[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Why wouldn’t this “samsaric cycle of karma and rebirth” be called “god”? Who moves this cycle? What do you mean by “dependent origination”? Sorry for so many questions. [/quote]
The cycle itself has no will…a pattern as God? I don’t think it conforms to most people’s ideas of ‘God’.
Dependent origination is the realization that there is no separation - that all things are constantly co-creating each other.
In fact, Nagarjuna posits that all there is is flux - that impermanence doesn’t even exist because nothing sits still long enough to actually come into being as a separate identity.
[quote]wirewound wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Why wouldn’t this “samsaric cycle of karma and rebirth” be called “god”? Who moves this cycle? What do you mean by “dependent origination”? Sorry for so many questions.
The cycle itself has no will…a pattern as God? I don’t think it conforms to most people’s ideas of ‘God’.
[/quote]
How does the pattern stay together? It seems to function on some rule or rules, why isn’t it just chaos if there is nothing controlling it?
That, I do not think is different from the idea that it “all rolls into one”.One thing, beget another, and another…I don’t see how it would destroy the notion of a prime mover, after all. it comes from somewhere, does it not? Co-creation does not destroy that notion, it just doesn’t address it, which is fine…
[quote]
In fact, Nagarjuna posits that all there is is flux - that impermanence doesn’t even exist because nothing sits still long enough to actually come into being as a separate identity.[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Why wouldn’t this “samsaric cycle of karma and rebirth” be called “god”? Who moves this cycle? What do you mean by “dependent origination”? Sorry for so many questions.
The cycle itself has no will…a pattern as God? I don’t think it conforms to most people’s ideas of ‘God’.
How does the pattern stay together? It seems to function on some rule or rules, why isn’t it just chaos if there is nothing controlling it?
Dependent origination is the realization that there is no separation - that all things are constantly co-creating each other.
That, I do not think is different from the idea that it “all rolls into one”.One thing, beget another, and another…I don’t see how it would destroy the notion of a prime mover, after all. it comes from somewhere, does it not? Co-creation does not destroy that notion, it just doesn’t address it, which is fine… [/quote]
If all things are subject to dependent origination, there can be no prime mover. A prime mover, by definition, would not be subject to dependent origination.
[quote]In fact, Nagarjuna posits that all there is is flux - that impermanence doesn’t even exist because nothing sits still long enough to actually come into being as a separate identity.
[quote]wirewound wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
wirewound wrote:
pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
I actually have a religion, but I don’t believe in God. That’s right, I’m Buddhist. I’m not an atheist, because I also don’t believe there is no God. I’m a non-theist.
Don’t you guys have a muse, or energy you draw from?
Forgive me I don’t know a whole lot about Buddhism…
There’s no first cause in Buddhism. The doctrine of ‘dependent origination’ and the reality that all things are ‘empty of self’ sort of prevent it. Reality itself as experienced prevent it.
A God as described in most theistic religions would be subject to the same samsaric cycle of karma and rebirth as we all are - only the scale would be grander.
Where did this “samsaric cycle of karma and rebirth” originate and how is it regulated? Who or what brought the system that allows this to function into human reality?
Siddhartha never answered this question directly except to say that someone who insists on knowing these things is like a man struck by a poisoned arrow who will not allow anyone to help him until he knows what wood the shaft of the arrow is made of, who the attacker was, of what clan he was, whether it was a brahman or an untouchable, whether it was a man or a woman, etc. The question is considered unimportant in light of the dire circumstances of one’s situation.[/quote]
And yet knowing some of these things might prevent or help to avoid the second arrow that is now seconds from hitting this man again.
But you know, your answer seems a lot like the answer evolutionary science gives when confronted with the question of where matter originated. They don’t know and don’t care because it doesn’t fit into their paradigm.
[quote]pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Why wouldn’t this “samsaric cycle of karma and rebirth” be called “god”? Who moves this cycle? What do you mean by “dependent origination”? Sorry for so many questions.
The cycle itself has no will…a pattern as God? I don’t think it conforms to most people’s ideas of ‘God’.
