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

I think the point is that what we know in empirical science agrees with what the Bible has already stated i.e. living things reproduce after their kind. Or put it in another way, if we start with the Bible, and then use the information God provided us to look at the world, we would expect to see living things reproduce after their kind, and that's exactly what we see!

I find the Buddhist notion of "don't ask too much" problematic and ironic seeing that it is about being enlightened and dispelling ignorane. I suppose it wouldn't be wrong to say that Buddhism would be considered a science-stopper since much have been invested to examine and unravel the origins of the universe.

Re the poison arrow analogy again. It would be fallacious to argue that either you look for the cure or you look for the culprit. I would say why not do both? Depending on the circumstances, I would suggest that you get yourself cured, and go find that culprit and bring him to justice.

the analogy is about priority only, not fallacious to me as it's more important to look for the Cure then the culprit. u cannot do both, as time is of most crucial at that particular moment. bringing him to justice is another thing.

Bible also got tell people not to be too smart what. the fool entering the heaven's gate? the smart will think twice? In Buddhism when one become enlightened to one's true nature, everything will be know. aka Omniscient.

sinweiy SG

1. The sutra you cited, can you explain more? The idea of a lost Buddha is IMO an oxymoron.

2. The quotation by Hui Neng is interesting. Can you explain further what is true nature and how it can be lost?

3. Re the tree analogy. Programmed in the DNA of every seed-bearing tree is the ability fo the seed to grow into a full blown tree. Trees shed their leaves in season. See http://creation.com/autumn-leaves-fall-by-design It is ironic that you would use something that is evidence of design but yet failed to acknowledge the existence of the Designer, and even think fit that the Creator should be consigned to irrelevance.

4. Yes, the universe IS amazing! I can fully agree with that. It reflects the omnipotence and omniscience of the Creator. And yes, one can also use the earthly things to illustrate spiritual truths, the Bible does that many times.

u haven't learn Mahayana, even more "oxymoron". denying both extremes is the way Buddhism breaks up one's extreme views, so one do not attach to either extreme.

it's thought to be lost due to delusion but not really lost. imagine, a deluded/forgetful person looking for his hat/glasses, but actually the hat or glasses is still on his head. never lost in the first place, just deluded.

haha, my amazing is from True Nature and from an Enlightened Being POV.

Pure Land Buddhism:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_Buddhism
cannot be too brief, wait misleading.

BroInChrist SG

If it is a mattet of priority, then why was it made into an issue of relevance and then set aside as irrelevant? It is one thing to say that finding the cause is not first priority, it is quite another to say that finding or knowing the cause is irrelevant and does not matter anyway. Can you point out the exact verse in the Bible that tells people not to be smart? BTW, I think your understanding of omniscient is off. If being enlightened means being omniscient, then how can there even be ignorance? Did people start off with ignorance or enlightenment?

sinweiy SG

as there are people who like to keep asking stupid questions, like why like this, why like that?. so the analogy is to give that person a wake up call. wise questions/koan in Buddhism are ok, but not stupid/useless ones.

Buddha was just not interested in discussion about retrospect knowledge but the introspect insight is more important. in layman term, your upbringing, your moral is more important than one who know a lot but no morality etc.

i only recall, maybe mix up with rich. "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." or "God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty"

but Bible got say something related to the chinese expression that say "

聪明反被聪明误the smarter you are, the more easily you can fool yourself."?

in Buddhism cleverness, knowledge is different from wisdom. cleverness is link with egolistic and selfishness. wisdom is link with humbleness and loving kindness.

ignorance is not so correct word. NO need to Know is better. if u sort of compare a wise old man and a young teen/child, the teen will be more agitated while the old man is more calmer and more let go state. teen ask a lot, seek the answer, but the wise old man no need to ask, as he already know more from experience. the wise old man is more enlightened than the teen. yet there's a sense of no need to know as He know All per se. when Buddha was enlightened, He recalled all his past lifes, hence He know ALL and a lot from experience. the Buddha is like the wise old man and the unenlightened are like the teen/child as we forgotten our past lifes.

2009novice SG

Later u kena charged "allegation" then u know...

BroInChrist SG

u haven't learn Mahayana, even more "oxymoron". denying both extremes is the way Buddhism breaks up one's extreme views, so one do not attach to either extreme.

haha, my amazing is from True Nature and from an Enlightened Being POV.

