Why there must be atleast one unconditioned reality and why it must be spiritual?

[cappuccino]

if you reject God I don't know how you will believe in a unconditioned reality that is immaterial, unique, simple

I don't reject

[Tutareture]

if you reject God I don't know how you will believe in a unconditioned reality that is immaterial, unique, simple

I don't reject

Do you accept God (mere devas is not what i mean)

[cappuccino]

Do you accept God

yes


after all, the East has contributed its wisdom


& the West has contributed its wisdom

[Tutareture]

Do you accept God

yes


after all, the East has contributed its wisdom


& the West has contributed its wisdom

[SarathW]

But the unconditioned reality is the source of all conditioned things by definition

This is not correct as per Buddhism I believe.
Buddha never said the condition is emanated from the unconditioned.

[Tutareture]

But the unconditioned reality is the source of all conditioned things by definition

This is not correct as per Buddhism I believe.
Buddha never said the condition is emanated from the unconditioned.

Infinite number of conditioned realities can't exist even if infinity were a actual possible thing.

[chownah]

I'm wondering what is the connection with theravada because it seems that theravada has no doctrine or texts that talk about "unconditioned realities"......or even that talk about "realities" at all.....maybe I haven't seen those texts or doctrines or have forgotten about them......can someone find some?....
chownah

[SteRo]

[sphairos]

Who created the Creator?

[asahi]

The Creator synonym to the Uncreated ie the Unconditioned .

[Tutareture]

Who created the Creator?

it is unconditioned so noone created him.it is the first and the last.nothing in fact can be 'created'except within the mind of a panentheistic creator with uncreated energies.this is what the Orthodox church believes.creation exnihilo is impossible.

[sphairos]

Who created the Creator?

it is unconditioned so noone created him.it is the first and the last.nothing in fact can be 'created'except within the mind of a panentheistic creator with uncreated energies.this is what the Orthodox church believes.creation exnihilo is impossible.

Nonsense, there is no reason to stop questioning "who created" at "creator" and "unconditioned" -- and "unconditioned" cannot create anything, because it will condition itself this way.

If god is allmighty, why didn't he make us all allmighty gods?

If god is omniscient, why does he punish people for transgressing his will, if he already knew that they would transgress before they even appeared?

I think this "creator", "unconditioned creator" and "god" ideas are just pure nonsense.

[4GreatHeavenlyKings]

We must accept the following 2 things before we can discuss whether things are conditioned (and to what degree), whether things are dependant upon other things (and to what degree), and whether things come into existence (and if so, how and when):

1. Our Senses can be relied upon. If our senses were not reliable, then everything which we think that we perceive (including the logic which some people people think proves Christianity to be true and Buddhism false) could be an illusion – rather like the logic which seems to make sense in dreams or to the drunken but is absurd when we are awake or not drunken.

2. That some things are impossible. If nothing were impossible, then arguments aiming to disprove Buddhism (or any other religion) by proving that something is impossible are themselves bad arguments. It would be like trying to argue for the existence of an uncreated creator god by arguing that maggots’ formation is a miracle despite the fact that maggots’ formation is really scientifically explained and observable by technologically assisted eyes.

As Buddhists, we have scriptures, both shastras and suttas (varying from tradition to tradition), which assert both things. Certainly, Buddhist sects disagree about what is impossible (cf., Buddhist docetism in the Lotus and Golden Light Sutras, in contrast to Pali Suttas’ more restrained accounts of what Buddhas are), and about when certain phenomena are Buddhist teachings or merely demons pretending to teach Buddhism.

The Christian, in order to assert both that eir senses can be relied upon and that some things are impossible, defeats arguments made in favour of Christianity which assert that our senses can be relied upon and that certain things are impossible.

This is because Christianity is fundamentally based upon accepting Christian scriptures as true. It is from Christian scriptures, after all, that Christians learn how to interpret the benevolent spirits whom they claim to be in contact with as not simply generic benevolent spirits, but as agents of or even manifestations of the God-Man Jesus Christ. It is from Christian scriptures, after all, that Christians learn that the God-Man Jesus Christ is a crucified criminal who bought us for a price, in the absence of whose intervention all people would suffer (according to most Christian denominations’ views) an eternity in Hell.

Given the importance of trusting what Christian scriptures say, any assertion that what they say should not be accepted as true is devastating to Christianity. If premise X, recorded as true within Christian scriptures, be not accepted as true, then it becomes easier to accept that other premises, recorded within Christian Scriptures as true (such as the importance of Jesus as our saviour), are likewise false.

