How to answer Buddha's question on how there can be a God who is the first-cause creator?

[Ben_Sinner]

The following is a question made by Buddha:

“It is not convincing that the Absolute created us, because that which is Absolute, can’t be a cause. All things here arise from different causes. Then can we say that the Absolute is the cause of all things alike? If the Absolute is pervading them, then certainly it is not their creator.”

How would we answer that and prove that what is Absolute, most certainly can be a cause?

 

[e_c]

If the Absolute can’t be a cause, then it can’t be what we mean by “God” in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

 

[Stat_Crux]

If there is no “Absolute” cause, then which “normal” cause came first?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

The following is a question made by Buddha:

“It is not convincing that the Absolute created us, because that which is Absolute, can’t be a cause. All things here arise from different causes. Then can we say that the Absolute is the cause of all things alike? If the Absolute is pervading them, then certainly it is not their creator.”

How would we answer that and prove that what is Absolute, most certainly can be a cause?

Where did he say that?

 

[Autumn_Smoke]

If my understanding is correct, in the Buddhist tradition there is Yin and Yang. When the Yin and the Yang were in perfect balance it allowed creation to come into being.This did not require a creator, but was only the natural effect of the Yin and the Yang being in perfect harmony.

But my question would be: where did the Yin and the Yang come from?

If there was already something in existence that had to come into balance…that just doesn’t make sense.

The missing factor would be a Creator.

 

[Ben_Sinner]

Where did he say that?

hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/buddhaongod.asp

 

[STT]

The following is a question made by Buddha:

"It is not convincing that the Absolute created us, because that which is Absolute, can’t be a cause. All things here arise from different causes. Then can we say that the Absolute is the cause of all things alike? If the Absolute is pervading them, then certainly it is not their creator."

How would we answer that and prove that what is Absolute, most certainly can be a cause?

I don’t understand this part (bold part). Could you please elaborate?

 

[Ben_Sinner]

I don’t understand this part (bold part). Could you please elaborate?

I’m just as confused as you are about it. I don’t understand why apparently an Absolute can’t be a a cause either.

Anybody?

 

[Autumn_Smoke]

I have read the link you provided which discusses 7 main points which aim to prove that there cannot be a creator. You have quoted point number 5, but to me, all the points seem to be related, and I think it all boils down to the question mankind has been asking for centuries—
if God is all good (or absolute–without changing), then why isn’t this permeating throughout the created world? Why is there evil in the world? Why do things constantly change? Or to use the Buddhist language, How can the Absolute be the Creator if there is no Absolute in the world? If God is all pure, all loving, etc., then the creation should be flowing from his nature and be itself a model of this nature.

As in point number 2:

If this world is indeed created by God, then there should be no sorrow or calamity or evil in this world, for all deeds, both pure and impure, must come from him.

God is himself Absolute, but he has given his creation free-will. To say that God cannot be the cause of creation because creation itself is not absolute is to negate free-will.

That’s my take on it anyhow. I think it’s difficult to grasp the full meaning of one point–point number 5–without reading all 7 points.

 

[rossum]

I’m just as confused as you are about it. I don’t understand why apparently an Absolute can’t be a a cause either.

Anybody?

An Absolute is absolute, not contingent, obviously.

Being a cause is contingent. It is contingent on actually having caused something. If I claim to be a parent, then the truth of that claim is contingent in my having caused a child. If I claim to be a writer, then that claim is contingent on me having written something. If I claim to have caused universes, then that claim is contingent on me actually having caused two or more universes.

Being a cause is contingent on the existence of the relevant effect. If there is no effect, then obviously there is no cause for that non-existent effect.

Since the Absolute is absolute and any cause is contingent, then the Absolute cannot be a cause. If it were then it would be both absolute and contingent simultaneously. Any such entity with opposed properties, can be analysed into two separate components and each component dealt with separately.

The Absolute cannot be a cause because it is not contingent.

rossum

 

[STT]

An Absolute is absolute, not contingent, obviously.

Being a cause is contingent. It is contingent on actually having caused something. If I claim to be a parent, then the truth of that claim is contingent in my having caused a child. If I claim to be a writer, then that claim is contingent on me having written something. If I claim to have caused universes, then that claim is contingent on me actually having caused two or more universes.

Being a cause is contingent on the existence of the relevant effect. If there is no effect, then obviously there is no cause for that non-existent effect.

Since the Absolute is absolute and any cause is contingent, then the Absolute cannot be a cause. If it were then it would be both absolute and contingent simultaneously. Any such entity with opposed properties, can be analysed into two separate components and each component dealt with separately.

The Absolute cannot be a cause because it is not contingent.

rossum

So what you are saying is that Godness of God is because of His act of creation therefore He is contingent?

 

[rossum]

So what you are saying is that Godness of God is because of His act of creation therefore He is contingent?

No. I say nothing about His Godness, I am talking about His status as “creator”. He can only be a creator after He has created. Hence “creator” is contingent, not absolute.

The universe is less than twenty billion years old. Hence, twenty billion years ago there was no “creator of the universe”. If God existed twenty billion years ago, then at that time, God was not “creator of the universe”. He could easily have been God at that time; He could not have been “creator”.

rossum

 

[josephback]

The following is a question made by Buddha:

“It is not convincing that the Absolute created us, because that which is Absolute, can’t be a cause. All things here arise from different causes. Then can we say that the Absolute is the cause of all things alike? If the Absolute is pervading them, then certainly it is not their creator.”

How would we answer that and prove that what is Absolute, most certainly can be a cause?

What word is translated as the Absolute? This quote is likely referencing dependent origination, which in Buddhist belief means that everything is conditioned by everything else. Additionally for Buddhists there is no self anatman], and emptiness pervades the universe. Lay Buddhists often think slightly differently on the self but one must appreciate the metaphysics before crafting an answer. I don’t pretend to have one.

 

[STT]

No. I say nothing about His Godness, I am talking about His status as “creator”. He can only be a creator after He has created. Hence “creator” is contingent, not absolute.

The universe is less than twenty billion years old. Hence, twenty billion years ago there was no “creator of the universe”. If God existed twenty billion years ago, then at that time, God was not “creator of the universe”. He could easily have been God at that time; He could not have been “creator”.

rossum

But there is no before the act of creation! God is timeless. It is not like this to say that God was not creator then He creates and becomes the creator. At least this does not apply to eternal or timeless God.

 

[Wesrock]

No. I say nothing about His Godness, I am talking about His status as “creator”. He can only be a creator after He has created. Hence “creator” is contingent, not absolute.

The universe is less than twenty billion years old. Hence, twenty billion years ago there was no “creator of the universe”. If God existed twenty billion years ago, then at that time, God was not “creator of the universe”. He could easily have been God at that time; He could not have been “creator”.

rossum

Time itself is a creation. There is no before the start of it. God has for all time been a Creator. If time was prior to Creation, and the Absolute subject to it, such that the Absolute created at a particular moment in time, we would indeed have a conundrum, as Saint Thomas admitted, in that there would need to be a reason for God to act at that moment and not later and prior. This would make God contingent. But time is hot prior to our separate from Creation.

 

[Wesrock]

I have read the link you provided which discusses 7 main points which aim to prove that there cannot be a creator. You have quoted point number 5, but to me, all the points seem to be related, and I think it all boils down to the question mankind has been asking for centuries—
if God is all good (or absolute–without changing), then why isn’t this permeating throughout the created world? Why is there evil in the world? Why do things constantly change? Or to use the Buddhist language, How can the Absolute be the Creator if there is no Absolute in the world? If God is all pure, all loving, etc., then the creation should be flowing from his nature and be itself a model of this nature.

God is Being, and being is the only thing that exists. All things that are participate in Being, share in being, and in that sense can be said to be One. However, this does not therefore require that all things be absolute, for things can exist finitely, and their being conditioned one way or another, and for them to at one time exist in one way, and then at another time another, due to the permission of imperfect secondary causes. But all that is, is. Non-being is not a separate substance. It is the varying between being and not being that allows change, and from change we measure duration. It is also from non-being we derive evil, because all things are good in that they are, and evil only judged in deprivations of being. Goodness itself is itself convertible with being. That is, being is goodness, and human morality is itself only one facet of goodness, comparable by analogy.

So in that God is being, and being is goodness, and all things called beings have being, and that all things are good insofar as they instantiate being, God is pervasive in all things that are precisely in that they are, and all things that *are *participate in God/Being/Goodness precisely because they are. The only things in the universe are things which participate in God in that they exist. There is no separate substance pervading it that is not participation in God.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/buddhaongod.asp

Thank you. But I am not do sure that is actually something the Buddha taught. It has been a long time since I read the oldest writings.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

What word is translated as the Absolute? This quote is likely referencing dependent origination, which in Buddhist belief means that everything is conditioned by everything else. Additionally for Buddhists there is no self anatman], and emptiness pervades the universe. Lay Buddhists often think slightly differently on the self but one must appreciate the metaphysics before crafting an answer. I don’t pretend to have one.

Good question. I would guess that “Isvara” is being translated as “The absolute”. But we would have to see which text all this is taken from.

Good point about dependent origination.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratītyasamutpāda

 

[rossum]

But there is no before the act of creation! God is timeless. It is not like this to say that God was not creator then He creates and becomes the creator. At least this does not apply to eternal or timeless God.

If “creator” is timeless, then creation is also timeless. You cannot have a creator without a creation. Otherwise the claim to be a creator is false, and we can assume here that God does not make false claims.

Is a four-year-old girl a mother? No she is not. She might be a mother in future, but she is not a mother today. She might be a potential mother, but she is not a mother. Being a mother is contingent on having had at least one child. similarly for being a creator, a creator is contingent on having created something.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Time itself is a creation. There is no before the start of it. God has for all time been a Creator. If time was prior to Creation, and the Absolute subject to it, such that the Absolute created at a particular moment in time, we would indeed have a conundrum, as Saint Thomas admitted, in that there would need to be a reason for God to act at that moment and not later and prior. This would make God contingent. But time is hot prior to our separate from Creation.

So, the created universe has lasted for all time? That is not what either the Bible or science say. All you are doing here is reinforcing my point that “creator” is contingent, and so not compatible with the Absolute.

If God is the creator for all time then either the created universe has also lasted for all time, or God was making a false claim in the distant past.

Both St. Thomas and yourself are right to bring up the question of the cause of God’s actions. How an unchanging being can act within time is indeed a big problem. We can imagine the dialogue:

Moses: “Lord! We are being chased by the Egyptians. Please part the sea in front of us to we may escape from them.”

God: “I’m sorry Moses. I am unchanging and I did not part the sea yesterday so I cannot part the sea today; that would mean that I would have to change and I can’t do that.”

The God described in the Bible changes.

rossum