What can you say about the following claims?

[rossum]

I was unemployed for several months, therefore I had more time to correspond with you. I now have a job 8:00 am-6 or 7 pm, six days a week, and I have been busy.

Congratulations.

I think a key point is your statement “That part that is inside time must change because we see the tree change”. Why do you claim that is an indisputable point? You have no proof. only your opinion. My opinion is different, of coarse. You do not claim to be personnally infallible. Therefre you could b wrong on that point.

Both of us could be wrong. We are discussing the concept of God using rational argument. I you wish to abandon rational argument then I can say “God does not exist because weasels have teeth.” and you have no rational argument against it.

If God is affecting something within time, then a part of God must be within time actually doing the affecting. If we cannot agree on this then we are going to have some difficulties progressing with this part of our discussion.

I made the point sometime ago that I thought you were effectively imposing your time constrained thinking upon God. Do you see where the statement above, " that God must be changing , because we see the tree change", could be cited as evidence of this?

Yes, we see the tree change. How does that prove that "part of " God must be changing?

If God is sustaining the entire universe from second to second, then God is sustaining that tree from second to second. Since the tree is changing then the part of God that sustained the sapling is no longer active within time and the part of God that sustains the fully grown tree is now active within time whereas it was not before.

That does not sound like the Rossum I have been dialoging with. It sounds, wrong. Almost like a copout. Sorry, but it does not sound like the person who has obviously studied this matter a great deal. It does not sound like someone who has alove of the truth, whatever the truth is. If the truth is there is a creator God, do you want to learn all you can about the truth?

Tell me, what is the fifth digit from the end of the full expansion of pi? If God is as advertised then He is too much for mere humans to fully understand. The parable of the blind men and the elephant applies. We cannot see the totality of God so inevitably we end up arguing over whether the elephant is like a pillar (its leg) or like a snake (its trunk).

those in hell have perfect peace, love, joy and thanksgiving, evan as they suffer foreverand ever and ever.

“We have always been at war with Eastasia.” This is doublespeak. War is peace. Suffering is happiness. Hell is heaven. This will not convince me. The nature of suffering is a major part of what Buddhism is about; the first Noble Truth is the Noble Truth of Suffering. Please do not try to redefine suffering as happiness to a Buddhist – you will not get very far.

Do you say that God can not deliver perfect happiness in heaven?

He cannot.

why can He not do so?

Because He does not have the power to do so. He cannot draw a square triangle. He can never learn something new. He cannot deliver permanent happiness.

We agree that this is a further revelation of what God has ordained. Just as He will not hold a two year old accountable for some actions, He will hold the Jewish people for others, and us for far more because we have been given the fulfillment of the Law in Jesus Christ.

I am not interested in any possible reified Moral Law sitting behind the ordinary “what should I do today” moral law. One of the ideas behind Buddhist meditation is to avoid reification, and it appears to me that this is what you are doing with moral law. We agree that the day-to-day moral law changes, as with stoning adulteresses, but in order to salvage your idea of an unchanging Moral Law you construct this unchanging reified version which has no real effect. I am content to live with today’s day-to-day version that changes and that I know changes. I am not looking for any hidden depths:The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.
You appear to be looking for “ontological depth”, or reification, hidden behind the reality of day-to-day morality when there is no such thing to be found.

That you claim this is change,

It is a change at the level I need to know. 2100 years ago my moral duty would have been to stone an adulteress to death. Today that same action would be morally wrong. I have no interest in any proposed reified unchanging morality which has no real effect on what I should do. All I need to know is how to behave today.

rossum

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Thank you. We are agreed that the moral rules that I am meant to follow day to day can change and have changed in the past.

rossum

Hm, in a way, yes. But notice that “rules” were in parenthesis. If moral rules can change, they can change for one reason and one reason only-God changes them.

Also, I don’t really think the rules changed, hence the parenthesis. I think the rules were always the same, we just didn’t understand them fully until the Catholic Church.

 

[grannymh]

If God is sustaining the entire universe from second to second, then God is sustaining that tree from second to second. Since the tree is changing then the part of God that sustained the sapling is no longer active within time and the part of God that sustains the fully grown tree is now active within time whereas it was not before.

Could it be that God is sustaining what is in the universe with spiritual power?
Observation says that matter can change. Is God matter or spiritual? If
God is beyond matter or supernatural, what does that really mean?

Because He does not have the power to do so. He cannot draw a square triangle. He can never learn something new. He cannot deliver permanent happiness.

