Tutareture wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:42 am
4GreatHeavenlyKings wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:26 pm
Tutareture wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 12:32 am
if numerous arguments prove God exists,and if numerous arguments can disprove kshanabhanga and dependant origination,why should I believe in buddhism?
1. Many arguments have been advanced in favour of an uncreated creator god's existence; many arguments have been advanced against an uncreated creator god's existence. Buddhists like I am (no say nothing about atheists and Jains) regard the arguments against an uncreated creator god's existence as better that contrary arguments, which to us make no sense. Indeed, the general intellectual bankruptcy of arguments in favour of uncreated creator gods is suggested by the fact that Tutareture's argument in favour of an uncreated creator god refuted and was contracted by his Christian faith (as may be read here
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=39726&p=614874#p614874, and as he did not refute).
2. kshanabhanga is not essential to Buddhism. Buddhists like I am reject it but are still guided by the three jewels. For this reason, refuting kshanabhanga is only refuting a portion of Buddhist doctrines rather than refuting all of Buddhism. It is just like refuting the claim that Jesus's resurrection was accompanied by a resurrection of other dead people in Jerusalem who went into the streets from their tombs and appeared to many (as is found in the Christians' scriptures: Matthew 27: 52-53) does not refute all of Christianity (or so the Christian apologist Mike Licona attempted to argue).
3. If dependant origination can be disproven, then Buddhism is exposed as false. But what are those arguments? I think that dependant origination makes much more sense than positing any uncreated creator god - because we can easily perceive things arising in dependence upon other things and deduce that things arise likewise even when they are unperceived by us, but an uncreated creator god is extraordinarily violating of these commonsensical observations and deductions.
the anti-theistic arguments of the buddhists and jains are very weak and are based on a misunderstanding on what qualified theisms like Palamism teach.dependant origination is possible within the mind of a creator with uncreated energies he uses to 'create' matter and souls like in Palamism.however,the idea that something totally new pops up into existance is false.especially if said creator has no will or creative desire,like in Buddhism where matter creates another set of matter or where the mindstream is constantely destructing itself and creating itself a new.
the soundest Jain argument against God is that God would need preexisting material to create because a new thing cannot be created out of nothing.but if creation is Panentheistic and within God's mind and is created using his uncreated energy,then this is not a problem.this critique of the Jains however hits hard at dependant origination.do you accept their critique?
as for kshanabhangavada,if you reject it you migh aswell claim that there is confusion in creation.a atom gives rise to its descendant and there exists two simultonous atoms of the same order.this is absurd.or that there is a soul that gives rise to another soulm consciousness and is still there at the same time.there would be very confused experience.in palamism God creates within his panentheistic mind with uncreated energies and sustains them so there is no creation destruction cycle like in buddhism wich must believe all of this because it cannot admit anything to be permanent.
>the anti-theistic arguments of the buddhists and jains are very weak and are based on a misunderstanding on what qualified theisms like Palamism teach.
So you assert. But why should we believe you?
>dependant origination is possible within the mind of a creator with uncreated energies
Formerly, you said that dependent origination is completely impossible. But now you are claiming that it is possible. The fact that you are not consistent in your claims is evidence that your position is weak and shifting, rather than the impregnable refutation of Buddhism that you claimed it to be.
>uncreated energies
By conceding that there are uncreated energies which the uncreated creator god did not create, you pulverize your argument that there must be a first cause (which you assert to be an uncreated creator god). After all, these uncreated energies did not need any god to arise - so the entire rest of the universe can explained as naturally arising permutations and interactions of this uncreated energy. Indeed, that is what the Buddhist author Mu Soeng teaches in "The Heart of the Universe: Exploring the Heart Sutra".
>he uses to 'create' matter
Why assume that the matter is only created from the uncreated energy by an uncreated creator god? That is classic "god of the gaps" arguing - similar to the debunked claim that an uncreated creator god is needed to keep the planets moving. It is also an argument from ignorance (
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance): "I know not how matter forms from energy, therefore an uncreated creator god!"
>the idea that something totally new pops up into existance is false
1. What is matter, then, if not "something totally new popping up into existence"?
2. This portion of your argument is not an argument for Jesus. Rather, it was systematized by the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna and was first applied to theism by the Hindu philosopher Sankara. That you use this as evidence for Christianity is evidence of the intellectual superiority of Buddhism and Hinduism to Christianity.
