Design

[Aloysium]

You are remembering a different you.

You are the product of much more than your genetic make-up. Just look up 1 Corinthians 13-11. You are now a completely different person to the child you once were.

There is one person on a journey becoming oneself in eternity, one’s true self to be found in being Christ-like, united through the giving, within ourselves and with others in love.

To be a fragmented self, a collection of disconnected and disowned parts is a consequence of and a means of protection against the evil we encounter in life, subjected to by others and perpetrated by ourselves.

 

[rossum]

Let’s see if we can make sense of this.
If I remember the personal experience of someone aged ten, I am not remembering me.
But, I can recall past lives.
I’m going to need some heavy duty proof for this.

If you want to remember your past lives, then follow the instructions in the Visuddhimagga, Chapter 13, Section 4: Recollection of Past Lives.

There is no need for consistency and integrity, or planning for the future, when it will be someone else who reaps the benefits or suffers any consequent karma.

So, if you throw a rock straight up in the air, your don’t mind because it will come down and hit someone else on the head? There is a causal connection between the you of the past and the you of now. If that you in the past had not existed, then the you of now would not exist either. All those past yous are causally connected to the present you. They are not completely different, nor are they completely the same. It is an error to think in terms of absolute similarity or absolute difference. reality is not so black and white.

Perhaps the bottom line for those who believe there is no ultimate truth, is that one can make up whatever one chooses and it is as true as anything else.

No. One can test any proposed truth and see if it works. Provisional truths are perfectly adequate for day-to-day.

rossum

 

[Bradski]

To be a fragmented self, a collection of disconnected and disowned parts is a consequence of and a means of protection against the evil we encounter in life, subjected to by others and perpetrated by ourselves.

No, Al. It’s just the process of growing up.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You are remembering a different you.

You are the product of much more than your genetic make-up. Just look up 1 Corinthians 13-11. You are now a completely different person to the child you once were.

I’m afraid that won’t sail with Paul.

We have only one soul that will perish or be saved.

 

[tonyrey]

One Supreme Being is the most adequate, coherent, intelligible, economical and fertile interpretation of reality because it corresponds to the way we think and behave in a orderly universe which enables us to live as creative, rational, purposeful beings with a capacity for love, moral discernment and self-determination.

1. Aren’t you human?
2. Isn’t it possible that some aspects of your belief in Buddhism are misguided?
3. In other words are you infallible?
4. Don’t you live as if you are a creative, rational, purposeful being with a capacity for love, moral discernment and self-determination?
5. Or are you nothing more than the product of forces beyond your control?

There are many words in the Bible which refer to spiritual reality beyond time and space, e.g. “My kingdom is not of this world”.

You are making too large a leap. “Not of this world” may just mean “on the planet Zargon III, not on planet Earth.” It is your interpretation which says “beyond time and space”.
Nothing to do with Buddhists, more to do with your earlier error denying that God shares any category with entities in time and space. I am merely picking categories which apply to some entities in time and space and denying that they apply to your God. The results are the logical consequences of your initial error.

1. How would you verify there is nothing beyond time and space?
2. Is it logically possible there are beings who do not inhabit time and space?
3. Don’t the Noble Truths of Buddhism transcend time and space?
4. Doesn’t Nirvana transcend time and space?
5. Do all Buddhist beings inhabit time and space?
6. Do Buddhists restrict themselves to physical attributes?
7. Aren’t you responsible for anything you have done in the past?

 

[rossum]

1. Aren’t you human?

Yes I am, and like all humans the way I think does not correspond to reality. I think there is water in a mirage, yet that does not correspond to reality. You have neglected to show that the way humans think corresponds to reality. There are humans who think that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet. Does the way those humans think correspond to reality?

1. Isn’t it possible that some aspects of your belief in Buddhism are misguided?

Of course. Given the number of differing denominations of Buddhism it is unlikely that I have everything exactly right.

1. In other words are you infallible?

Of course not.

1. Don’t you live as if you are a creative, rational, purposeful being with a capacity for love, moral discernment and self-determination?

