Debunking a Creator

[C T]

This "confessions of sins" is very funny. First, in Islam, we do not have a silly mechanism of confessing your sins to priest such that he will forgive you in the name of God. You mentioned "Tawba" previously without knowing it, Tawba is made to God Almighty directly thus it is not a confession as God Almighty already knows everything. As far as I know, in Orthodox Christian Church, again there is no such concept of "confession of sins" to a priest.

 

If you are supporting RongzomFan, say it explicitly. Be honest.

The request was to be honest with yourself, not to priest nor to god, whatever that is. I know enough about Tawba -- i grew up in an Islamic country among Muslims. Its about responsibility and accountability, both of which was sorely lacking in your distasteful remark (the one cited above where you labelled another member a Satanist).

 

FYI, there have been a good few instances of disagreement with RongzomFan, but that is not the issue here. Please dont try to deflect the matter at hand by alluding to some sort of non-existent alliance which is tickling your imagination.

 

I have no gripe with you as an individual, so please try not to take this personally nor see it as an attack on your beliefs. If you do, it simply shows how limited those beliefs are in terms of spiritual growth and this will dampen whatever interests others may potentially have to delve deeper into your path because your words and behaviour on this board are an exemplary reflection of same beliefs.

Edited December 17, 2013 by C T

[Isimsiz Biri]

The request was to be honest with yourself, not to priest nor to god, whatever that is. I know enough about Tawba -- i grew up in an Islamic country among Muslims. Its about responsibility and accountability, both of which was sorely lacking in your distasteful remark (the one cited above where you labelled another member a Satanist).

 

FYI, there have been a good few instances of disagreement with RongzomFan, but that is not the issue here. Please dont try to deflect the matter at hand by alluding to some sort of non-existent alliance which is tickling your imagination.

 

I have no gripe with you as an individual, so please try not to take this personally nor see it as an attack on your beliefs. If you do, it simply shows how limited those beliefs are in terms of spiritual growth and this will dampen whatever interests others may potentially have to delve deeper into your path because your words and behaviour on this board are an exemplary reflection of same beliefs.

 

I am not interested in your artificial spiritual growth definition. I do not have a mission to make anybody to convert to my belief system too. If I do so, I have to behave according to people's Nafs which will bring the result that I have to obey my own Nafs. If you are seeking such a "spiritual master", purchase books of Osho, do not lose your time with me.

 

I am very honest against myself. I know what I am. Do not worry. But worry for yourself. You are watching RongzomFan's attacks silently. You are an ally of RongzomFan whatever you say. Why is it so difficult to confess it?

[C T]

I am not interested in your artificial spiritual growth definition. I do not have a mission to make anybody to convert to my belief system too. If I do so, I have to behave according to people's Nafs which will bring the result that I have to obey my own Nafs. If you are seeking such a "spiritual master", purchase books of Osho, do not lose your time with me.

 

I am very honest against myself. I know what I am. Do not worry. But worry for yourself. You are watching RongzomFan's attacks silently. You are an ally of RongzomFan whatever you say. Why is it so difficult to confess it?

Whatever, Mr Biri.

 

Your logic here is beyond reason, so there is no point to go further. Its like hitting a brick wall.

[Isimsiz Biri]

Whatever, Mr Biri.

 

Your logic here is beyond reason, so there is no point to go further. Its like hitting a brick wall.

 

I exactly think the same for you. But your wall is carved of single stone.

[Simple_Jack]

I used to ponder whether antitheistic fundamentalists or theistic fundamentalists were more entertaining but then I realized that the antitheistic ones are in denial, truly unaware of their religious fervor, while the theistic ones embrace their religion. To me, this lack of awareness makes the former simultaneously more amusing and more intractable.

 

I indicated here http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=503998 that we were all hypocrites. The amusement from this thread stems from the fact that the theists are just as fervent in attempting to prove the validity of their arguments to the 'antitheistic fundamentalists'. Yet, people are insisting that RongzomFan must be sympathetic/agnostic towards their position, but so far, no one has insisted that the theists must be sympathetic/agnostic towards RongzomFan's position. Furthermore, Gatito has been unable to admit to his logical fallacies and double standards made in this thread.

[RongzomFan]

What about the ancient creation myths where you have TWO Creators that have sex?

"Readers familiar with the biblical story of creation may find Hesiod's version of how all things began somewhat alien." - page 65. Classical Mythology by Harris and Platzner, 2001.

Edited December 17, 2013 by RongzomFan

[RongzomFan]

By the way, you don't need to have a Creator to have Divine.

 

A terton's own wisdom manifests as deities, Pure Lands etc.

[Stosh]

^{I thought the amusement-attraction was all the blood in the water}

[Brian]

 

I indicated here http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=503998 that we were all hypocrites. The amusement from this thread stems from the fact that the theists are just as fervent in attempting to prove the validity of their arguments to the 'antitheistic fundamentalists'. Yet, people are insisting that RongzomFan must be sympathetic/agnostic towards their position, but so far, no one has insisted that the theists must be sympathetic/agnostic towards RongzomFan's position. Furthermore, Gatito has been unable to admit to his logical fallacies and double standards made in this thread.

