User Tag List

First 2345614 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 158

  1. #31
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    And the discussion takes a new turn.

  2. #32
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Perhaps.

    There are filters and blinkers at work in most threads and on most topics, religion I dont believe is entirely rational or logical, its more hoilistic a concept and means of conceptualising than all that, but I do think these sorts of threads are worthwhile and can influence my opinions. I'd not expect anyones worldview to be changed by them but perhaps it could spark an interest and they'll go and read up on the topic.

    Is there really a variety of buddhism which has deified buddha? I find that harder to believe, although mind you one of the only sources I've read on the topic, away from the pop publishing and dali lama press, is an older "religion of the samuari" book which was free for kindle and which suggested that buddhism was a sort of spirituality for athiests without even the concepts of karma, rebirth/cycle or nirvana/enlightenment, at least in the "higher" form (it suggesting there were two seperate forms).

    The cycle of birth and death in buddhism is interesting to me because it seems like purgatory in my understanding of the idea, however the idea of steapping of the cycle of birth and death into a state in which personal survival or personality does not exist and there is no God is something akin to oblivion and hell in my reckoning. I dont mean that in any prejorative sense either, its just observations of what it all means to me and I can honestly say that in my own understanding it would be entirely possible for that to have objective reality alongside that which I believe of this life and the next.
    This is going to sound sappy, but that's why I'm a lot more in favor of sharing and understanding instead of arguing. It's the only way anyone is going to get any kind of value out of a religious discussion. So, pretty much what you said.

    Peguy should expand on the whole deification of Buddha thing. I've always been more interested in Zen because it's very essential and stripped down. But I notice other groups have gone in different directions with it, ones I haven't bothered looking into.

  3. #33
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,525

    The Implausible God

    The existence of God is refutable simply because it is refuted. And so God's existence is not irrefutable simply because it is being refuted here.

    However a more interesting question is, "Is the existence of God plausible or implausible?".

    And the answer is simple and it is that the existence of God is plausible, for the existence of God is found plausible by billions of people alive today.

    However I found the existence of God to be increasingingly implausible since I could refute Thomas Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God from high school.

    And then with the discovery of more and more Gods based on geography, God became increasingly implausible.

  4. #34
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qlippoth View Post
    Peguy should expand on the whole deification of Buddha thing. I've always been more interested in Zen because it's very essential and stripped down. But I notice other groups have gone in different directions with it, ones I haven't bothered looking into.
    It merely depends on which Buddhist tradition one is referring to. The Theravada tradition does not see Buddha as a divine being, but the concept does carry more currency within Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism.

    I found this to be a quite intriguing, concerning one scholar's view of parallels between this tradition and Western NeoPlatonism:
    In some Mahayana traditions, the Buddha is indeed worshiped as a virtual divinity who is possessed of supernatural qualities and powers. Dr. Guang Xing writes: "The Buddha worshiped by Mahayanist followers is an omnipotent divinity endowed with numerous supernatural attributes and qualities ...[He] is described almost as an omnipotent and almighty godhead.".[31]

    Buddhist scholar, Dr. B. Alan Wallace, has also indicated that saying that Buddhism as a whole is 'non-theistic' may be an over-simplification. Wallace discerns similarities between some forms of Vajrayana Buddhism and notions of a divine 'ground of being' and creation. He writes: "a careful analysis of Vajrayana Buddhist cosmogony, specifically as presented in the Atiyoga tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, which presents itself as the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, reveals a theory of a transcendent ground of being and a process of creation that bear remarkable similarities with views presented in Vedanta and Neoplatonic Western Christian theories of creation."[32] In fact, Wallace sees these views as so similar that they seem almost to be different manifestations of the same theory. He further comments: "Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory."[33]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_...ajrayana_views
    I'll have to read further into Dr. Wallace's theories to be able to further comment on such a relationship to Western concepts(this is often tricky since Eastern religions operate on different premises to Western ones), but I do agree with his basic argument that claiming Buddhism is "non-theistic"(more accurate term than atheistic in this context) is a gross oversimplification.

    Tibetan Buddhism is also known for inculturating(using a Christian term here) many of the traditional folk deities and spirits of native shammanism. Which adds a new twist to the issue; even if Buddhism rejects Buddha as god, that doesn't mean Buddhism rejects the existence of divine beings per se.

  5. #35
    Tier 1 Member LunaLuminosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 so/sp
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    Imagining an infinite chain of collisions still begs the question, from where did this seemingly inexplicable eternal force come from?
    Well actually, it doesn't beg this question. "Infinite" and "eternal" lead to this question making no sense. What does "come from" mean if the universe is eternal and space-time is infinite? The concept of infinity means there is no beginning or end... it is a grand loop of sorts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    God obviously does not need a maker, he is the answer to the chain, we know this universe cannot be infinite and eternal, but when we evoke God to solve the start of our chain, the point of invoking him implies that he has those qualities.
    So you are defining "God" as this one prime mover without cause.... a very common interpretation, but one that leads to a lot of confusion since people tend to define "God" as a whole lot more than that. Like, most believers probably wouldn't be happy with their prime mover without cause being a purple drunken elephant.

