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...

BroInChrist SG

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

I certainly do not think that you are using Buddhist concepts to press me down. Like you , I am also expressing my stance in Christianity based on the Bible. Perhaps some do not like me to quote from the Bible? Anyway my point is that one should not take issue with me quoting Bible verses, just as I do not take issue with Buddhists quoting Buddhist teachings by various monks. (Though I would admit that having to read long passages of cut-&-paste Buddhist teachings can be quite a daunting task!) Surely It can't be the case that my quoting Bible verses got no point but your quoting of Buddhist teachings got point, right?

BroInChrist SG

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

Ummm...so far it seems I am the only one here, and I am certainly not angry. : D

I think it is OK for topics to be thought-provoking. Problem is when people with ill intent purposely provoke people with provoking words and does not keep words in check, like some trouble maker......

sinweiy SG

what u think, we have about 28 realms of heavens.

http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/DharmaRealm.htm#Deva

each happiness/joy/pleasure is double when you move up a heavenly level. like you have so much joy in the first heaven, but the joy of the second heaven is double that of the first level. and the joy of the third level is double that of the second. moreover, and the lifespan of the devas be it millions of light years or so is also double for each level.

they do have very very long life, however, there's an end to it, unlike what u all think is "eternal". they suffer, at the very last day of their "life" and "die" to another (lower)realms. that's change at work.

ps : we do have devas with the power to create rains/weather btw.

sinweiy SG

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.

actually Nirvana is neither a place, nor not a place. it's meaningless to in place a meaning to it. :)

kind of suit ur explaination of the somewhere ur God dwell, isn't it?. hmm..all i can say is when the mind is pure, the land is pure.

btw i say its a 'realm' or "eternal" are for explanation purpose or at "skillful mean" to suit your understanding. if one attached that it's a place and move into eternalsim, i'll say it's not. if one attached that it's not a place and go into nullism, i'll say it is. but both i will move on to say that it's neither. lest u attached to either.

BroInChrist SG

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

It seems the concept of nirvana is one that cannot be explained. It seems in some sense to be a mental state. Yet in some sense it is not.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/abuddhistglossary/g/nirvanadef.htm

BroInChrist SG

actually Nirvana is neither a place, nor not a place. it's meaningless to in place a meaning to it. :)

kind of suit ur explaination of the somewhere ur God dwell, isn't it?. hmm..all i can say is when the mind is pure, the land is pure.

btw i say its a 'realm' or "eternal" are for explanation purpose or at "skillful mean" to suit your understanding. if one attached that it's a place and more into eternalsim, i'll say it's not. if one attached that it's not a place and go into nullism, i'll say it is. but both i will move on to say that it's neither.

I think the laws of logic must apply. The law of identity and the law of excluded middle and the law of noncontradiction forms the bedrock of any good argument and reason.

A cat is a cat. A cat is not a dog. It is irrational to speak of there being a cat and a non-cat at the same time in the same sense. Where A and non-A are held at the same time in the same sense, you have a contradiction. Contradictory statements are necessarily false. If it is neither this or that, then nothing meaningful is being said since ambiguity is intended.

God is omnipresent, so it does not make sense to say that God is located anywhere. We can speak of the heavenly realms, but it is the spiritual we are talking about, not a place.

sinweiy SG

in the ten realms (6 samsaric plus 4 noble realms) we can use logic, but beyond this ten realms, is 一真法界 Dharmadhatu there's no more logic.

BroInChrist SG

in the ten realms (6 samsaric plus 4 noble realms) we can use logic, but beyond this ten realms, is 一真法界 Dharmadhatu there's no more logic.

No logic basically also means there is no communication taking place?

BroInChrist SG

what u think, we have about 28 realms of heavens.

http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/DharmaRealm.htm#Deva

ps : we do have devas with the power to create rains/weather btw.

The Bible also speak about the 3rd heaven.

But unlike the Buddhist notion of "evolution" where change can take place and one can "change down" (devolution?) to lower realms, the Bible speak of the corrupt being transformed into incorruptible, it is a transformation to a glorified body (not Optimus Prime) where body/soul/spirit are complete.