I try.

1. Or are you nothing more than the product of forces beyond your control?

Some of the (name removed by moderator)uts are under my control: my own actions. Some (name removed by moderator)uts are not under my control: having been born, I will die at some point in the future. I cannot control that.

1. How would you verify there is nothing beyond time and space?

Why would I want to verify that? Some cosmologists are happy with a multiverse, which is ‘beyond’ the four dimensional space-time of our current bubble universe. There are also various non-physical entities: gandharvas, kinnaras etc.

1. Is it logically possible there are beings who do not inhabit time and space?

Yes.

1. Don’t the Noble Truths of Buddhism transcend time and space?

No. They do not apply in nirvana for example.

1. Doesn’t Nirvana transcend time and space?

Your question is wrongly put. The Buddha was in nirvana for the last 45 years of his life on earth, and he was definitely within time and space for those 45 years. Nirvana is not just one of the heavens; it is nirvana.

1. Do all Buddhist beings inhabit time and space?

Buddhist beings are no different from non-Buddhist beings in that respect.

1. Do Buddhists restrict themselves to physical attributes?

What do you mean by this question?

1. Aren’t you responsible for anything you have done in the past?

The past is the past. Today I am seeing the consequences of my past actions.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Thank you for your prompt answers to all my questions!

1. Aren’t you human?

I believe Islam and Hinduism correspond to reality to a large extent, e.g. they believe God exists and we are creative, rational, purposeful beings with a capacity for love, moral discernment and self-determination.

2. Isn’t it possible that some aspects of your belief in Buddhism are misguided?

Of course. Given the number of differing denominations of Buddhism it is unlikely that I have everything exactly right.

Isn’t it possible that other religions are also right to some extent?

3. In other words are you infallible?

Of course not.

So the Creator may exist?

4. Don’t you live as if you are a creative, rational, purposeful being with a capacity for love, moral discernment and self-determination?

I try.

And succeed to a large extent! How would you explain the origin of our capacity for love, moral discernment and self-determination?

5. Or are you nothing more than the product of forces beyond your control?

Some of the (name removed by moderator)uts are under my control: me own actions. Some (name removed by moderator)uts are not under my control: having been born, I will die at some point in the future. I cannot control that.

So you have free will to some extent?

1. How would you verify there is nothing beyond time and space?

Why would I want to verify that? Some cosmologists are happy with a multiverse, which is ‘beyond’ the four dimensional space-time of our current bubble universe. There are also various non-physical entities: gandharvas, kinnaras etc.

-Then you do believe in spiritual existence?

2. Is it logically possible there are beings who do not inhabit time and space?

Yes.

Yet God doesn’t exist?

3. Don’t the Noble Truths of Buddhism transcend time and space?

No. They do not apply in nirvana for example.

So nirvana transcends time and space?

4. Doesn’t Nirvana transcend time and space?

Your question is wrongly put. The Buddha was in nirvana for the last 45 years of his life on earth, and he was definitely within time and space for those 45 years. Nirvana is not just one of the heavens; it is nirvana.

So physical existence is not the only type of existence?

5. Do all Buddhist beings inhabit time and space?

Buddhist beings are no different from non-Buddhist beings in that respect.

So they do not have a spiritual existence? Or is spiritual existence temporal and spatial?

6. Do Buddhists restrict themselves to physical attributes?

What do you mean by this question?

Do Buddhists believe the capacity for love, moral discernment and self-determination are physical attributes?

7. Aren’t you responsible for anything you have done in the past?

The past is the past. Today I am seeing the consequences of my past actions.

Do you mean you are no longer responsible for what you have done? :ehh:

 

[rossum]

Isn’t it possible that other religions are also right to some extent?

Where they agree with Buddhism they are correct. Where they do not agree, they may be correct so long as they do not contradict Buddhism. For example, Buddhism says nothing about whether or not the Abrahamic God is one (Judaism and Islam) or triune (Christianity). Either may be correct.

So the Creator may exist?

Not a singular creator. We all create our own environments by our actions in previous lives.

