Debunking a Creator

[BaguaKicksAss]

What you are saying isn't complicated.

 

You are saying an uncaused Creator causes.

 

Wow, what a novel 3,000 year old idea!

 

Testing the quote function.

[Aetherous]

 

1. Was that a waste of time (i.e. meaningless)?

 

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

[gatito]

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

 

Now that is very funny

 

I really like that

 

+10 to you TS

[Stosh]

"Why " the apparent world exists ..I'm thinking is a question seeking either a terminus to the sequence of causes..or its implying that there is something to which all this has some effect that the "something" wants but doesn't have.

Since I don't believe in a creator , I see no reason to expect that there must be a "WHY" . There just IS that which is, undeniably. We have a need for whys because we have bias about what happens to us , without that bias , there is no significance to us. So we alone are the generators of our own significance , and question , why?

IMO

[Stosh]

Ultimately a logical proof requires agreement as to what is a logical conclusion is. A person can be entirely comfortable with conflicting opinions..

Since the proof requires such subjective agreement.. it isn't truly objective.. so it proves nothing conclusively. Thats why juries are required to judge the meaning of evidence,, otherwise you could just level a charge , wave the smoking gun, and there could be no dissent as to the verdict.

[Tibetan_Ice]

And did the beast post #666?

 

 

Now, after 44 pages - this being the 700th post in this thread: -

• Does everyone understand how a tautological argument works?
• Was that a waste of time (i.e. meaningless)?
• Do you think that the initial proposition was an expresion of SatChitAnanda (i.e God, the Tao, the Truth etc.) or was it an expression of ignorance (of the the Truth)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

NB: Tautological rhetoric: -

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29

(://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29)

[Everything]

First off, this universe is completely equivalent with illusion, like a lucid dream. So to speak of a Creator is meaningless.

 

If you can't fathom that, think about this. There is an ad infinitum regression of cause and effect. Logically the Big Bang has causes, which in itself has causes, which in itself has causes etc.

 

There is no place for a Creator in an ad infinitum regression of cause and effect.

I thought I made my cornflakes this morning. I guess I did not... I'm so sad now

[RongzomFan]

All philosophical and religious positions revolve around only 2 views: Existence and Nonexistence.

However its all illusion, like a dream. Phenomena don't arise in the first place.

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 21.12. states:
"An existent does not arise from an existent;
neither does an existent arise from a non-existent.
A non-existent does not arise from a non-existent;
neither does a non-existent arise from an existent."

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&pg=PA297&dq=Mulamadhyamakakarika+of+Nagarjuna+An+existent+does+not+arise+from+an+existent;+neither+does+an+existent+arise+from+a+non-existent.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fnGiUtuWMPPMsQSzkIDwCA&ved=0CDgQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Mulamadhyamakakarika%20of%20Nagarjuna%20An%20existent%20does%20not%20arise%20from%20an%20existent%3B%20neither%20does%20an%20existent%20arise%20from%20a%20non-existent.&f=false

 

 

Here are some quotations from 2 top books, Nagarjuna's Reason Sixty and Center of the Sunlit Sky:

 

"Nagarjuna taught , "bereft of beginning, middle, and end," meaning that the world is free from creation, duration, and destruction."

-Candrakirti

 

"Once one asserts things, one will succumb to the view of seeing such by imagining their beginning, middle and end; hence that grasping at things is the cause of all views."
-Candrakirti

 

"the perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created is uncreated."
-Candrakirti

"Likewise, here as well, the Lord Buddha’s pronouncement that "What is dependently created is objectively uncreated," is to counteract insistence on the objectivity of things."
-Candrakirti

"Since relativity is not objectively created, those who, through this reasoning, accept dependent things as resembling the moon in water and reflections in a mirror, understand them as neither objectively true nor false. Therefore, those who think thus regarding dependent things realize that what is dependently arisen cannot be substantially existent, since what is like a reflection is not real. If it were real, that would entail the absurdity that its transformation would be impossible. Yet neither is it unreal, since it manifests as real within the world."
-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since
I have no position, I am not at fault at all."

Aryadeva said "Against someone who has no thesis of “existence,
nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” it is not possible to
level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time."

 

"I do not say that entities do not exist, because I say that they originate in dependence. “So are you a realist then?” I am not, because I am just a proponent of dependent origination. “What sort of nature is it then that you [propound]?” I propound dependent origination. “What is the meaning of dependent origination?” It has the meaning of the lack of a nature and the meaning of nonarising through a nature [of its own]. It has the meaning of the origination of results with a nature similar to that of illusions, mirages, reflections, cities of scent-eaters, magical creations, and dreams. It has the meaning of emptiness and identitylessness."
-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1. states:

"Not from themselves, not from something other,

Not from both, and not without a cause-

At any place and any time,

All entities lack arising."

