Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Postby plwk » Fri Apr 04, 2014 2:02 am

Agree.
But how do you teach, Morality and positive behavior towards others to a fool?
Due to fear some people avoid bad action.
:thinking:
I know one colleague of mine in an ex company, a young married father of 4 kids, who has a reputation of clandestine affairs with some of the women at work and yes, he's a god believer & follower and even attempted several times to convert me to his Abrahamic religion.

So, how do you teach morality and positive behaviour towards such a 'fool' like him? By using atheism? :lol:
Remember the late Hitchens and his ramblings on the 'morality predates religion' thingy? :thinking:
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: 1159
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:14 am

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Postby SarathW » Fri Apr 04, 2014 2:23 am

Psychologist Matt J. Rossano muses that religion emerged after morality and built upon morality by expanding the social scrutiny of individual behavior to include supernatural agents. By including ever watchful ancestors, spirits and gods in the social realm, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.[14] The adaptive value of religion would have enhanced group survival

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
SarathW
 
Posts: 2258
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Postby binocular » Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:00 am

culaavuso wrote:If the universe needs a creator as a means for expressing gratitude for the universe, then to whom should we express gratitude for the creator?

It's not that "the universe needs a creator as a means to express gratitude". It's that we cannot express gratitude to anyone but persons. We can appreciate things, but gratitude can be expressed only to persons, not to things. Indebtedness can be felt only toward persons, not to things.

So if we are to cultivate gratitude, if we are to acknowledge our indebtedness, we can only do so in reference to persons, not things.

This -
"Monks, these two people are hard to find in the world. Which two? The one who is first to do a kindness, and the one who is grateful for a kindness done and feels obligated to repay it. These two people are hard to find in the world."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

is possible only between persons.
binocular
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Postby binocular » Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:03 am

David N. Snyder wrote:Well, some members of the Abrahamic faiths always ask us where did the world come from, who created the universe?

Where are those members of the Abrahamic faiths who are asking this?
I mean, unless one actually goes out of one's way to strike up conversations with theists or read their materials, the topic hardly ever comes up.

So whence the atheist and anti-theist teachings in Buddhism?

Jetavan wrote:I think one reason why a creator would need to have a creator is that, in order to be a creator, one must 'act' in such a way that one 'creates' something. If 'action' occurs, then some sort of change in the creator is occurring. If the creator is 'acting', that is, 'changing', then the creator is not unchanging; thus, the creator, like any other conditioned entity, 'changes'.

Everything that changes, changes due to causes and conditions. Thus, the creator (as something that changes) itself needs a creator. And that creator needs a creator. And so on.

Not if "God" is defined as a person.


tiltbillings wrote:Why a creator god in the first place?

Why get into conversations about it in the first place?

My intention here is to understand how come so many Buddhists get into conversations about God.

tiltbillings wrote:In other words, the idea of a creator god creates more questions.

Only for those who place their focus outside of themselves ...
binocular
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Postby binocular » Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:06 am

SarathW wrote:Psychologist Matt J. Rossano muses that religion emerged after morality and built upon morality by expanding the social scrutiny of individual behavior to include supernatural agents. By including ever watchful ancestors, spirits and gods in the social realm, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.[14] The adaptive value of religion would have enhanced group survival

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

Interesting conceptualization.

Why talk about "selfishness" - and not about greed, anger, and delusion?
binocular
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Postby binocular » Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:17 am

SarathW wrote:But how do you teach, Morality and positive behavior towards others to a fool?

Why would you have to teach anyone anything?
Can you explain?


daverupa wrote:Well, they can be instructed in the consequences of actions without lying to them about the existence of a creator deity.

This last always takes the form of unmoved mover (e.g. causeless cause) ideation, which is basically a "here there be dragons" for the edges of cognitive space.

I don't see it that way at all.

Some theists simply define "God" as The First Cause. I see no problem with that. To me, this is the same kind of thing as, say, the meaning of a word in a foreign language. If the Turkish-English dictionary tells me that "elma" means 'apple,' then I take it at its word. I see no need to write my own Turkish dictionary.

To me, a theist discourse is like a foreign language, and it doesn't occur to me to redefine the terms. To question whether "God" is the "First Cause" is to me the same as to question whether "elma" is "apple" in Turkish. I wouldn't do it.
binocular
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Postby daverupa » Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:56 am

binocular wrote:Some theists simply define "God" as The First Cause. I see no problem with that. To me, this is the same kind of thing as, say, the meaning of a word in a foreign language. If the Turkish-English dictionary tells me that "elma" means 'apple,' then I take it at its word.


But it's English, so there's no additional foreign language issue here. It's the fact that "First Cause" is a bankrupt idea, so defining God as First Cause makes that sort of god an impossible one. It doesn't make any hay to say that it's been defined that way, and that's just the way it is. God, when defined as e.g. a First Cause, functions as a "here there be dragons" - which is to say, a reason to stop drawing certain cognitive maps without simply admitting that it's unknown territory.

On the other hand, e.g. SN 15.3 describes the situation as an inconstruable beginning. Very different than saying "and then, it's just the end, and there's a God there doing deus ex machina because of philosophers and their questions."
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4194
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Postby binocular » Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:27 pm

daverupa wrote:But it's English, so there's no additional foreign language issue here.

There is - it's a matter of a different, a foreign discourse. A discourse is a language. That's how I mean it here -

discourse
/.../
The totality of codified language (vocabulary) used in a given field of intellectual enquiry and of social practice, such as legal discourse, medical discourse, religious discourse, et cetera.[2]

/.../
In the humanities and in the social sciences, the term discourse describes a formal way of thinking that can be expressed through language, a social boundary that defines what can be said about a specific topic; as Judith Butler said, “the limits of acceptable speech”, the limits of possible truth.

Discourses are seen to affect our views on all things; it is not possible to avoid discourse. For example, two notably distinct discourses can be used about various guerrilla movements describing them either as "freedom fighters" or "terrorists". In other words, the chosen discourse provides the vocabulary, expressions and perhaps also the style needed to communicate.

Discourses are embedded in different rhetorical genres and metagenres that constrain and enable them. That is language talking about language, for instance the American Psychiatric Association's DSMIV manual tells which terms have to be used in talking about mental health, thereby mediating meanings and dictating practices of the professionals of psychology and psychiatry.[5]
/.../
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse


Just like there is, say, "feminist discourse," and in it, particular terms have their own specific meanings that they don't necessarily have in other discourses.
To then argue that the feminists have it wrong, is to assume that one has a discourse that is superior to all others. (This is where it gets iffy.)


It's the fact that "First Cause" is a bankrupt idea,

I still fail to see why.


It doesn't make any hay to say that it's been defined that way, and that's just the way it is.

I think it makes perfect sense to say "God is defined by some theisms as First Cause, and that's just the way it is."

I wouldn't try to understand a Turkish word outside of Turkish. In the same manner, I wouldn't try to understand a theistic term outside of the theistic discourse.


God, when defined as e.g. a First Cause, functions as a "here there be dragons" - which is to say, a reason to stop drawing certain cognitive maps without simply admitting that it's unknown territory.

That's a projection. It's assuming, among other things, that those who claim to know about God have arrived at that knowledge the same way the speaker assumes he would.


On the other hand, e.g. SN 15.3 describes the situation as an inconstruable beginning.

Maybe to some people, that beginning is evident. Why should this be such a preposterous proposition - namely, that some other people may know things one doesn't know?


Very different than saying "and then, it's just the end, and there's a God there doing deus ex machina because of philosophers and their questions."

Yet nobody here is saying that.
binocular
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Postby greeneggsandsam » Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:02 pm

binocular wrote:This is from another thread:

Say some one ask the question "Who create God" when some one answer "God create the world"
Can the answer be "You have gone too far .......... etc"

If not why?

No, because the question is advocating creation and intelligent design hence the creator must also has a creator and so forth to keep the logic alive.

In Buddhism, creation of the world does not apply. It is formation and natural order.


Why would the Creator need to have a creator and so ad infinitum?

I've often seen it claimed that a creator god needs a creator god and so into infinite regress, but never seen it explained why this would necessarily be so.


The way I have heard this god theory approached was along the lines:

The universe is so complex that there must be an intelligent design out there (more intelligent then humans as human technology and knowledge is incomparable to the complexities of the universe. i.e. we can't even create a human cell).

Then falls the assumption that whatever created the universe must be at least as complex as the universe itself.

Hence, you would need a creator, equally as intelligent as the latter creator or more superior to create that creator.

And then of course this goes on > infinity
greeneggsandsam
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 6:43 am

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Postby David N. Snyder » Fri Apr 04, 2014 3:25 pm

binocular wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote:Well, some members of the Abrahamic faiths always ask us where did the world come from, who created the universe?

Where are those members of the Abrahamic faiths who are asking this?


Everywhere. When Buddhists encounter members of Abrahamic faiths and the discussion is religion or the person finds out you are Buddhist, it typically goes something like this or similar to this:

Q. So you worship Buddha?
A. No, the Buddha was a human being who became enlightened.
Q. So you still worship God and Buddha was a prophet of God?
A. No, Buddhism is non-theistic.

And then you can see where it goes from there, with the added explanations, etc.
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8126
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Postby plwk » Fri Apr 04, 2014 3:34 pm

...and Buddha was a prophet of God?
Well David, at least this guy seems to think not...

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: 1159
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:14 am

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Postby culaavuso » Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:27 pm

binocular wrote:It's that we cannot express gratitude to anyone but persons. We can appreciate things, but gratitude can be expressed only to persons, not to things. Indebtedness can be felt only toward persons, not to things.

So if we are to cultivate gratitude, if we are to acknowledge our indebtedness, we can only do so in reference to persons, not things.

This appears to assume two concepts implicitly without explaining why it should be so.

First, the nature of gratitude. Why must a feeling of appreciation be expressed as gratitude? And why does it need to be expressed to a person? And why can't the universe for which one is grateful simply be given a "person" label for these purposes? Why is making up a "God" label any better than just applying an extra "person" label?

Second, Why wouldn't there be an indebtedness and appreciation for God's existence? In that case, what person is responsible for creating God to whom gratitude can be expressed?

binocular wrote:This -
"Monks, these two people are hard to find in the world. Which two? The one who is first to do a kindness, and the one who is grateful for a kindness done and feels obligated to repay it. These two people are hard to find in the world."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

is possible only between persons.


This is because there is a person who does a kindness, and so repaying a kindness is rightly to the person who performed the kindness. There is no need to impute a creator who performed the kindness of creating the universe. This seems to describe a situation where a feeling of appreciation is present, giving rise to a strong desire to express gratitude out of being accustomed to such behavior with people. However, in this case there is no person to whom gratitude can be expressed and so a conceptual invention of "God" is created so that someone can go through the motions of expressing gratitude. A "God" that is merely a convenient conceptual invention is a different thing from a "God" that is actually the creator of the universe.
culaavuso
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Postby Jetavan » Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:34 pm

binocular wrote:....
Jetavan wrote:I think one reason why a creator would need to have a creator is that, in order to be a creator, one must 'act' in such a way that one 'creates' something. If 'action' occurs, then some sort of change in the creator is occurring. If the creator is 'acting', that is, 'changing', then the creator is not unchanging; thus, the creator, like any other conditioned entity, 'changes'.

Everything that changes, changes due to causes and conditions. Thus, the creator (as something that changes) itself needs a creator. And that creator needs a creator. And so on.

Not if "God" is defined as a person.
Even a "creator person", in order to create, would have to change, and would thus be subject to change and origination via causes, and conditions (including a different "creator person").
User avatar
Jetavan
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:45 am

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Postby barcsimalsi » Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:17 am

David N. Snyder wrote:
binocular wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote:Well, some members of the Abrahamic faiths always ask us where did the world come from, who created the universe?

Where are those members of the Abrahamic faiths who are asking this?


Everywhere. When Buddhists encounter members of Abrahamic faiths and the discussion is religion or the person finds out you are Buddhist, it typically goes something like this or similar to this:

Q. So you worship Buddha?
A. No, the Buddha was a human being who became enlightened.
Q. So you still worship God and Buddha was a prophet of God?
A. No, Buddhism is non-theistic.

And then you can see where it goes from there, with the added explanations, etc.

Another type( with ending):
T: you believe in kamma?

B: i think so, it justified some lots of things.

T: for the universe to have such incredible pattern of cause and effect, don’t you think there’s higher intelligent behind all this mechanism?

B: mmm…Buddha says it is incomprehensible.

T: see, that’s the limit of being a human and buddha, time to submit to the creator god?

B: not yet, incomprehensible doesn’t mean there must be a creator god. Even if the creator exists, it doesn’t mean He is the uncreated first cause.

T: the scripture says so.

B: it only proof that the imaginary creator is a stubborn atheist himself for not believing in a higher creator god.
barcsimalsi
 
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:33 am

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Postby Spiny Norman » Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:07 pm

binocular wrote:My intention here is to understand how come so many Buddhists get into conversations about God.


A lot of people believe in God, so the subject does come up. A problem I've often experienced in conversations with theists is that of definition. There are so many different ideas around about "God" around that it's become an almost meaningless term. Some people think in terms of a traditional Abrahamic God, but many people now seem to think in new-age terms, "God" meaning some sort of creative energy ( or something ), more like pantheism. I find it all rather confusing!
I'm a lumberjack, and I'm OK....
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Postby daverupa » Sat Apr 05, 2014 2:00 pm

binocular wrote:I think it makes perfect sense to say "God is defined by some theisms as First Cause, and that's just the way it is."


Not if we're trying to come to terms of mutual understanding. A language of one is no language, and someone who insists that contradictions aren't contradictions is speaking a language of one. Getting a bunch of those people in a room together doesn't actually remove the problem.

In short, the argument is that everything needs a cause except a special thing, but the rejoinder is manifold: "why not many causes?"; "why not random flux?"; and so forth. It become one metaphysical proposition among many, and one that falls to contradiction (no forthcoming reason why everything needs a cause except the special thing).

On the other hand, e.g. SN 15.3 describes the situation as an inconstruable beginning.

Maybe to some people, that beginning is evident. Why should this be such a preposterous proposition - namely, that some other people may know things one doesn't know?


That isn't preposterous. But claiming to know a red blue is preposterous.

Very different than saying "and then, it's just the end, and there's a God there doing deus ex machina because of philosophers and their questions."

Yet nobody here is saying that.


Anyone insisting on First Cause argumentation is necessarily saying this, in some form.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4194
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Postby beeblebrox » Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:40 pm

daverupa wrote:
binocular wrote:I think it makes perfect sense to say "God is defined by some theisms as First Cause, and that's just the way it is."


Not if we're trying to come to terms of mutual understanding. A language of one is no language, and someone who insists that contradictions aren't contradictions is speaking a language of one. Getting a bunch of those people in a room together doesn't actually remove the problem.


I think it is unrealistic to expect a mutual understanding which is universal. It goes against the concept of anicca.

In short, the argument is that everything needs a cause except a special thing, but the rejoinder is manifold: "why not many causes?"; "why not random flux?"; and so forth. It become one metaphysical proposition among many, and one that falls to contradiction (no forthcoming reason why everything needs a cause except the special thing).


I think this becomes a problem only when a person becomes entrapped in that kind of thinking. For some believers, seems like it's not a problem for them... apparently they're untroubled by this dilemma.

That doesn't make it true, of course... but why should we get worked up over this? Why should we try to budge them away from their position? Especially if they feel at peace with it, or they do wholesome things with it?

On the other hand, e.g. SN 15.3 describes the situation as an inconstruable beginning.

Maybe to some people, that beginning is evident. Why should this be such a preposterous proposition - namely, that some other people may know things one doesn't know?


That isn't preposterous. But claiming to know a red blue is preposterous.


Blue

Is this acceptable? Why, or why not?

God seemed to make perfect sense at one time... that's because the framework people lived in was different than the one we have right now. This framework changed because that is the nature of anicca.

I think it is a mistake to think that something stopped to make sense just because we think we understand things better now... but that is not the case. It is just the conditions changing. We're still constructing from ignorance.

:anjali:
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Postby daverupa » Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:31 pm

beeblebrox wrote:Blue

Is this acceptable? Why, or why not?


No, it misses the point altogether.

That isn't red blue, it's the word blue colored red. As I said it, the point was the color red colored blue - a flat contradiction. I might have said an up down, a left right, a living dead thing, etc.

---

So to say that things needs causes except Special Thing is to say that one color cannot be another color except for Special Color. It broaches an exception just for the sake of making an argument work - as I said earlier, it's a deus ex machina.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4194
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Postby beeblebrox » Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:41 pm

daverupa wrote:
beeblebrox wrote:Blue

Is this acceptable? Why, or why not?


No, it misses the point altogether.

That isn't red blue, it's the word blue colored red. As I said it, the point was the color red colored blue - a flat contradiction. I might have said an up down, a left right, a living dead thing, etc.


I think that was the point...

The idea of God stopped making sense because the point was missed altogether, over the time.

The point isn't fixed. It never is.

:anjali:
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Postby Spiny Norman » Sun Apr 06, 2014 9:26 am

beeblebrox wrote:Why should we try to budge them away from their position?


Yes, and my experience is that trying to often leads to a digging in of heels - perhaps because people have a strong emotional investment in certain beliefs?
I'm a lumberjack, and I'm OK....
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests