And Dawkin’s ultimately rejects ideas such as “agnostic theist” or “agnostic atheist” as obfuscating categories. Ultimately any belief, even a 6.9 on the Dawkin’s scale, requires a defense of whatever ontology or epistemology you’re using, a defense of what counts as evidence and reasoned argument, a defense that things such as reason exist to begin with.And here we have a good example of the difficulty in using the terms.
Dawkins is similar to me in that he doesn’t state categorically that there is no God. He doesn’t believe that God exists and sets out his stall here:
Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs, referencing the seven point scale of belief that he sets out in his book The God Delusion. telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9103685/Richard-Dawkins-Im-6.9-out-7-sure-that-God-does-not-exist.html
I class that as an atheist. An agnostic (to use Dawkins’ definition as in the video clip) is someone who is 50:50 about the likelihood. Although he classes himself as an agnostic. That’s where he and I part company.
Go figure.
Well, Saint Thomas did believe that once you demonstrated God exists in such and such a way as he defined that you could then rationally conclude that the universe must have had a beginning. But as a starting point on the road to God.According to St. Thomas you can’t prove that the world did not always exist: “By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist,”
ST First part Question 46, article 2.
Conscience is of course generated in the brain. Animals are conscious beings, after all. That said, that does not mean that all rational activity by rational beings are reducible to the the matter of our brain alone.Conscience is generated by your brain and it is the result of all your experiences and person you are (your gene).
But aren’t you making the claim that God doesn’t exist?No, it wouldn’t. The burden of proof is only on a person making a claim.
What else can affect conscience?Conscience is of course generated in the brain. Animals are conscious beings, after all. That said, that does not mean that all rational activity by rational beings are reducible to the the matter of our brain alone.
No.But aren’t you making the claim that God doesn’t exist?
Indeed we do. And I have made the call. The jury is in.And this is noble as far as it goes. But IF God exists, can we know more about Him, Bradski? Has He made it possible for us to do so? There are competing claims, of course, but do we have some responsibility to sort out fact from fiction?
Buddhism does not have the concept of sin; it has wise actions and unwise actions. Wise actions produce good results, unwise actions produce bad results.So why we should reincarnate? Everything is simply a chain of cause and effect. There is nothing right or wrong.
Buddhism analyses a human being into five parts, none of which is a soul. One of the five parts carries over into the next life; the other four do not. The part that carries over changes over time, so what carried over at the start of your current life is not the same as what will carry over into your next life.I don’t understand how this is related to my objection to your system of thought. You simply vanish when you die. There is no sign of you in cosmos anymore so you couldn’t possibly reincarnate.
Both in Buddhism and Christianity, there is a non-material part to a human being as well as the purely material part. Four of the five parts I mentioned are immaterial, including the part that carries over.The chain of cause and effect as a person vanishes when you die. What is left from you is simply dust which mix with other things. So there is no you anymore.
Meditate. There are some general meditation techniques, like counting breaths, which are not specific to Buddhism, or you could try a Christian meditation like Saying the Jesus Prayer.I don’t understand how truth can be obtained by Buddhist practice. We have to search the truth (scientific method for example), know the truth and truth will set our minds free. I have no idea how enlightenment could save us. These are just a set of claims.
Considering the existence of Vishnu or of Wahhabi Islam is hardly forcing Pascal into a Christian mould.You keep trying to force Pascal into a Christian mold when all the Wager asks is how one should live in light of the expected outcomes.
No. But you have repeatedly attempted to say that there are more than three options for the believer and that Christianity is only one of the many choices available to the theist (thereby pidgeon-holing Pascal into being a Christian apologist).Considering the existence of Vishnu or of Wahhabi Islam is hardly forcing Pascal into a Christian mould.
rossum
Not so. God Aleph really hates worshippers of God Beth, and will consign all worshippers of God Beth to the Kitty-Litter Tray of Doom (or wherever). People who do not worship either God Aleph or God Beth get a boring, but not uncomfortable, afterlife: “What’s on TV dear?” “More reruns I’m afraid.” Worshippers of God Aleph get the Five Star Service afterlife.Pascal’s Wager is not about which version of theism is superior to all other forms of theism; it’s about why any form of theism is superior to atheism.
I didn’t mean sin by wrong. I mean that there is no concept of right/wise or wrong/unwise when everything is simply a chain of cause and effect.Buddhism does not have the concept of sin; it has wise actions and unwise actions. Wise actions produce good results, unwise actions produce bad results.
Then you need to become a sperm or egg (something alive) right after you die which seems implausible.Reincarnation is a matter of cause and effect. If at the moment of death the causes of a new life are in place, then you will be reincarnated. If those causes are not present then you are not reincarnated. Avoiding reincarnation is the better result, though the more difficult one.
This does not answer my question (you simply vanish after you die).Buddhism analyses a human being into five parts, none of which is a soul. One of the five parts carries over into the next life; the other four do not. The part that carries over changes over time, so what carried over at the start of your current life is not the same as what will carry over into your next life.
I know those four parts. One of them is consciousness for example. But consciousness is the result of brain activity if you don’t believe on soul so consciousness vanishes upon death as well.Both in Buddhism and Christianity, there is a non-material part to a human being as well as the purely material part. Four of the five parts I mentioned are immaterial, including the part that carries over.
I think we need to put effort to understand truth. Truth cannot be obtained by meditation (except four noble truth).Meditate. There are some general meditation techniques, like counting breaths, which are not specific to Buddhism, or you could try a Christian meditation like Saying the Jesus Prayer.
rossum
No. Only for certain definitions of “universe”. The material universe had a cause, and we may describe that cause as YHWH, Vishnu or the multiverse.Can I prove to you that the universe must be caused by the uncaused? Yes.
“By their fruits shall you know them”. Actions are judged by their effects. The Buddha says the same thing at greater length in the Kalama sutta. Actions are to be judged by their results.I mean that there is no concept of right/wise or wrong/unwise when everything is simply a chain of cause and effect.
The zygote is the start of a new physical form, the previous physical form having been left behind. There is more to “you” than the physical form.Then you need to become a sperm or egg (something alive) right after you die which seems implausible.
You vanish every second and a new you arises conditioned by the old you. Memories and other elements that make up ‘you’ change from moment to moment. What appears static actually isn’t. The appearance of stasis has no more reality than the appearance of water in a mirage. If you were really static, then you would still be a baby with the consciousness of a baby. The underlying process is change, not stasis.This does not answer my question (you simply vanish after you die).
The five parts are form, feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness. Form is the physical body; the others are non-physical.I know those four parts.
It does vanish. Formations is the only one of the four that carries over from one life to the next. Among other things, it carries unresolved karma from one life to the next.But consciousness is the result of brain activity if you don’t believe on soul so consciousness vanishes upon death as well.
Some truths can be obtained by meditation; other truths require a big piece of equipment like CERN. There are many different truths and many different methods for obtaining them.Truth cannot be obtained by meditation (except four noble truth).
How would free will correlate with the idea that every effect has a cause.I mean that there is no concept of right/wise or wrong/unwise when everything is simply a chain of cause and effect. .
It is our free will that is the cause of the loving or evil quality of our actions. We choose whether or not to act in a loving fashion within our relationships. The cause of our free will, the capacity to know and choose the good, our spirit, is God.How would free will correlate with the idea that every effect has a cause.