Debunking a Creator

[RongzomFan]

Atheism is a sign of overconfidence in one's limited perspective and intelligence.

 

I'm just a Buddhist.

[RongzomFan]

Atheism is a sign of overconfidence in one's limited perspective and intelligence. Basically, we haven't even seen the entire tip of the iceberg much less what's beneath the surface. We see a small part of one planet...we haven't even met everyone even in our own city, and the ones we do meet we don't know everything about.

 

The only way to honestly claim there is no God is to be absolutely omniscient and all-seeing. The key here is honesty...be honest about what you know and what you don't.

 

Considering what we know as reality, this world and universe, to be an illusion, is just a method for relinquishing attachment to things and is not absolute truth. Why? Because the illusion is real. Unless you can eat mountains for breakfast, fly through the sky and walk on water, you can't honestly say "it's just an illusion". Do you believe that because someone tells you it's true? That's the same as believing blindly in God. But considering it as such can be a good technique, until the point where a person could possibly do those things. If that's possible. Once again it comes down to honesty about what you actually know.

 

Agnosticism, or "I don't know" is very understandable.

 

You can say the same exact thing about leprechauns, fairies, gnomes, elves, unicorns etc.

[Stosh]

I agree, if what your saying is that a 'creation' does not equate with a creator; thus there is not a 'need' or there is no necessity of one.

 

While it may be valid to say one cannot debunk a creator nor no-creator scenarios, the issue of necessity is how I tend to look at the issue. To have a creator is to need to prove the necessity of one. To not need a creator is a simpler/base scenario and until necessity is established, then no creator is established.

I dont know , we could be on the same wavelength,

Im not saying there is no creator conclusively,

though I dont think there is -was one personally ,

but It makes no difference either way .

Its just he couldnt interfere except to destroy what he ,she it , created.

Any necessity would be on our part , as I see it ,

but there isnt any! neccesity to believe in it ,or worship to it.

Its just totally moot. whether you can logically debunk it ( as I think one can on rational grounds)

or if you dont ,on some sentimental basis.

Its popular to have a god , hang around , tell stories about it etc

But logically, its a "non-starter".

[Stosh]

Atheism is a sign of overconfidence in one's limited perspective and intelligence.

Overconfidence is a situation that hasnt been proven here,

one would have to exceed some level of expedience or correctness.

Which cant be done on basis of your faith,, the 'proving' of something lies in objective findings and inference, or

that we both come to the same convincing emotional conclusion to the extent that it is proven for us personally.

We cant prove each other conclusively wrong , about anything ultimately, but that doesnt mean your argument is sound , or as sound as atheism,, its not.

We dont have to look under every rock , just some rocks , and then we have data that a god is not there.. however weak that might be , theists have zero data! so it is the more illogical stance.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Stosh

[3bob]

Lord Brahma is obvious... though He to is created. The rest is not so obvious....

 

Off the main topic: Why did it take a God to remind the historic Buddha to continue on as a teacher after his enlightenment, such makes no sense if you are a Buddha knows and sees everything type.

[Aetherous]

Studying logic is very good to do.

[thelerner]

Personally I hope to get a glimpse of God within deep meditation when I'm within a state of grace. Beyond semantics and names like Creator, Destroyer, Lord.. there is an experience that people are able to have with God. It cuts across religions and cultures, though people color the reality to fit preconceived expectations. There are those who don't have preconceptions who experience God in perhaps his best title 'Oneness'.

 

That Oneness is beyond time and space; freaks you out and gives you the warm fuzzies. Or so I'm told.

Edited December 4, 2013 by thelerner

[RongzomFan]

Lord Brahma is obvious... though He to is created. The rest is not so obvious....

 

Off the main topic: Why did it take a God to remind the historic Buddha to continue on as a teacher after his enlightenment, such makes no sense if you are a Buddha knows and sees everything type.

 

There is no Creator in Buddhadharma from Shravakayana to Atiyoga yangti.

 

Devas and Buddhas have previous lives as humans etc.

 

There is no being that is a Creator in Buddhism.

[Brian]

I just realized what Adept's first video in the other thread is.

 

Those types of views were completely debunked in American federal court in 2005:

 

<snip>

I am reminded of this:

 

 

(I have to read these threads because I am Steward...)

[Stosh]

Studying logic is very good to do.

Well that link provides no evidence of logic , you cant even open the book to see inside,,

but I guess to some, the title might be enough proof of something. I guess a god wrote it.

[Green Tiger]

I don't think you can presume an infinite regression of cause and effect. At a certain point, cause and effect may break down into something else. Cause and effect is just a cosmic tendency (and not an altogether persistent or universal one at that) that may have began shortly after the big bang.

 

I don't think you've effectively debunked a creator. You've just indicated that the origins of the universe transcend our current understanding of cosmic tendencies.

[RongzomFan]

I don't think you can presume an infinite regression of cause and effect.

 

Logically you can.

 

Logically the Big Bang has causes, which itself has causes, which itself has causes, which itself has causes, which itself has causes, which itself has causes, which itself has causes, which itself has causes, which itself has causes, which itself has causes, which itself has causes, which itself has causes, which itself has causes etc.