How does the pattern stay together? It seems to function on some rule or rules, why isn’t it just chaos if there is nothing controlling it?
Dependent origination is the realization that there is no separation - that all things are constantly co-creating each other.
That, I do not think is different from the idea that it “all rolls into one”.One thing, beget another, and another…I don’t see how it would destroy the notion of a prime mover, after all. it comes from somewhere, does it not? Co-creation does not destroy that notion, it just doesn’t address it, which is fine…
In fact, Nagarjuna posits that all there is is flux - that impermanence doesn’t even exist because nothing sits still long enough to actually come into being as a separate identity.
I actually have a religion, but I don’t believe in God. That’s right, I’m Buddhist. I’m not an atheist, because I also don’t believe there is no God. I’m a non-theist.
Don’t you guys have a muse, or energy you draw from?
Forgive me I don’t know a whole lot about Buddhism…
There’s no first cause in Buddhism. The doctrine of ‘dependent origination’ and the reality that all things are ‘empty of self’ sort of prevent it. Reality itself as experienced prevent it.
A God as described in most theistic religions would be subject to the same samsaric cycle of karma and rebirth as we all are - only the scale would be grander.
Where did this “samsaric cycle of karma and rebirth” originate and how is it regulated? Who or what brought the system that allows this to function into human reality?
Siddhartha never answered this question directly except to say that someone who insists on knowing these things is like a man struck by a poisoned arrow who will not allow anyone to help him until he knows what wood the shaft of the arrow is made of, who the attacker was, of what clan he was, whether it was a brahman or an untouchable, whether it was a man or a woman, etc. The question is considered unimportant in light of the dire circumstances of one’s situation.
And yet knowing some of these things might prevent or help to avoid the second arrow that is now seconds from hitting this man again.
But you know, your answer seems a lot like the answer evolutionary science gives when confronted with the question of where matter originated. They don’t know and don’t care because it doesn’t fit into their paradigm.
[/quote]
It’s not that it doesn’t fit the paradigm, and it’s not that it’s undiscoverable - it’s that it’s not important to the process of liberation from suffering.
Knowing those incidentals will not help you if you die from the poison arrow before you can determine them. That’s the point.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Why wouldn’t this “samsaric cycle of karma and rebirth” be called “god”? Who moves this cycle? What do you mean by “dependent origination”? Sorry for so many questions.
The cycle itself has no will…a pattern as God? I don’t think it conforms to most people’s ideas of ‘God’.
How does the pattern stay together? It seems to function on some rule or rules, why isn’t it just chaos if there is nothing controlling it?
Dependent origination is the realization that there is no separation - that all things are constantly co-creating each other.
That, I do not think is different from the idea that it “all rolls into one”.One thing, beget another, and another…I don’t see how it would destroy the notion of a prime mover, after all. it comes from somewhere, does it not? Co-creation does not destroy that notion, it just doesn’t address it, which is fine…
In fact, Nagarjuna posits that all there is is flux - that impermanence doesn’t even exist because nothing sits still long enough to actually come into being as a separate identity.
Interesting.
In other words; what goes around comes around!
[/quote]
Not at all. Maybe karma could be described that way, but not existence itself.
To make multiple identical copies of (a DNA sequence).
[/quote]
6. Genetics. replication (def. 7).
Would you look at that. Copying and cloning seem to have different definitions. Copying uses the word replication. Isn’t it amazing how different words have different definitions? English sure am amazing!
Pat strikes again with his 3rd grade reading skills.
My argument never was “there is no god”. My argument has always been there is no evidence or logical reason to believe in god. I can’t prove the negative, it is thoroughly impossible.
The fact that you didn’t know “inert cell” was in your post, strengthens my argument that you are an idiot.
This question:
What are you going to do when a scientist animates an inert cell?
Do you even read my posts before you respond?
… I just fucking said that scientists don’t create new raw materials. You really are the dumbest person on the internet.
Since you’re repeating yourself: “Your imaginary sky didn’t create any raw materials either.”