 

Buddhapālita comments (using consequentalist arguments which ultimately snowballs into Tibetan prasangika vs. svatantrika):

"Entities do not arise from their own intrinsic nature, because their arising would be pointless and because they would arise endlessly. For entities that [already] exist as their own intrinsic nature, there is no need to arise again. If they were to arise despite existing [already], there would be no time when they do not arise; [but] that is also not asserted [by the Enumerators].

 

Candrakīrti, in ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.14., comments:

"If something were to originate in dependence on something other than it,

Well, then utter darkness could spring from flames

And everything could arise from everything,

Because everything that does not produce [a specific result] is the same in being other [than it]."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

"Entities also do not arise from something other, because there is nothing other."

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 1.3cd. states:

"If an entity in itself does not exist,

An entity other [than it] does not exist either."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

"Nor do entities arise from both [themselves and others], because this would entail [all] the flaws that were stated for both of these theses and because none of these [disproved possibilities] have the capacity to produce [entities]."

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.17., states:

"If some nonarisen entity

Existed somewhere,

It might arise.

However, since such does not exist, what would arise?"

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.19cd., states:

"If something that lacks arising could arise,

Just about anything could arise in this way."

Edited December 8, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Everything]

This is my maint point.

 

Its all illusion. Like a dream.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&pg=PA297&dq=Mulamadhyamakakarika+of+Nagarjuna+An+existent+does+not+arise+from+an+existent;+neither+does+an+existent+arise+from+a+non-existent.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fnGiUtuWMPPMsQSzkIDwCA&ved=0CDgQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Mulamadhyamakakarika of Nagarjuna An existent does not arise from an existent; neither does an existent arise from a non-existent.&f=false

 

Mulamadhyamakakarika of Nagarjuna Chapter 21, verse 12

So illusion is the source of all of existance? I would really like to debunk the illusionary creator.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Everything

[Everything]

You know, sometimes people trick you, because they feel better doing it. You feel worse, feeling tricked and all, but really, the only intention the illusionist had was to feel the joy of tricking you. That was the initial source of the illusion. No harm done! Forgive and forget?

[RongzomFan]

You know, sometimes people trick you, because they feel better doing it. You feel worse, feeling tricked and all, but really, the only intention the illusionist had was to feel the joy of tricking you. That was the initial source of the illusion. No harm done! Forgive and forget?

 

Its not that type of illusion.

[Stosh]

An illusion is a thing which you entertain to believe but not a thing which is objectively true.

All that actually exists is objectively true . An illusion only exists in the subjective realm.

[RongzomFan]

An illusion is a thing which you entertain to believe but not a thing which is objectively true.

 

This first sentence is more or less right.

[Stosh]

What's he wrong part , as you see it? I may agree with your exception , for my wording could be more precise .

Edited December 8, 2013 by Stosh

[Brian]

Maybe I am then lost on what your arguing against.

 

The OP stated this infinite cause and effect has no place for a Creator.

 

Your trying to counter there is a place for a Creator?

 

Just put the Creator into the equation instead of taking it out?

 

Not quite. The OP asserts that the very concept of infinite cause & effect necessarily precludes the possibility of a creator. To debunk a creator on the basis of this assertion, one would first need to prove that cause & effect makes a creator impossible (which hasn't been proven yet) and THEN prove infinite cause & effect, which also hasn't been proven.

 

Hence my lingering disappointment with this thread...

[C T]

Not quite. The OP asserts that the very concept of infinite cause & effect necessarily precludes the possibility of a creator. To debunk a creator on the basis of this assertion, one would first need to prove that cause & effect makes a creator impossible (which hasn't been proven yet) and THEN prove infinite cause & effect, which also hasn't been proven. Hence my lingering disappointment with this thread...

Something does not have to be initially proven to have a false premise in order for the ball of the debunking process to begin rolling. Any reasonable doubt, or even a premise which seems exaggerated, is potentially liable for debunking.

 

Some arguments, i assume, do not require proof. There are logical assumptions and sound reasonings where appeals can be made -- however, this often involves lengthy jargon spews, eats up mental energy, and makes people none the wiser at the end.

 

Is it really worth the investment? I for one have no interest in the meagre returns, if any at all.

[RongzomFan]

Not quite. The OP asserts that the very concept of infinite cause & effect necessarily precludes the possibility of a creator. To debunk a creator on the basis of this assertion, one would first need to prove that cause & effect makes a creator impossible (which hasn't been proven yet) and THEN prove infinite cause & effect, which also hasn't been proven. Hence my lingering disappointment with this thread...

 

Explain how an uncaused Creator interacts with our physics which run on cause and effect.

[Brian]

 

Explain how an uncaused Creator interacts with our physics which run on cause and effect.

Not my problem -- I made no assertion which I need defend. Instead, the burden is on you to demonstrate how an omnipotent creator funmentally capable of transcending our current understanding of physics would be fundamentally incapable of choosing to interact with -- or how, as a starting place, a 3-D creature would be unable to interact in any fashion with a resident of Flatsville.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Brian

[RongzomFan]

If Creator is beyond cause and effect, he would have no way of interacting with our physics.

[Aetherous]

Uncaused does not mean uncausing.

[Brian]

If Creator is beyond cause and effect, he would have no way of interacting with our physics.

 

Perhaps you should attempt to explain, in your own words, why you believe that limitation to be a logical necessity.

[RongzomFan]

Perhaps you should attempt to explain, in your own words, why you believe that limitation to be a logical necessity.

 

Interaction requires change.

 

Change requires cause and effect.

[Isimsiz Biri]

There is nothing difficult with Turtle Shell's position.

 

It is basic Kalam cosmology.

 

Its been debunked in atheist circles for decades.

 

You say that it is debunked, yet it is not.

[Isimsiz Biri]

Interaction requires change.

 

Change requires cause and effect.

 

Incomplete.

[Isimsiz Biri]

All philosophical and religious positions revolve around only 2 views: Existence and Nonexistence.

 

However its all illusion, like a dream. Phenomena don't arise in the first place.

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 21.12. states:

"An existent does not arise from an existent;

neither does an existent arise from a non-existent.

A non-existent does not arise from a non-existent;

neither does a non-existent arise from an existent."

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&pg=PA297&dq=Mulamadhyamakakarika+of+Nagarjuna+An+existent+does+not+arise+from+an+existent;+neither+does+an+existent+arise+from+a+non-existent.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fnGiUtuWMPPMsQSzkIDwCA&ved=0CDgQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Mulamadhyamakakarika%20of%20Nagarjuna%20An%20existent%20does%20not%20arise%20from%20an%20existent%3B%20neither%20does%20an%20existent%20arise%20from%20a%20non-existent.&f=false

 

 

Here are some quotations from 2 top books, Nagarjuna's Reason Sixty and Center of the Sunlit Sky:

 

"Nagarjuna taught , "bereft of beginning, middle, and end," meaning that the world is free from creation, duration, and destruction."

-Candrakirti

 

"Once one asserts things, one will succumb to the view of seeing such by imagining their beginning, middle and end; hence that grasping at things is the cause of all views."

-Candrakirti

 

"the perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created is uncreated."

-Candrakirti

 

"Likewise, here as well, the Lord Buddha’s pronouncement that "What is dependently created is objectively uncreated," is to counteract insistence on the objectivity of things."

-Candrakirti

 

"Since relativity is not objectively created, those who, through this reasoning, accept dependent things as resembling the moon in water and reflections in a mirror, understand them as neither objectively true nor false. Therefore, those who think thus regarding dependent things realize that what is dependently arisen cannot be substantially existent, since what is like a reflection is not real. If it were real, that would entail the absurdity that its transformation would be impossible. Yet neither is it unreal, since it manifests as real within the world."

-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since

I have no position, I am not at fault at all."

 

Aryadeva said "Against someone who has no thesis of “existence,

nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” it is not possible to

level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time."

 

"I do not say that entities do not exist, because I say that they originate in dependence. “So are you a realist then?” I am not, because I am just a proponent of dependent origination. “What sort of nature is it then that you [propound]?” I propound dependent origination. “What is the meaning of dependent origination?” It has the meaning of the lack of a nature and the meaning of nonarising through a nature [of its own]. It has the meaning of the origination of results with a nature similar to that of illusions, mirages, reflections, cities of scent-eaters, magical creations, and dreams. It has the meaning of emptiness and identitylessness."

-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1. states:

"Not from themselves, not from something other,

Not from both, and not without a cause-

At any place and any time,

All entities lack arising."

 

Buddhapālita comments (using consequentalist arguments which ultimately snowballs into Tibetan prasangika vs. svatantrika):

"Entities do not arise from their own intrinsic nature, because their arising would be pointless and because they would arise endlessly. For entities that [already] exist as their own intrinsic nature, there is no need to arise again. If they were to arise despite existing [already], there would be no time when they do not arise; [but] that is also not asserted [by the Enumerators].

 

Candrakīrti, in ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.14., comments:

"If something were to originate in dependence on something other than it,

Well, then utter darkness could spring from flames

And everything could arise from everything,

Because everything that does not produce [a specific result] is the same in being other [than it]."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

"Entities also do not arise from something other, because there is nothing other."

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 1.3cd. states:

"If an entity in itself does not exist,

An entity other [than it] does not exist either."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

"Nor do entities arise from both [themselves and others], because this would entail [all] the flaws that were stated for both of these theses and because none of these [disproved possibilities] have the capacity to produce [entities]."

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.17., states:

"If some nonarisen entity

Existed somewhere,

It might arise.

However, since such does not exist, what would arise?"

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.19cd., states:

"If something that lacks arising could arise,

Just about anything could arise in this way."

 

These are all observations of the non existence of God Almighty. God Almighty includes non existence and existence at the same time.

It is not possible to understand non existence property.