[RongzomFan]

Big Bang is a budding off another universe, or from the remnants of a previous universe.

 

No need for a Creator.

[Brian]

I don't think you can presume an infinite regression of cause and effect. At a certain point, cause and effect may break down into something else. Cause and effect is just a cosmic tendency (and not an altogether persistent or universal one at that) that may have began shortly after the big bang.

 

I don't think you've effectively debunked a creator. You've just indicated that the origins of the universe transcend our current understanding of cosmic tendencies.

Additionally, all he has really attempted to demonstrate is that his conclusions are consistent with his assumptions.

 

Same goes for those attempting the "prove a creator" but that's not the intent of the thread.

 

Actually, the intent appears to be simply to effect a stirring up of shit in the General Discussions sub-forum and thereby to cause me to eventually intervene and to cause BKA finger-pain -- there's the secondary cause-&-effect but it will be delayed, I suspect, as this thread isn't ripe for the picking yet...

[RongzomFan]

Actually, the intent appears to be simply to effect a stirring up of shit in the General Discussions sub-forum

 

I'm just following up on this:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/31512-a-sovereign-god-question/page-3#entry501488

 

 

Unless you wanted me to derail that thread.

 

Can't win with you guys!

Edited December 4, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Stosh]

Cause and effect is just a cosmic tendency (and not an altogether persistent or universal one at that) that may have began shortly after the big bang.

What are you suggesting as the exception to the cosmic ' tendency' of cause -and effect?

Are you talking milliseconds into the beginning of the entire universe that math suggests the universe was chaotic? or are you talking quantum mechanics which is in its infancy.

[RongzomFan]

Let's start with your first point listed. Can you prove the above statement in any way?

 

This is a good summary, unless you want me to quote a page of stuff:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=6185&start=220#p74244

[RongzomFan]

Additionally, all he has really attempted to demonstrate is that his conclusions are consistent with his assumptions.

 

One has to first justify that a Creator is even possible....

 

Edited December 4, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Brian]

I'm just following up on this:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/31512-a-sovereign-god-question/page-3#entry501488

 

 

Unless you wanted me to derail that thread.

 

Can't win with you guys!

 

LOL

 

No, I'm good! Stir away, my friend. I may even join in. I'm just trying out my crystal ball...

[liminal_luke]

Atheism is a sign of overconfidence in one's limited perspective and intelligence.

 

Agnosticism, or "I don't know" is very understandable.

 

Atheist: overconfident

 

Agnostic: humble

 

Believer: pompous, controlling, self-righteous, murderous, small-minded, homophobic, judgmental, earth-destroying, overconfident, etc.

 

My apologies to the many believers out there who are none of those things. I'm a believer too so I get it. But if we're going to lump people together in silly categories and make generalizations, well then, these are mine. As a group, the faithful have a lot of misdeeds to answer for.

 

Liminal

 

In the spirit of not throwing off the thread, I'll offer this creator debunking theory: What kind of God would create a world in which so many of the people who believed in him were such jerks?

Edited December 4, 2013 by liminal_luke

[RongzomFan]

In the spirit of not throwing off the thread,

 

Feel free. I don't care.

[Aetherous]

Atheist: overconfident

 

Agnostic: humble

 

Believer: pompous, controlling, self-righteous, murderous, small-minded, homophobic, judgmental, earth-destroying, overconfident, etc.

 

My apologies to the many believers out there who are none of those things. I'm a believer too so I get it. But if we're going to lump people together in silly categories and make generalizations, well then, these are mine. As a group, the faithful have a lot of misdeeds to answer for.

 

Liminal

 

In the spirit of not throwing off the thread, I'll offer this creator debunking theory: What kind of God would create a world in which so many of the people who believed in him were such jerks?

 

That's definitely one view to take. It's an extreme one in my opinion...and is quite popular to adhere to.

 

To answer the rhetorical question: it's up to the individual to decide whether they will become a jerk or not. We have religions that tell us to basically not be a jerk, so I suppose we could say God did his part (in pointing to a better way), assuming he exists.

Edited December 5, 2013 by turtle shell

[liminal_luke]

That's definitely one view to take. It's an extreme one in my opinion...and is quite popular to adhere to.

 

To answer the rhetorical question: it's up to the individual to decide whether they will become a jerk or not. We have religions that tell us to basically not be a jerk, so I suppose we could say God did his part (in pointing to a better way), assuming he exists.

 

Perhaps it is extreme. Usually I work out my hostility beating pillows or what have you--rather than posting on Taobums--but the topic of religion has caught me at a raw moment. My boyfriend of of almost 5 years now is thinking about dumping me (another guy) so that he can get right with Jesus, enjoy eternal life, and so on. I suppose it's on me for picking someone prone to that kind of fundamentalism, but you can see how I might be a little sore.

 

(Doing my snarky best to get this thread thrown in the pit. Now if only there was an individual taobum to insult. Then we could really have some fun!)

 

Liminal

[Aetherous]

Yeah that's understandable. Wishing you the best.

[Tibetan_Ice]

The Dharmakaya is the creator in Buddhism and it can manifest as any being that it would like.