I broke this out by itself because it is VERY wrong. You obviously have no understanding of basic science.
Again, my goal was never to set out to prove that a god does not exist, just that there is no reason to believe in one. I brought this up to say that I’d prefer and unfeeling, uncaring universe to a universe with a god that obviously has it in for us. It makes your position that there absolutely is a god look a little bit more ridiculous.
Way to edit my post here ass hole.
“Something doesn’t have to exist for it to be unlikely for it to exist.”
I can’t imagine how threatening that must have been for you to feel the need to delete it as though it were never there.
That’s such a cop out. You’re a huge pussy. Everyone please call Pat out on his bullshit cop out.
I know that you really want to be the man here and beat me, but you’ve got too much bitch in you… and somewhere deep in your vagina, you know it.
Show me how the logic applied above isn’t exactly the logic you’ve been applying to god. I’m going to keep reposting it, and I’ll start putting quotes from you under it, until you tell me how it wasn’t your logic exactly.
What caused god? Why can’t my monster be the Prime Mover? What makes your imaginary god so different from my imaginary monster?
These are questions you need to have an answer to if you want your argument to survive even the most basic questioning.
Just give me one argument that applies to god but couldn’t be applied to a monster under my bed and I’ll drop this part of the post.
To make multiple identical copies of (a DNA sequence).
6. Genetics. replication (def. 7).
Would you look at that. Copying and cloning seem to have different definitions. Copying uses the word replication. Isn’t it amazing how different words have different definitions? English sure am amazing!
[/quote]
Funny how “cloning” uses the word “copy” in it’s definition. Of course they have different definitions otherwise there would be no need to have another word. My contention is that a cloned living thing is essentially a copy of another living thing. Not that words copy and cloning mean the same thing.
Not give a damn. An inactive cell is not dead. I activate inert biological material every time I unfreeze something some food. I don’t find it amazing. And perhaps it may have been even tastier had I never froze it.
Unfortunately…I need my morning giggle.
I have never changed my argument one iota. Perhaps your understanding of it has changed. Science not scientists do not create anything they manipulate that which already exists. For that to occur you need raw material and potential, both of which already exist prior to any new discovery.
My sky? How do you know my sky didn’t create anything?
Glad to see you concede the point…Learn and grow.
Oh really? Name a single instance anywhere where new raw material is created or any raw material is destroyed. Saying something is wrong is not enough, you gotta back it up. I managed to figure out that you think I am wrong.
You can prefer what you want to, it does not make something exist or not exist. Your preference for an uncaring, unfeeling universe, doesn’t make it one. It may be one, wanting doesn’t make it true.
I edited nothing you wrote…I may take things out to reduce space, but I do not change your words.
Uh, what?
Terrifying.
Yes, please everyone call me out.
You seem angry.
That garbage is not an argument or logic…So hell no, that is not the same “logic exactly”. If I am to decipher what you were trying to say I am assuming you think, that I apply a God status to that which is unknown. So no, that is not the logic I am using to justify the existance of a prime mover / first cause.
Besides, it’s not even my argument, Aristotle came up with it , Aquinas, Leibniz, Descartes, etc took to strengthening the argument over the centuries.
By defnition he cannot be hence the term “uncaused, cause”.
If you feel that God is hiding under your bed I cannot contest it.
Mine is not imaginary.
Fine I answered them…It would have helped if you had asked them before.
[quote]
Just give me one argument that applies to god but couldn’t be applied to a monster under my bed and I’ll drop this part of the post. [/quote]
God exists outside your mind and is not made up to try a trump an argument that has survived 2 millenniums of scrutiny. For your monster to exist, it must have had a predecessor.
You should however, drop that whole line of “reasoning” to save your own dignity.
[quote]wirewound wrote:
pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Why wouldn’t this “samsaric cycle of karma and rebirth” be called “god”? Who moves this cycle? What do you mean by “dependent origination”? Sorry for so many questions.
The cycle itself has no will…a pattern as God? I don’t think it conforms to most people’s ideas of ‘God’.
How does the pattern stay together? It seems to function on some rule or rules, why isn’t it just chaos if there is nothing controlling it?
Dependent origination is the realization that there is no separation - that all things are constantly co-creating each other.
That, I do not think is different from the idea that it “all rolls into one”.One thing, beget another, and another…I don’t see how it would destroy the notion of a prime mover, after all. it comes from somewhere, does it not? Co-creation does not destroy that notion, it just doesn’t address it, which is fine…
If all things are subject to dependent origination, there can be no prime mover. A prime mover, by definition, would not be subject to dependent origination.
In fact, Nagarjuna posits that all there is is flux - that impermanence doesn’t even exist because nothing sits still long enough to actually come into being as a separate identity.
Interesting.
[/quote]
Fair enough…The doctrine of dependent origination does not allow for something to be independent of it. So is your take that all thing always existed and always will?
Fair enough…The doctrine of dependent origination does not allow for something to be independent of it. So is your take that all thing always existed and always will?[/quote]
I think that if you look closely at your actual experience (via meditation), you will realize that your understanding of ‘things existing’ will change pretty dramatically.
Once you back away from conceptual understanding, I think you’ll realize that many of these questions are themselves inappropriate.
For example, if you believed in a flat earth, you might ask whether the world just extends forever or if it suddenly drops off. The question itself depends on an inaccurate view of the nature of reality.
Fair enough…The doctrine of dependent origination does not allow for something to be independent of it. So is your take that all thing always existed and always will?
I think that if you look closely at your actual experience (via meditation), you will realize that your understanding of ‘things existing’ will change pretty dramatically.
Once you back away from conceptual understanding, I think you’ll realize that many of these questions are themselves inappropriate.
For example, if you believed in a flat earth, you might ask whether the world just extends forever or if it suddenly drops off. The question itself depends on an inaccurate view of the nature of reality.
[/quote]
Okay, I am following…what type of understanding are you recommending? Why is the origin of things an inappropriate question?
Are cause and effect relationships an inaccurate view of reality? What, then, would be an accurate view?
I actually have a religion, but I don’t believe in God. That’s right, I’m Buddhist. I’m not an atheist, because I also don’t believe there is no God. I’m a non-theist.
Don’t you guys have a muse, or energy you draw from?
Forgive me I don’t know a whole lot about Buddhism…
There’s no first cause in Buddhism. The doctrine of ‘dependent origination’ and the reality that all things are ‘empty of self’ sort of prevent it. Reality itself as experienced prevent it.
A God as described in most theistic religions would be subject to the same samsaric cycle of karma and rebirth as we all are - only the scale would be grander.
Where did this “samsaric cycle of karma and rebirth” originate and how is it regulated? Who or what brought the system that allows this to function into human reality?
Siddhartha never answered this question directly except to say that someone who insists on knowing these things is like a man struck by a poisoned arrow who will not allow anyone to help him until he knows what wood the shaft of the arrow is made of, who the attacker was, of what clan he was, whether it was a brahman or an untouchable, whether it was a man or a woman, etc.
The question is considered unimportant in light of the dire circumstances of one’s situation.
And yet knowing some of these things might prevent or help to avoid the second arrow that is now seconds from hitting this man again.
But you know, your answer seems a lot like the answer evolutionary science gives when confronted with the question of where matter originated. They don’t know and don’t care because it doesn’t fit into their paradigm.
It’s not that it doesn’t fit the paradigm, and it’s not that it’s undiscoverable - it’s that it’s not important to the process of liberation from suffering.
Knowing those incidentals will not help you if you die from the poison arrow before you can determine them. That’s the point.
[/quote]
True, but knowing those things may help you avoid the arrow altogether. That is my point.
[quote]pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Also, doesn’t cloned mean “copied”?
[/quote]
This was your original question. It really is sad that you’ve wasted so much time arguing wit me about this. It should be very clear to you that cloned doesn’t mean “copied”.
You don’t activate… you just make it hot… your stupidity makes my head hurt.
Notice that science cannot create a God-damn thing, everything already exists.
The preceding is a direct quote from one of your previous posts. You’ll notice that it doesn’t mention raw materials anyway. Scientists have clearly created clones and cell phones and all manner of other things that have not always existed.
Your inconsistency is due to the fact that you will try to say anything just to win an argument. Grow the fuck up.
Your imaginary sky god didn’t create anything either. There you go little guy, I fixed it for you. Now go back and correct all of your typos in all of your previous posts.
The part about the volume is what makes it wrong dumbshit. This would be very very very obvious to you if you knew anything at all about basic science.
If you’re going to posit an all powerful, all knowing, all creating god, then you have to accept that he created cancer. I’m not saying that cancer is proof of his existence.
Please try to apply your appallingly poor reading skills better next time. I brought this up to say that I’d prefer and unfeeling, uncaring universe to a universe with a god that obviously has it in for us.
Did I deny he created cancer? Are you changing your argument to, “God could not create such a nasty thing such as cancer therefore God does not exist.” Either stick to a single line of reasoning or start a new one. You are all over the place ad it make no sense.
Again, my goal was never to set out to prove that a god does not exist, just that there is no reason to believe in one. I brought this up to say that I’d prefer and unfeeling, uncaring universe to a universe with a god that obviously has it in for us. It makes your position that there absolutely is a god look a little bit more ridiculous.
You can prefer what you want to, it does not make something exist or not exist. Your preference for an uncaring, unfeeling universe, doesn’t make it one. It may be one, wanting doesn’t make it true.
[/quote]
Agreed. I’m just wondering why in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you still prefer to believe in a god that designed such a horrible world. It wouldn’t have taken much effort to do better.
Still waiting on you to show me that first logical fallacy. This is still a cop out, and you’re still a coward.
Let’s recap:
I said that the big bang is a better assumption as a first cause b/c it is less complex than god would have to be. Your response is below.
“God’s “nature” is completely irrelevant to whether or not He exists. We would have to establish existence first, before we can discuss his nature. You’re putting the cart before the horse.”
–Pat
Again, something doesn’t have to exist before you can gauge whether it is likely to exist.
Now, you hear a noise under the bed. The cat would make a good explanation for this noise because is is a simple explanation. The cat in this metaphor, is the big bang (or whatever you want to call the first uncaused event). But, you think to yourself “could it be a monster with magic powers?”
Being a sensible person, you realize immediately that you can’t absolutely prove that it is not a monster with magic powers. However, it is very very unlikely that a complex thing like a magic monster made that noise. Most people would stop there, but not you. You say to yourself "A monster’s nature is completely irrelevant to whether or not it exists.
We would have to establish existence first, before we can discuss his nature." Now, hopefully you’ll realize that to be logically consistent, you have to assume the monster is real, after all, you just assigned a remote probability to his existence.
Can’t you see the trap you’ve created for yourself? Using your logic would have us treating everything from leprechauns to greek gods as absolutely real.
Let me put this in terms even a child can understand.
You’re 7 years old and you hear a noise under your bed. It’s really unlikely that it’s a monster, it’s probably just the cat. But since it’s only unlikely that it’s a monster, that means the monster must exist.
After all, arguing that it’s unlikely that it’s a monster means that it most definitely is a monster. Sure the cat would make a better explanation, but you can’t prove that it’s not a monster, and the burden of proof is on you to prove it isn’t, so it must be a monster.
Why do you get to decide what the uncaused event is? I think the big bang makes much more sense than an all powerful all knowing god.
Finally, an honest answer out of you.
You haven’t even come close to proving this.
God does not exist outside anyones mind. This was made up to trump your argument (and it’s working), but that’s a statement not an argument, so i guess I have to keep posting about this.
Additionally, your argument has not survived 2 millenniums of scrutiny, it was debunked almost immediately because it has obvious flaws. You haven’t even got past my first objection.
My monster would not have had to have had a predecessor if it was the first cause. If you can arbitrarily decide the first cause is god, then I can arbitrarily decide it’s a monster under my bed.
If you’re going to posit an all powerful, all knowing, all creating god, then you have to accept that he created cancer. I’m not saying that cancer is proof of his existence.
Please try to apply your appallingly poor reading skills better next time. I brought this up to say that I’d prefer and unfeeling, uncaring universe to a universe with a god that obviously has it in for us.
Did I deny he created cancer? Are you changing your argument to, “God could not create such a nasty thing such as cancer therefore God does not exist.” Either stick to a single line of reasoning or start a new one. You are all over the place ad it make no sense.
Again, my goal was never to set out to prove that a god does not exist, just that there is no reason to believe in one. I brought this up to say that I’d prefer and unfeeling, uncaring universe to a universe with a god that obviously has it in for us. It makes your position that there absolutely is a god look a little bit more ridiculous.
You can prefer what you want to, it does not make something exist or not exist. Your preference for an uncaring, unfeeling universe, doesn’t make it one. It may be one, wanting doesn’t make it true.
Agreed. I’m just wondering why in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you still prefer to believe in a god that designed such a horrible world. It wouldn’t have taken much effort to do better.
[/quote]
So let me get this strait, I am arguing that something must exist in order to have a nature about it. You are arguing that you have take into account something’s nature, even though it doesn’t exist…Hmmm…I see, so explain to me how nothing can have a nature about it. If I have a big “nothing” in my hand, what is it’s nature?
Isn’t nothing rather the absence of something? Or are you claiming that nothing is an actual “thing”?
If that was an analogy then it is the dumbest thing I have ever read. It is so full of logical fallacies it�??s not worth addressing; you need to reform the “argument” so that it makes some sense. This it must be a monster because it’s sounds like a monster, because it’s not a cat…Um, whatever.
Still waiting on you to show me that first logical fallacy. This is still a cop out, and you’re still a coward.
That garbage is not an argument or logic…So hell no, that is not the same “logic exactly”. If I am to decipher what you were trying to say I am assuming you think, that I apply a God status to that which is unknown. So no, that is not the logic I am using to justify the existance of a prime mover / first cause.
Besides, it’s not even my argument, Aristotle came up with it , Aquinas, Leibniz, Descartes, etc took to strengthening the argument over the centuries.
Let’s recap:
I said that the big bang is a better assumption as a first cause b/c it is less complex than god would have to be. Your response is below.
“God’s “nature” is completely irrelevant to whether or not He exists. We would have to establish existence first, before we can discuss his nature. You’re putting the cart before the horse.”
–Pat
[/quote]
Precisely.
If you attribute properties to something, it has to exist.
Logic is apparently elusive to you. The argument is linear and painfully simple and it just skips by you. You cannot grasp the concept that argument is arguing a single thing, not a justification for everything. A monster under bed that is actually a cat is not relevant in any way shape or form. No matter how much you try to pound that tripe in is still completely irrelevent as a logical argument or an analogy. But keep pounding away at it. Why don’t you write it again just to be sure. Next you going to expound on what if “dog” really meant “cat”, I suppose.
Ooops, spoke to soon. I am going print it out and post it, so I can laugh. The fact that you think this is brilliant is amazing to me. It has nothing to do with anything.
By defnition he cannot be hence the term “uncaused, cause”.
Why do you get to decide what the uncaused event is? I think the big bang makes much more sense than an all powerful all knowing god.
[/quote]
I didn’t decide it, first. Second, something uncaused, cannot be an event. So I am not deciding an event is uncaused.
A little research on your part would be wise, other wise you just may look like a fool. Who debunked Aristotle immediately and what was his counter argument?
Their have been counter arguments that were good, but not debunking. Of course, Aristotle never met your monster, I am sure he would have caved immediately from that brilliant line of reasoning.
Nothing here is arbitrary. It is deductive in it’s purest form. If you want to the prime mover “monster” and hide him under your bed go right ahead. It doesn’t make it so. This stuff is not arbitrary.