Debunking a Creator

[Isimsiz Biri]

Without the painter's arm moving, there would be no painting.

 

The Creator can paint the wall without any arm movement. This is very difficult for you to understand. First, you have to get rid of demonic energy that surrounds you.

[RongzomFan]

If this is the case (you can not be trusted), he is obsessed by negatives.

 

Like Muhammed who thought he was possessed by djinn, and wanted to commit suicide.

 

And that was on the radio on NPR, so don't start your satan crap.

[RongzomFan]

The Creator can paint the wall without any arm movement.

 

Interaction requires change.

 

Change requires cause and effect.

[RongzomFan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ-xK_PEDgc

[Isimsiz Biri]

Like Muhammed who thought he was possessed by djinn, and wanted to commit suicide.

 

And that was on the radio on NPR, so don't start your satan crap.

 

Prophet Muhammad was not possesed by djinn or iblis. Djinns are very weak creatures, they can not obsess some body but rather make him/her uncomfortable only.

 

You are serving Satan, that is for sure.

[Isimsiz Biri]

 

 

The four horsemen of Satan.

[Brian]

Interaction requires change.

 

Change requires cause and effect.

 

You keep restating these two assumptions -- you DO realize that they are just assumptions, right?

 

That whole cause & effect thing is so 19th century. If I might borrow:

 

RongzomFan, don't tell God what to do.

 

[Simple_Jack]

Why not elaborate in detail in your own words as opposed to appealing to authority.

 

Another double standard? Ralis, please elaborate how the theists in this thread have not been appealing to the authority of their scripture.

 

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

1. Does everyone understand how a tautological argument works?
2. Was that a waste of time (i.e. meaningless)?
3. 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)

 

Gatito, when are you going to admit to your logical fallacies and double standards?

[gatito]

There are a number of traps for the unwary seeker as well as trying to debunk God (or to prove the existence of God to others).

 

I originally posted this in response to the trap of solipsism, at least a year ago however it works equally well for the tautological argument: -

 

Incidentally, in response to my own (rhetorical) questions above - at least two Bums spotted it - chegg and dawei (and RongzomFan admitted it but then edited that post)

[RongzomFan]

- chegg and dawei (and RongzomFan admitted it but then edited that post

 

dawei more or less agrees with me, so what are you talking about?

[gatito]

dawei more or less agrees with me, so what are you talking about?

That wasn't my impression but dawei may return to correct my misapprehension (that he spotted your tautological rhetoric)

Edited December 8, 2013 by gatito

[RongzomFan]

 

That wasn't my impression but dawei may return to correct my misapprehension (that he spotted your tautological rhetoric)

 

You must have missed the pages dawei arguing with Turtle Shell. Dawei was the only one who got what I was saying:

 

Ergo, you cannot have something 'un-caused' in the mix or something outside of the mix.

[Simple_Jack]

There are a number of traps for the unwary seeker as well as trying to debunk God (or to prove the existence of God to others).

 

I originally posted this in response to the trap of solipsism, at least a year ago however it works equally well for the tautological argument: -

 

 

Incidentally, in response to my own (rhetorical) questions above - at least two Bums spotted it - chegg and dawei (and RongzomFan admitted it but then edited that post)

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=502149

 

That's fine, but I think it would be more constructive if people were more preoccupied with how afflictions arise, how afflictions endure, and how afflictions cease, since these continue afflicted experience, which according to all Dharmic religions is responsible for furthering our perpetual confusion and migration through what is known as samsara (if you believe in that sort of thing.)

[RongzomFan]

God damn it Gatito

 

Are you going to tell us what you know??

 

 

I'm still waiting for an answer to this

[RongzomFan]

[gatito]

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=502149

 

That's fine, but I think it would be more constructive if people were more preoccupied with how afflictions arise, how afflictions endure, and how afflictions cease, since these continue afflicted experience, which according to all Dharmic religions is responsible for furthering our perpetual confusion and migration through what is known as samsara (if you believe in that sort of thing.)

 

That's another booby trap because it's an assertion of duality - which is ultimately untrue

[RongzomFan]

That's another booby trap because it's an assertion of duality - which is ultimately untrue

 

And asserting a Creator is not duality?

[gatito]

And asserting a Creator is not duality?

 

Asserting the non-existence of a creator is duality.

 

I pointed out the meaninglessness of your thread on the first page.

[RongzomFan]

Asserting the non-existence of a creator is duality.

 

That must be the stupidest comment in the entire thread.

[RongzomFan]

Hour 2

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoKegHTDI6U

[Simple_Jack]

That's another booby trap because it's an assertion of duality - which is ultimately untrue

 

Fine, but do you agree that these dualistic parameters are the starting point in determining how to still afflicted experience?

[Aetherous]

 

You must have missed the pages dawei arguing with Turtle Shell. Dawei was the only one who got what I was saying:

 

Ergo, you cannot have something 'un-caused' in the mix or something outside of the mix.

 

That's only assuming that dependent origination applies to literally everything, including the uncaused...and it doesn't. It only asserts that things (effects) have other causes. It doesn't address infinite cause and effect, of there being no beginning to things...or the possibility of something arising from an intelligent uncaused source, or there having been a first cause.

[RongzomFan]

And even Muhammed's scribe, Abdullah ibn Sa‘ad, thought he was fraud. Abdullah ibn Sa‘ad actually wrote some of the verses of the Koran.

 

 

bump

[Simple_Jack]

Asserting the non-existence of a creator is duality.

 

I pointed out the meaninglessness of your thread on the first page.

 

I pointed out the meaninglessness of turtle shell's assertion here http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=502017

 

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]

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=4412&p=44426&hilit=beginnings#p44426

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=7094&p=84992&hilit=beginnings#p84992

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=7094&p=84992&hilit=beginnings#p84966

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=3803&p=47229&hilit=beginnings#p47229

Edited December 8, 2013 by RongzomFan