Yet God doesn’t exist?

Which God? Ken Ham’s God, who created the universe about 6,000 years ago, does not exist. There are many different versions of the Abrahamic God. Since those different versions contradict each other, then they cannot all exist, obviously.

So nirvana transcends time and space?

All descriptions of nirvana miss the point. Nirvana is attainable here and now within time and space. The Buddha did it, and others have done it ever since. You do not have to die to attain nirvana.

So physical existence is not the only type of existence?

Of course it isn’t. Buddhism has heavens and hells.

Do Buddhists believe the capacity for love, moral discernment and self-determination are physical attributes?

I am not sure what you mean by “self-determination”. The others are non-physical, yes.

Do you mean you are no longer responsible for what you have done?

I am seeing the consequences of my earlier actions. Those actions are now in the past and cannot be changed. There is no equivalent of the forgiveness of sin in Buddhism: if you do the crime then you do the time.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

I apologise for the long delay in replying to your fascinating post.* I’ve been very busy and much of the time I couldn’t access the internet.

tonyrey

Isn’t it possible that other religions are also right to some extent?
Where they agree with Buddhism they are correct. Where they do not agree, they may be correct so long as they do not contradict Buddhism. For example, Buddhism says nothing about whether or not the Abrahamic God is one (Judaism and Islam) or triune (Christianity). Either may be correct.

A balanced view if Buddhism is regarded as the ultimate authority

So the Creator may exist?

Not a singular creator. We all create our own environments by our actions in previous lives.

When, if at all, did our previous lives commence and how did they commence?

Yet God doesn’t exist?

Which God? Ken Ham’s God, who created the universe about 6,000 years ago, does not exist. There are many different versions of the Abrahamic God. Since those different versions contradict each other, then they cannot all exist, obviously.

Have the Buddhist gods always existed?

So nirvana transcends time and space?

All descriptions of nirvana miss the point. Nirvana is attainable here and now within time and space. The Buddha did it, and others have done it ever since. You do not have to die to attain nirvana.

How did the power to achieve Nirvana originate?

So physical existence is not the only type of existence?

Of course it isn’t. Buddhism has heavens and hells.

How is Nirvana related to heaven?

Do Buddhists believe the capacity for love, moral discernment and self-determination are physical attributes?

I am not sure what you mean by “self-determination”. The others are non-physical, yes.

The power of self-control.

Do you mean you are no longer responsible for what you have done?

I am seeing the consequences of my earlier actions. Those actions are now in the past and cannot be changed. There is no equivalent of the forgiveness of sin in Buddhism: if you do the crime then you do the time.

Most - if not all - religions believe in cosmic justice but they also believe in moral responsibility and clemency which seem absent in Buddhism. Isn’t it a virtue to forgive those who harm us in some way?

• I’ve always been a fan of Thomas Merton was a Trappist monk who had great respect for Buddhism and wrote some excellent books on contemplation and spirituality.

 

[rossum]

SFX: Start sinister background music.

VINCENT PRICE STYLE VOICE OVER: We come to that point in this thread when it is necessary to reply to …

SFX: Background music swells and gets more sinister.

VOICE OVER: … post number …

SFX: Music crescendo.

VOICE OVER: … six six six!

SFX: Screams.

VOICE OVER: Bwhahahaha!

FADE OUT.

A balanced view if Buddhism is regarded as the ultimate authority

The Buddhas are the ultimate authority, not the religion.

When, if at all, did our previous lives commence and how did they commence?

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: “From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating and wandering on.”

– Assu sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 15.3

Have the Buddhist gods always existed?

No. They are born live and die before being reincarnated like all living things outside nirvana.

How did the power to achieve Nirvana originate?

Not an important question. The important part is that it exists here and now.

How is Nirvana related to heaven?

It isn’t. The heavens are not nirvana; nirvana is not one of the heavens.

Most - if not all - religions believe in cosmic justice but they also believe in moral responsibility and clemency which seem absent in Buddhism. Isn’t it a virtue to forgive those who harm us in some way?