Pure Land Buddhism:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_Buddhism
cannot be too brief, wait misleading.

1. I am aware of the main Buddhist division between the Theravada and Mahayana, the question is, which version is what the Buddha actually teach? I think the Theravada Buddhism sees itself as closest to what Buddha taught, though I believe this is complicated by the fact that what Buddha taught was only written down 500 years later. The Mahayana actually came a few hundred years later. And the issue is not whether a view is extreme, but whether the view is true. Problem is that we too easily attached a negative connotation to the word "extreme" and frown upon it.

2. A person who forgot he has his glasses on is not deluded, but forgetful. There is a big difference between being deluded and being forgetful.

3. Pure Land Buddhism is in the same division of Mahayana, and thus I think point 1 above applies here as well.

BroInChrist SG

but Bible got say something related to the chinese expression that say "

聪明反被聪明误the smarter you are, the more easily you can fool yourself."?

in Buddhism cleverness, knowledge is different from wisdom. cleverness is link with egolistic and selfishness. wisdom is link with humbleness and loving kindness.

In what sense is asking about the issue of origins a stupid question? Or a stupid issue for that matter? If that is really the case, then it must be concluded that a lot of scientists are asking stupid questions and answering stupid questions.

Both verses that you quoted from the Bible have nothing to do with what we are talking about. The first verse is talking about how riches can deter someone from seeking God. The second verse is saying that God works differently from what the world thinks. The world thinks that great accomplishments must be done through great display of feats and marvel. But God uses the suffering servant on a despised cross to accomplish the great feat of salvation.

But on what basis do you conclude that there is no need to know about origins? Surely the fact that this question is often asked belies its importance? Again it can be suspect that the refusal to answer may not be because there is no need to know as claimed, but because one doesn't know in fact.

BroInChrist SG

Later u kena charged "allegation" then u know...

Sorry, to whom were you referring to and charged over what allegation?

2009novice SG

Sorry, to whom were you referring to and charged over what allegation?

i'm talking to Moderator Sinweiy, not you

sinweiy SG

2. A person who forgot he has his glasses on is not deluded, but forgetful. There is a big difference between being deluded and being forgetful.

3. Pure Land Buddhism is in the same division of Mahayana, and thus I think point 1 above applies here as well.

yes, forgetful also can, no different that true nature is "originally" present. but one is blind to see it even, when one is told, IS deluded.

more important is the teaching of wisdom, not the person who is authorized to say it's true.

四依法 Four Reliance Principles

1.依法不依人Rely on the Dharma, not on the people who expound it.
2.依义不依语Rely on the meaning of the sutras, not just on the words.
3.依智不依识Rely on the wisdom, not on the perception.
4.依了义经不依不了义经Rely on the complete explanation, not on the provisional one.

said Buddha.

sinweiy SG

yeah, they/scientists are "extra curriculum" in Buddhism. u know who ur parent or ancestors are already, their name, then? it doesn't make u a better person. so i was saying, Buddha rather teach you to be a better person. knowledge is different from wisdom and well-being. knowing to swim, does not make one a great swimmer, and if they have no practice or jump into the water to swim. moreover, know to swim is one thing, but do u help others? Buddha is teaching one to swim and save people!

sinweiy SG

i'm talking to Moderator Sinweiy, not you

which part? was just clarification of misunderstanding only. :)

BroInChrist SG

yes, forgetful also can, no different that true nature is "originally" present. but one is blind to see it even, when one is told, IS deluded.

more important is the teaching of wisdom, not the person who is authorized to say it's true.

四依法 Four Reliance Principles

said Buddha.

If you tell the person that the glasses is on him and he still denies it, I don't think he is deluded, I think he is crazy! Again one can be deluded but not crazy.

I think the issue is also whether the teaching itself is true. A church pastor can be "authorised" to teach the Bible but he can still teach falsehoods which can be exposed by a "lay" person who reads his Bible diligently.

And in the case of Christianity, the messenger IS the message! The teachings of Jesus cannot be separated from His person. Apart from Christ there is nothing to teach. One cannot teach the truth about Christianity and ignore the person of Christ, though you can do that with Buddhism.

troublemaker2005 SG

God is redundant to me. i can live without God.

StriveOn SG

God is redundant to me. i can live without God.

I read this thread, I shake my head...

