Buddhist response to Western ontology

[Alex123]

Contemplans,

Who/what created God? What created being of God? If we say "it is indescribable" , etc, the same can be said about the universe, origin of Big Bang(s), etc.
We can study and observe material universe, but not God...

Why would All Loving God, who is omniscient (and thus knows your future choices) and all loving, would created flawed beings who would due to their sinful nature for finite "sin", go to eternal hell?

Did God create Hell? Does he enjoy seeing his creations being sent there for not worshiping such a loving and caring God who created the world and Hell?

[tiltbillings]

I am sorry that I didn't specify this, but the link I provided fills out what I said. One, that (most) quietists hold that ontology as being totally inadequate. And two, the quietism I am speaking about is referred to in the link. This is philophical quietism, a position between realism and idealism, which has nothing to do with the religious doctrine of quietism. I am sorry I wasn't more clear to you about that.

It is not a particularly helpful or meaningful category in this context.

As for arguments against God, Buddhism really hasn't come up with any native arguments.

This deserves a revisit. In addition to the explicit and implicit arguments rejecting the idea of an omnipotent, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos that are found in the suttas and have been quoted in this thread, numerous doctors of Buddhism during Buddhism's tenure in India have responded to the idea of an omnipotent, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos and rejecting it, of course, but the most detailed would be that of Dharmakirti: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/jackson.htm which makes the obvious case that our Christian friend here is wrong again.

Dharmakirti knows nothing of the Aristotelian nor the Thomists arguments. He doesn't even have the conception of hylomorphism to formulate the argument.

And I would have no doubt that he could as easily handle these flawed arguments as he did the Brahmanical arguments, but the point is that your claim, "As for arguments against God, Buddhism really hasn't come up with any native arguments," it is quite wrong, as has been shown, are many of your claims.

[Sherab]

.. The concept of the Greatest Possible Being (GPB) is coherent (and thus broadly logically possible)...

The concept of a Creator God is incoherent.
God by definition must be self-sufficient, if he is not self-sufficient how can he be defined as God?
If God is self-sufficient, there is no need for him to create anything. Anything created will be purposeless with respect to a self-sufficient God.
If the world we see is created by a God, that God therefore cannot be self-sufficient.
If that God is not self-sufficient, then he cannot be God.

[tiltbillings]

[Freser:] At least where the sheer existence of things is concerned, He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant. He is, as the Muslims say, “closer than the vein in your neck.”

He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant. Indeed. For example: Zyklon-B and the will to use it.

That is not an argument.

It is a simple illustration of the comment Freser made and it makes my point about the supposed god's responsibility in terms of its supposed creation. I am glad that you quoted Freser.

[contemplans]

Greetings,



According to Godwin, that is correct.

But Tilt is right to want to point out that if there was an omnipotent God, everything, including the greatest atrocities of mankind, is His fault. And if that is true, it says a lot about Him, doesn't it?

Be careful what you attribute omniscience and omnipotence to.

Metta,
Retro.

You have to prove the jump from all powerful to all doing.

[Modus.Ponens]

.. The concept of the Greatest Possible Being (GPB) is coherent (and thus broadly logically possible)...

Do you know about the set of all sets? Better be careful with the infinite.

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

[tiltbillings]

[Freser:] At least where the sheer existence of things is concerned, He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant. He is, as the Muslims say, “closer than the vein in your neck.”

He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant. Indeed. For example: Zyklon-B and the will to use it.

I hate to have to tell you this, Tilt, but according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_l ... _and_usage you have lost the debate.



Kim

Then plug in Mao, or Stalin, Pot Pot, or any of the countless horror stories that humans have suffered and have inflicted upon themselves, and often in the name of their god and the Prince of Peace. Godwin's law is only meaningful if the reference is gratuitous. In this context it is, of course, directly to the point.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings,



According to Godwin, that is correct.

But Tilt is right to want to point out that if there was an omnipotent God, everything, including the greatest atrocities of mankind, is His fault. And if that is true, it says a lot about Him, doesn't it?

Be careful what you attribute omniscience and omnipotence to.

Metta,
Retro.

You have to prove the jump from all powerful to all doing.

Thanks to you we have Freser's excellent statement to this effect: "At least where the sheer existence of things is concerned, He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant.

[contemplans]

.. The concept of the Greatest Possible Being (GPB) is coherent (and thus broadly logically possible)...

The concept of a Creator God is incoherent.
God by definition must be self-sufficient, if he is not self-sufficient how can he be defined as God?
If God is self-sufficient, there is no need for him to create anything. Anything created will be purposeless with respect to a self-sufficient God.
If the world we see is created by a God, that God therefore cannot be self-sufficient.
If that God is not self-sufficient, then he cannot be God.

Whether there is a God or not is a different question than whether that God creates or not and why. The reasoning provided from causality reasons to pure actuality as the logical explanation of being.

[contemplans]

Greetings,



According to Godwin, that is correct.

But Tilt is right to want to point out that if there was an omnipotent God, everything, including the greatest atrocities of mankind, is His fault. And if that is true, it says a lot about Him, doesn't it?

Be careful what you attribute omniscience and omnipotence to.

Metta,
Retro.

You have to prove the jump from all powerful to all doing.

Thanks to you we have Freser's excellent statement to this effect: "At least where the sheer existence of things is concerned, He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant.

You are confusing the existence of a thing with its actions. There is a difference between a material thing like a knife, and the immaterial will to kill someone with it. The knife as such is merely a collection of elements, whereas the will is altogether different. One is a thing, and one isn't. Otherwise we'd have to posit something very strange for all the Buddha's statements about will and intention.

[contemplans]

.. The concept of the Greatest Possible Being (GPB) is coherent (and thus broadly logically possible)...

Do you know about the set of all sets? Better be careful with the infinite.

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

I do not.

[Goofaholix]

Whether there is a God or not is a different question than whether that God creates or not and why.

But is a god who doesn't create really God?

[contemplans]

Whether there is a God or not is a different question than whether that God creates or not and why.

But is a god who doesn't create really God?

Yes.

[tiltbillings]

Thanks to you we have Freser's excellent statement to this effect: "At least where the sheer existence of things is concerned, He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant.

You are confusing the existence of a thing with its actions.

Not at all.

There is a difference between a material thing like a knife, and the immaterial will to kill someone with it. The knife as such is merely a collection of elements, whereas the will is altogether different. One is a thing, and one isn't. Otherwise we'd have to posit something very strange for all the Buddha's statements about will and intention.

What you are arguing here is that there are some things that are out of the supposed omnipotent. omniscient's god's control, but the will to do something, whatever it might be, is a thing, thus, it is caused by directly god at every instant.

[Goofaholix]

But is a god who doesn't create really God?

Yes.

What's her purpose?

[contemplans]

But is a god who doesn't create really God?

Yes.

What's her purpose?

To be.

[perkele]

It's getting too noisy.

Too much passion, too little consideration.
Too much philosophizing, too little substance.

[Goofaholix]

What's her purpose?

To be.

So god doesn't create and his/her only purpose is to be?

Sounds like next thing you'll be telling me if I want to seek him he can be found queueing up at the Social welfare office.

[contemplans]

Thanks to you we have Freser's excellent statement to this effect: "At least where the sheer existence of things is concerned, He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant.

You are confusing the existence of a thing with its actions.

Not at all.

There is a difference between a material thing like a knife, and the immaterial will to kill someone with it. The knife as such is merely a collection of elements, whereas the will is altogether different. One is a thing, and one isn't. Otherwise we'd have to posit something very strange for all the Buddha's statements about will and intention.

What you are arguing here is that there are some things that are out of the supposed omnipotent. omniscient's god's control, but the will to do something, whatever it might be, is a thing, thus, it is caused by directly god at every instant.

Will is not a thing, but a process. As I said to retro, you have to prove the jump from all powerful to all doing.

What's her purpose?

To be.

So god doesn't create and his/her only purpose is to be?

Sounds like next thing you'll be telling me if I want to seek him he can be found queueing up at the Social welfare office.

I didn't say God doesn't create. I said that is a separate question.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings contemplans,

Will is not a thing, but a process. As I said to retro, you have to prove the jump from all powerful to all doing.

... to make it murder, but not to make it manslaughter.

Anyway, what did you make of my earlier "copy and paste" post... viewtopic.php?f=16&t=11401&start=80#p172555 ...which regarded ontology (including God's purported purpose "to be / to exist") as irrelevant, and indeed counter-productive, to liberation?

Metta,
Retro.