Buddhism has moral responsibility, more so than Christianity. There is no equivalent of the forgiveness of sin in Buddhism; you cannot avoid the consequences of your actions. There is no God to step between you and the consequences.

Personal forgiveness is a virtue, related to non-attachment. Do not hang on to resentment etc. about the actions of others. Forgive and move on.

Two monks, Tanzan and Ekido, were walking down a muddy street in the city. They came on a lovely young girl dressed in fine silks, who was afraid to cross because of all the mud.

“Come on, girl,” said Tanzan. And he picked her up in his arms, and carried her across.

The two monks did not speak again till nightfall. Then, when they had returned to the monastery, Ekido couldn’t keep quiet any longer.

"Monks shouldn’t go near girls,’ he said – “certainly not beautiful ones like that one! Why did you do it?”

“My dear fellow,” said Tanzan. “I put that girl down, way back in the city. It’s you who are still carrying her!”

Not an old story. Tanzan lived from 1819 to 1892.

I’ve always been a fan of Thomas Merton was a Trappist monk who had great respect for Buddhism and wrote some excellent books on contemplation and spirituality.

Thomas Merton is good, I have read some of his books. It is possible that he attained enlightenment before he died; he certainly seems to have come close:

[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything – without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya … everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.

From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton.

You do not have to be Buddhist to become enlightened.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Thank you for that swift reply after my long delay.

A balanced view if Buddhism is regarded as the ultimate authority

Are the Buddhas gods?

When, if at all, did our previous lives commence and how did they commence?

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: “From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating and wandering on.”
– Assu sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 15.3

How did the Blessed One originate?

Have the Buddhist gods always existed?

No. They are born live and die before being reincarnated like all living things outside nirvana.

Has this process of reincarnation always existed?

How did the power to achieve Nirvana originate?

Not an important question. The important part is that it exists here and now.

Yet that power is the most significant aspect of existence not only for Buddhists but for everyone else!

How is Nirvana related to heaven?

It isn’t. The heavens are not nirvana; nirvana is not one of the heavens.

Is Nirvana is a total loss of identity and unawareness?

Most - if not all - religions believe in cosmic justice but they also believe in moral responsibility and clemency which seem absent in Buddhism. Isn’t it a virtue to forgive those who harm us in some way?

Buddhism has moral responsibility, more so than Christianity. There is no equivalent of the forgiveness of sin in Buddhism; you cannot avoid the consequences of your actions. There is no God to step between you and the consequences.

Christians cannot and do not avoid the consequences of their actions but they have a source of hope and inspiration lacking in Buddhism: a human being who was tempted and compelled to endure the needless suffering many of us encounter in our lives. He liberated us from evil by his example and courage to the extent of letting himself be mocked, tortured and executed even though he was completely innocent of any crime. He demonstrated the power of prayer and self-control when we are united to others as a community and not as isolated individuals.

Personal forgiveness is a virtue, related to non-attachment. Do not hang on to resentment etc. about the actions of others. Forgive and move on…

Two monks, Tanzan and Ekido, were walking down a muddy street in the city. They came on a lovely young girl dressed in fine silks, who was afraid to cross because of all the mud.

“Come on, girl,” said Tanzan. And he picked her up in his arms, and carried her across…

“My dear fellow,” said Tanzan. “I put that girl down, way back in the city. It’s you who are still carrying her!”
Not an old story. Tanzan lived from 1819 to 1892.

I’ve always been a fan of Thomas Merton was a Trappist monk who had great respect for Buddhism and wrote some excellent books on contemplation and spirituality.

Thomas Merton is good, I have read some of his books. It is possible that he attained enlightenment before he died; he certainly seems to have come close:
[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything – without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious…

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya … everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.

From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton.
You do not have to be Buddhist to become enlightened.

Thank you for those quotations. They reinforce my belief that we don’t exist accidentally but by Design. Chance is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of our life in this world which, in the words of Keats, is “a vale of soul making”. We don’t just happen to be here for no reason or purpose. Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Moslems and Hindus all agree in moral and spiritual development on earth and fulfilment both now and after death.

