Meh.
Yes, that is consistent by the definition of formation in my vocabulary (bold part). In geneses, it is clearly mentioned that the earth was created which is different than formation otherwise Jesus would use formation.
Pleasantly reminiscent of the paradoxical G.K. Chesterton!
To reject Design amounts to believing Vishnu doesn’t exist or has a very subtle plan that is beyond human comprehension.
A belated happy Easter, Charlie. I thought pointing out the self-defeating nature of the non-Design hypothesis should be made entertaining…Pleasantly reminiscent of the paradoxical G.K. Chesterton!
You need to explain how Vishnu is related to Design and present a list of the other options which explain the existence of rational beings…
Vishnu made the universe, it says so in the Bhagavad Gita. All those indicators of design the the Discovery Institute keep finding merely go to show the design of the universe by Vishnu.
Is your God a rational being? You can start by proposing the options which explain the origin of that particular rational being. It seems rather silly to explain the origin of rational beings by starting with a rational being. That is hardly a valid explanation, is it?
Right back atcha!A belated happy Easter, Charlie. I thought pointing out the self-defeating nature of the non-Design hypothesis should be made entertaining…
In that case Vishnu is the Buddhist equivalent of God in other religions.
It is a more adequate explanation than starting with an irrational being! The Creator would hardly lack such a powerful attribute…
They violate the principle of adequate explanation as well as being incredibly presumptuous…Right back atcha!
It’s always entertaining to hear people talk as if God’s powers were less than theirs.
If we can intelligently design, and God cannot, we are more creatively intelligent than God?
So, you have no explanation for the origin of the first rational being. You merely assume that it exists and proceed from there.
“the first rational being” is a misnomer because it implies the Creator is in the same category as creatures located in time and space. God is not a member of a finite series but the Necessary Being without whose ontological support nothing would exist. The alternatives are to believe in an infinite regress of physical causes - which evades the problem of contingency - or a universe which emerged from nothing - which violates both the principle of causality and the law of conservation of energy.
You say you are a Buddhist; try this.
Why would there be an origin for the first rational being? God by definition is the eternal rational being.
Creatures in time and space exist. Your God is not in the same category, therefore your God does not exist. You have already implicitly asserted that your God is not rational. Some creatures are alive; are you telling us that your God is not alive?
Not a dream. A mirage is not a dream, but is due to the imperfections in our sensory systems (brain included).
Which is why I meditate. That helps me distinguish between what is really out there and the various internal mirages we all develop.
Above, post #624, tonyrey asked me for my explanation of the existence of rational beings. I was referring to that question.
God changes so God cannot be eternal. Anything which changes cannot be eternal. Is God still parting the Red Sea for Moses today? No He is not. Therefore God has changed and is not eternal.
Here you are combating contradictory internal mirages.
, but under some sort of authentic guidance.Should not have to explain to you that I am still me even if I change by having children.