BroInChirst, I see your interest to know more, but your micro scruntiny is going around in circles.

sinweiy, and other Dhamma bros., remember that before Buddha gave an exposition, he will survey the audience before he expounds. For this case, keep on the surface or stick to one topic. Because BroInChrist have so many doubts and queries in his head; and we move on to another concept, making it worst.

So many points are taken out of context by BroInChrist making it "wrong".

StriveOn SG

BroInChrist, please do not get agitated if I make statements for argument's sake, not to poke at you.

BroInChrist wrote, ""And in the case of Christianity, the messenger IS the message! The teachings of Jesus cannot be separated from His person. Apart from Christ there is nothing to teach. One cannot teach the truth about Christianity and ignore the person of Christ, though you can do that with Buddhism."

There is a messenger, and there is a message. As an audience, what is of paramount importance? If we revered the messenger too, is it not idol worship? Not that it is wrong, but the message is of paramount importance. (aka the teachings)

BroInChrist wrote, "In what sense is asking about the issue of origins a stupid question? Or a stupid issue for that matter? If that is really the case, then it must be concluded that a lot of scientists are asking stupid questions and answering stupid questions."

There are so many things to find out. Buddha is concerned with how we can get out of samsara (your analogy : go to heaven) The issue of origins (I am speculating) may not be so simple and it does not in any way help us in getting out of samsara. Not stupid questions, but it may raise even more questions, and at the end of the day, does not in any way help us with salvation.

StriveOn SG

BroInChrist wrote, "I find the Buddhist notion of "don't ask too much" problematic and ironic seeing that it is about being enlightened and dispelling ignorane. I suppose it wouldn't be wrong to say that Buddhism would be considered a science-stopper since much have been invested to examine and unravel the origins of the universe."

I think BroInChrist got it completely wrong here. Buddhism encourages you to questions, try it and if it fits your logic and experiences, embraces it. (ehi pasiko). It does not condone blind faith.

The part which we should not ask too much is the part which does not contribute to the "salvation". Because it will only raise more speculation and have no answers, at least not with our present knowledge and technology.

troublemaker2005 SG

I think BroInChrist got it completely wrong here. Buddhism encourages you to questions, try it and if it fits your logic and experiences, embraces it. (ehi pasiko). It does not condone blind faith.

Bingo.

Theirs is tok a lot of rubbish, all with one aim. for you to join their church and every month contribute 10-20 percent of your salary tothem, join their conversation and they will encourage you you get conform.

when you are sick in the body physically, go see a doctor.

when you are sick in the mind, go see a shrink.

sinweiy SG

If you tell the person that the glasses is on him and he still denies it, I don't think he is deluded, I think he is crazy! Again one can be deluded but not crazy.

i disagree, i think he's plain stubborn, refuse to look up/within. although, since Buddhanature is within, and it's not an object and not easy to decern, the glasses analogy is not suitable in the sense that one can touch it.

in Buddhism, Buddha states, "Those who see the Dharma, sees the (real) Buddha." and if u do not discern the Dharma, no matter how close u are with Buddha, u do not see the real Buddha.

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Even if a monk, taking hold of my outer cloak, were to follow right behind me, placing his feet in my footsteps, yet if he were to be greedy for sensual pleasures, strong in his passions, malevolent in mind, corrupt in his resolves, his mindfulness muddled, unalert, uncentered, his mind scattered, & his faculties uncontrolled, then he would be far from me, and I from him. Why is that? Because he does not see the Dhamma. Not seeing the Dhamma, he does not see me.

"But even if a monk were to live one hundred leagues away, yet if he were to have no greed for sensual objects, were not strong in his passions, not malevolent in mind, uncorrupt in his resolves, his mindfulness established, alert, centered, his mind at singleness, & his faculties well-restrained, then he would be near to me, and I to him. Why is that? Because he sees the Dhamma. Seeing the Dhamma, he sees me."

sinweiy SG

So many points are taken out of context by BroInChrist making it "wrong".

Buddha also exchange with other religious teaching, yet, His teaching always stands out. most are even converted. is it worst? hmm..kind of enjoying. haha.some doubts and questioning are good to get the mind working.

i kind of agree with imdestinys, :-

"i didn't think you've read whatever others have posted and have absorbed whatever they've been trying to educate you."

i didn't see much wisdom from them, only heresy or plain following the bible.

« Previous Page Next Page »