 

[rossum]

Are the Buddhas gods?

No. A god who has attained complete enlightenment may be a Buddha, but in general most Buddhas are not gods, they are Buddhas. The historical Sakyamuni Buddha was human and the future Maitreya Buddha will be human.

How did the Blessed One originate?

The Bodhisattva’s father was Śuddhodana, his mother was Maya. He changed from a Bodhisattva to a Buddha at age 35 when he attained enlightenment.

Has this process of reincarnation always existed?

Yes.

Yet that power is the most significant aspect of existence not only for Buddhists but for everyone else!

We know it exists today because we can see it working today. The Bible does not give the details of the creation (?) of heaven. Does the lack of those details prevent you believing in heaven? Sometimes the existence of something is all that is required. Details of its origin are interesting but not essential.

Is Nirvana is a total loss of identity and unawareness?

No. Read the life of the Buddha. Everything from his enlightenment at age 35 to his death aged 80 was while he was in nirvana. He did not lose his identity. He was not unaware. Similarly for many of his followers; they also attained nirvana years before their deaths.

Christians cannot and do not avoid the consequences of their actions

Yes they can, at least in some versions of Christianity. An extreme Calvinist will tell me that God has already decided if I am going to heaven or hell, and no action I can take will change that. If I am destined for hell, then all my good actions are unrewarded. If I am destined for heaven then all my evil actions are unpunished.

Thank you for those quotations. They reinforce my belief that we don’t exist accidentally but by Design.

Our lives here and now are designed by our own actions in previous lives and earlier in our current lives. Our actions in the past have consequences in the present and into the future.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

A god who has attained complete enlightenment may be a Buddha, but in general most Buddhas are not gods, they are Buddhas. The historical Sakyamuni Buddha was human and the future Maitreya Buddha will be human.

A hierarchy exists in most religions.

How did the Blessed One originate?

The Bodhisattva’s father was Śuddhodana, his mother was Maya. He changed from a Bodhisattva to a Buddha at age 35 when he attained enlightenment.

An infinite regress?

Has this process of reincarnation always existed?

Yes.

Belief in an infinite regress confirmed. Both scientists and philosophers regard it as an unsatisfactory explanation which violates the law of causality.

Yet that power is the most significant aspect of existence not only for Buddhists but for everyone else!

We know it exists today because we can see it working today. The Bible does not give the details of the creation (?) of heaven. Does the lack of those details prevent you believing in heaven? Sometimes the existence of something is all that is required. Details of its origin are interesting but not essential.

At least there is belief in a Creator - which is the most economical solution.

Is Nirvana is a total loss of identity and unawareness?

No. Read the life of the Buddha. Everything from his enlightenment at age 35 to his death aged 80 was while he was in nirvana. He did not lose his identity. He was not unaware. Similarly for many of his followers; they also attained nirvana years before their deaths.

A reasonable view in my opinion.

Christians cannot and do not avoid the consequences of their actions

Yes they can, at least in some versions of Christianity. An extreme Calvinist will tell me that God has already decided if I am going to heaven or hell, and no action I can take will change that. If I am destined for hell, then all my good actions are unrewarded. If I am destined for heaven then all my evil actions are unpunished.

I don’t think there are many extreme Calvinists these days because it is obviously unjust to condemn a person who has no choice.

Thank you for those quotations. They reinforce my belief that we don’t exist accidentally but by Design.

Our lives here and now are designed by our own actions in previous lives and earlier in our current lives. Our actions in the past have consequences in the present and into the future.

The problem of the origin of our power remains unsolved - which plays into the hands of sceptics who argue that it violates the law of conservation of energy. Of course physicalists reject the concept of spiritual energy…

 

[rossum]

Belief in an infinite regress confirmed. Both scientists and philosophers regard it as an unsatisfactory explanation which violates the law of causality.