>souls
We Buddhists regard souls as being as real as rabbits with horns, as possible as four sided triangles, and as necessary to explaining reality as an invisible pink unicorn in a garage. Why should we Buddhists accept souls as existing, and what should souls be defined as?
>especially if said creator has no will or creative desire
But the Christians' creator is portrayed within your scriptures as having will and creative desire - indicating that he, if he were truly the uncreated creator god (ishvara), is imperfect.
None of your words about the benevolence of the motivation of any perfect ishvara for creating the universe (or the perfection of the universe) can disguise the fundamental weakness with your argument, which is that your claimed perfect ishvara desires to create. And to desire to do anything is to reveal an imperfection - otherwise, one would have no desires for any actions. When holy beings act within the universe, their desires that motivate these actions can be explained as derived not from their imperfections but from their desire to make the universe better, but any ishvara, as the uncreated creator god, has, before creation, no universe onto which the imperfections that desiring implies can be shifted. If an ishvara desire to create reality, then, in the absence of any reality to improve through the ishvara's desires, the ishvara is imperfect.
Let it be assumed, for the sake of argument, that the ishvara creates without desiring. But this would mean that the ishvara's creation, not being motivated by desire, is involuntary. After all, we do not desire to breathe, but we breathe involuntarily - and trees do not desire to grow but grow involuntarily.
Even if it be assumed that an ishvara creates voluntarily without any desire, there remains the fact that these attributes of the ishvara must have cause. If the cause be claimed to be laws of nature or logic, then you are denying that the ishvara is an ishvara - since the only way one can be an ishvara is by creating the universe (which includes laws of nature and logic). If you say that the Ishvara created these attributes of the ishvara that allow it to create voluntarily without any desire, then you merely force back the issue of why an allegedly perfect ishvara would desire to create.
Furthermore, you have yet to prove that such a creator exists or is necessary (as your concession about uncreated energy makes clear).
>like in Buddhism where matter creates another set of matter or where the mindstream is constantely destructing itself and creating itself a new.
But why do you regard this as impossible? in your scriptures, such a model is not ruled out, and Jesus's words that everything is possible for God means that in order to reject such a model as impossible for god one must say that Jesus was not telling the truth. You may say that if such a model were operating, then we would have proof of it for the naked eye, but if your god were truly omnipotent, then he could create such as model of reality.
Furthermore, such a model of reality is not universal to Buddhism and I, a Buddhist, do not accept it as true. It is not presented within Early Buddhist Texts and the earliest presentations of it are trying to refute Buddhists who reject it.
>the soundest Jain argument against God is that God would need preexisting material to create because a new thing cannot be created out of nothing.
But you accept that an uncreated creator god works with pre-existing things (uncreated energies) and you deny that anything comes from nothing. You only insert an uncreated creator god where such a thing is (as I have argued for some reasons and others have argued for other reasons) unnecessary.
>but if creation is Panentheistic and within God's mind and is created using his uncreated energy,then this is not a problem.
I agree with you that positing that the uncreated creator god works with uncreated energy avoids to problems of creation ex nihilo - but you have yet to prove the following:
1. That an uncreated god is necessary.
2. That creation is within its mind.
3. That panenthesism is real Christianity. In support of the assertion that ANY panentheism is not truly Christian, I cite Christian apologist Matt Slick, owner of Christian apologetics and Research Ministry. He (at
https://carm.org/about-philosophy/what-is-panentheism/) has condemned panentheism as "unbiblical since it denies God’s transcendent nature, says that God is changing, confuses creation with God, denies miracles, and denies the incarnation of Christ along with the atoning sacrifice." Mr. Slick has also said (at
https://carm.org/uncategorized/panentheism-rosary/) that panentheism is "not true because God is the creator of the universe (Isaiah 44:24) and therefore separate from it." Furthermore, the Christian apologetics website gotquestions (tagline: "Your Questions. Biblical answers.") (at
https://www.gotquestions.org/panentheism.html) categorizes panentheism as a false belief about God and writes, that panentheism is "extreme heresy that impugns the character of God and makes Him more like a man. God is present everywhere (Psalm 139:7-8), but God is not everything. God knows everything, whether actual or possible (Psalm 139:1-6; Romans 11:33-35). God does not learn because He already has all knowledge. God is “affected” by things that occur in the universe, but only in that sin angers Him and holiness pleases Him. Our actions do not change God or impact His essential being. The Bible presents God as holy (Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 4:8), sovereign (1 Chronicles 29:11; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 37:20), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-10), omniscient (Job 28:24; Psalm 147:4-5), omnipotent (Job 42:1-2), self-existent (Exodus 3:14; Psalm 36:9), eternal (Psalm 90:2; Habakkuk 1:12), immutable (Psalm 33:11; James 1:17), perfect (Deuteronomy 32:3-4), and infinite (Job 5:9; 9:10). None of these attributes are compatible with panentheism. God transcends all of His creation, and is in no sense limited or changed by events in His creation."
