Aetherous

I don't understand.

Insulting yourself does not give you free rein to insult others, simply because you disagree with them. I've reported you. To be a hypocrite requires acting contrary to your argument, or having two conflicting arguments at once.

Practice something real, so you don't mess yourself up!

Ayurveda says don't heat honey at all, and also don't mix it in equal portions with ghee. To be safe, don't mix it at all with ghee...although I've seen that some say in unequal quantities it's beneficial. The honey should be from an organic source and raw. The ghee should ideally be from fresh cultured organic butter, and processed in coordination with the full moon, in addition to some other things...and not just clarified regular butter. The former has a more beneficial effect on the system. I haven't been able to find much good reasoning behind why you shouldn't combine the two...from my understanding it's one of those unexplained rules; nevertheless it is stated in the texts. I think it has to do with improper food combining, which creates ama (toxins), since they're of opposing qualities (heating and cooling) and probably counteract each other's medicinal effects. You don't want something to be sitting in the stomach as something else ferments, basically...give the stomach one thing to work with, or else complementary things. It's cool to learn about food combining. Something you could try instead is to have a very small amount of ghee, like a teaspoon to begin with. Take that on an empty stomach, and then only when you feel hungry take the honey. If you have too much ghee, it will put out the agni (digestive fire) and create ama, rather than stoking it (which will make you more hungry than usual) and preventing ama formation. Taking the honey dissolved in spring water is said to be good for maintaining a healthy weight (losing it if too fat, gaining it if too thin) and basically helps the body to coordinate itself all around...or even use rain water to get a lot of good prana in there...so you could do it like that once the hunger arises after taking the little bit of ghee. Found this person's answer for you. As for other types of oil, coconut oil is even more cooling than ghee. It's problematic for some people in various ways. It wouldn't be ideal during the winter. Ghee is said to be the best oil for everyone, it's tridoshic...won't have any negative effects when taken in the right amount (for kapha dosha predominant people, just a small amount will pacify kapha rather than increase it).

I watched the first 3/4 of the video and will address that. They're incorrect in suggesting that "you're wrong" to say something unknown is possible. They take the position of: "I can't say that it's impossible" (because it is possible), "but you're wrong for saying that it's possible." Obviously, if something is possible that doesn't mean your guess will be right. You could be wrong. That doesn't make saying "it's possible" wrong. This is the exact meaning of the word, possible. Stating that it's possible (could be right or could be wrong) is absolutely true. Why? Because there could have actually been two other dice in that bag, which rolled an 18. It was absolutely possible...yet as we found out later, wrong, because there were 2 dice. To say "it's not impossible" is always saying "it's possible". Literally. (edited to add on later) They are basically saying, "now that you see it wasn't right, you can't say that something absolutely wrong is still possible". If it's wrong it's no longer possible...which is true. But these people kind of suggest...since it's wrong and impossible now, it wasn't possible before...which is a false argument. To counter that kind of idea...lets say we once again didn't know how many dice were in the bag. To have said in the case of 3 dice falling out and rolling an 18, "it might be wrong, therefore it's not possible"...would be absolutely proven wrong if that had actually happened. It could have happened and was totally possible. To have said that "it's wrong to say that it's possible" would have been proven false in the case of it being right. Pretty simple. "It's possible" is always the absolutely true answer to something totally unknown. Also, I don't see at all how this video made gnomes and stuff more possible than a Creator. That seems like just an emotionally based unsound argument to me. (and...it was possibly a funny inside joke the Atheists in the video had, because rolling an 18 with 3 dice would be three 6s ) ... Please give me one link that sums it up entirely, which is possible to read in a short amount of time. Otherwise, please sum it up here yourself.

That's cool, but do you understand how this is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion of whether we can debunk a creator or not? Nothing personal, and you're right to some extent, but I'm not going to respond anymore, and didn't really in the first place, because this line of thinking has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Post it here, don't just reference it with absolutely no proof! I'm not going to go look. This is a discussion. Time to go watch that video...

Okay, got it. To practice Buddhism you don't need belief in a creator. But this thread is about debunking a creator...

I asked you before for the reasoning behind how they're "more possible". If you said equally possible, sure.

We still haven't been able to debunk a Creator, so this isn't entirely certain. I personally stand behind my first post in this thread, which said to be honest with ourselves above all, and that agnosticism is very understandable.

There is actual intelligence, and then there is pseudo-intelligence. The latter appeals to authority, for instance.

