The existence of an Absolute Intelligent First Cause has been proven to exist with absolute metaphysical certainty. So why are people still atheists?

[rossum]

You think that a being that does not exist because of its nature can in principle still exist for no logical reason. Am i wrong?

What is the “nature of X”? Does the nature of X have its own nature, the “nature of the nature of X”?

X exists, and there are various adjectives that describe X. Reifying those adjectives into the “nature of X” is an error. It is an artefact of the way our brains treat incoming sense data. Our brains are good at matching patterns. Those patterns are not reality, they are a convenient internal mental construct. Reality is external; it is not those internal patterns. Trying to project those internal patterns onto the external world is reification. It is an error because our senses are imperfect. With imperfect (name removed by moderator)uts from our senses, our internal mental models/patterns are also imperfect. Those reified projections do not match reality. Assuming that they do match will lead to error, and in Buddhist terms to suffering.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Do you not have an essence?

No.

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:7

Buddhism is not an Abrahamic religion. It is an error to assume that the commonplace ideas of the Abrahamic religions carry over into Buddhism.

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

What is the “nature of X”? Does the nature of X have its own nature, the “nature of the nature of X”?

X is its nature… X is nothing at all if it is not it’s nature. This is just a game of semantics. Its self evident that distinct natures exist.

 

[IWantGod]

Buddhism is not an Abrahamic religion. It is an error to assume that the commonplace ideas of the Abrahamic religions carry over into Buddhism.

Lol. I never imagined that it was. And Aquinas’ “philosophy” is based on Aristotle’ philosophy and Aristotle’ was a pagan. This is about reason not religion. And i’m beginning to think that Buddhism is not very reasonable. I don’t mean to be offensive of course. I’m sure you think your beliefs are reasonable but i don’t accept the existence of brute-facts because they are irrational. Hence why i have no choice but to accept the existence of a necessary first cause that is not physical.

 

[IWantGod]

Reality is external; it is not those internal patterns.

And my argument is based on the behavior and nature of external objects and irrefutable logical. It is evident that new distinct natures become actual. It is evident that physical reality is changing and has emergent properties. Your denial of these facts are just denial, because these facts are evident to everyone…You are just evading the conclusion of my argument despite it leading you to an illogical position.

Physical reality cannot rationally account for its own existence. Besides all the straw-men and the word games your argument ultimately boils down to “everything is a contingent brute fact” which i applause because at the very leaat you acknowledge that this is the only option you have. But contingent brute facts are irrational; its nonsensical just like the idea of something coming from absolutely nothing without a cause. There is no rational grounds to hold that position other than your beliefs. The only other option is a necessary non-physical first cause upon which all contingent physical and non-physical beings are dependent for their existence. Its the only reasonable position available.

 

[rossum]

X is its nature… X is nothing at all if it is not it’s nature. This is just a game of semantics. Its self evident that distinct natures exist.

If X and “nature of X” are the same thing, then “nature of X” is redundant and can be ignored, which is what I do.

Since I do not accept “natures” in the reified sense you appear to use it, then there can be neither similarity nor difference between things that do not exist.

I do accept similarities and differences between, say cats and dogs. I do not accept “nature of cats” and “nature of dogs”, which are either redundant, if they do not differ from cats and dogs, or lead to an infinite regress: the nature of the nature of cats etc.

For me, what I see is what I get. No more. You appear to want there to be something beyond what you see. You project a reified version of what you would like to see out into the real world and think it is real. I do not agree.

A Zen story to illustrate:

On a cold winter night, a big snow storm hit the city and the temple where Dharma Master Dan Xia served as a Monk got snowed in. Cut off from outside traffic, the fuel delivery man could not get to the Zen Monastery. Soon it ran out of heating fuel after a few days and everybody was shivering in the cold. The monks could not even cook their meals.

Dan Xia began to remove the wooden Buddha Statues from the display and put them into the fireplace.

“What are you doing?” the monks were shocked to see that the holy Buddha Statues were being burnt inside the fire place. “You are burning our holy religious artefacts! You are insulting the Buddha!”

“Are these statues alive and do they have any Buddha nature?” asked Master Dan Xia.

“Of course not,” replied the monks. “They are made of wood. They cannot have Buddha Nature.”

“OK. Then they are just pieces of firewood and therefore can be used as heating fuel,” said Master Dan Xia. “Can you pass me another piece of firewood please? I need some warmth.”

The next day, the snow storm had gone and Dan Xia went into town and brought back some replacement Buddha Statues. After putting them on the displays, he began to kneel down and burn incense sticks to them.

“Are you worshipping firewood?” asked the monks who were confused about what he was doing.

“No. I am treating these statues as holy artefacts and am honouring the Buddha,” replied Dan Xia.

What is the essence/nature of those pieces of wood: are they firewood or are they sacred statues? Would it be better to say that the sacredness/firewoodness was not intrinsic to the pieces of wood, but projected onto them by the monks? It was not part of the object itself, but a mental construct by the monks who projected it onto the object.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Hence why i have no choice but to accept the existence of a necessary first cause that is not physical.

Or the multiverse is infinite in all dimensions, and have has no need of a cause by the Kalaam argument. If it did not have a beginning then it did not have a cause.

A multiverse, or similar, fulfils the logical requirement of the first cause, but lacks many of the theological attributes given to God.

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

My Argument is not the “Kalaam cosmological Argument”…

I have presented my Argument. Whether you choose to believe in an infinite regress of physical processes, or reject the self evident fact that there are natures, or choose to believe in brute facts, or choose to believe all beings are contingent and whatever else you choose to imagine, that’s your bag.

I cannot accept any of your arguments because they do not follow logically from experience or reason. If you feel the same about my arguments, then we will have to agree to disagree.

Thanks for the discussion. God bless.