Could God create an entirely new color totally different from any possible color made through technology? If so, how would an artist paint that color on his canvas?

Matter can change. Is God matter or beyond matter? Matter has material/physical properties. What are the material/physical properties of happiness? Feelings would be part of the emotional properties of humans. Are feelings material or immaterial properties? Does human nature unite the material and spiritual worlds?

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[rossum]

Also, I don’t really think the rules changed, hence the parenthesis.

That was what I meant by “reification”, you ignore that fact that the ‘here and now’ rules change by positing some ‘big rules in the sky’ that don’t change in their place.

I think the rules were always the same, we just didn’t understand them fully until the Catholic Church.

Since the Catholic Church was founded the moral rules on both slavery and usury have changed.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Could God create an entirely new color totally different from any possible color made through technology? If so, how would an artist paint that color on his canvas?

We can use technology to create most wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Some people already see new colours - google “tetrachromat”.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Could God create an entirely new color totally different from any possible color made through technology? If so, how would an artist paint that color on his canvas?

We can use technology to create most wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Some people already see new colours - google “tetrachromat”.

rossum

Thank you for source. I am aware of that technology but not the terminology which is why I phrased the question regarding an "entirely new color totally different from any possible color made through technology? FYI-- I originally heard that question in a different format. I changed it slightly to bring it down to earth where we all live.

The conundrum still stands–
Could God create an entirely new color totally different from any possible color made through technology? If so, how would an artist paint that color on his canvas?

Blessings,
granny

Color is why the universe is amazing!

 

[rossum]

TCould God create an entirely new color totally different from any possible color made through technology? If so, how would an artist paint that color on his canvas?

Colour is a measure of the wavelength of the part of the electromagnetic spectrum detected by our eyes. Since we can currently make all possible wavelengths in the visible range, and well beyond, then there is no “colour” which we cannot currently make.

I am sure that there are limits to our technology at the high end, up in the gamma rays and possibly at the low end - I am not sure how long the longest wavelength we can produce is. However both of those limits are well beyond what our eyes can detect. ‘Colour’ is only defined for visible wavelengths, and close. Bee purple is an example of a colour that we cannot see but bees can. To us it is in the near ultraviolet.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Colour is a measure of the wavelength of the part of the electromagnetic spectrum detected by our eyes. Since we can currently make all possible wavelengths in the visible range, and well beyond, then there is no “colour” which we cannot currently make.

I am sure that there are limits to our technology at the high end, up in the gamma rays and possibly at the low end - I am not sure how long the longest wavelength we can produce is. However both of those limits are well beyond what our eyes can detect. ‘Colour’ is only defined for visible wavelengths, and close. Bee purple is an example of a colour that we cannot see but bees can. To us it is in the near ultraviolet.

rossum

Thank you. Colour is one of the things I truly treasure especially in Impressionist paintings. I will not belabor the point since my worldview includes the possibility of a spiritual being not bound by a natural science world.

Blessings,
granny

The universe is an amazing sight to behold.

 

[jmcrae]

Could God create an entirely new color totally different from any possible color made through technology? If so, how would an artist paint that color on his canvas?

The question is self-defeating, since paint is a kind of technology, and so are the devices that artists use to fool the human eye into thinking it is seeing colours that don’t actually exist on the artist’s palette (as in Impressionism, where contrasting colours are placed side by side in order to “resonate” colours in the eye, that can’t be reproduced in pigment).

 

[grannymh]

The question is self-defeating, since paint is a kind of technology, and so are the devices that artists use to fool the human eye into thinking it is seeing colours that don’t actually exist on the artist’s palette (as in Impressionism, where contrasting colours are placed side by side in order to “resonate” colours in the eye, that can’t be reproduced in pigment).

It sounds as if you are saying that the color of paint and color produced by technology is possible because of human endeavors. The colors which resonate either by contrasting colors placed side by side or by another ingredient mixed in with the paint still come from the original manufactured paint colors purchased by the artist. The electromagnetic spectrum explained in post 265 was devised by human intelligence.

My worldview includes the possibility of a spiritual being who is not bound by a natural science world. In other words, this spiritual being is not limited by what is contained in the natural science world; therefore, this spiritual being is supernatural. My worldview is that this supernatural being is God, the Creator of the natural world including its colors. My worldview is that the created is not equal in all things with God, the Creator.

My question was not an analogy or anything deeply philosophical like trying to define the attributes of God. When one looks closely at the wording, there is the basic idea that there is a lot more to the spiritual realm than what the human mind can actually imagine.