With these words, consider that:

1. The Christians’ Scriptures claim that YHWH, the Christians’ god, is capable of sending strong delusions against people and will do so in the future (2 Thessalonians 2:11). The Christians’ Scriptures also claim that YHWH, the Christians’ god, is capable of sending lying spirits, who resemble truth-telling spirits, to his worshippers in order to trick his worshippers into accepting certain things about YHWH as true when they are false (1 Kings 22). The Christians’ Scriptures also claim that prophets who speak things which did not come to pass were deceived by YHWH. (Ezekiel 14:9). Given these assertions, the Christian must either concede that everything which e thinks to be true (including arguments used to refute non-Christian religions) could be a strong delusion sent by YHWH eir god or assert that the Bible contains falsehoods. And if the Bible be false in these statements about YHWH, then the Bible’s claims about Jesus as saviour can also be rejected.

2. The Christians’ Scriptures claim that Jesus Christ said that nothing is impossible for his god, YHWH (Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27). Therefore, arguments in favour of Christianity and against non-Christian religions which assert that certain things are impossible must assert that Jesus, when teaching, was not always speaking the truth. But if it be accepted that Jesus did not tell the truth about one thing (namely, whether nothing is impossible for YHWH his god), then the possibility arises that Jesus could have been not telling the truth in all of his teachings about his role in securing peoples’ salvation. Such a model would not be unprecedented within the Christians’ Scriptures, which talk about YHWH’s sending lying spirits in the guise of truth-telling spirits to his worshippers (1 Kings 22) and talk about how YHWH sends miracle-workers and prophets able to tell the future to his worshippers in order to try to lead them astray from the true religion (Deuteronomy 13:1-5), which is what Christianity has been accused of being by Jewish theologians. Jesus Christ cannot be dismissed as such a false agent from YHWH without asserting some combination of the claim that 1 Kings 22 and Deuteronomy 13:1-5 are not true (which raises the question of whether other parts in the Bible are false – such as the portions about Jesus’s salvation) and that YHWH is capable of changing and is scrutable by humans. But the Christians’ scriptures assert that YHWH is unchanging (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17) and that YHWH cannot be understood by humans: (Romans 11:33–34; cf. Job 42:1–6; Psalms 139:6, 17–18; 147:5; Isaiah 57:15; 1 Corinthians 2:10–11; 1 Timothy 6:13–16). For these reasons, Christian, in order to defend their faith, must accept that Jesus, when he said that nothing is impossible for YHWH his god, was telling the truth – meaning that arguments against other religions and in favour of Christianity based upon certain things’ being impossible must be discarded as false. Of course, this does not eliminate the possibility that Jesus Christ and various pro-Christian spirits whom Christians claim to have met are not really a series of deceivers sent by YHWH (It is not enough to say that the spirit has properties (appearance, etc.) that are associated with good spirits (angels, etc.), because Satan masquerades as an angel of light: 2 Corinthians 11:14), but by refusing to admit that Jesus was not telling the truth when he said that nothing is impossible for his god YHWH, the Christian eliminates major evidence in favour of the claim that Jesus Christ was really a series of deceivers sent by YHWH.

As for the idea that the uncreated creator god YHWH is immutable, this is contradicted by the Christians' own Scriptures. See, e.g., Amos 7:1-6, Jeremiah 15:6, Jeremiah 26:3, Jeremiah 26:13, Jeremiah 26:19. Why should we accept arguments in favour of Christianity which, if accepted, reveal that the Christians' scriptures are false about the uncreated creator god's mutability? Such an argument is, if anything, an argument why we should abandon Christianity in favour of some other form of theism.

I am aware that your scriptures, Tutareture, assert that YHWH is unchanging (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17), but these assertions are contradicted by passages within your scriptures which reveal that YHWH changes and describes YHWH as changing (See, e.g., Amos 7:1-6, Jeremiah 15:6, Jeremiah 26:3, Jeremiah 26:13, Jeremiah 26:19). When an assertion without evidence is opposed by an assertion with evidence, the assertion with evidence is stronger. For this rteason, YHWH your god changes.

You concede, Tutareture, that "every instance of change requires a changer (there must exist something that brings about the change)." Your scriptures portray your god as changing and describe your god as changing. Therefore, your god requires a changer. That changer is your god's nature, which is inclined towards wrath, punishments, and threats - as your scriptures reveal. In this way, your god is not better than we are - we who are also changed by our natures.

A good explanation, Tutareture, for your god YHWH's inconsistency (as is revealed within the scriptures that Christians are guided by) and wrathfulness is not provided by the philosophy which you cite (which, in contradicting the Bible weakens the argument that Christianity is true). A better explanation, Tutareture, for your god YHWH's inconsistency (as is revealed within the scriptures that Christians are guided by) and wrathfulness is provided by the Pali Brahmajala Sutta. The Brahmajala Sutta reveals that at least one god believes himself to have created everything - and has persuaded other gods about this. But such a god is in fact mistaken - the universe arose naturally. This type of god is further portrayed in the Brahma-nimantanika Sutta as ignorant about many other things:

The Blessed One said: "On one occasion recently I was staying in Ukkattha in the Subhaga forest at the root of a royal sala tree. Now on that occasion an evil viewpoint had arisen to Baka-Brahma: 'This is constant. This is permanent. This is eternal. This is total. This is not subject to falling away — for this does not take birth, does not age, does not die, does not fall away, does not reappear.[1] And there is no other, higher escape.'

