One can't prove that God but science makes God unnecessary

last SG · 2013-01-24T10:27:08+00:00

So were you taught or equipped to handle questions asked about the Christian faith? When you had questions how did you deal with them? like said, long forgot...

sinweiy SG

sort of think that Tao De Ching or the theory of everything start from nothing is of old testament, while Dharma deal more with human emotion/mind/consciousness, is more practical and is of the new testament. haha.

BroInChrist SG

sort of think that Tao De Ching or the theory of everything start from nothing is of old testament, which Dharma deal more with human emotion/mind/consciousness, is more practical and is of the new testament. haha.

The Bible starts with God and ends with God. Which is why the Bible says that God is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, or the A-Z if you like.

sinweiy SG

1. The universe (cosmos) we live in did not exist eternally, it had a beginning. The universe (time, space, matter) is created by God, who is Spirit, and thus God is not contained in the universe. God does not exist in space. Where God dwells in the eternal realms is a wholly different dimension from the universe.

2. The often-asked question "Who created God?" is an incoherent and meaningless question once you understand the nature of God. Just like the question "Who is the bachelor's wife?" once you understand what the word bachelor means.

3. You speak of the Mind that existed eternally. I would be most glad to tell you that this Mind is what Christians refer to as God. Design in the universe comes only from a Mind. Only a Person can have a Mind. Only Mind can make decisions, moral judgments, act etc.

4. What is the origins of samsara? I think that has not been answered. If infinite time has passed, then all should have escaped samsara by now. If this is not so, then the idea of infinity time past is incoherent.

5. The point about the finger and the moon. I take it to mean that you say I keep looking at the finger and not the moon. I would say that your explanation of the moon is not correct. You see, we all have the same facts which we try to make sense of through worldviews. Our worldviews help us interpret what we see. Everyone has a worldview. Worldview colours everything. But not all worldviews can be true at the same time in the same sense.

and that "dimension"or eternal realm existed eternally IS what the text is refering.

to us, that's Nirvana that's out of samsara that's really the eternal realm.

we can speak of the single unit of Mind that existed eternally, which u may call it "God", i am fine. but that mind, we all sentient beings have it. that's water/h2o for both wave and ocean. what the big have the smaller units also have it. like atoms/molecules, everything has it. that is in the matter world or non-living things. same with the mental world, the mind is the atom in all beings as long as they are living thing.

origins of samsara is when the mind become like a child start to attached to curiousity. just like dream, if u don't have attachment, wandering thoughts or hatred thoughts, you won't dream. in the end, samsara is also an illusion, unreal when one get rid of attachment, wandering thoughts or hatred thoughts. it's not suppose to be there.

moon pointing are just examples of similes or analogies. i speak of the monkey trap as analogy, while u say they are real (picking on the finger), then i got nothing to say. if u cannot understand, i also cannot help it. but i do like the bachelor's wife analogy. see i understand your moon pointing. i can use it to explain the Mind. :)

sinweiy SG

The Bible starts with God and ends with God. Which is why the Bible says that God is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, or the A-Z if you like.

The Dharma starts with Mind and ends with Mind.

BroInChrist SG

and that "dimension"or eternal realm existed eternally IS what the text is refering.

to us, that's Nirvana that's out of samsara that's really the eternal realm.

1. The eternal realms where God is, is not to be confused with the universe or cosmos which is what God created. One is spiritual and the other is material.

2. Since we are created in God's image, we do share God's Mind in some limited ways. We call this the communicable attributes of God. Atoms are not to be confused with Mind. The material is not to be confused with what is spiritual. They are distinct. We humans have minds because God created us that way with the faculties of self-reflection and self-awareness and self-consciousness.

3. Since humans have a beginning, as does the universe, and the Mind is the eternal God, samsara could not have been there in the beginning. Suffering was not present when God created the universe. It entered the world when man disobeyed God's command. So you are right, suffering is not supposed to be there. And it won't be there when God comes again to judge.

4. An analogy is simply to use real things to illustrate a point. I know you used it as an analogy. But the monkey trap product exists. I am just saying that your analogy is flawed. You like my bachelor's wife example? That was not an analogy at all. It was meant to expose illogical and meaningless questions, like "Who created God?"