The colors created by God to decorate His universe may only be a minute example of the true power of God. In other words, my crazy question illustrates a possible underlying problem of the first claim.

1. There’s no such thing as absolute truth. What’s true for you may not be true for me.

If all that is considered is you and me as human beings, the question might never be asked about someone beyond us, someone who is beyond our natural world, someone who is supernatural, someone who is not limited by the color choices of natural science.

The key issue about absolute truth is that it is not limited by your thinking ability nor my thinking ability. Relativism tries to shatter absolute truth into bits of truth, like bits of color under a human paint brush. We cannot paint absolute truth or find it through technology because absolute truth belongs to the spiritual world; it belongs to the supernatural spiritual being Who is God the Creator.

My nonsense question was intended to get one thinking that if there is a God, is He greater than the created. If greater than the created, what can possibly be in His spiritual realm. My worldview is that the Creator communicated absolute truth to us just as He gave us beautiful colors to remember His glory. God loves us with an unimaginable color of love. The amazing grace is that Jesus Christ is beyond everything we could imagine. He takes the palette of colors that is our life and transforms us beyond that of the natural world. He did not leave us orphans. He gave us the true beauty of His Real Presence in the Catholic Eucharist.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16&17

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Congratulations.

If God is affecting something within time, then a part of God must be within time actually doing the affecting. If we cannot agree on this then we are going to have some difficulties progressing with this part of our discussion.

We may have difficulties, but let me try to clarify something, again. I believe God is holding all creation in existence, always,in the present tense. BUT, we do not see all creation (and therefore all times) with our current capabilities. It is my faith that God is omnipresent, everywhere and everywhen, in the infinite totality of God. When “partial knowledge ceases”, (CCC314) we will “be like God because we will see Him as He IS”.
We are aware of our “presense” in this world. This awareness is in two parts, presence at a certain point in space, and presence at a certain point in time. Agreed?
God is spirit, and according to ThomasAquinas, spirit cannot be divisible, cannot be broken down into parts, half of the spirit here and half over there. Therefore all of God is at every point of space and every point of time.
If, at the end, we are like God and partial knowledge ceases, we will know as God knows (except ours will be a knowledge by grace, gift, His is a knowledge by nature) and we will see (know) every point of space and every point of time, in the oneness of the knowledge of God,
You made the claim that if God is in time affecting it, that part of God must change because we see change, we see God’s action start and stop. I have said that you seem to be locking God into time restricted actions. If my understandng of the Catholic Church’s teachings is correct, at the end, we will see God’s single action (all of creation and every action in it) as one action, always, because we will see Him doing everything at once, always. We will have the gift of presense (spiritually,as God IS) at every point of space and every point of time, all as one.
If you see a reason why this is not possible, or not consistant, please try and show me. If you just do not accept it, yet, just say that. Do you see that if this explanation is correct, then God is not doing one thing and then another (as we see in time) and therefore there is no change in God?

If God is sustaining the entire universe from second to second, then God is sustaining that tree from second to second. Since the tree is changing then the part of God that sustained the sapling is no longer active within time and the part of God that sustains the fully grown tree is now active within time whereas it was not before.

 You are correct, unless, at the end, we see God eternally holding the sapling in existense and eternally holding the tree in existense. Ofcoarse thereis no proof I could give that this is the case, but do you claim that just because we do not see it yet, therefore it is not possible?

Tell me, what is the fifth digit from the end of the full expansion of pi? If God is as advertised then He is too much for mere humans to fully understand. The parable of the blind men and the elephant applies. We cannot see the totality of God so inevitably we end up arguing over whether the elephant is like a pillar (its leg) or like a snake (its trunk).

The above is a very interesting statement. The question that comes to mind is: Do you want to “seek the whole Truth” with your whole heart, mind (soul) and strength, or do you want to seek the truth (as long as you do not have to admit something you once believed was in error? Second question: What should your answer be?

“We have always been at war with Eastasia.” This is doublespeak. War is peace. Suffering is happiness. Hell is heaven. This will not convince me. The nature of suffering is a major part of what Buddhism is about; the first Noble Truth is the Noble Truth of Suffering. Please do not try to redefine suffering as happiness to a Buddhist – you will not get very far.
I DID NOT SAY SUFFERING IS HAPPINESS. I said we would have each, not like we think now, one thought followed by another. We would have sorrow forsin, pain for each sin committed… but also, asone thought, thankfulness forbeing allowed to suffer for each sin, thankfullness for being created and given free will, peace because we are no longer opposing the will of God, Joy because we know God loves us infinitely… each thought is separate, but one, suffering is not joy , we will suffer but also have peace.

