primary function of the gods in that and other Buddhist scriptures is to applaud in the right places when the Buddha is speaking.

Since Buddhism is polytheistic, then it is not surprising that it defines gods in a polytheistic sense. The closest you will get to the Abrahamic God is the Dharmakaya, which also has some similarities to the Hindu Brahman. However the Dharmakaya is not a god (or God), it is an aspect of the Buddhas.

rossum

 

[STT]

No. Buddhism is tens of thousands of gods further from atheism than Christianity. You are one God away from atheism; I am a lot further:

Sakra, the ruler of the celestials, with twenty thousand gods, his followers, such as the god Chandra (the Moon), the god Surya (the Sun), the god Samantagandha (the Wind), the god Ratnaprabha, the god Avabhasaprabha, and others; further, the four great rulers of the cardinal points with thirty thousand gods in their train, viz. the great ruler Virudhaka, the great ruler Virupaksha, the great ruler Dhritarashtra, and the great ruler Vaisravana; the god Ishvara and the god Maheshvara, each followed by thirty thousand gods; further, Brahma Sahdmpati and his twelve thousand followers, the Brahmakayika gods, amongst whom Brahma Sikhin and Brahma Gyotishprabha, with the other twelve thousand Brahmakayika gods.

– Saddharmapundarika sutra, Chapter One

rossum

You don’t really believe that Moon and Sun are gods. Do you?

 

[rossum]

You don’t really believe that Moon and Sun are gods. Do you?

A poster stated that “Buddhism is materialistic and atheistic” (post #186). I quoted the Saddharma pundarika to show that this was false.

As to believing scripture, there are as many (¿more?) interpretations of Buddhist scripture as there are of the Bible. Not everything is interpreted literally in all schools.

rossum

 

[STT]

A poster stated that “Buddhism is materialistic and atheistic” (post #186). I quoted the Saddharma pundarika to show that this was false.

As to believing scripture, there are as many (¿more?) interpretations of Buddhist scripture as there are of the Bible. Not everything is interpreted literally in all schools.

rossum

Why don’t you think that that was their real world view?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That piece was from a description of the audience to which the Buddha preached the Lotus sutra. The primary function of the gods in that and other Buddhist scriptures is to applaud in the right places when the Buddha is speaking.

Since Buddhism is polytheistic, then it is not surprising that it defines gods in a polytheistic sense.

It seems the Buddhist gods are not really gods if they are not eternal and uncreated and are not themselves creators of the universe and all that is.

They are more like the angelic beings who applaud and sing hosannas in the right places.

 

[rossum]

Why don’t you think that that was their real world view?

It probably was, just as the Bible writers thought of the Earth as flat, immovable and covered with a solid dome, as in the standard ANE cosmology followed by many peoples in that area.

rossum

 

[rossum]

It seems the Buddhist gods are not really gods if they are not eternal and uncreated and are not themselves creators of the universe and all that is.

You are applying Christian concepts to a non-Christian religion. That is an error. How about, “It seems that Jesus was not really God but was a Bodhisattva.” See what I mean? Concepts from one religion do not always translate well into a different religion.

The claim that any god (or God) is eternal is a very obvious error in Buddhism:

“Impermanent are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

• Dhammapada 20:5

It is also a fact that your God is not the creator of “all that is”. He describes Himself as “I AM” (Exodus 3:14). If He IS then He did not create “all that is” since He did not create Himself. At best He created everything except Himself.

They are more like the angelic beings who applaud and sing hosannas in the right places.

A reasonable approximation. Buddhist gods have a different role to the Christian God.

rossum

 

[STT]

"Impermanent are all compound things."
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

• Dhammapada 20:5[/indent]

Could you please elaborate on this?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

A reasonable approximation. Buddhist gods have a different role to the Christian God.

rossum

Just as I thought. They are not really gods.

 

[ChineseCatholic]

Could you please elaborate on this?

Perhaps Mr Rossum would be a better interlocutor but I’ll try my hand nonetheless

The impermanence of compounded things fits into I guess you can call it the historical Buddhas “exhaustiveness claim.”

The claim is affiliated with his teaching about the non-existence of the Self. This is often misinterpreted by Westerners to be some sort of nihilism - although I’m sure Mr Rossum can provide the quote regarding the denials of both Eternalism (every other religion including us) and Annihilationsim (Atheist Materialists).

The Self That the Buddha is denying would be more a criticism regarding a fundamental misperception about our existence. We think of ourselves as more or less permanent beings - that their must be some substratum that undergirds our existence. What Siddartha Gautama points out is that when we empirically look at this perception - this is not the case at all.

We change over time, mentally, physically, emotionally. There is no fundamental substratum to us, like Platos conception of the Soul, rather we are more like a river, a process, a flow.

To examine this idea further , the Buddha decided to divide compounded things (I guess that includes everything really) into “skandhas” or bundles of sense experience

Rupa (physical), feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness.

He then proceeds to examine all elements to show that the “Self” we are searching for doesn’t exist or so he states anyway.