Tutareture wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 5:01 pm
4GreatHeavenlyKings wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:47 pm
I apologize for misusing arguments about the uncreated creator god's perfection in addressing your incorrect claims, Tutareture. I should have said the following:
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.
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 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, the fact that YHWH, in your model, existed with uncreated energy which he desired to create is strong evidence that YHWH was not and is not unconditioned - rather, he was and is conditioned by two things: his nature (which desires to create) and the uncreated energy (which motivated him to create and provided the raw materials for creation).
What if God is not perfect In the buddhist sence ?so what?it doesn't prove he doesn't exist.his desire to create is part of his altruism and is not a desire brought about by necessity it is pure free will so your criticisms don't apply.and the energies of God are God they are just seperate from his essence.uncreated energies alone being insentient cannot create anything,you can't create something exnihilo without creative desire and omnipotence and I'd say it's only possible within God's mind.
God is a immaterial being and matter is a illusion,quantum physics has proven this.furthermore there must be a unconditioned concrete reality and it must be immaterial because it cannot be restricted by a spatial restriction .
God's energies are God they are nearly infinite and infinite in quality so they can create souls and matter within God's immaterial mind out of nothing with his omnipotence .
You can't create outside of a mind and without omnipotence.and your idea that the universe or it's underlying energy is eternal is against anicca.
You really just made that up to save buddhism.
>What if God is not perfect In the buddhist sence ?
You are moving the goal posts. I was not arguing that an ishvara is not perfect in the Buddhist sense; rather, I was arguing that an ishvara cannot be perfect in ANY sense - because if e were perfect, then e would not create at all and would not be an ishvara.
>it doesn't prove he doesn't exist.
You ignored the whole point of my argument about an ishvara's imperfection, which was that if an ishvara exist, e cannot be perfect. Other arguments have been advanced against the existence of an ishvara.
>his desire to create is part of his altruism and is not a desire brought about by necessity it is pure free will so your criticisms don't apply.
Ah, but if an ishvara create due to eir altruism, then the ishvara is in fact motivated by desire and is controlled by the ishvara's natural altruism manifesting as creation - in the same way that we, as humans breathe because because we are motivated by desire to live and are controlled by our natures (as beings that need to breathe in order to survive). Yet it is absurd to assert that we breathe because of pure free will; in the same way, your model reveals that an ishvara that creates because of altruism is not acting out of pure free will.
>and the energies of God are God they are just seperate from his essence.
1. You are engaging in special pleading. We do not regard our feces as us even though we are separate from our "essences" (whatever those are), so an ishvara should similarly be regarded as separate from its energies.
2. The fact that you are only now asserting that the energies, rather than being uncreated and shaped by an ishvara, are the ishvara, is a major example of your moving the goal-posts in order to defend the claim that an ishvara exists.
3. By saying that an ishvara is its uncreated energies (plural) you make an argument that there are as many ishvaras as there are uncreated energies - pulverizing your argument for monotheism.
4. By saying that an ishvara is its uncreated energies (plural) you suggest that an ishvara does not really exist, but is created from parts - like a painting of a furred turtle.
5. By insisting that an ishvara is separate from its uncreated energies which are nonetheless a part of it, you leave yourself vulnerable to the following claim: an ishvara is separate from is nature, which is nonetheless a part of it, meaning that an ishvara, in following its altruistic nature, is not exercising total free will but is being controlled by a part of it that it is separate from.
>uncreated energies alone being insentient cannot create anything
This is wrong. Electricity, which is an insentient energy, creates light, heat, and power.
>you can't create something exnihilo without creative desire and omnipotence and I'd say it's only possible within God's mind.
1. Because you are not arguing for ex nihilo creation, but rather are arguing for creation from uncreated energies shaped by an ishvara's mind (unless you have once again moved the goalposts), your own argument means that it is not necessary for there to be an omnipotent ishvara.
2. A truly perfect being would be satisfied without creating but would instead contemplate possibilities without creating any. To say that a being could not find full satisfaction solely through such contemplation is to reveal that the being's mind is not omnipotent or perfect - because a perfect and omnipotent mind could amuse itself without creating by thinking only for eternity. Given the primacy of an ishvara's omnipotence and mental activity in you arguments, these are grave weaknesses in your argument.
3. You say that in your opinion creation (whether ex nihilo or not you make not clear - but as I mentioned, your accepting ex nihilo creation is a major shift from your argument about the universe being created from uncreated energy) is only possible in an ishvara's mind. But Why should we believe your opinions? I and others here have revealed, through ample citations and arguments, that you are ill-informed, ignorant, incapable of creating effective arguments, and unwilling to cite appropriate sources. Given this, I hold your opinion to be worth less than contrary opinions.
>God is a immaterial being and matter is a illusion,
Even assuming this to be true, such teachings are not Christianity.
>quantum physics has proven this.
I and others have revealed within this forum how limited your understanding of quantum physics is.
>furthermore there must be a unconditioned concrete reality and it must be immaterial because it cannot be restricted by a spatial restriction .
Some forms of Buddhism accept that there is an unconditioned reality, but you have not proven to us that "there must be a unconditioned concrete reality and it must be immaterial because it cannot be restricted by a spatial restriction" - nor, given the profound ignorance that you reveal in these discussions can you unless you seriously improve.
2. The assertion that "there must be a unconditioned concrete reality and it must be immaterial because it cannot be restricted by a spatial restriction", even if true, is not equal to proving that there is an ishvara. Rather, eternal laws of nature (non-intelligent but binding all things from Buddhas to boulders) would fit this role just as well. This is another example of your poor skill in arguing.
>God's energies are God
This is a radical change from your earlier argument that an ishvara created based upon uncreated energies that were not the ishvara. Zounds, but you can dance, leaping from one position to another in order to defend the claim that an ishvara exists.
>they are nearly infinite and infinite in quality so they can create souls and matter within God's immaterial mind out of nothing with his omnipotence .
1. You have made no argument for why souls exist.
2. To say that an ishvara/an ishvara's energies are nearly infinite is to say that the ishvara is not omnipotent. A truly omnipotent ishvara would have truly infinite energy. So, I have shown that the Christians' scriptures and your own words unite to prove false your claim that an ishvara (if existing) is omnipotent - and because your argument for an ishvara is based upon the assertion that the ishvara is the necessarily omnipotent creator, I have refuted your argument that an ishvara exists.
>You can't create outside of a mind and without omnipotence.
By your logic, you, as the creator of your words, are omnipotent. Are you willing to concede such a thing? If so, them maybe you can use your omnipotence to make all people believe your claims without exposing them as nonsense.
>and your idea that the universe or it's underlying energy is eternal is against anicca.
I did not argue that the universe is eternal. Nor did I argue that underlying energy is eternal. Rather, I argued that uncreated energy can naturally change into universes (which in turn change into energy again in a never-ending cycle). You were making a similar argument (about uncreated energy forming the universe, albeit only through an ishvara's intervention). The fact that you were unable to distinguish between uncreated and eternal reveals much about your poor reading comprehension - further causing me to doubt your arguments.
>You really just made that up to save buddhism.
1. As I just said, I did not make up the argument - rather you did by misunderstanding my argument.
2. Even if I had presented such an argument, I cannot be said to have made it up - rather, I was citing Mu Soeng.
3. Even if I had made up an argument in order to save Buddhism, you are doing no less in your efforts to defend the assertion that an ishvara exists. That is, you are mangling various shoddy sources in order to construct poorly spelled, poorly structured, and constantly changing arguments that are united by defending the assertion that an ishvara exists.