 

^^^ That's because this thread is "Debunking A Creator" rather than "Proving A Creator Exists." I would hold the theists to the same logical standard if this thread were about the reverse.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Brian

[Isimsiz Biri]

 

I indicated here http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=503998 that we pwere all hypocrites. The amusement from this thread stems from the fact that the theists are just as fervent in attempting to prove the validity of their arguments to the 'antitheistic fundamentalists'. Yet, people are insisting that RongzomFan must be sympathetic/agnostic towards their position, but so far, no one has insisted that the theists must be sympathetic/agnostic towards RongzomFan's position. Furthermore, Gatito has been unable to admit to his logical fallacies and double standards made in this thread.

Only double standard belongs to you and your friend RongzomFan

[Isimsiz Biri]

What about the ancient creation myths where you have TWO Creators that have sex?

 

"Readers familiar with the biblical story of creation may find Hesiod's version of how all things began somewhat alien." - page 65.T Classical Mythology by Harris and Platzner, 2001.

Thank you for admitting of Bible has been changed. "Two creators having sex" is a lie of your master, Satan. You naughty boy, you follow your master like a loyal server, don't you?

[Isimsiz Biri]

By the way, you don't need to have a Creator to have Divine.

 

A terton's own wisdom manifests as deities, Pure Lands etc.

Those deities wrote Terma? The Bon Religion demons of Tibet became your deities.

[Isimsiz Biri]

 

^^^ That's because this thread is "Debunking A Creator" rather than "Proving A Creator Exists." I would hold the theists to the same logical standard if this thread were about the reverse.

Brian,

 

As MTV youth, it is difficult for you, but try to find an original idea from your own just for one time, instead of making comments like a football fan.

[ralis]

By the way, you don't need to have a Creator to have Divine.

 

A terton's own wisdom manifests as deities, Pure Lands etc.

 

A terton is a human using his or her imagination to create a so called enlightened being to worship. The Vedic rishis made the same claim. Visual art and poetry as opposed to some exalted divine being/realm. To claim otherwise is being disingenuous.

[RongzomFan]

Thank you for admitting of Bible has been changed. "Two creators having sex" is a lie of your master, Satan. You naughty boy, you follow your master like a loyal server, don't you?

 

Dude, its ancient Greek mythology.

 

Hesiod.

 

Are Muslims completely ignorant about world religions?

[RongzomFan]

A terton is a human using his or her imagination to create a so called enlightened being to worship. The Vedic rishis made the same claim. Visual art and poetry as opposed to some exalted divine being/realm. To claim otherwise is being disingenuous.

 

Yidams are not a product of mind.

 

Even total western oriented people see a seated Buddha and deities in yab-yum through the 4 "visions" (for a lack of a better term) of lhub grub.

 

This is the primordial origin of yidams.

Edited December 17, 2013 by RongzomFan

[RongzomFan]

Monotheism is a con-job by Josiah:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t440bxhn1qA

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDDs8HgOZ4o

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm45sZEu25w

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tdKptBL5dc

[Brian]

Brian,

 

As MTV youth, it is difficult for you, but try to find an original idea from your own just for one time, instead of making comments like a football fan.

LOL

 

Out of curiosity, how old do you think I am, IB?

 

Referring to me as a fanatic is quite funny, BTW.

 

"Original idea?" This is a luke-warm rehashing of an ancient argument about which I have only the most superficial interest. I haven't "taken sides" because it is clear to me that neither "side" has a tenable position -- in the original assertion or point of debate, that is, which is the question of debunking a creator. By "side," I mean "theists" vs. "antitheists," of course; those who have approached the question logically understood on page one that it is a game of tic-tac-toe and is a cat's game every single time. As such, energy spent on the "debate" is energy wasted EXCEPT for the entertainment value -- which is actually something that a couple of the participants surely recognize.

 

That said, and for the sake of discussion, I'll point out two things (again...)

 

First would be to put on my "no-debunking" hat and point to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, which pretty clearly make the case that any natural-number system which approaches completeness necessarily contains unprovable statements. Since such a complete system would also necessarily be a reflection of the entirety of an omnipotent & omnipresent creator, it follows that this creator would necessarily be composed in part of unprovable statements. This, therefore, necessarily makes proving a creator false impossible, It is important to note, however, that this in no way proves a creator to be true, nor even the possibility of a creator -- it merely means that the possibility of a creator cannot be logically eliminated.

 

Second would be to put on my "agnostic" hat (having proven that neither "bunking" nor "debunking" make sense), say "I don't know," and then point to Gödel's ontological proof. This begins with the assumption (plainly stated) that one can imagine a "possible world" (theoretical parallel universe, imaginary model, whatever) in which there exists a god. Given that assumption, Gödel demonstrated that god (or a godlike object, specifically) must exist in all possible worlds. This proof is quite rigorous and has been proven mathematically (http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.4526). Any attempt to "debunk" must therefore conclusively and unambiguously invalidate the opening assumption. This obligation falls on the debunker. The symbolic representation is:

 

Not that my input will sway either theists or antitheists, of course...