    But again, how do we know that the universe cannot be infinite and eternal?

  6. #36
    Senior Member King sns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    6,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    The existence of God is refutable simply because it is refuted. And so God's existence is not irrefutable simply because it is being refuted here.

    However a more interesting question is, "Is the existence of God plausible or implausible?".

    And the answer is simple and it is that the existence of God is plausible, for the existence of God is found plausible by billions of people alive today.

    However I found the existence of God to be increasingingly implausible since I could refute Thomas Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God from high school.

    And then with the discovery of more and more Gods based on geography, God became increasingly implausible.
    God is different geographically, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It just indicates that we on Earth don't understand a God and are unable to fully interpret things with what we know.
    06/13 10:51:03 five sounds: you!!!
    06/13 10:51:08 shortnsweet: no you!!
    06/13 10:51:12 shortnsweet: go do your things and my things too!
    06/13 10:51:23 five sounds: oh hell naw
    06/13 10:51:55 shortnsweet: !!!!
    06/13 10:51:57 shortnsweet: (cries)
    06/13 10:52:19 RiftsWRX: You two are like furbies stuck in a shoe box

    My Nohari
    My Johari
    by sns.

  7. #37
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,525

    Smile Is God short and sweet?

    Quote Originally Posted by shortnsweet View Post
    God is different geographically, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It just indicates that we on Earth don't understand a God and are unable to fully interpret things with what we know.
    I think it is starting to look as though God were man-made, dear ShortnSweet.

    But still, God remains immensely plausible to billions of souls alive today.

    I wonder, is God plausible for you dear ShortnSweet, and if so, I suspect God is just like you - short and sweet.

  8. #38
    Senior Member King sns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    6,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    I think it is starting to look as though God were man-made, dear ShortnSweet.

    But still, God remains immensely plausible to billions of souls alive today.

    I wonder, is God plausible for you dear ShortnSweet, and if so, I suspect God is just like you - short and sweet.
    Of course God or Gods are plausible. It should be plausible to anyone who admits that they don't know everything.
    06/13 10:51:03 five sounds: you!!!
    06/13 10:51:08 shortnsweet: no you!!
    06/13 10:51:12 shortnsweet: go do your things and my things too!
    06/13 10:51:23 five sounds: oh hell naw
    06/13 10:51:55 shortnsweet: !!!!
    06/13 10:51:57 shortnsweet: (cries)
    06/13 10:52:19 RiftsWRX: You two are like furbies stuck in a shoe box

    My Nohari
    My Johari
    by sns.

  9. #39
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shortnsweet View Post
    God is different geographically, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist.
    "For from the rising of the sun to its setting My name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering; for My name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts."
    --Malachi 1:11


    Yeah, if anything it opens up the possibility of Perennialism.

    [youtube="gJpn6t7SQzE"]Christian twist to Perennialism[/youtube]

  10. #40
    Head Pigeon Mad Hatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    -1w sp/sx
    Socionics
    IOU Ni
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    What we believe is always a matter of choice, or in other words, how far we feel that we feel 'convinced' or a certain idea or concept.

    Whatever arguments someone may present to either prove or disprove the existence of god - what it comes down to is the simple, yet crucial fact that it always require a leap of faith. It seems that a lot of people have trouble wrapping their head around this.
    Whether or not a deity or deities exist belongs to the realm of the metaphysical. And either sides tries to drag in objective truth into the realm of subjective truth. It never works. If you believe that god exists, then this is true. If you do not believe that god exists, then this is equally true.

    Any attempts to 'prove', by referrals to the physical world, the existence of such deity, cannot be actual proof - they can only serve to exemplify the opinion on god you have already at the time you make the statement.
    For one person, the beauty of a starry night may serve as 'proof' that god exists. This isn't actual proof though, more an elaboration of the presupposition that god exists in the first place.
    Similarly, if another person makes a statement like 'there is so much bad going on in the world ... god doesn't exist, else he / she would prevent such things', this isn't actual proof for the non-existence of said god either. This person has already decided that god does not exist, and the 'proof' would merely be an example of this conviction.
    IN SERIO FATVITAS.

    -τὸ γὰρ γράμμα ἀποκτέννει, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ-

Similar Threads

  1. Arguing the Existence or Non-existence of God--the thread that never ends
    By The Wailing Specter in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 197
    Last Post: 04-07-2015, 07:37 AM
  2. The Different Names of "God"
    By Thalassa in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-16-2013, 02:34 AM
  3. The central question of religion is not the existence of God?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-25-2012, 04:16 PM
  4. Replies: 96
    Last Post: 12-25-2008, 08:05 PM
  5. Debate on the existence of god
    By nightning in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: 12-23-2008, 03:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO