Aetherous

I don't think I've been giving any opinions, only showing how your premises were false through examples.

It's just as understandable as what caused infinite cause and effect. There is no absolute beginning, either way. Creator or not. With the Creator scenario, nothing would have caused the uncaused Creator to cause...it would have always been its nature.

It does matter. Not all opinions are equally valid in the realm of logical analysis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

What premises of mine? How are they false? Just saying it doesn't make it so...prove it. Please use some form of reasoning, not just statements of opinion. I answered the question fully...I went beyond simple yes or no, and sort of did answer that it was both yes and no.

Truth depends on making sound arguments. I showed how his premise was false. Show how any premise in my scenario is false, and then my scenario will be no more true or false than his false premise/argument. This is logic at work. Not that I'm good at it, but I suggest we all learn how to use it to avoid making meaningless statements such as "argument A is no more true or false than argument B" which isn't based on any reasoning. Just saying it doesn't make it accurate!

My Creator? I said previously that a definition could be 'an eternal being' (unchanging nature) 'which has an intelligence and action that responds to creation' (aspects changing). So, I can't just give you a yes or no. If I say yes, that means "eternal" is up for grabs, which it isn't when we're discussing the idea of God. If I say no, that means the Creator can't create or really do anything...both answers would negate the very idea and definition of a Creator God. Is it possible for something to be eternal and changing at the same time? Well, even if God doesn't exist, we have to come to terms with why and how this apparent world manifests. If there is infinite cause and effect, then we must say that all of this is eternal (there was literally no beginning if this is the case)...and it's very apparent that it changes, since appearances change. So yes, it's possible for "something" to be eternal and changing both at the same time.

Cause and effect means that whatever is being discussed is an effect of other causes, and causes other effects. Like you...you were caused by your parents (you are the effect of your parents), and you cause this discussion to happen (this discussion is the effect of you). This is being part of cause and effect. If something is uncreated (eternal), it's not an effect of other causes by definition. So an initiating creator being doesn't require both cause and effect...it is only a type of causing. The other type of cause being previous effects. This is how it's possible for something beyond cause and effect to influence cause and effect. I'm not going to keep saying this same idea in different words, and respond to any of the same arguments from you. They were already said, everyone understood them, so it's pointless. If we start using logic I'll become more interested in further discussion, because then there's not room for repeating false statements.

Reported for trolling.

Covered that. Please reread my posts and try to understand. You're just repeating what you already said.

Already covered that...it's based on a false premise. Why is it a false premise? Because it's possible that an uncaused being could interact with the universe, by being a creator (initiating causes). To make your argument, you'd have to logically prove how it's absolutely true that something uncaused can't possibly interact with the universe or initiate anything. Uncaused does not mean uncausing.

I think it would depend on what way the Creator changes. For instance, it could be an eternal being with an intelligence that responds to the creation, and an action which modifies what is created based on that intelligence. That it's an eternal being means it's not conditioned in the same sense as all of creation.

Secondary to what, if it's eternal? What makes it "fake"?

What's your understanding of the word "demiurge"...and also why do you use "a" instead of "the"?

I think RongzamFan got close. He said that the Creator is unchanging and uncaused, and therefore can't interact with "our physics" which are changing and caused. However, I don't think his argument was sound (meaning that the conclusion is not true), since it wasn't based on true premises. The unsaid premise is that something which is uncaused and unchanging can't be a cause for further effects...but by the definition of the term "Creator" that is the one thing it does...it is the original cause. Something that is uncaused could possibly create causes...and this is why the argument is unsound. Also, I'm not sure we can agree that the Creator is unchanging. But that's tricky because if something changes there is cause and effect...so perhaps in some ways this uncaused creator is effected by causes in the creation. An eternal being that has an intelligence explains this. If there is no creator, then we have to say that reality...or that which appears to exist...is eternal. That there was no original cause for all of these effects, but things have literally always been in motion for some reason...which is equally hard for the mind to grasp.

What do you guys think of this perspective? Also, feel free to discuss whatever you like regarding yidams in this thread.

I suspect it has to do with the Occult aspect of the forum, which has a lot to do with that religion in particular. Personally, I think it's an appropriate place. ... By the way, SonoftheGods, I'm guessing you belong to the "Temple of Set"? You probably know that Donn Webb was a high priest with them, and the ideas of Setian or Typhonian current have everything to do with their group.

Edited my post to say it's not a "thing".

I'm out of my element with Buddhism, being a newbie...but I don't think you're right about that based on what pretty much any source says. edit: I'd agree that it's not a "thing".

This is an illogical statement. Being a creator of cause and effect does not necessarily make one a 'changing being' subject to cause and effect. Are Buddhas free of cause and effect? Is the Dharmakaya a changing being?

No, just illusory. lol

"Tao" itself could have possibly been viewed as God.

It's possible to show that Atheism is faulty through the rules of logic. Logic is kind of like math...if you do the equation correctly, you arrive at something that's absolutely true. Last time I studied it was a couple of years ago, so I'm really rusty...but maybe just for fun in the next few days I will dust off the textbook and write up something on this. Maybe.

ralis, Do you think Atheism uses "pure reasoning"? I could dust off my logic textbook...

But the idea exists in Mongolian Tengrism as Tengri or "Eternal Blue Sky", in Native American "religion" as Wakan Tanka, etc. Also, in Vaishnavism you say there isn't the idea of a creator or supreme God, yet they worship Vishnu as precisely that. Even in Samkhya you could say that Purusa is God. As we can see, the idea wasn't just confined to middle eastern belief systems. Besides...saying that because an idea wasn't historically part of some cultures, means that the idea isn't true or worthy of consideration, would be false. Not that I care about anyone's consideration of the idea of God...I don't care if you personally believe, don't believe, don't know, or don't care enough to think about it...just saying.