And therefore, God does not exist!

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Postby rowboat » Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:27 pm

No, I won't be contacting him.


Of course not. It wasn't a serious suggestion.

:anjali:
Rain soddens what is covered up,
It does not sodden what is open.
Therefore uncover what is covered
That the rain will not sodden it.
Ud 5.5
User avatar
rowboat
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:31 am
Location: Brentwood Bay, British Columbia

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Postby Feathers » Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:44 pm

Binocular I'm slightly confused, sorry - you are looking for arguments FOR the existence of god? But what you linked in the OP is intended as a way of arguing AGAINST the existence of god by spoofing common arguments of the for camp . . .
Feathers
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:14 pm

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Postby culaavuso » Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:23 pm

SN 12.15
SN 12.15: Kaccayanagotta Sutta wrote:Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle...


MN 95
MN 95: Canki Sutta wrote:If a person likes something... holds an unbroken tradition... has something reasoned through analogy... has something he agrees to, having pondered views, his statement, 'This is what I agree to, having pondered views,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth.


Bertrand Russell wrote:Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.


Bertrand Russell wrote:The demand for certainty is one which is natural to man, but is nevertheless an intellectual vice.
culaavuso
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Postby Cittasanto » Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:41 pm

Hi Rowboat.
As you seem to of focused on timelines so hard, I will take your word for it being as you said.

rowboat wrote:
I do not know who Dawkins is or is not friends with, not that that actually matters as it would be the underpinning reasons for such action being advocated that would show hipocracy on Dawkins part.


I disagree. It certainly does matter. There is quite a difference between William Lane Craig's rhetorical reference to the biblical god of Abraham and his destruction of cities and cultures, in order to make a philosophical point, accusing WLC of advocacy for genocide on these grounds, and Sam Harris, when he talks about the real-world eventuality of a nuclear first strike against the Arab world. And I'm sorry but I have no idea what you are trying to say in the second part of your statement.

Haris was looking at a potential threat, and even cautioned Muslim countries to be aware of particular regimes (rising to power). he was, in fact, looking at a potential danger and what a first strike would potentially cause. not advocating a first strike should 100% happen,rather it is taken as a very real possibility as the jihadist mindset is immune to the "mutually assured destruction" understanding that kept the cold war cold. he also notes that it would be a war crime to kill indiscriminately.
WLC just needs to view it is gods will for him to believe an entire populace (militant and civilian of any age) should be wiped out and it would still be ethical (in his view).

There is a massive difference and as such the reasons behind advocacy or looking at possibilities/situations is completely different which makes any friendship Dawkins has with Haris besides the point and not showing any double standard.

But just to note I have never seen wlc actually counter a scientific theory, nor win an argument because he counters with wordplay and fallacious points. Debates are, however, rarely won on the merits of the argument, and more often on the charisma of the participants.


Sam Harris has debated WLC more than once. Probably you should write to Harris and give him your advice directly in case the two should meet again.

"Well, first let me say that it's an honour to be here at Notre Dame. And I'm very happy to be debating Dr. Craig - the one Christian Apologist who seems to have put the fear of god into many of my fellow atheists. I've actually gotten more than a few emails this week, that more or less read, 'brother, please don't blow this.'" - Sam Harris

I am sure Harris knows the art of rhetoric, it has been quite well looked into over the years.
The Art of Rhetoric wrote:Rhetoric is an old study developed by Aristotle in Ancient Greece and is familiar to the study of public management (Hood and Jackson 1991; Hood, 2000, Smullen, 2012, p.956). It recognizes that argumentation is a persuasive action that shapes views of the world. Rhetoric analysis tradition focuses to identify ho to incite action through talk.There are three concepts in rhetoric; pathos, ethos and logos. Ethos refers to the appeal of the speaker and the method that they develop themselves upon the audiences. It is how the speaker makes the audiences believe that they are trustworthy. Pathos refers to the way of the speaker to make audience receptive to the argument (Hood, 2000, Smullen,2012). Logos refers to the logic of the argument itself. It is the “scientific” way of argument when the speakers talk to the audiences. Logos is logical appeal. In addition,Ethos and pathos related to the way of the speaker talk to audiences. Logos, by contrast,focus in the content of argument (Smullen, 2010, p.45)

If you have a room full of scientific illiterate people and a charismatic creationist arguing against a dull scientist the charisma will win the day. Add to that the room is full of creationists then confirmation bias is also held, and if a tiny portion of the audience are Atheists they will be less likely to openly agree due to conformity bias.

Fine work. Over a hundred peer reviewed papers in respected philosophy journals, and thirty books, and nobody has exposed him until you today. But you claim to be very familiar with the work of William Lane Craig and yet you also state that you have no idea who Richard Dawkins is.

You should read what I say! I claim not to know who is friends with who, not that I do not know who Richard Dawkins is. Nor do I say Very familiar, I am familiar with some of his debates and writings.
One could say his greatest supporter in one question also notes
Eric Silverman wrote:Dr. Craig has written or edited about thirty books and over a hundred articles. He is the only theist with a chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. His work on the Kalam cosmological argument and Molinism is excellent. Yet, much of his work is published by less rigorous venues and he has not published much in the top academic presses mentioned above. So, I'd say that he's generally viewed as a good philosopher, though perhaps not as good as those I've listed above.

Personally I fail to see much difference between his "excellent" cosmological argument and other forms. even if they have been shown to be flawed several times.

however the first response to that question on ask philosophers says
Peter Smith wrote:So the philosophical atheists haven't been entirely silent. But it does seem that much philosophy of religion is being written noisily by people with religious axes to grind (such indeed as William Lane Craig). When I've dipped into that stuff, I've thought it either badly argued or starting from premisses we haven't much reason to believe or both: so my impression is that, if the world of Christian philosophy has been "utterly transformed" of late, it is largely a matter of quantity rather than quality. But I am, like most of my colleagues, too unimpressed/too lazy/short of time to bother to really get to grips with it.

so I am not the first to posit anything.

(edited spelling corrections & clarifiers. Nothing removed)
Last edited by Cittasanto on Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:54 am, edited 2 times in total.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5751
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Postby lyndon taylor » Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:56 pm

So this evidently highly respected Richard Dawkins bloke is some kind of defender of Buddhist thought?????
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community that has so generously given me so much, sincerely former monk John
User avatar
lyndon taylor
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Postby rowboat » Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:03 am

lyndon taylor wrote:So this evidently highly respected Richard Dawkins bloke is some kind of defender of Buddhist thought?????


No, he isn't. I've watched a short clip where he explains that he doesn't know much about Buddhism, but as so far as his understanding goes, "there are different varieties of Buddhism... and some of them are not so much religions but ways of life, as rules for living, and I could imagine that could be rather good... so to the extent that a variety of Buddhism refrains from supernatural magic I might well be sympathetic towards it..."

In other words, any mention of rebirth, previous lives, the 31 realms etc..., and Dawkins will return us to the camp of the "hallucinating deranged lunatics" with the rest of the religionists.
Last edited by rowboat on Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rain soddens what is covered up,
It does not sodden what is open.
Therefore uncover what is covered
That the rain will not sodden it.
Ud 5.5
User avatar
rowboat
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:31 am
Location: Brentwood Bay, British Columbia

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Postby Kim OHara » Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:04 am

lyndon taylor wrote:So this evidently highly respected Richard Dawkins bloke is some kind of defender of Buddhist thought?????

Hi, Lyndon,
I'm sure you're not entirely serious but to clear up any doubts that others may have, he's "highly respected" for his biological work but more famous (although a bit less respected) for his militant anti-theism. And no, he is no "kind of defender of Buddhist thought" at all. His hatred of Christianity is more public than his hatred of other religions but he is a boringly rigid hard-line rationalist and he has no sympathy for anything that even looks like religion. It even takes over his children's book, "The Magic of Reality - how we know what’s really true".