3. Why I should accept your model of Christianity rather than others'.
>this critique of the Jains however hits hard at dependant origination.do you accept their critique?
I do not need to accept the jains' argument cited by you against an uncreated creator god - because we both accept that positing that the uncreated creator god works with uncreated energies avoids such problems. If I were to accept the jains' argument as the strongest against an uncreated creator god, though, then I would no more be binding myself to their criticisms of dependent origination than you are binding your self to hinduism or Buddhism by using Nagarjuna's arguments (as filtered through Shankara).
>as for kshanabhangavada,if you reject it you migh aswell claim that there is confusion in creation.
This is where your argument becomes truly incoherent. Your words in favour of kshanabhangavada are so general that you are admitting that you must accept kshanabhangavada or have confusion in creation.
>there is confusion in creation
Why should we not accept that there is confusion in creation (if creation it is accepted as being)? To say that there is no confusion in creation contradicts your scriptures, which portray demons at war with YHWH (and also portray YHWH causing confusion by sending lying spirits and delusions upon people, to say nothing of confusing languages).
>a atom gives rise to its descendant and there exists two simultonous atoms of the same order.this is absurd.
1. This contradicts your earlier assertion that "as for kshanabhangavada,if you reject it you migh aswell claim that there is confusion in creation."
2. It is in fact true that atoms can exist simultaneously in two places at once (
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... xperiment/) refuting this argument by you against kshanabhangavada. Or do you admit that the universe is absurd?
>or that there is a soul that gives rise to another soulm consciousness and is still there at the same time.there would be very confused experience.
1. I have previously told you that we Buddhists reject souls, so you must prove that souls are real for this argument to work.
2. Since atoms (and subatomic particles!) can exist in two places at once, it is easy to accept that souls (accepting that souls exist) and consciousness can exist in two places at once (cf., astral travel) - especially when one's scriptures teach that everything is possible for a god.
>there would be very confused experience.
Your own arguments, which presumed that atoms and subatomic particles cannot exist in two places at once, now force you to admit that the universe is a very confused experience - unless you want to deny that cutting edge physics reveals that atoms can exist in 2 places at once.
>palamism God creates within his panentheistic mind with uncreated energies and sustains them
Why should we believe that this model is true rather than, for example, a model in which (if one must concede that an uncreated creator god exist) everything is created by a blind idiot god named Azathoth who does not care about or look after his creations? Certainly, this would fit within my forcing you to concede (by proving evidence that atoms and subatomic particles exist in two places at once) that the universe is absurd and confusing.
>there is no creation destruction cycle
This is false. History, as recorded within your scriptures and elsewhere, is filled with creation/destruction cycles.
>buddhism wich must believe all of this because it cannot admit anything to be permanent.
1. Buddhism admits certain things to be permanent - the dhamma which allows people to reach good birth or nibbana and avoid bad births. Also the cyclic fluctuation of uncreated energy from which universes arise and pass away.
2. As I have said, it is not necessary to accept kshanabhangavada in order to be a Buddhist. See, for example, a PhD thesis by Alexander von Rospatt entitled "The Buddhist Doctrine of Momentariness", which claims that "There can be no doubt that the theory of momentariness cannot be traced back to the beginnings of Buddhism or even the Buddha himself. It does not fit the practically orientated teachings of early Buddhism and clearly bears the mark of later doctrinal elaboration. Thus in the Nikayas/Agamas there are many passages which attribute duration to material and even mental entities, whereas there is, at least to my knowledge, no passage which testifies to the stance that all conditioned entities are momentary. (page 15)" and " ...there is very little evidence for the doctrine of momentariness before it emerged in the post-canonical Abhidharma literature of the Sarvistividins (page 67)"
I thank you for this discussion, Tutareture. In shattering your argument that kshanabhangavada must be false because otherwise atoms could exist in two places simultaneously (by showing evidence that atoms and subatomic particles can exist in two places simultaneously), I have learned more about physics.