 

[Simple_Jack]

LOL

 

Out of curiosity, how old do you think I am, IB?

 

Referring to me as a fanatic is quite funny, BTW.

 

"Original idea?" This is a luke-warm rehashing of an ancient argument about which I have only the most superficial interest. I haven't "taken sides" because it is clear to me that neither "side" has a tenable position -- in the original assertion or point of debate, that is, which is the question of debunking a creator. By "side," I mean "theists" vs. "antitheists," of course; those who have approached the question logically understood on page one that it is a game of tic-tac-toe and is a cat's game every single time. As such, energy spent on the "debate" is energy wasted EXCEPT for the entertainment value -- which is actually something that a couple of the participants surely recognize.

 

That said, and for the sake of discussion, I'll point out two things (again...)

 

First would be to put on my "no-debunking" hat and point to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, which pretty clearly make the case that any natural-number system which approaches completeness necessarily contains unprovable statements. Since such a complete system would also necessarily be a reflection of the entirety of an omnipotent & omnipresent creator, it follows that this creator would necessarily be composed in part of unprovable statements. This, therefore, necessarily makes proving a creator false impossible, It is important to note, however, that this in no way proves a creator to be true, nor even the possibility of a creator -- it merely means that the possibility of a creator cannot be logically eliminated.

 

Second would be to put on my "agnostic" hat (having proven that neither "bunking" nor "debunking" make sense), say "I don't know," and then point to Gödel's ontological proof. This begins with the assumption (plainly stated) that one can imagine a "possible world" (theoretical parallel universe, imaginary model, whatever) in which there exists a god. Given that assumption, Gödel demonstrated that god (or a godlike object, specifically) must exist in all possible worlds. This proof is quite rigorous and has been proven mathematically (http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.4526). Any attempt to "debunk" must therefore conclusively and unambiguously invalidate the opening assumption. This obligation falls on the debunker. The symbolic representation is:

 

Not that my input will sway either theists or antitheists, of course...

 

 

As it shouldn't, because mainstream physicalist science regards anything being discussed on TTB's as superstitious nonsense.

[Brian]

There's a big difference between "superstitious nonsense" and "outside our field of study." Beware the self-proclaimed scientist, regardless of academic bone fides, who dismisses that which he/she cannot study. You might be surprised at the number of scientists who see no fundamental conflict between science and religion. I once was.

[RongzomFan]

As it shouldn't, because mainstream physicalist science regards anything being discussed on TTB's as superstitious nonsense.

I didn't remember a Creator being mentioned in science class.

[Simple_Jack]

There's a big difference between "superstitious nonsense" and "outside our field of study." Beware the self-proclaimed scientist, regardless of academic bone fides, who dismisses that which he/she cannot study. You might be surprised at the number of scientists who see no fundamental conflict between science and religion. I once was.

 

I'm aware of that, but until that time when scientists can quantify abstract meditative experiences beyond physicalist frameworks, much of what is discussed on this forum will be regarded as superstition by mainstream secular academia.

[Brian]

 

I'm aware of that, but until that time when scientists can quantify abstract meditative experiences beyond physicalist frameworks, much of what is discussed on this forum will be regarded as superstition by mainstream secular academia.

No, it must be regarded as outside the realm of current scientific understanding. Any scientist who tells you otherwise is not impartial and should recuse himself or herself from the discussion. Obviously, though, many do not refrain from mixing science with beliefs -- on both sides of the topic. And that's fine, honestly, as long as they strive to delineate where one ends and the other begins, and to attempt to identify their assumptions. Again, though, many do not.

[Simple_Jack]

No, it must be regarded as outside the realm of current scientific understanding. Any scientist who tells you otherwise is not impartial and should recuse himself or herself from the discussion. Obviously, though, many do not refrain from mixing science with beliefs -- on both sides of the topic. And that's fine, honestly, as long as they strive to delineate where one ends and the other begins, and to attempt to identify their assumptions. Again, though, many do not.

 

Obviously, mainstream physicalist science doesn't agree with your reasoning, because Ian Stevenson's research carried on by others in The Division of Perceptual Studies at UVA, are not taken seriously by mainstream academia.

 

http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

 

No, it must be regarded as outside the realm of current scientific understanding. Any scientist who tells you otherwise is not impartial and should recuse himself or herself from the discussion. Obviously, though, many do not refrain from mixing science with beliefs -- on both sides of the topic. And that's fine, honestly, as long as they strive to delineate where one ends and the other begins, and to attempt to identify their assumptions. Again, though, many do not.

 

They not only tell you otherwise, they might lock you up and declare you insane for daring to speak of matters beyond their sterile paradigms.

 

...

Edited December 17, 2013 by Captain Mar-Vell