Debunking a Creator

[3bob]

I'd say "God" is not evolving or changing, only the creation of things are doing so...

for if God could or did evolve then same could also de-volve.

Edited December 5, 2013 by 3bob

[RongzomFan]

Opinion. Which is all we're going to get on an internet forum, or anywhere else for that matter.

 

No its called Madhyamaka reasoning.

[3bob]

that's about all you seem to do alwayson, laugh your fanatical head off.

[Green Tiger]

No its called Madhyamaka reasoning.

 

Which is another way of saying Madhyamaka opinion. An opinion, no matter how thoroughly reasoned out, is still an opinion.

[RongzomFan]

Which is another way of saying Madhyamaka opinion. An opinion, no matter how thoroughly reasoned out, is still an opinion.

 

Yes gravity is an opinion.

[Brian]

Yes gravity is an opinion.

 

Physicists use the term "theory" instead of "opinion" but...

 

 

Einstein's little book I recommended in the "speed of light" thread applies here, too, BTW.

[Simple_Jack]

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.

 

This may not be necessary considering that a creator god is not a determining factor for Samkhya, Jainism, Mimamsa, Vaishnavism, etc. I would also put forth the idea that monotheism didn't enter the cultural sphere of Chinese thought until Zoroastrianism, Nestorian Christianity and Islam were introduced into China through the Silk Road.

[RongzomFan]

There is no Creator in Advaita Vedanta either

[adept]

Without all these man made religions, a Creator is still a very valid opinion.

[RongzomFan]

Without all these man made religions, a Creator is still a very valid opinion.

 

???

[Aetherous]

This may not be necessary considering that a creator god is not a determining factor for Samkhya, Jainism, Mimamsa, Vaishnavism, etc. I would also put forth the idea that monotheism didn't enter the cultural sphere of Chinese thought until Zoroastrianism, Nestorian Christianity and Islam were introduced into China through the Silk Road.

 

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.

[adept]

???

 

Meaning you don't have to have all the religious trappings to believe in a Creator. Is that plain enough for you.

[RongzomFan]

Meaning you don't have to have all the religious trappings to believe in a Creator. Is that plain enough for you.

 

No no no.

 

Monotheism is a late invention resulting from centuries of religious thinking:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=JH88qsmuJJ8C&pg=PA80&dq=history+of+monotheism+zoroastrian&hl=en&sa=X&ei=q9CgUrehNfKwsQTi-IHwDg&ved=0CDAQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20monotheism%20zoroastrian&f=false

Edited December 5, 2013 by RongzomFan

[thamosh]

Gosh I hate douche statements like this....No real depth at all....

 

Its like saying time isn't real yes everyone says it but few have the insight to say why then did your grandparents exist before you?

 

But lets get back to the topic so the universe is an illusion or god isn't real bs.

 

Fine whatever

 

AGAIN

 

Anyone can say it but very few have the enlightenment to actually know how our existence is illusion like or what is real or unreal about god...

[Simple_Jack]

Meaning you don't have to have all the religious trappings to believe in a Creator. Is that plain enough for you.

 

The Vedas are considered by Hindus as shruti i.e. eternal and uncreated; considered as of 'divine origin'.

[Simple_Jack]

Gosh I hate douche statements like this....No real depth at all....

 

Yes, I agree that this is a douche statement: "Meaning you don't have to have all the religious trappings to believe in a Creator. Is that plain enough for you."

[adept]

The Vedas are considered by Hindus as shruti i.e. eternal and uncreated; considered as of 'divine origin'.

 

Thank you. Some common sense at last. I'm glad people can have honest debate.

That's also what the Qur'an claims.

So did Islam borrow from the Vedic texts and distort them ?

[RongzomFan]

That's also what the Qur'an claims.

 

Even Muhammed's scribe, Abdullah ibn Sa‘ad, thought Muhammed was a fraud.

 

Abdullah ibn Sa‘ad actually wrote some of the verses of the Koran.

[Simple_Jack]

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.

 

I would not categorize these beliefs as monotheism, but closer to one of these three:

 

1. Monism

 

2. Henotheism

 

3. Monolatrism

[Isimsiz Biri]

 

I'm just a Buddhist.

No you are not a Buddhist at all.

[Isimsiz Biri]

 

Even Muhammed's scribe, Abdullah ibn Saad, thought Muhammed was a fraud.

 

Abdullah ibn Saad actually wrote some of the verses of the Koran.

This is 100 % incorrect. Do not believe his lies.

[RongzomFan]

This is 100 % incorrect. Do not believe his lies.

 

Anyone can google this for themselves.

 

 

Google.com

[adept]

This is 100 % incorrect. Do not believe his lies.

 

It's on wikipedia so it must be true lol.

[Isimsiz Biri]

 

It's on wikipedia so it must be true lol.

Satanwiki.com RF's favourite

[Simple_Jack]

Adding a fourth with Kathenotheism. Categorizations of Dharmic religions aren't as black and white as Abrahamic religions.

 

P.S. Samkyha is for the most part an atheistic dualist school.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Simple_Jack