He cannot.That is your unprovable faith.

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Because He does not have the power to do so. He cannot draw a square triangle. He can never learn something new. He cannot deliver permanent happiness.ditto, repeating your unprovablefaith does not prove it.

I am not interested in any possible reified Moral Law sitting behind the ordinary “what should I do today” moral law. that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.[/indent]
You appear to be looking for “ontological depth”, or reification, hidden behind the reality of day-to-day morality when there is no such thing to be found.
That again is your faith, but you have admitted in the past that you are not infallible and could be wrong.

It is a change at the level I need to know. 2100 years ago my moral duty would have been to stone an adulteress to death. Today that same action would be morally wrong. I have no interest in any proposed reified unchanging morality which has no real effect on what I should do. All I need to know is how to behave today.
“I have no interest in any proposed reified unchanging morality which has no real effect on what I should do”
You did not address the point I made in my last post "I am quite sure that the buddha did not have all of the above when he came to the conclusion that “God could not offer eternal happiness in heaven”. Did he? If not, perhaps you should consider that, if all the above is true, could God offer and fulfill that offer, of perfect happiness in heaven, even though some are in hell? And if that is possible, perhaps the buddha was in error because He did not have all the Catholic teachings as clearly as we do? Is that possible?
If you are blindly following a man who was in error, what should you do? You simply repeat, “God cannot deliver eternal happiness”, without explaining theerrors in my arguements. You have found no flaw in my arguement that a two year old is held accoutable for less than an adult, and this is an explanation how the law does not change, only how much is revealed to each is the important factor.
Again: The question that comes to mind is: Do you want to “seek the whole Truth” with your whole heart, mind (soul) and strength, or do you want to seek the truth (as long as you do not have to admit something you once believed was in error? Second question: What should your answer be?

rossum

 

[rossum]

You made the claim that if God is in time affecting it, that part of God must change because we see change, we see God’s action start and stop.

Yes. We can see the change for ourselves. If God is driving that change then a part of God must be changing.

I have said that you seem to be locking God into time restricted actions.

Those time restricted actions are happening - we can see the seed grow into a sapling and the sapling grow into a tree. If God is driving/sustaining those actions then that part of God must be changing.

Something which does not change cannot drive something which changes.

If you see a reason why this is not possible, or not consistant, please try and show me.

It is inconsistent because you are placing God outside time, which we previously called ‘faarn’, yes you are using words that require the presence of time. Words like “now”, “present”, “always”. You cannot use those words in the absence of time since their meaning are dependent on time. If God is in the faarn dimension, rather than in time, then you need to use words like “faarnnow”, “faarnpresent” and “faarnalways” to represent concepts in faarn. You cannot both ignore time and rely on it to define the words you are using. You need to rephrase your argument so that time does not enter into it in any way if you want to place God outside time.

You are correct, unless, at the end, we see God eternally holding the sapling in existense and eternally holding the tree in existense. Ofcoarse thereis no proof I could give that this is the case, but do you claim that just because we do not see it yet, therefore it is not possible?

I am very unlikely to accept your argument if you can provide no proof and I can also observe that the sapling no longer exists and in its place there is a fully grown tree. In this case the observed evidence wins for me.

The question that comes to mind is: Do you want to “seek the whole Truth” with your whole heart, mind (soul) and strength, or do you want to seek the truth (as long as you do not have to admit something you once believed was in error? Second question: What should your answer be?

One of the Buddha’s parables was the parable of the Simsapa leaves:Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa forest. Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, “What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?”

“The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous.”

“In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven’t I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.”

• Simsapa sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 56.31
  I neither want nor need to know the “whole truth” because the whole truth contains vast amounts of completely irrelevant information that is useless to me. I do not need to know the exact state of the weather on all the planets in the Andromeda galaxy at hourly intervals.

As the Buddha said I want to learn useful truths, truths that can help me to avoid suffering. The capital letter on “Unbinding” indicates that this is another synonym for nirvana. I require truths that help me on my path to nirvana. Other truths may be amusing but are not necessary.

As to not admitting error. I was brought up a Christian, and I have admitted my error in accepting Christianity for a time. After that I became a strong atheist for a few years, and I have admitted my error in accepting that. I am only too well aware that I can accept erroneous beliefs.

I DID NOT SAY SUFFERING IS HAPPINESS.

What you said was:

those in hell have perfect peace, love, joy and thanksgiving, evan as they suffer foreverand ever and ever.