Some philosophers and some scientists, not all. Any expert in quantum mechanics will tell you that causality is a macroscopic phenomenon, not a quantum phenomenon. At the quantum level there are uncaused events which we can observe.

As to philosophers, Buddhist philosophers will disagree. In particular, the Madhyamika approach to causality is very different to the approach of Western philosophy.

1. No thing anywhere ever arises from itself, from something else, from both or without a cause.

– Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 1:1

Simple causality is denied, instead a looser web of conditions is used. A mother and father are not seen as the causes of the child. Instead they are two conditions in a much larger interconnected web of conditions: the sun to warm the earth, oxygen in the atmosphere, gravity to hold everything in place etc.

I don’t think there are many extreme Calvinists these days because it is obviously unjust to condemn a person who has no choice.

Maybe not, but there are probably some, and they certainly existed in the past. To a Buddhist, even forgiveness of sin is suspect as it separates the action from the consequences of the action. The Buddha divided non-Buddhist religions into two categories: useful and not-useful. The useful ones teach that actions have consequences. The not-useful ones deny that. In ancient India, the two most obvious not-useful teachings were the Materialists (Charvaka) and the Fatalists (Ajivika). The latter resembled the extreme Calvinists in that they believed everyone’s future was completely determined and could not be changed.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Belief in an infinite regress confirmed. Both scientists and philosophers regard it as an unsatisfactory explanation which violates the law of causality.

Within an existing umiverse! To derive everything from nothing is an entirely different
proposition…

As to philosophers, Buddhist philosophers will disagree. In particular, the Madhyamika approach to causality is very different to the approach of Western philosophy.

1. No thing anywhere ever arises from itself, from something else, from both or without a cause.

– Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 1:1
Simple causality is denied, instead a looser web of conditions is used. A mother and father are not seen as the causes of the child. Instead they are two conditions in a much larger interconnected web of conditions: the sun to warm the earth, oxygen in the atmosphere, gravity to hold everything in place etc.

Again within an existing system. Such extrapolation needs scientific justification; otherwise it is a gratuitous assumption created to reach a preconceived conclusion which overlooks the overwhelming evidence for contingency. There is nothing to indicate that all physical (or spiritual)) energy emerged spontaneously.

I don’t think there are many extreme Calvinists these days because it is obviously unjust to condemn a person who has no choice.

Maybe not, but there are probably some, and they certainly existed in the past.

A tiny minority is insignificant.

To a Buddhist, even forgiveness of sin is suspect as it separates the action from the consequences of the action. The Buddha divided non-Buddhist religions into two categories: useful and not-useful. The useful ones teach that actions have consequences. The not-useful ones deny that. In ancient India, the two most obvious not-useful teachings were the Materialists (Charvaka) and the Fatalists (Ajivika). The latter resembled the extreme Calvinists in that they believed everyone’s future was completely determined and could not be changed.

Forgiveness doesn’t alter the fact of guilt in the slightest. Otherwise compassion wouldn’t be a virtue! It acknowledges the reality of evil and is a divine attribute. No one deserves to exist! Life is an immensely precious gift we should treasure both for ourselves and for others. We shouldn’t allow sin to undermine our appreciation of individuals because everyone has some good qualities. No one is entirely evil:

The quality of mercy is not strained;
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
‘T is mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown:
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthronèd in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.

Shakespeare - The Merchant of Venice

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No. A god who has attained complete enlightenment may be a Buddha, but in general most Buddhas are not gods, they are Buddhas.

So Buddhas are greater than gods?

Is a Buddha immortal?

It’s fairly obvious, isn’t it, that the Buddhist notion of god is not at all like the Christian God.

Couldn’t Buddhists simplify the discussion by using a different term for “god”?

 

[Justin_Swanton]

It’s actually David Attenborough, the well-known atheist, who they dishonestly try to pretend is an ID fan, and it’s an advert for a tv channel.