Humans also have the power to create rain and alter weather conditions using technology and chemistry. But that's tickling with what is already there. Man can even believe they can create life, but even if they succeed that's also using what's already existing. The problem is to create life from nothing. That's a tall order!

sinweiy SG

The Bible also speak about the 3rd heaven.

at first the lower realms was not suppose to be there. but because of ignorance, afflictions, greed and all, the lower realms start to manifest. the heavenly devas came to earth as u read, "created" the human realms, then with folly karma, created the animal realms, with greed karma created the ghosts realm, and with hatred karma created the hell realms. all sort of sins/karma, killing, stealing, lust, lying arises. however, there's a sutra where things will "return" back to heavenly realms. as we have End of the whole Universe (which is 1000000000 universes in all). it will start when hell realm are saved, then the ghost realm, the animal realm and the human realm will also be saved and reborn into some higher heavenly realm of light and above. but way before that we also have a smaller chaos or "end days" where a group of good people will escape to some remote place to start life over, and then after that that's also the next coming of Buddha and by then the human on earth will live like devas/gods, very happy era indeed. sound familar isn't it?

we are not the only universe, there are countless of them like the sands on the beach said Buddha. we are in agreement with science. universes are born and die just like the 4 seasons. AEN's late master/teacher used to study bible, like how many cm thick? but after studing the massive Buddha sutras, he said that the bible is like kindergarden book. not detail enough, too general. the Buddhadharma a lot in depth.

fyi the devas that create weathers are all mental /spiritual powers, no need any equipment like human.

sinweiy SG

No logic basically also means there is no communication taking place?

sure got connection, we pro interconnection. i meant No logic mean cannot use common sense to explain it. like how a small seed can contain the entire universe. u think it's not possible, but it can be done in an advance state. for example like now a small thumb drive/chip can contain so many texts or data, last time we have papers and didn't think it's possible.

2009novice SG

Great...! My impression of you changed..

A good-temper Christian

An Eternal Now SG

It seems the concept of nirvana is one that cannot be explained. It seems in some sense to be a mental state. Yet in some sense it is not.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/abuddhistglossary/g/nirvanadef.htm

‘Nirvana' is or should not be considered as a 'merging with an absolute existence' otherwise it becomes another form of Hinduism. It is not what the Mahayana teachings teach.

In any case, here's what Kannada wrote in 2008:

Nirvana is the word used for the cessation of all states and all conditions. Being a 'human' (human being) is a state or condition, so no human can be 'in' nirvana so
obviously nirvana is not a destination for humans to reach or to be in, these are just figures of speech that can be very misleading. As nirvana is not a destination we
cannot be either near or far from nirvana for nirvana is not a location in time or space, therefore no path can lead toward or away from nirvana. Nirvana cannot possibly be a goal to be attained for the person who so 'attains' would by necessity need to cease to be in order to so attain - conversley nirvana would need to be in itself a 'thing' (condition) to be so attained, hence nirvana would cease to be nirvana by its presence as a thing-in-itself. The cessation or neutralization of an attaining non-self is of course a contradiction in terms - a non-self cannot obviously cease to be.

In order to "see 'things' as they really are" there can be no asserted seer or self that sees, neither can there be asserted 'things' (other) that are seen, only an undifferentiated seeing. It is imperative to understand that conditions do not exist outside of the cognizing/conceptualizing mind that so asserts those conditions. In other words time, space, causality, subject, object, this, that, self and other are all asserted via the cognitive processes and result through the dream of conceptuality - these assertions are the subject matter of delusion - the opposite of nirvana.

Seeing "as is" is inherent capability of all cognizing minds hence it may be (loosely) said that "all beings are in nirvana from the beginning" it is only when the next step of conceptualization is taken that the unconditioned becomes the conditioned, the undifferentiated becomes differentiated. The non-conceptual mind does not make any such differentiations. Hence there need not be a striving to attain but rather a ceasing to bifurcate or subdivide that which by nature is indivisible - but
appears to be divided by the conceptualizing mind. Open eyes see but do not divide what is seen from an assumed seer. Open ears hear but do not divide the hearer from the heard etc etc. In cessation no concept can survive - not of 'nirvana' or 'seeker', of 'practitioner' nor 'attainer'...

k

BroInChrist SG

fyi the devas that create weathers are all mental /spiritual powers, no need any equipment like human.

So before there was ignorance, what was there?

A return back to the "heavenly realms"?

Yes it does sound familiar to the Bible, which speaks of a perfect creation (no sin, no suffering, no death), then man's rebellion against God (which brought in sin, suffering and death), then God's redemptive-salvaton plan, and finally the restoration of all things (no more sin, suffering and death). In fact, I think this general idea is rather universal and present in most religions. I believe this is because of the Tower of Babel incident, the point in human history when the languages of man were confused, each language group separated from the others but each retained the memory of the former times, but got embellished over time. I believe the Bible retained the true account of what human history.

BroInChrist SG

Sorry, I did not mean connection or common sense, but communication. Logic undergirds meaningful communication.

I think it is fallacious to conclude that because a small thumb drive can contain vast amount of data, therefore a small seed can contain the entire universe. One is talking about packing wallops of standardised same kind of stuff i.e. information bits on a chip due to technology advancement (but there will be a limit), the other is talking about time, space, matter. We are talking about completely different things. The question is, before the univese can exist what seed are we talking about?

BroInChrist SG

Can you clarify what Buddha rejected concerning Hinduism? Did he completely reject it? Or did he "reform" it?

Wouldn't then the idea of nirvana as cessation be really nihilism since it means it means cessation of all states and being? Perhaps what remained is a non-conceptual mind? But what exactly is this non-conceptual mind? Does it have inherent existence?

sinweiy SG

So before there was ignorance, what was there?

A return back to the "heavenly realms"?

well, i say Buddhism was earlier and the texts were more reasonable and saying how it will happen in realistic detail. although, i read of Babel and go into Bible before i became a Buddhist. but now then i am reading that u all use the "frictional" Tower of Babel as excuss to say u all are earlier. really.. i rather believe in something realistic than some grandma-like story. we no more kids. a large amount of detail vs a general info. general info should be the one that came from the large amount of detail, instead of the other way around.

An Eternal Now SG

Can you clarify what Buddha rejected concerning Hinduism? Did he completely reject it? Or did he "reform" it?

1) Buddha rejected the tenets of Hinduism, but at the time of Buddha there was no such thing as Hinduism. But the teachings that later form the basis of Hinduism, i.e. Vedas, are rejected by Buddha, and the teachings of eternalism underpinning Hinduism (the notion of Atman/Self and Brahman - God or the Ultimate Reality) is also rejected by Buddha.

There is a very long and accurate article discussing this: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2009/02/madhyamika-buddhism-vis-vis-hindu.html

"A paradigm shift cannot and should not be misconstrued as a reformation. Reforms are changes brought about within the same paradigm. Hence, paradigm shifts are changes in the very foundations or parameters. Therefore, the basic foundations of these practices are completely different."

2. Nirvana is the termination of passion, aggression and delusion. It is the cessation of the deluded way of conceiving things, in terms of inherently existing Self and Objects. Absent of a subject-object dichotomy, there is in seeing just sight but neither is sight objectified, and there is no seer, in hearing just sound without hearer, and sound too is empty, like an echo, etc.

There is no inherent existence whatsoever.

Nirvana is not nihilism becuase it is not the cessation of an existent being because no such being could be pinned down to begin with, and for that same reason Nirvana is also not eternalism, but merely the cessation of the deluded way of conceiving, projecting, proliferating, that is the basis of craving.

sinweiy SG

Sorry, I did not mean connection or common sense, but communication. Logic undergirds meaningful communication.

i meant since the mind are inter-linked, there's connection hence "communication"? i do can use the word decernment of the mind. though this need more thinking. u might be refering to the communication with god?

there's a VIMALAKIRTI NIRDESA SUTRA where Bodhisattvas/Buddhas "playing" with galaxies, throwing them around, changing them in size etc, if i recall properly. no time to re-read. they are so to speak "advance" beings with advance powers.

http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Reln260/Vimalakirti.htm

and in Avatamsaka Sutra, it said how a mustard seed can contain the universes and within that universes are yet seeds and within that seeds are universes, on and on without ending.... and how great bodhisattvas can enter them easily. later see science can discover this or not...haha

ps: i don't wish u think i say that mind is the absolute "being", as to us mind is just a unit in all mental beings, like atom in all matter. like money, it has no feelings, emotion etc of it's own.

BroInChrist SG

1. Yes, Buddha lived about 500 years before Christ, so in that sense he preceded Christianity. But since Christ was God-incarnate, in that sense Christ preceded Buddha. In fact, the Bible teaches that Christ is the Creator of the universe i.e. God Himself. When was the teachings of Buddha first put into writing? If I am not wrong it was about 500 years after he died. The NT, on the other hand, was written well before the first century ended, less than 60 years after Jesus' resurrection.

2. On what basis you say the Tower of Babel incident is fiction? How is it not realistic compared to narrate exploits of Buddha? The issue is not about the amount of detail, since one can babble a lot and still be nonsense. The issue is whether the contents supplied is correct and true.

« Previous Page Next Page »