Steveyboy SG

@BroInChrist

I appreciate your passion in Christ. I love him too. I personally think he is a Bodhisattva due to his wonderful actions. (That means he is a being on the verge of spiritual awakening and evidence of that is through his compassionate actions) With the deepest respect to you, it is pointless to keep quoting from the bible and telling us your Bible beliefs when obviously, we, Buddhists do not believe in it.

BroInChrist SG

@BroInChrist

Jesus once asked who people think He is. Many views were given, but only one was met with His approval and endorsement, that He is the Son of God, i.e. God Himself. Christ's revelation and claims for Himself is more important than what we like to think of Him as.

I quote the Bible to show that I am not making my own answers up. Truth be told, many Buddhists also quote chunks of Buddhist teachings for me even though I don't believe it. Is it pointless? Nope. At least I can read and evaluate them, even if I do not agree or believe them.

jlowbog SG

In fact all of the Q posted by Bchrist can be found with great details in maha vaipulya buddhavatamsaka sutra. For example how something can be created out of nothingness, a gd example would be nuclear bomb, just imagine how a small piece of unstable element can be manipulated to release such a huge amt of energy, following this line of tots, u will understand, similiarly the invisible energy present in the nothingness can be gathered and cystallised into something touchable.

So u give yrself and buddhism a chance, for a start u can read up maha vaipulya buddhavatamsaka sutra and make a comparsion yrself cos without some basic knowledge in buddhism, its very diificult to appreciate wat others tried to explain to u.

BroInChrist SG

Urrmmm...the nuclear bomb has to be created. The elements has to be harnessed and manipulated to give the intended effect. All this requires intelligent causes. So I don't see how this example is evidenc that something can be created out of nothingness. The unstable elements already exists, the people who manipulate it also exists. Energy present in the nothingness? This statement is rather incoherent. Please explain.

I believe I have some basic understanding of Buddhism. And I certainly try to appreciate what is being said.

jlowbog SG

yup…i do believe u have some basic understanding but the plm is..its not structured but bits n pieces of infos from the internet…as c u the plms with educated ppls r they like to quantify things which actually is not wrong but not complete…take for example 1+1=2 but if i said 1+1+1=infinity(from tao de jin) ppl cant accept. Buddha preaches the middle way…something n nothing always complemet each other, if u think something is something n nothing is nothing then u fall into 1 of the extreme sides…

as i said check out maha vaipulya buddhavatamsaka sutra
buddhism = greatest enjoyment of life.

btw the developement of nuclear boomb was more of a experiment under the facade of ww2.

BroInChrist SG

as i said check out maha vaipulya buddhavatamsaka sutra
buddhism = greatest enjoyment of life.

btw the developement of nuclear boomb was more of a experiment under the facade of ww2.

It not about right, left or middle way. It is an issue of truth. Is the middle way the truth? It is not extreme to insist that 1+1=2, it is true. To say 1+1+1=infinity would be false. Because the answer cannot be both 3 and infinity at the same time in the same sense. Something and nothing does not complement each other, they are opposites! The problem is in thinking that something can comes from nothing by nothing.

One can say that Buddhism is greatest enjoyment of life. Another can say that Christianity provides that. So this cannot be used as a test of truth.

The nuclear (atomic) bomb was dropped in WW2. Anyway, the point was that the bomb or its effects was NOT an example of something coming from nothing.

sinweiy SG

1. The eternal realms where God is, is not to be confused with the universe or cosmos which is what God created. One is spiritual and the other is material.

The Nirvana "realm" where Buddha(s) are, is also not to be confused with the universe or cosmos or samsara which is what the unenlightened dwell. One is pure and the other is impure. even the word divine/heavenly in itself is still impure as there's pleasure in heaven. who ever has a discriminating thoughts of judging or wanting to control or create rules, that itself is impure mind at work. Nirvana realm is related to peacefulness, calm and blissfulness. not to be confuse with mere happiness.

i do know atom is a matter. but to us that matter can also be created by the spiritual mind even with certain practice. Mind over matter. Buddha did performed that "miracle" when he was alive.

oh, so u see bachelor's wife as to expose illogical and meaningless questions, but i see a deeper meaning, i see the moon. hence very difficult.

jlowbog SG

well if the nuclear bomb example was not clear enough…think abt the birth of a plaanet, an explosion is triggered…huge amt of energy n gases are released…they cool down giving birth to a new sys…this demonstrate something out of nothing n vice versa by the nuclear bomb example…as for the truth u r seeking, there is none cos everything is an illusion…

2009novice SG

@BroInChrist

Steveyboy has expressed my sentiments fully. And we don't mean we use Buddhist concepts to press you down too BIC. We are expressing our stance in Buddhism... That's all. Nothing dogmatic. Just the way it is.

