Debunking a Creator

[RongzomFan]

Leprechauns, fairies, gnomes, elves, unicorns etc. are just as "unknowable" as Ein Sof.

 

Indeed, they are more possible than an uncaused, unchanging Ein Sof that is incompatible with our physics.

[Simple_Jack]

That is the bottom line. Isn't it? The vast majority are conditioned in a certain way then react when hearing what is believed to be a more superior/profound belief system. Basic stimulus response psychology.

 

Does that include hearing certain doctrines are of divine origin i.e. the Vedas, Torah, Bible, Koran?

[Simple_Jack]

I was referring to the Kabbalah not Judaism in general. Why not do a little reading/study as opposed to proceeding from incorrect conclusions.

 

http://www.jewfaq.org/kabbalah.htm

 

• Judaism has ancient mystical teachings

• Mysticism was taught only to those who had already learned Torah and Talmud

• Jewish mysticism is known as kabbalah, and part of it was written in the Zohar

• Kabbalah and its teachings have been distorted by mystics and occultists

• One well-known teaching is the Ein Sof and the Ten Sefirot

[Brian]

Personally, I'm disappointed by this thread. All these posts and still no one has presented logic & evidence which positively refutes the possible existence of a creator, as was advertised. Instead, this is just another "I like my opinion better than yours" thread -- in three-part harmony but lacking the 27 8x10 color glossy photos with the pictures and the arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one...

 

Edited December 7, 2013 by Brian

[Simple_Jack]

Personally, I'm disappointed by this thread. All these posts and still no one has presented logic & evidence which positively refutes the possible existence of a creator, as was advertised. Instead, things just another "I like my opinion better than yours" thread. -- in three-part harmony but lacking the 27 8x10 color glossy photos with the pictures and the arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one...

 

 

Personally, I'm disappointed by this thread. All these posts and still no one has presented logic & evidence which positively refutes that Dharmic religions consider it unnecessary to posit a creator god in order to understand the nature of afflictions. Instead, just another thread replete with double standards by Brian, gatito, ralis, etc. -- in three-part harmony but lacking the 27 8x10 color glossy photos with the pictures and the arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one...

 

Edited December 7, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[ralis]

Personally, I'm disappointed by this thread. All these posts and still no one has presented logic & evidence which positively refutes the possible existence of a creator, as was advertised. Instead, this is just another "I like my opinion better than yours" thread -- in three-part harmony but lacking the 27 8x10 color glossy photos with the pictures and the arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one...

 

 

Like I said in several posts, humans lack the capacity to fully understand. As you very well know, this dialectic has been taking place through the ages with no answer.

[Simple_Jack]

Like I said in several posts, humans lack the capacity to fully understand. As you very well know, this dialectic has been taking place through the ages with no answer.

 

Like I said in several posts, all of this is irrelevant to understanding the nature of perpetuated afflicted experience.

[RongzomFan]

Brian, noone has demonstrated the universe is even real yet.

[zerostao]

simple jack, did i see where you said "that Dharmic religions consider it unnecessary to posit a creator god in order to understand the nature of afflictions." ?

[Simple_Jack]

simple jack, did i see where you said "that Dharmic religions consider it unnecessary to posit a creator god in order to understand the nature of afflictions." ?

 

Did you see the logical fallacies and double standards of gatito, ralis, etc.?

[Aetherous]

Personally, I'm disappointed by this thread. All these posts and still no one has presented logic & evidence which positively refutes the possible existence of a creator, as was advertised. Instead, this is just another "I like my opinion better than yours" thread -- in three-part harmony but lacking the 27 8x10 color glossy photos with the pictures and the arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one...

 

 

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.

[zerostao]

Did you see the logical fallacies and double standards of gatito, ralis, etc.?

do you feel that logic and rationalism is equipped to settle the OP?

[Simple_Jack]

do you feel that logic and rationalism is equipped to settle the OP?

 

Do you feel that rationalism and logic is equipped to settle the immediate concern of understanding the perpetuation of afflicted experience?

[zerostao]

can you define afflicted experience?

[Simple_Jack]

can you define afflicted experience?

 

Mental. physical, verbal actions which perpetuate afflicted experience.

[zerostao]

Mental. physical, verbal actions which perpetuate afflicted experience.

do you think that there is also non afflicted experience?

[Brian]

Do you feel that rationalism and logic is equipped to settle the immediate concern of understanding the perpetuation of afflicted experience?

 

Ummm... The "immediate concern" is "Debunking a Creator."

 

One person makes an assertion and someone else says "Prove it!" Then the one making the assertion provides a logical argument to support it. The opposition counters that argument, etc.

 

At no point in process is secondary party required to disprove the assertion, or disprove some extraneous assertion or to prove some extraneous assertion erected as a straw argument in effort to change the subject.

 

If you want to discuss perpetuation of afflicted experience, you ought to wait until the original topic has been resolved or open a new thread (in the appropriate sub-forum).

[Isimsiz Biri]

Brian, noone has demonstrated the universe is even real yet.

 

It is very real. As real as your master Mara.

[Simple_Jack]

Ummm... The "immediate concern" is "Debunking a Creator." One person makes an assertion and someone else says "Prove it!" Then the one making the assertion provides a logical argument to support it. The opposition counters that argument, etc. At no point in process is secondary party required to disprove the assertion, or disprove some extraneous assertion or to prove some extraneous assertion erected as a straw argument in effort to change the subject. If you want to discuss perpetuation of afflicted experience, you ought to wait until the original topic has been resolved or open a new thread (in the appropriate sub-forum).

 

Sure, but I responded to a post by turtleshell [http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=501751] with a contrasting viewpoint from Dharmic religions considering it unnecessary to posit a creator god in a monotheist sense.

[Isimsiz Biri]

Monotheism is a late invention.

 

And Kabbalah is an even later medieval invention.

 

 

Monotheism started with humanity.

[Isimsiz Biri]

I believe in Allah the demiurge. I am Muslim.

 

 

You are not Muslim. Allah is the Creator. You serve Mara only.

[ralis]

Monotheism is a late invention.

 

And Kabbalah is an even later medieval invention.

 

Ein-sof is discussed in the Kabbalah which does not mean that the Kabbalah is the origin of Ein-sof. According to your logic, Buddhism is older and therefor superior. Dates mean nothing relative to the age of the universe.

 

Buddhists or anyone else do not posses ownership as to what is the nature of existence.

Edited December 7, 2013 by ralis

[RongzomFan]

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.

 

Then the Creator changes and is a demiurge.

[RongzomFan]

You are not Muslim. Allah is the Creator. You serve Mara only.

 

Believing in a Creator is Mara. There is a whole book on this by Dudjom Rinpoche called "A Torch Lighting the Way to Freedom".

[RongzomFan]

Ein-sof is discussed in the Kabbalah which does not mean that the Kabbalah is the origin of Ein-sof. According to your logic, Buddhism is older and therefor superior. Dates mean nothing relative to the age of the universe.

 

Buddhists or anyone else do not posses ownership as to what is the nature of existence.

 

You are the one who said:

 

As far as I know, Ein-sof predates any religious doctrine or belief system.

 

Why do you always play these games ralis?