They have suffering and joy simultaneously; agony and peace simultaneously. That one is not going to fly with me. As I said, Buddhism spends a lot of time analysing suffering; what you say clashes very badly with that analysis. You cannot have eternal joy and eternal suffering simultaneously.

repeating your unprovablefaith does not prove it.

Of course not. You asked my why and I gave my reasons. Your unprovable faith differs from my unprovable faith, but they both remain unprovable.

"I am quite sure that the buddha did not have all of the above when he came to the conclusion that “God could not offer eternal happiness in heaven”. Did he?

I am not enlightened, but the Simsapa sutta, above, tells us that the Buddha knew a lot more than he told us. The Buddha was certainly aware of the Abrahamic God and furthermore told us of the situation and true status of that God in the Brahmajala sutta. The Abrahamic God cannot deliver on what He promises, though He does sincerely believe that He can. He is mistaken. All the heavens, and that includes the heaven run by the Abrahamic God, are temporary. A temporary heaven obviously cannot provide permanent happiness. Searching for permanent happiness in any temporary place is one of the errors Buddhists should avoid.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Before leaving this thread, I would like to add an obvious common sense comment.

God is a spiritual supernatural being.

God does not depend on natural science or human philosophy for validation. The square/triangle or the change thing is another version of the debate regarding how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It is an amusing toy of the created who cannot possibly understand all the powers of the Creator. Sometimes I wonder why the created likes all these amusing discussion toys when the Creator Himself is more lovable. Maybe it is because the created believes it is possible to solve the mystery of the Creator.
Go for it.

Blessings,
granny

The human person, because of unique human nature, is worthy of profound respect.

 

[alitaptap]

Before leaving this thread, I would like to add an obvious common sense comment.

God is a spiritual supernatural being.

God does not depend on natural science or human philosophy for validation. The square/triangle or the change thing is another version of the debate regarding how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It is an amusing toy of the created who cannot possibly understand all the powers of the Creator. Sometimes I wonder why the created likes all these amusing discussion toys when the Creator Himself is more lovable. Maybe it is because the created believes it is possible to solve the mystery of the Creator.
Go for it.

Blessings,
granny

The human person, because of unique human nature, is worthy of profound respect.

God wants us to be dependent on Him, not independent of Him and dependent of ourselves. The more dependent you are on God, the more you will be able to release things to Him that you do not understand, knowing that He knows, and when time is right, He will reveal it to you.

Do not confuse this type of attitude with passivity. We are not to be passive, at least not where faith is concerned. If something happens in your life to you or to a friend and you just do not understand at all what happened or why, you certainly must begin with prayer. Ask the Holy Spirit to give you understanding, to teach you, to shed light and to bring revelation, then wait until He does, knowing that in God’s timing He will bbring you understanding.

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Yes. We can see the change for ourselves. If God is driving that change then a part of God must be changing.

Those time restricted actions are happening - we can see the seed grow into a sapling and the sapling grow into a tree. If God is driving/sustaining those actions then that part of God must be changing.
That you believe God must change because we see Him doing different things at different times does not prove that He changes. We are merely repeating ourselves, and I can see your difficulty in understanding the idea that God could be always holding the sapling in existence and always holding the full grown tree in existence and always… always doing everything, it is that we do not see it all, yet. All we see is that which we are given the grace of presence to see. A certain grace of presence in space and in succeeding points of time, each point of space and time held in existence by God, always. We are always in that pointof space and time, only we are not aware of it because we no longer have the grace of presence for then and there.
I restate the obvious, this can not be proven as correct, or incorrect. It is just possible, and therefore, I believe, ifit IS POSSIBLE, then you should admit the possibility that there could be an all-powerful, unchanging creator of time and space and this might affect how you analize your conduct because of the possibility that buddha was in error and there can be eternal happiness in heaven.

I am very unlikely to accept your argument if you can provide no proof and I can also observe that the sapling no longer exists and in its place there is a fully grown tree. In this case the observed evidence wins for me.
I restate, because you can not prove that the point of space and time does not still exist, I might be correct in my idea that it is just that you do not have the grace of presence for that point of space and time. Incidentilly, I remember early in thisthread yousaying tothe effect, " All our mental images are in error." If you stand by that idea, then just because you no longer see the sapling, does that prove it no longer exists?

. Other truths may be amusing but are not necessary. But, I respond, if one of those truths IS that God exists and can give eternal happiness, should not that truth be followed since it is neccessary for eternal happiness, it is neccesary?

As to not admitting error. I was brought up a Christian, and I have admitted my error in accepting Christianity for a time. After that I became a strong atheist for a few years, and I have admitted my error in accepting that. I am only too well aware that I can accept erroneous beliefs.
Question, how does an atheist differ from a buddhist since both deny a God, and both deny a reason for existence since there is nothing to give existence essential meaning or purpose? Does my decision to give purpose to my farming, give true meaning to all of creation?

What you said was:
They have suffering and joy simultaneously; agony and peace simultaneously. That one is not going to fly with me.
This is where the correct understandingstarts, since there is sin, thereisan offense against God, there has been atonement by Jesus Christ, therefore there is hope, and meaning and if we look past the pains and "evils"of thisworld to “the reason for the season” we see meaning and we see that we have intrinsic, absolute value because of the Creator giving us a part of Himself, if we look past the evils and focus on heavenly things. That is the way we can havejoy even as we suffer, as Christ had infinite Joy as He hung on thecross becauseofthetrue good that wa accomplished by all He did.
As I said, Buddhism spends a lot of time analysing suffering; what you say clashes very badly with that analysis. You cannot have eternal joy and eternal suffering simultaneously.

Of course not. You asked my why and I gave my reasons. Your unprovable faith differs from my unprovable faith, but they both remain unprovable.

I am not enlightened, but the Simsapa sutta, above, tells us that the Buddha knew a lot more than he told us. The Buddha was certainly aware of the Abrahamic God and furthermore told us of the situation and true status of that God in the Brahmajala sutta. The Abrahamic God cannot deliver on what He promises, though He does sincerely believe that He can. He is mistaken. All the heavens, and that includes the heaven run by the Abrahamic God, are temporary. A temporary heaven obviously cannot provide permanent happiness. Searching for permanent happiness in any temporary place is one of the errors Buddhists should avoid.
Your bottom answer is, “Buddha believed and said it, you believe it, that settles it” But, what if the buddha was in error?/COLOR]
rossum

 

[ManOnFire]

Rossum,

What reasons do you give for Buddha being a superior fit than our God to satisfy one’s curiosity for the identity of a fifth-dimensional first Creator?

 

[rossum]

That you believe God must change because we see Him doing different things at different times does not prove that He changes.

I suspect we are not going to agree on this. Doing different things at different times is the very definition of change. God meets the definition so God changes. We agree that God is faarnstatic, but that is not the same as unchanging since it relates to faarn, not to time.

Question, how does an atheist differ from a buddhist since both deny a God, and both deny a reason for existence since there is nothing to give existence essential meaning or purpose?

Both deny your particular version of God. Is Christianity atheist because it denies Zeus, Durga, Amaterasu etc? Are Judaism or Islam atheist because they deny the trinity? All religions deny some versions of God/gods that do not appear in that particular religion.

Buddhism is not atheist because it accepts many non-material things that atheists reject: gods, karma, reincarnation, magical powers etc.

In Buddhism the reason for our existence is our failure to gain enlightenment in a previous life. Our purpose is to work towards gaining that enlightenment either in this life or in a future one.

since there is sin

Sin is a Christian concept, not a Buddhist one. The closest Buddhism comes to “sin” is “unwise action”, which is rather different, and will not support the argument you are making. Arguments from sin will only be meaningful to Christians.

rossum

 

[rossum]

What reasons do you give for Buddha being a superior fit than our God to satisfy one’s curiosity for the identity of a fifth-dimensional first Creator?

The Buddha is not the creator, and does not claim to be the creator. He (re)discovered the Buddhist path and explained it to others. Other Buddhas have (re)discovered that path before him and other Buddhas will (re)discover that path after him.

The question of the origin of the universe is one for cosmologists; it is not relevant to the religious path.

rossum

 

[ManOnFire]

The Buddha is not the creator, and does not claim to be the creator. He (re)discovered the Buddhist path and explained it to others. Other Buddhas have (re)discovered that path before him and other Buddhas will (re)discover that path after him.

The question of the origin of the universe is one for cosmologists; it is not relevant to the religious path.

rossum

Since you don’t know, don’t care, or find it irrelevant which fifth-dimensional first Creator created the Universe, then why not choose the religion where the great sacrifice of laying down one’s life for spouse and kids will produce True, romantic, sacrificial, Love to serve as an example for others??? Buddhism seems effective to produce enlightened glee for self, but what compelling reason exists in Buddhism that would compel a person to place others ahead of self??? Do you have kids? How many?