When not making adverts, Attenborough argues against the fairy-tale theology of ID: "when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that’s going to make him blind. And , ‘Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’s full of mercy" - skeptical-science.com/atheism/atheism-coping-grief-sir-david-attenborough-case-study/

This is the No. 1 argument against a created universe and is almost as old as Adam. St Thomas sums it up in Pars Prima, Q2, Art 3:

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word “God” means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

The objection makes one huge assumption: that God had to make this Earth a perfect home for humanity, i.e. a place where humans could live in untarnished happiness. But that ship sailed after the fall of Adam and Eve. The world now serves a different purpose - to prepare fallen humanity for a future bliss, and suffering is an integral part of that preparation:

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.” This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

And before you say God is being cruel and unfair, keep in mind that he himself in human form has suffered the most agonizing form of execution ever known.

 

[rossum]

Within an existing universe! To derive everything from nothing is an entirely different proposition…

Cosmology is very strange. Something can be derived from nothing, provided there is an equal and opposite something else to cancel it out:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

– Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

Again within an existing system.

There are many different systems of philosophy. Buddhist philosophy works within the system of Buddhist philosophy, obviously.

Forgiveness doesn’t alter the fact of guilt in the slightest.

My complaint is not about the guilt, it is about the consequences of the action. Actions have consequences. Forgiveness of sin in Christianity separates the action from the consequences of the action. That separation is an illusion, giving false hope. Karma will get you eventually.

rossum

 

[rossum]

So Buddhas are greater than gods?

It is said that soon after his enlightenment the Buddha passed a man on the road who was struck by the Buddha’s extraordinary radiance and peaceful presence. The man stopped and asked,

“My friend, what are you? Are you a celestial being or a god?”

“No,” said the Buddha.

“Well, then, are you some kind of magician or wizard?”

Again the Buddha answered, “No.”

“Are you a man?”

“No.”

“Well, my friend, then what are you?”

The Buddha replied, “I am awake.”

Is a Buddha immortal?

That depends exactly what you mean by “immortal”. Most people die, then are born again, die again, are born again, die again and so on. A Buddha is not born again after his last death and so will not die again either.

It’s fairly obvious, isn’t it, that the Buddhist notion of god is not at all like the Christian God.

Very much so. The Christian God kills far too many living things to be considered a good Buddhist role model, at least in His current life. Maybe He will do better in His next life.

Couldn’t Buddhists simplify the discussion by using a different term for “god”?

Buddhist scriptures use the word “deva”, which comes from the same origin as the Latin “deus”. The usual differentiator is “gods”, plural and lacking the initial capital. The initial Buddhist gods are derived from Ancient India, and share an origin with the modern Hindu gods. As Buddhism spread it has tended to absorb local gods it has encountered, such as Nats in Thailand and the equating of the Shinto Amaterasu with Kannon, the Buodhisattva Avalokita.

rossum

 

[inocente]

This is the No. 1 argument against a created universe and is almost as old as Adam. St Thomas sums it up in Pars Prima, Q2, Art 3:

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word “God” means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

The objection makes one huge assumption: that God had to make this Earth a perfect home for humanity, i.e. a place where humans could live in untarnished happiness. But that ship sailed after the fall of Adam and Eve. The world now serves a different purpose - to prepare fallen humanity for a future bliss, and suffering is an integral part of that preparation:

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.” This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

And before you say God is being cruel and unfair, keep in mind that he himself in human form has suffered the most agonizing form of execution ever known.

I guess it’s possible to picture the Father lovingly designing biological weapons to burrow into children’s eyes. And to believe that for tens of thousands of years, God has used his designs to blind little children for the good of their souls.

But I suspect most intelligent design fans would sing a different tune if their own kids were to be so specially blessed. That may be why intelligent design fans rarely agree about what they think is supposed to be designed.

I think the contention of the thread-starter is that God did not design the worm that burrows into eyes, but rather it was produced by what he calls Chance with a capital C. So thanks for the response but I think you’ll have to debate this with him.

I’m just a vanilla Christian, I don’t go in for any of this design stuff. For me, the depth of spirituality and reasoning of intelligent design is summed up by that Discovery Institute article linked in the OP, which appears to have been written not by a biologist or theologian, but by a business consultant.