Hawkings and hitchens must hate math

[traillius]

Okay,but how do we choose between Rossum’s postulate and Tonyrey’s?

We can only ever criticize beliefs with respect to other beliefs.

Leela, you seem to have chosen neither. I am not sure which you would have us choose, if you had to pick one of the two for us.

 

[Leela]

Leela, you seem to have chosen neither. I am not sure which you would have us choose, if you had to pick one of the two for us.

I think of the universe as “all that exists.” It includes rocks, trees, people, ideas, love, emotions, hope, war, peace, justice, evil, good, everything. It isn’t a postulate about the universe but rather a definition. I don’t see how it would add anything for my understanding to suppose a dualism between things that exist in the universe and things that exist that aren’t part of the universe. I wouldn’t no how to make use of that distinction.

 

[rossum]

I think of the universe as “all that exists.” It includes rocks, trees, people, ideas, love, emotions, hope, war, peace, justice, evil, good, everything. It isn’t a postulate about the universe but rather a definition. I don’t see how it would add anything for my understanding to suppose a dualism between things that exist in the universe and things that exist that aren’t part of the universe. I wouldn’t no how to make use of that distinction.

In arguments where someone insists on things that exist outside the universe I often switch to a different word: the “Godiverse” is the universe plus everything that exists outside the universe. I then continue the discussion in terms of the Godiverse. As you point out, it is merely a matter of definition. Using a new word can help make the point to people who have fixed ideas about what is, and what is not, in the universe.

Mathematicians are often happier with different definitions than some other people because of the abstract nature of mathematics. 13 + 20 = 9 appears incorrect until you add “(mod 24)”. That changes the definition of what the ‘+’ operator means.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

That can be your postulate. My postulate is different. Postulates cannot be proved from within the logical system that they define. At most they can be shown to be consistent.
rossum

The universe is generally understood to be the physical universe rather than “all that exists” unless one is a physicalist - which is surely incompatible with being a Buddhist.

The “Godiverse” is rather an inappropriate term if one is not a theist.

 

[rossum]

The universe is generally understood to be the physical universe rather than “all that exists”

Not by me. That is the definition I usually use. There are others who use a different definition, which is why I like to make my definition clear at the start of the discussion. It saves a great deal of talking at cross purposes.

unless one is a physicalist - which is surely incompatible with being a Buddhist.

Generally correct, though there is a very small minority of Western Buddhists who are physicalists. Google “Buddhism without beliefs”.

The “Godiverse” is rather an inappropriate term if one is not a theist.

Have you any idea how many gods there are in the Buddhist scriptures?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 Brahmakdyika gods.

Saddharmapundarika sutra, Chapter 1
It is generally monotheists who insist that God exists outside the universe.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

 

[tonyrey]

The universe is generally understood to be the physical universe rather than “all that exists”.

It is idiosyncratic but irreproachable in view of your clarification.

- unless one is a physicalist - which is surely incompatible with being a Buddhist.

Generally correct, though there is a very small minority of Western Buddhists who are physicalists.

A fairly recent accretion!

“Godiverse” is rather an inappropriate term if one is not a theist.

Have you any idea how many gods there are in the Buddhist scriptures?

Yes but they are not capitalized!

It is generally monotheists who insist that God exists outside the universe.

“transcendent” is preferable because spiritual reality does not have temporal or spatial connotations.

 

[tonyrey]

The universe is generally understood to be the physical universe rather than “all that exists”.

It is idiosyncratic but irreproachable in view of your clarification.

- unless one is a physicalist - which is surely incompatible with being a Buddhist.

Generally correct, though there is a very small minority of Western Buddhists who are physicalists.

A fairly recent accretion!

“Godiverse” is rather an inappropriate term if one is not a theist.

Have you any idea how many gods there are in the Buddhist scriptures?

Yes but they are not capitalized!

It is generally monotheists who insist that God exists outside the universe.

“transcendent” is preferable because spiritual reality does not have temporal or spatial connotations.