anonymous reviewer wrote:Dawkins made himelf famous decades ago with The Selfish Gene (1976) and famous all over over again with The God Delusion (2006), a merciless attack on religion in general and Christianity in particular. Between those two he wrote a string of popular science books, mostly about evolution but including Unweaving the Rainbow (1998) which was a reply to those who said his hard-line scientific approach took all the pleasure and poetry out of life. He argued in that book that there was as much pleasure, as much magic, in science as in art or mythology, with the significant bonus that science was really true.
The Magic of Reality is a combination of The God Delusion and Unweaving the Rainbow, for younger readers. The first and last chapters are ‘What is reality? What is magic’ and ‘What is a miracle’. Reality, he says, is what we can perceive with our five senses, aided by if necessary by extensions such as telescopes and microscopes. Magic, he says, is slipperier but can be divided into ‘stage magic’, which tricks people into believing things which didn’t actually occur, ‘poetic magic’, the feel-good magic of a starry night or great painting, and ‘supernatural magic’, the magic of fairy stories and J K Rowling, which he rejects outright, saying, “we all know this kind of magic is just fiction and doesn’t happen in reality.” [emphasis added]


:reading:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3068
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Postby Kim OHara » Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:07 am

Cittasanto wrote:
Peter Smith wrote:So the philosophical atheists haven't been entirely silent. But it does seem that much philosophy of religion is being written noisily by people with religious axes to grind (such indeed as William Lane Craig). When I've dipped into that stuff, I've thought it either badly argued or starting from premisses we haven't much reason to believe or both: so my impression is that, if the world of Christian philosophy has been "utterly transformed" of late, it is largely a matter of quantity rather than quality. But I am, like most of my colleagues, too unimpressed/too lazy/short of time to bother to really get to grips with it.


Me too!

:coffee:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3068
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Postby Mkoll » Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:32 am

binocular wrote:I am still waiting to see some good arguments against God.

My strategy is to avoid argument altogether with those who vehemently claim the existence of God. I might test the waters, if you will, to see if they have some flexibility in their minds. If further talk may yield new perspectives on either side, it may be worth it to talk. But if not, there's really no point.

One of the prime rules of communication is to know your audience. I think a lot of crusaders of any stripe often forget this rule and seem to think that their arguments are so good that anyone should be able to understand them. That's just not the case in my experience. The minds of some people are simply dead set in some regards and it's, at best, a waste of time debating about those things.

The 8 worldly conditions are very powerful.

:pig:
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 3251
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Postby Aloka » Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:33 am

binocular wrote: I am still waiting to see some good arguments against God.


Image
User avatar
Aloka
 
Posts: 3660
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Postby Benjamin » Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:21 am

binocular wrote: I am still waiting to see some good arguments against God.


Honestly, I don't think that's the best way to frame it. To give an example of what I mean:

"I am still waiting to see some good arguments against fairies."
"I am still waiting to see some good arguments against vampires."
"I am still waiting to see some good arguments against bigfoot."

I don't believe in a god for the simple reason that I can't find any good reasons to believe. Just like the above three. I shouldn't have to come up with detailed arguments against something I've seen no evidence for, because until the evidence is very compelling it's just an intellectual/philosophical exercise.
"Don't believe everything you read."
-The Buddha
User avatar
Benjamin
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:41 am
Location: The United States

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Feb 14, 2014 4:18 am

Spiny Norman wrote:
Coyote wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:And not touching, of course, those arguments that are not "lame."


What arguments would you consider not "lame"?


I can't think of any that stand up to serious scrutiny.
I have no idea of what arguments you have looked at. I do find, however, the Buddha's approach in the Nikayas quite reasonable. Outside of one very direct comment attributed by Ratthapala to the Buddha -- "The universe is without a Supreme God [Attaan.o loko anabhissaro]" -- in the Ratthapala Sutta, MN 82, the Buddha very intelligently dealt with the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos as being without any meaningful explanatory power as the primary way of dealing with the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos, as in this "theological" discussion initiated by the Buddha:
    "Again, monks, I [the Buddha] approached those ascetic and brahmins and said to them: 'Is it true, as they say, that you venerable ones teach and hold the view that whatever a person experiences...all that is caused by God's creation?' When they affirmed it, I said to them: 'If that is so, venerable sirs, then it is due to God's creation that people kill, steal ...[and otherwise act badly]. But those who have recourse to God's creation as the decisive factor, will lack the impulse and the effort doing this or not doing that. Since for them, really and truly, no (motive) obtains that this or that ought to be done or not be done...."' Anguttara Nikaya 3.61
Being without an ability to meaningfully explain anything, what purpose does the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos serve? The Buddha certainly saw no value in a god idea in terms of liberation, of awakening. One needs not try to disprove the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos for two reasons: It cannot, by its believers, be shown in any definitive way to exist, and it does not explain anything when pushed beyond superficial statements. And those who buy into the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos, when pushed to show what god explains, will almost invariably resort some such dodge as "God is beyond our understanding," "God works in mysterious ways," etc., which is another of saying that the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos cannot explain anything in a meaningful way.

So in this, I follow the Buddha's line of thought.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19559
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Postby retrofuturist » Fri Feb 14, 2014 4:34 am

Greetings,

:goodpost:

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14674
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Postby Mkoll » Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:55 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

:goodpost:

Metta,
Retro. :)

Quite so. Well played.

:thumbsup:
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 3251
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Postby sattva » Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:59 am

I have no argument because I just don't care if there is or is not a god that exists lol
User avatar
sattva
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: the western part of Maryland

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Postby binocular » Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:16 am

kitztack wrote:it means that one will never be liberated from dukkha while the clinging to a belief in a creator God exists. the author explains
the Buddha's teachings on this quite clearly. it is not a matter of being fit to be a Buddhist or belonging to Buddhism- its a matter of following what the Fully Awakened One realised to be free of samsara

Of course it is a matter of fitting in and belonging. More importantly, it's also a matter of assuming that an unenlightened person can adequately understand the reasoning of an enlightened one.


David N. Snyder wrote:Here are some good quotes and points in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=37&t=11082

???
I think those arguments are childish, suitable for teenagers perhaps, but not for adults.

Many of those arguments come down to "If God would exist or if God would be good, he would fulfill my every whim. But since my every whim isn't being fulfilled, God, obviously, either doesn't exist, or is evil."
That's the reasoning of children.


tiltbillings wrote:So in this, I follow the Buddha's line of thought.

So you claim to know what the Buddha meant?
You claim to have perfect understanding of the Buddha's teachings?


chownah wrote:Here's one: I have never experienced anything that indicates that god exists.

A.k.a. "I've never seen God, therefore, God does not exist. My experiences are the absolute measure of what exists and what doesn't. I know better than anyone else."


culaavuso wrote:
Bertrand Russell wrote:Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.

Bertrand Russell wrote:The demand for certainty is one which is natural to man, but is nevertheless an intellectual vice.

Oh, the irony to hear this from someone like Russell ...
binocular
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:34 am

binocular wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:So in this, I follow the Buddha's line of thought.

So you claim to know what the Buddha meant?
You claim to have perfect understanding of the Buddha's teachings?
I always stand to be corrected in anything and everything I say. Are you going to show me with carefully reasoned and exampled argument that I am wrong in what I said, wrong in what preceded the statement you quoted? I'd be delighted that you could show me that what I said is not in line with the Buddha's thought.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19559
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:42 am

binocular wrote:
Many of those arguments come down to "If God would exist or if God would be good, he would fulfill my every whim. But since my every whim isn't being fulfilled, God, obviously, either doesn't exist, or is evil."
That's the reasoning of children.
That is, of course, assuming that one demands from the supposed god that every whim be fulfilled, and there is, of course, no reason to assume that that is a necessity in questioning the whys and wherefores of the supposed god. On the other hand it is not unreasonable for the supposed god's creations to ask of the supposed god why it created the way it did.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19559
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Postby Spiny Norman » Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:15 am

Aloka wrote:
binocular wrote: I am still waiting to see some good arguments against God.


Image


:jumping:
Mrs. Bun: Have you got anything without spam in it?
Waitress: Well, there's spam, egg, sausage and spam. That's not got MUCH spam in it.
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2701
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Postby plwk » Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:51 am

I am still waiting to see some good arguments against God.


Image

:lol:
Bhikkhus, if you develop and make much this one thing,
it invariably leads to weariness, cessation, appeasement, realization and extinction.
What is it? It is recollecting the Enlightened One.
If this single thing is recollected and made much,
it invariably leads to weariness, cessation, appeasement, realization and extinction.

Anguttara-Nikaya: Ekanipata: Ekadhammapali: Pañhamavagga
VSM VMM WBB TBHT WTBT My Page
plwk
 
Posts: 1155
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:14 am

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest