the great atheism debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
ancientbuddhism
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by ancientbuddhism »

Anyone with just a little walking around sense can point out the logical fallacies of theism and other ontological claims; even more so did the Buddha sweep past mere dialectics with his teaching of empirical reasoning and investigation. Is it then curious at all that this auto-soteriological command of the obvious would eventually assimilate the Buddhist elephant in the room of rebirth?
I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)

A Handful of Leaves
User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by contemplans »

c] Since god is an absolute with absolute power, there is no action beyond god's purview, except that limitation of being all-good. God cannot do evil.
Evil is a privation. Strictly speaking evil is not done, but is an imperfection of a good done. Buddhism implicitly supports this notion by favoring skillful actions over unskillful actions, and Nibbana as a goal over samsara with its dukkha. If you don't agree, then just wonder why Mara, the personification of those negative qualities, is just a conditioned being, whereas Nibbana, the perfect positive state, is unconditioned.
d] Since there can be "no creature without a Creator," all that is, is because god allows it to be, setting in motion its existence. Being absolute, with no limitation except being unable to do evil, god could also not allow something to be.
God is not limited in any way. If we accept the statement "being unable to do evil", then we are limiting him. In fact, the answer is that evil has not independent existence. People who attribute evil to God tend to believe that evil is something in itself. It is an absence, negation, defect, or privation. Again I point to the Buddha's teachings which implicitly support this is such notions as peace, light, good, skillful, goodwill, truth, harmlessness, etc. These are all goods, not defects or privations. You may see that they are considered goods because they comport with our being. These goods are desirable, and are in some manner a goal in themselves. Evils detract from good, and never are sought in themselves. Thy signify absence of being, form, or nature. That's why the Buddha takes as a starting position that all beings desire happiness.
e] The physical world is god's creation. Its handiwork is not only the blue sky and the majestic mountain, but also the TB bacillus, AIDS virus, the earthquake, and any other natural phenomenon one cares to point to.
Or they are past karma. Either way you need to justify their existence through faith, or just hard and cold materialism.
f] Since god is omniscient there can be no question that not only does god know the results of a process that god has absolute atemporal knowledge of and absolute control over, but what is, is because god wanted it to be as it is, and what is, is what is in what we call past, present and future, is fully known to god.
g] We can grant that god may have not created the TB bacillus or AIDS virus directly, but given omniscience and omnipotence, it is a necessary argument that god, setting into motion the processes of nature that would give rise to the TB bacillus and the AIDS virus, that god had full atemporal knowledge of AND control of the results of god's creation ("Whatever happens is His will”) --- the AIDS virus, the TB bacillus.
In theology there is a distinction between what God wills directly, and what God permits for some reason. Christianity teaches freewill. In that, such a choice as someone killing someone else is not directly willed by God, but is permitted in His creation because He wished this to be a moral universe, in which humans would be given freedom to shape their experiences. That's getting into faith, but we can see parallels in human relations, parents to children.

Evil has neither a formal not a final cause, and its material cause is accidental, that is, that what is willed always is a good and evil is only caused accidently. This is clear even in Buddhist teachings in which the Buddha says that all beings desire their happiness. Therefore evil is not a positive reality, but merely the recognition that creatures in their finity and potentiality are capable of failing to actualize their full measure of proper good. From this failure arises evil.
m] Since god's will is the Good, action contrary to god's will is absence of the Good, that which can be called evil.
This needed to be stated long ago in the alphabet, which I did.
n] The ability to choose -- the will not to choose the Good -- is god's creation.
The ability to choose is a creation, but as has already been stated, beings always choose a perceived good. The error is accidental.
r] Therefore: "God, as the Creator of all things ['Whatever happens
is His will'], is the creator of evil through man as His Instrument, as creator of man's will to do evil."
Doesn't follow. As we have stated, God permits evil, He does not will it. In the actions of humans, we will a perceived good, even if we error. An evil man wills an evil deed due to ignorance of the good. The Buddha supports this statement by laying ignorance of the Four Noble Truths as the root of suffering. Also the writer already supports that evil is an absence. How then can an absence be willed? What is will is a presence.
s] If I were to make a robot that was capable of making free choices and one of those choices was to kill, it would be hard not to hold me responsible for a death committed by that robot. If I knew without question that it would kill and I set it loose anyway, it would be no different from my killing directly, and there would be no way I could absolve myself from responsibility.
u] If humans' have free will, then god is not all-good, or god lacks omnipotence or omniscience. Or if god is omniscient and omnipotent, humans lack free will.
That's where this argument goes wrong. The free will is not free to do anything. That's called license. The freedom is the freedom of a free person, namely, the freedom of good. The freedom of release, the freedom of peace. The free will is free to choose the good. Again, an evil act is a choice for good, but it is just some other good in which an evil is accidentally willed. People are still responsible, just as they are responsible for "good intentions" which result is bad karma. A man who commits an objectively good or evil deed does it for his happiness. This is an absolute truth. The reason we can judge it is by the principle of the perfect good, perfect being. Any negation of that good and being is what is called evil. So this robot would be given wiring which allowed it to choose the good, but because of ignorance of the good could error. The rest is just a sequitur of the error in the concept of free will.
y] As r] states god is the creator of evil, which is in direct contradiction to the notion that god is all good. We have then a major incoherence: the evil creating nature of god and god being all good. God is a self-contradictory notion. And as we see in v] the notion of free will falls prey equally to the problematics of omniscience and omnipotence.
Underkying this whole argument is a misunderstanding of the concepts of good and free will.
User avatar
vidar
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:38 pm

Re: Atheist Quotes

Post by vidar »

Some atheist quotes from the TV series House MD:

All the world is on fire, All the world is burning, All the world is ablaze, All the world is quaking. That which does not quake or blaze, That to which worldlings do not resort, Where there is no place for Mara:That is where my mind delights. (SN 5.7)

By degrees, little by little,
from moment to moment,
the wise purify themselves,
as a smith purifies silver.
—Dhammapada 239
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by tiltbillings »

contemplans wrote: Evil is a privation. Strictly speaking evil is not done, but is an imperfection of a good done.
According to you; however, strictly speaking pain, hatred, lust and all sorts of ugliness exists. Also, a "privation" is, in fact, something and it is part of the structure of the creation fully known by the supposed omniscient omnipotent god because that is the way it created the universe. And it can only continue to exist because god wills it to. Also, god would have full knowledge of evil, full knowledge of its causes and results, given that evil is built into the creation by its creator and exists by its will. And the result is as Mark Twain supposedly said: "If there is a God, he is a malign thug."
God permits evil, He does not will it.
If the supposed god permits evil, knowing that its creation, by the very way god created its structure, is going to result in the Hitler and painful death and disease etc, then evil is the result of the supposed god's creation, no matter how much you try to define evil away. The thing is, you have not really addressed anything here. You have danced around a lot, but there is no real engagement. You god explains nothing.
God is not limited in any way. If we accept the statement "being unable to do evil", then we are limiting him. In fact, the answer is that evil has not independent existence.
If there were am omniscient omnipotent god, then this statement would be absolutely true. Evil is a dependent upon causes and the ultimate cause is the god that structured its creation such that there Hitler, Pol Pot and the like arose, knowing without question that that is how its creation would unfold, even before the first atom of creation was set in motion. The world, as we have it, as it is, is because that is what god created.
In theology there is a distinction between what God wills directly, and what God permits for some reason.
Why would an all-loving all good god treats its creation with such utter disregard?
Christianity teaches freewill.
It does and it is, as have seen, an incoherent teaching in terms of an omniscient, omnipotent god. We can never act other than how god knows we are going to act, and how we act is the result of how the god created us to act. It cannot be otherwise.

y] As r] states god is the creator of evil, which is in direct contradiction to the notion that god is all good. We have then a major incoherence: the evil creating nature of god and god being all good. God is a self-contradictory notion. And as we see in v] the notion of free will falls prey equally to the problematics of omniscience and omnipotence.
Underkying this whole argument is a misunderstanding of the concepts of good and free will.
Not at all. The whole argument neatly points out that fee will in terms of an omniscient, omnipotent god is incoherent. What can exist outside of god willing it to exist?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
cittaanurakkho
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:12 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by cittaanurakkho »

contemplans wrote: The argument goes as follows:
1) The concept of the Greatest Possible Being (GPB) is coherent (and thus broadly logically possible).
2) Necessarily, a being who is the GPB is necessarily existent, and would have (at least) omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection essentially.
3) If the concept of the GPB is coherent, then it exists in all possible worlds.
4) But if it exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world.
5) The GPB exists (Parrish, 82)
...
Therefore God exists.
Since one of the argument is that GPB exists in the actual world, let’s start from this world that we live in now. By all accounts, this world is an impermanent world: it was born and one day it will die. Because GPB exists in this impermanent world, GPB too will one day die. Where are its omnipotence and omniscience when it need them most to save its existence? Your GPB may just be an nGBP (not the greatest possible being) after all. Or perhaps a GPH (greatest possible Houdini): one day he exists and one day he disappears.

Sorry, I still prefer Buddha’s statement:
Does Buddha exists after death. Exist does not apply!
Does Buddha does not exists after death. Does not exist does not apply!

So, maybe you are mistaken. Perhaps you meant Greatest Possible Buddha?
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Alex123 »

contemplans wrote:The most powerful version of the ontological argument, in my opinion, is presented in the book God and Necessity by Stephen E. Parrish.
If one uses argument similar to "world is complex, thus it needs a creator to design it which is God" then: Who/what created God?
If God created universe, who/what created God?
Trying to explain complexity through even more complex things, just leads to infinite regress and absurdity.
It is much more proper to explain more complex things through less complex things, at least this way there is a final point.
User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by contemplans »

In the universe as presently structured, free will and evil come hand in hand. If you don't want to be determined, to be a robot of sorts, then you are going to have evil. In order to have the possibility of Buddha, St Francis, Gandhi, etc., you have to have the possibility of abortion, Mao, war, etc. The universe is a moral one, in which we act toward greatness or depravity. I do not deny these evils exist, but I am saying they're not founded on an underlying reality -- there is no evil principle out there from which evil comes. They are a failure in the quest of good, not an embracing of Evil in itself. There is, however, a foundation for good, which is called God. We naturally desire happiness. Buddhism supports this teaching, but never explains it. I am sure you can see the permissive will is found in humanity. We raise our children to be noble and upright, and yet they may do wicked deeds, or destroy themselves. There is not a direct correlation of the rearing given, and the deeds chosen. God doesn't do our deeds for us, just as parents don't do their children's deeds. Buddhism itself supports the freedom of choice in the present moment. So how can you support God willing evil, when Buddhism teaches that the will is under no compulsion in the present moment? What you are asking of God is an evil to end evil, in your view. Either the evil of denying us free will or the evil of destroying a life so that it may not do an evil deed. Would a father be just in killing his son if he knew he was going to commit evil deeds? The Buddha says no.
Because GPB exists in this impermanent world, GPB too will one day die.
The GPB is one outside of time and space. Which is why the Buddha after his awakening stated that one who dwells in that state statements like exist and not exists do not apply.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Alex123 »

contemplans wrote: The GPB is one outside of time and space.
In essence this is like saying that it doesn't exist. It cannot be found anywhere, nor does it last any period of time. It cannot be first cause or effect of anything because first cause precedes effect. Also it cannot respond to anything.

Then how can GPB ever do anything which would require time and or space if GPB is not found in them?
Last edited by Alex123 on Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by contemplans »

Alex123 wrote: If one uses argument similar to "world is complex, thus it needs a creator to design it which is God" then: Who/what created God?
If God created universe, who/what created God?
Trying to explain complexity through even more complex things, just leads to infinite regress and absurdity.
It is much more proper to explain more complex things through less complex things, at least this way there is a final point.
God is simple, not complex. He is completely uncomposed of parts. Obviously we can conceptually think of a state in which things are uncreated and uncomposed, because that is what Nibbana is. Why not a being then? It is conceptually possible.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by contemplans »

Alex123 wrote:
contemplans wrote: The GPB is one outside of time and space.
This is like saying that it doesn't exist. It cannot be found anywhere, nor does it last any period of time.

Then how can GPB ever do anything which would require time and or space if GPB is not found in them?
How does the Buddha act while dwelling in the state beyond time and space called Nibbana?
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Alex123 »

contemplans wrote: How does the Buddha act while dwelling in the state beyond time and space called Nibbana?
While the Buddha was physically alive He just did not have any Mental/Emotional suffering. Nibbana is NOT some mystical Planet X to which you get beamed up. It is not a place.

Nibbana is extinguishing of all suffering. It should be viewed more in psychological sense.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Alex123 »

contemplans wrote: God is simple, not complex.
Can he think?
Can he move?
Can he perceive?
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Goofaholix »

contemplans wrote: God is simple, not complex.
Only when created in the image of simple people.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
Coyote
Posts: 845
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Wales - UK

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Coyote »

Goofaholix wrote:
contemplans wrote: God is simple, not complex.
Only when created in the image of simple people.
Precisely. This is a Christian, specifically Catholic, concept, and is not inherent in the concept of God. There is no reason as far as I can see why God would need to be simple.
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26
User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by contemplans »

Alex123 wrote:
contemplans wrote: How does the Buddha act while dwelling in the state beyond time and space called Nibbana?
While the Buddha was physically alive He just did not have any Mental/Emotional suffering. Nibbana is NOT some mystical Planet X to which you get beamed up. It is not a place.

Nibbana is extinguishing of all suffering. It should be viewed more in psychological sense.
It is a state of existence. Furthermore, that state was divided into nibbana with suffering to burn off, and complete nibbana at death. It stands to reason that nibbana is actually a state of existence in laymen's terms if it is anything to try to achieve. Nibbana was also defined as peace, and the highest ease, so there is something positive there, and something analogous to our mundane experience, albeit imperfectly analogous.
Coyote wrote:
Goofaholix wrote:
contemplans wrote: God is simple, not complex.
Only when created in the image of simple people.
Precisely. This is a Christian, specifically Catholic, concept, and is not inherent in the concept of God. There is no reason as far as I can see why God would need to be simple.
God is simple because created things are composed of parts. A composition implies that something is in potency, and ultimately that something dies. God is pure actuality. There is no here or there, this or that, or part and whole. It is inherent in the concept of God if it is to be logical.
Post Reply