Evidence for god or gods?

[reggieM]

Then our discussion here, which is in human terminology, is “hopelessly inadequate”. All documents produced by the Church, which are in human terminology, are “hopelessly inadequate”. The Bible, which is in human terminology is, “hopelessly inadequate”.

You have just destroyed any possibility of using human terminology to discuss God.

rossum

Do you like music at all? If so, could you describe that music for us?
For example, I like Ralph Vaughn Williams’ - The Lark Ascending.
Would you disagree if I said that terminology is “hopelessly inadequate” in describing what the music really is?
I might say it is beautiful, serene, soaring …
Yes, that’s true, you can get some ideas. Music critics have a great vocabulary for trying to describe the sound.
That’s why we can both discuss music and also say that words are hopelessly inadequate for describing it.

 

[rossum]

Do you like music at all? If so, could you describe that music for us?
For example, I like Ralph Vaughn Williams’ - The Lark Ascending.
Would you disagree if I said that terminology is “hopelessly inadequate” in describing what the music really is?
I might say it is beautiful, serene, soaring …
Yes, that’s true, you can get some ideas. Music critics have a great vocabulary for trying to describe the sound.
That’s why we can both discuss music and also say that words are hopelessly inadequate for describing it.

Music is composed and performed by humans, hence it falls within the ambit of human creation. Tonyrey’s assertion was about God, who does not fall within the ambit of human creation, except perhaps for an atheist.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

Music is composed and performed by humans, hence it falls within the ambit of human creation. Tonyrey’s assertion was about God, who does not fall within the ambit of human creation, except perhaps for an atheist.

rossum

Tony was talking about the inadequacy of human language to describe God’s transcendence. We can find the same inadequacy even when trying to describe the beauty of music.

So, when we observe beauty, symmetry, harmony in the universe and in the world, we understand some of the magnificence of God, even though our own terminology falls short in defining and describing God.

 

[reggieM]

When we speak of creation we’re talking about the creation of all finite things.
So, an infinite power is required to create everything that is finite.
If a proposed multiverse is finite, then it had a beginning and a cause for that beginning - that must be an infinite cause.
If a proposed multiverse is infinite, then there are many problems explaining that as with an infinite regress or having to traverse an infinite series.

 

[tonyrey]

[On the contrary not only are the Bible and Christianity to a large extent based on historical facts]

A blatant non sequitur. There is a vast difference between a description of the **Supreme Being **and the account of historical facts in the Bible.

 

[tonyrey]

Tony was talking about the inadequacy of human language to describe God’s transcendence. We can find the same inadequacy even when trying to describe the beauty of music.

So, when we observe beauty, symmetry, harmony in the universe and in the world, we understand some of the magnificence of God, even though our own terminology falls short in defining and describing God.

Precisely!

 

[tonyrey]

Music is composed and performed by humans, hence it falls within the ambit of human creation. Tonyrey’s assertion was about God, who does not fall within the ambit of human creation, except perhaps for an atheist.

Although there is much of moral and spiritual value in Buddhism it gives no explanation of the origin of persons or the universe. It may seem unimportant but without evidence for god or gods (which is the topic) it exists in a metaphysical desert…

 

[rossum]

Although there is much of moral and spiritual value in Buddhism it gives no explanation of the origin of persons or the universe.

It does. The origin of demons, animals, humans and gods is the same. When any one of the four types dies he/she/it can be reborn as any of the four, depending on their accumulated karma.

The universe is constructed by the accumulated karma of the entities residing in it.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

It does. The origin of demons, animals, humans and gods is the same. When any one of the four types dies he/she/it can be reborn as any of the four, depending on their accumulated karma.

The universe is constructed by the accumulated karma of the entities residing in it.

Do Buddhists believe karma and the universe are eternal or did they emerge spontaneously from a void? Is there any evidence for either belief?

 

[rossum]

Do Buddhists believe karma and the universe are eternal or did they emerge spontaneously from a void? Is there any evidence for either belief?

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

The material universe is not eternal, it appears for a time, disappears and then a new material universe appears. The immaterial elements of the universe, heavens and hells, will outlast many cycles of the material universe, but they also are impermanent and will disappear and be replaced by new versions in their turn.

rossum

 

[mkoopman]

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

The material universe is not eternal, it appears for a time, disappears and then a new material universe appears. The immaterial elements of the universe, heavens and hells, will outlast many cycles of the material universe, but they also are impermanent and will disappear and be replaced by new versions in their turn.

rossum

An understanding of Zen constructs in Bhuddism which eludes many Westerners. Yet you seem to still apply the transcedent aspect of Our Lord, Jesus Christ and for that matter the whole of the Abrahamic religions to these beliefs. Also appears you take great enjoyment in bashing One True God the Creator on account of the superstitious ignorance behind such childlike beliefs.
You should look into the original works of physics on quanta coloring before it became dominated by a one world view in information theories. These come much closer to the incoherence of the mixture of Zen and Taoist belief you declare.
You should consider studying Confucianism as your leanings toward Dharma and correspondence philosophy may find this practice irresistible. God is one as Truth is one. I pray you rediscover this understanding and find the Godman Jesus before you meet Him.

 

[tonyrey]

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

The material universe is not eternal, it appears for a time, disappears and then a new material universe appears. The immaterial elements of the universe, heavens and hells, will outlast many cycles of the material universe, but they also are impermanent and will disappear and be replaced by new versions in their turn.

What is the scientific evidence for these beliefs?

 

[reggieM]

The Old Testament book of Wisdom (from King Solomon) wrote about the origin of gods.

But all men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman: [2] But have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world. [3] With whose beauty, if they, being delighted, took them to be gods: let them know how much the Lord of them is more beautiful than they: for the first author of beauty made all those things. [4] Or if they admired their power and their effects, let them understand by them, that he that made them, is mightier than they: [5] For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby.

[6] But yet as to these they are less to be blamed. For they perhaps err, seeking God, and desirous to find him. [7] For being conversant among his works, they search: and they are persuaded that the things are good which are seen. [8] But then again they are not to be pardoned. [9] For if they were able to know so much as to make a judgment of the world: how did they not more easily find out the Lord thereof? [10] But unhappy are they, and their hope is among the dead, who have called gods the works of the hands of men, gold and silver, the inventions of art, and the resemblances of beasts, or an unprofitable stone the work of an ancient hand.

 

[rossum]

What is the scientific evidence for these beliefs?

The evidence that the current material universe had a beginning is obvious. Some cosmologists theorise a series of universe, the Oscillating Universe, which would match the Buddhist/Hindu concept of a series of different material universes.

The evidence for the existence of the Buddhist heavens and hells is the same (or better) than the evidence for the Christian heaven and hell. I say “or better” because some Buddhists interpret heaven and hell as existing on earth: being born into a wealthy Western family can be heaven while living in a war-zone can be hell.

If you wish to see evidence of reincarnation then follow the instructions in Chapter 13 of the Visuddhimagga where the method of remembering your own past lives is explained.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

The evidence that the current material universe had a beginning is obvious. Some cosmologists theorise a series of universe, the Oscillating Universe, which would match the Buddhist/Hindu concept of a series of different material universes.

The evidence for the existence of the Buddhist heavens and hells is the same (or better) than the evidence for the Christian heaven and hell. I say “or better” because some Buddhists interpret heaven and hell as existing on earth: being born into a wealthy Western family can be heaven while living in a war-zone can be hell.

If you wish to see evidence of reincarnation then follow the instructions in Chapter 13 of the Visuddhimagga where the method of remembering your own past lives is explained.

A series of universe(s), reincarnation and the existence of the Buddhist heavens and hells violate the principle of economy. Why postulate more than one universe, one life on earth and one God when it complicates reality unnecessarily? Occam’s Razor is still a valid test of credibility which has survived the test of time in both science and philosophy. Polytheism is a primitive belief that is widely rejected because one Creator reflects the fundamental unity and coherence of reality. Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love converge in one Supreme Being…

 

[STT]

The evidence that the current material universe had a beginning is obvious. Some cosmologists theorise a series of universe, the Oscillating Universe, which would match the Buddhist/Hindu concept of a series of different material universes.

The evidence for the existence of the Buddhist heavens and hells is the same (or better) than the evidence for the Christian heaven and hell. I say “or better” because some Buddhists interpret heaven and hell as existing on earth: being born into a wealthy Western family can be heaven while living in a war-zone can be hell.

If you wish to see evidence of reincarnation then follow the instructions in Chapter 13 of the Visuddhimagga where the method of remembering your own past lives is explained.

rossum

You turn into dust when you die. Then how you could remember your last life? How the next life could be meaningful if you don’t have an soul which survive death?

 

[reggieM]

Polytheism is a primitive belief that is widely rejected because one Creator reflects the fundamental unity and coherence of reality. Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love converge in one Supreme Being…

This is a great point.
For example, Truth. This refers only to one thing not a multiplicity.
At the most basic level, all humans use the same method.
There is a difference between that which is true and that which is false - and there is only one understanding of that difference, and it is shared through all humanity.
So, to postulate a multitude of gods, each responsible for a particular truth, would be unreasonable. All of those truths converge in a unity.
Goodness would follow this. Arriving at truth has a greater value of “the good” than falsehood does.
That law is constant and universal. Thus, having one lawgiver is more consistent and reasonable.

 

[rossum]

You turn into dust when you die. Then how you could remember your last life? How the next life could be meaningful if you don’t have an soul which survive death?

What survived your last death is not the same as what will survive your next death. It does not stay the same, ever, as it carries your accumulated karma and your memories. Think of it more as one link in a chain. No single link extends the full length of the chain.

rossum

 

[STT]

What survived your last death is not the same as what will survive your next death.

Nothing survive death if you believe that we are mere matter.

It does not stay the same, ever, as it carries your accumulated karma and your memories.

Where is karma accumulated? How could it possibly affect our lives? Do you believe that cosmos moves under the force of karma in addition to laws of nature? That leads to overdetermination.

Think of it more as one link in a chain. No single link extends the full length of the chain.

rossum

Yes, there is a chain which evolve based on laws of nature. Where is karma?

 

[tonyrey]

Polytheism is a primitive belief that is widely rejected because one Creator reflects the fundamental unity and coherence of reality. Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love converge in one Supreme Being…
This is a great point.

Thanks for reinforcing my argument, Reggie. You’ve reminded me of Keats who wrote

“‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty,’—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”

It is fascinating how these intangible aspects of reality are interlinked. Freedom, for example, implies the existence of truth and truth is the basis of freedom:

"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31-32

All of them imply the existence of One Being who is their Source and Fulfilment. In contrast to theism Darwinism is sterile because it restricts explanation to physical causes and excludes holistic, teleological and spiritual explanation. In Kant’s words:

“to regard all order in the world as if it had originated in the purpose of a supreme reason… opens out to our reason, as applied in the field of experience, altogether new views as to how the things of the world may be connected according to teleological laws, and so enables it to arrive at their greatest systematic unity”.