"So I — having known with my awareness the train of thought in Baka Brahma's awareness — as a strong man would extend his flexed arm or flex his extended arm, vanished into the root of the royal sala tree in the Subhaga forest in Ukkattha and appeared in that brahma world. Baka Brahma saw me coming in the distance and, on seeing me, said, 'Come, good sir. You are well-come, good sir. It has been long, good sir, since you arranged to come here — for this, good sir, is constant. This is permanent. This is eternal. This is total. This is not subject to falling away — for here one does not take birth, does not age, does not die, does not fall away, does not reappear. And there is no other, higher escape.'

"When this was said, I told Baka Brahma, 'How immersed in ignorance is Baka Brahma! How immersed in ignorance is Baka Brahma! — in that what is actually inconstant he calls "constant." What is actually impermanent he calls "permanent." What is actually non-eternal he calls "eternal." What is actually partial he calls "total." What is actually subject to falling away he calls "not subject to falling away." Where one takes birth, ages, dies, falls away, and reappears, he says, "For here one does not take birth, does not age, does not die, does not fall away, does not reappear." And there being another, higher escape, he says, "There is no other, higher escape."'

[...]

"When this was said, Baka Brahma told me, 'But, good sir, what is actually constant I call "constant." What is actually permanent I call "permanent." What is actually eternal I call "eternal." What is actually total I call "total." What is actually not subject to falling away I call "not subject to falling away." Where one does not take birth, age, die, fall away, or reappear, I say, "For this does not take birth, does not age, does not die, does not fall away, does not reappear." And there being no other, higher escape, I say, "There is no other, higher escape."

"'There were, monk, before your time, brahmans & contemplatives in the world whose ascetic practice lasted as long as your entire life span. They knew, when there was another, higher escape, that there was another, higher escape; or, when there was no other, higher escape, that there was no other, higher escape. So I tell you, monk, both that you will not find another, higher escape, and that, to that extent, you will reap your share of trouble & weariness. Monk, if you relish earth, you will lie close to me, lie within my domain, for me to banish and to do with as I like. If you relish liquid ... fire ... wind ... beings ... devas ... Pajapati ... brahma, you will lie close to me, lie within my domain, for me to banish and to do with as I like.'

"'I, too, know that, brahma. If I relish earth, I will lie close to you, lie within your domain, for you to banish and to do with as you like. If I relish liquid ... fire ... wind ... beings ... devas ... Pajapati ... brahma, I will lie close to you, lie within your domain, for you to banish and to do with as you like. Moreover, I discern your sphere, I discern your splendor: "Baka Brahma has this much great power. Baka Brahma has this much great might. Baka Brahma has this much great influence."'

"'Well, monk, how do you discern my sphere, how do you discern my splendor: "Baka Brahma has this much great power. Baka Brahma has this much great might. Baka Brahma has this much great influence"?'

"'As far as suns & moons revolve,
shining, illuminating the directions,
over a thousand-fold world
your control holds sway.
There you know those above & below,
those with lust & those without,
the state of what is as it is,
the state of what becomes otherwise,
the coming & going of beings.

"'That, brahma, is how I discern your sphere, that is how I discern your splendor: "Baka Brahma has this much great power. Baka Brahma has this much great might. Baka Brahma has this much great influence." There are, brahma, bodies other than yours that you don't know, don't see, but that I know, I see. There is, brahma, the body named Abhassara (Radiant/Luminous) from which you fell away & reappeared here.[4] From your having lived here so long, your memory of that has become muddled. That is why you don't know it, don't see it, but I know it, I see it. Thus I am not your mere equal in terms of direct knowing, so how could I be inferior? I am actually superior to you.

Therefore, Tutareture, from a Buddhist perspective the inconsistencies within your scriptures are explained. They are the product of an insane god, YHWH, who believes himself to have created the universe and to knowe everythings but he does not know everything and has not created the universe.

[Coëmgenu]

2. That some things are impossible.

Maybe you meant "Some things that might seem impossible are actually possible?"

If some certain "impossible" things were possible, all theistic claims would have merit.

[4GreatHeavenlyKings]

2. That some things are impossible.

Maybe you meant "Some things that might seem impossible are actually possible?"

If some certain "impossible" things were possible, all theistic claims would have merit.

With all due respect, I think that the Buddhist and the non-Buddhist agree that some things are impossible. We just disagree with each other about which things are truly impossible.

As a Buddhist, one of the things which i hold to be impossible is the existence of an uncreated creator god. But according to the Christians' Scriptures, nothing is impossible for their god - including the sequence of dependent arising which the OP alleges is impossible.