And please... don't quote me back

SJS6638 SG

@BroInChrist

Bilble is utmost important to the christians. From there they learn about their God.

SJS6638 SG

This topic is provoking. Sure there will be christians get angry when reading it.

An Eternal Now SG

the unsatisfactory arises and suffering begin? - That's B theory, but not true holistically.

When there is birth, there is aging, illness & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Any questions?

An Eternal Now SG

The Nirvana realm where Buddha(s) are, is also not to be confused with the universe or cosmos or samsara which is what the unenlightened dwell. One is pure and the other is impure. even the word divine/heavenly in itself is still impure as there's pleasure in heaven. who ever has a discriminating thoughts of judging or wanting to control or create rules, that itself is impure mind at work. Nirvana realm is related to peacefulness, calm and blissfulness. not to be confuse with mere happiness.

i do know atom is a matter. but to us that matter can also be created by the spiritual mind even with certain practice. Mind over matter. Buddha did performed that "miracle" when he was alive.

oh, so u see bachelor's wife as to expose illogical and meaningless questions, but i see a deeper meaning, i see the moon. hence very difficult.

Lest Nirvana is mistaken to be a place by others: Nirvana is not a place but simply the cessation of the deluded mode of conceiving, Nirvana is the cessation, the termination, of all craving, aggression, and delusion, including all deluded conceivings or conceptual elaborations (prapancha). The Buddha's awareness is non-manifestive suchness, in which neither a seer nor an object being seen is conceived, instead there is only the suchness of in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard (see: kalaka sutta, bahiya sutta).

That saṁsāra is nirvāṇa is a major tenet of Mahāyāna philosophy. "Nothing of saṁsāra is different from nirvāṇa, nothing of nirvāṇa is different from saṁsāra. That which is the limit of nirvāṇa is also the limit of saṁsāra; there is not the slightest difference between the two." [1] And yet there must be some difference between them, for otherwise no distinction would have been made and there would be no need for two words to describe the same state. So Nāgārjuna also distinguishes them: "That which, taken as causal or dependent, is the process of being born and passing on, is, taken noncausally and beyond all dependence, declared to be nirvāṇa." [2] There is only one reality -- this world, right here -- but this world may be experienced in two different ways. Saṁsāra is the "relative" world as usually experienced, in which "I" dualistically perceive "it" as a collection of objects which interact causally in space and time. Nirvāṇa is the world as it is in itself, nondualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, Mādhyamika insists, cannot be characterized (Chandrakīrti: "Nirvāṇa or Reality is that which is absolved of all thought-construction"), but which Yogācāra nevertheless sometimes calls "Mind" or "Buddhanature," and so forth.

~ http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/david.htm

BroInChrist SG

i do know atom is a matter. but to us that matter can also be created by the spiritual mind even with certain practice. Mind over matter. Buddha did performed that "miracle" when he was alive.

oh, so u see bachelor's wife as to expose illogical and meaningless questions, but i see a deeper meaning, i see the moon. hence very difficult.

Since AEN has mentioned that nirvana is not a place, I suppose to speak of it as a realm is also not correct? The Bible does not speak of heavenly joy as something impure. In fact, joy and rejoicing is something the Bible speaks about. But perhaps you have other meaning in mind when you think of the word "pleasures" in heaven?

We are in agreement that Mind precedes matter. God, who is spirit, spoke the universe (matter) into existence. So it wasn't something that come from nothing by nothing, it was something that come from nothing through the act of an eternal Being, God.

Asking who is the bachelor's wife IS a meaningless question, don't you agree? It's like asking whether you have ever seen a triangular-circle. You don't even try to think of the answer, you render the question as a meaningless one, or the questioner has some issues.

BroInChrist SG

The nuclear bomb example was NOT a clear example of something coming from nothing. I think I have made that clear why.

Birth of a planet? No one has seen it or observed it happening. In any case, it doesn't prove your point because the universe is already there. Why not sum it up and take it at the level of the universe? Where did it come from?

You say there is no truth because everything is an illusion. Is that statement true? I hope you can see how you have just refuted yourself. It's shooting yourself in the foot, if you really think about what you said.

« Previous Page Next Page »