I'd be incredibly surprised if they actually let a Satanic monument be put there! lol

What's the reasoning behind this statement? lol

I like the honesty in self-reflection. It's a sign of real progress. The truth in my opinion is that you need a true spiritual teacher. The very core of the issue is the seeming inability to feel like a "normal" human being, or sociopathy. Being on a real spiritual path would help you with that over time. Honesty is an excellent starting point. It's the opposite of sociopathic behavior. In the meantime, it would help you open up if you practiced a lot of breathing. But hopefully you'll be on the lookout for a teacher. Oh also...it will help to clarify what you actually desire, and why. For instance, you might say "I want a relationship", when you actually just want to be seen with a decent woman. Well, why would you want to be seen with a woman? To gain respect? So what you actually desire is not a relationship (to get to know someone, to be there for them, etc) but respect from others. Once you clarify what you want, getting it becomes very possible.

Not according to my understanding. Anyway, I won't pursue this further since it's off topic and it's also kind of like pointing out your character, which isn't a very fruitful or friendly activity.

Doesn't talking like this go against the conduct of a Buddhist?

That's only assuming that dependent origination applies to literally everything, including the uncaused...and it doesn't. It only asserts that things (effects) have other causes. It doesn't address infinite cause and effect, of there being no beginning to things...or the possibility of something arising from an intelligent uncaused source, or there having been a first cause.

Don't ever do it multiple times in a row, that's the worst thing. Develop at least enough self control to not do that. No matter what! And just tackle this very challenging subject with baby steps. Taking the drastic step of cutting out all porn and masturbation forever sounds like great advice...but it won't be great unless you are actually successful at it. If you fail, then will you fall to the depths of masturbating 5x in a row? So for one thing, maybe don't go to such extremes. Do your best only, not the impossible and not something which sets you up for failure.

It's making me want to study logic again, to clarify my thinking, so this was definitely not meaningless.

I argued against the idea that 'an uncaused being can't possibly interact with a caused universe' (not RongzomFan's exact words but that was basically it). To see how I argued against this, I know this is kind of annoying to hear, but it's best to reread those posts. Also I suppose I did argue against the idea that 'with infinite cause and effect there's no place for a Creator'. It's not a sound argument, unless you're saying that the Creator was the first cause of all cause and effect...then by the definition of "infinite" there would be no room for that Creator.

I didn't say that infinite cause and effect was impossible...I actually said that it's an option, and is equally hard to fathom. True, it doesn't necessarily debunk a Creator.

Nope. I'm not forming any argument, such as saying that a Creator exists and trying to prove it, so I don't have any premises. I was only dismantling your argument that a Creator doesn't exist. Also, I don't understand this sentence you used or think it represents what I said. No offense, but if something doesn't make sense to you, that's on your end. It makes sense over here, which is why I posted it. Repeating what I said likely won't help, and it's annoying behavior. Sometimes certain ideas require more than a couple minutes to take hold.

Not necessarily. There could have been infinite cause and effect without beginning, as well as an eternal (uncaused) Creator being that brings about new creations, both at the same time. It's possible. It isn't. What premise? By the way, this is how very basic logic works in forming an argument: Premise A ) The sky appears blue some days to me. Premise B ) The sky doesn't appear blue some days to me. Conclusion C ) The sky doesn't always appear blue to me. This is an absolute truth, that the sky doesn't always appear blue to me...AKA a sound argument. The argument requires 2 premises and a conclusion for it to be valid. A valid argument might not be true. For it to be "sound", or "true", or "logical", or "rational", both premises must be infallibly true. Here's an example of an argument based on false premises (statements which are questionable and possibly not true): A ) The sky is blue. B ) Sometimes the sky doesn't appear blue, due to clouds or lack of sun. C ) The sky is always blue despite appearances. It's questionable whether the sky is literally blue...it could just be an appearance of blue. So the premise is false, and the argument is unsound...the entire thing lacks truth. It's not a logical argument, and we should find a better premise...or try to prove the premise through other premises. For instance... A ) The sky is made up of ______ B ) ____ is blue C ) The sky is blue. If those premises were absolutely true, then the conclusion (which is the premise for the other argument) would be true (so we could then use it to formulate a sound argument). Maybe that will clear up some discussion when using these terms. Or maybe this was all understood already.

I don't actually have a premise. Only used examples and explanation to show how his premise was false. I'm not making an argument for the existence of a Creator. It's not actually argument A vs argument B. It's argument A versus logical analysis.