"I don't know what caused the Big Bang and I don't know why there is something instead of nothing and that means you don't know either" – Bill Maher. "I prefer Rationalism over Atheism because the question of God is unknowable. As a Rationalist you don't have to waste your time either attacking or defending either position" – Issac Asimov. "You should be skeptical of everything, including yourself" – Bertrand Russell. I had to preface this article with the above quotes because, although I am a Buddhist and believe in a Supreme Being, I am a great admirer of the above people. My two B.A.'s are not in Philosophy or Physics, so feel free to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. You may be right. But I would like to open a discourse with my Atheist friends who have a Philosophy that I also admire. That philosophy is: 'Your Heart should not accept what your Mind rejects'. One of the tenants of Buddhism is that you should not accept anything without thinking. But, I do have a rebuttal for at least two of the statements by some well known, highly intelligent, Atheists:
"If God did not require being created, logic dictates that the Universe did not require being created either" – Michael Shermer. My rebuttal is that the Universe is composed of Matter, Energy, Gravity, Time and Space; all of which require being created. Consciousness however is still a mystery. In fact, if you're a follower of the Niels Bohr Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, it is Consciousness that creates Matter. A Supreme Consciousness may very well indeed not have required being created. To those whose explanation of Consciousness is that the Human Brain is so complex that Consciousness 'somehow' evolved; you should know that using the word 'somehow' poses a lot of philosophical problems and questions. For example, Immanuel Kant in 'The Critique Of Pure Reason' surmised that Space and Time are only the relationship of one object to another; but, if we did not have the concept of Space and Time 'A Priori' in our Minds before we were born, we would not have been able to relate one sense impression to another. There would be no Awareness or Consciousness.
"Quantum Mechanics allows for a Universe to come into existence out of Nothing" – Lawrence Krauss. I have several rebuttals for this. First, Quantum Mechanics has become all things to all people. Physicist Fred Alan Wolfe in 'The Spiritual Universe' claims that Quantum Physics proves the existence of the Human Soul. John Wheeler believes that the strange results in QP experiments suggest that someone is observing the Universe. Secondly, when Dr. Krauss (if I understand him correctly) talks of something coming from nothing – He is talking about Gravity affecting Negative Energy is such a way that virtual particles 'pop' into existence which then become real particles. The problem with this, as even physicists who are atheists have pointed out, is that this occurs in Space and in Time within the Universe. The Big Bang occurred in a no-when, no-place, no-gravity. Krauss's reply is that a true Nothing (no space, no time, no gravity) is unstable. And like all unstable systems, it will eventually collapse in on itself and produce something. I'm not sure how to answer that. In a no-time, how does nothing 'eventually' collapse. It should be noted that by the year 2017, there may be satellites in place (according to the Science Channel – 'How The Universe Works') that might be able to detect Gravity Waves from a Universe that existed before the Big Bang. One theory is that a part of 2 separate Universes (each as a wave-like membrane) in a Multi-verse, collided, causing the Big Bang. If these Gravity Waves from a previous Universe are detected, that would obliterate Stephen Hawkings and Lawrence Krauss's assertion that the Big Bang came from nothing. Of course, that still leaves the question: 'What caused the first Big Bang ?'. And if the continuous Big Bangs go back in Infinite Regression – the question is: 'Why is there something instead of nothing ?'
When I talk with some of my Atheist friends, who I highly regard, I always assert that both positions on the existence of God require a Leap of Faith. Whenever I state that I always get what I call 'The Tooth-Fairy' rebuttal. My friends will state that they cannot prove or disprove the existence of the tooth fairy. However, they are still not going to believe in the existence of the tooth fairy until there is substantive scientific evidence. My answer to that is: If you want to stay up all night outside your kid's bedroom after one of them loses a tooth; and the tooth fairy never shows up – you can reasonably assert that there is no tooth fairy. What you can't do is to go back in Time to the Big Bang and from a position outside the Universe observe the Big Bang and then state: 'I was there at the Big Bang and I can tell you that there was no Supreme Consciousness. The whole thing was a product of Spontaneous Creation'. Since you can't do that, comparing the question of God with the question of the tooth fairy or the spaghetti monster, or whatever, is quite disingenuous. This is why Issac Asimov preferred Rationalism over Atheism and why Buddhists, although they believe in God, assert that the Nature of God is unknowable.
The bottom line is that if you are an Atheist and you state that you don't belive in God; that is absolutely and perfectly fine. However, if you state, as a matter of fact, that there is no God, you are taking a Leap of Faith and crossing over into the world of Religious Dogma. If you state that a God-belief is stupid, you are a religious fanatic.
If the Question of God or the Nature of God is unknowable, then why do I believe in God ? Well, for me, God is not something I believe in, God is a Supreme Being that my Consciousness is aware of. Of course, what I think I am aware of is not Scientific Proof. So, as a Rationalist, I am willing to place this 'Awareness' down as a Belief and put it down in the category of Faith.
Science, however requires a LOT less faith since there is SO much more evidence compared to say oh "Just believe in something that has NEVER revealed itself in any real measurable way, because we said so!".
P.S. that is an awful lot of typing of your beliefs for a forum full of Atheists and Agnostics (Deidre!). Seems like an awfully big waste of time on people you have no chance of converting really.
The tooth fairy is not pleased. There is no evidence the tooth fairy would ever show up with anyone watching or awake. You probably brush and floss too. If so your doomed to eternal dental pain. [-(
(//http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/wp-content/blogs.dir/475/files/2012/04/i-0a8b60336123b78667e6de600215d84b-atheist_chart.gif)
Quote from: "Moriarty"Science, however requires a LOT less faith since there is SO much more evidence compared to say oh "Just believe in something that has NEVER revealed itself in any real measurable way, because we said so!".
Apparently - no one can out debate me. I'll have to go over to the Forum at the National Academy of Sciences
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"[ Image (//http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/wp-content/blogs.dir/475/files/2012/04/i-0a8b60336123b78667e6de600215d84b-atheist_chart.gif) ]
Apparently - no one can out debate me. I'll have to go over to the Forum at the National Academy of Sciences
Quote from: "Buddhist Alternative"Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"[ Image (//http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/wp-content/blogs.dir/475/files/2012/04/i-0a8b60336123b78667e6de600215d84b-atheist_chart.gif) ]
Apparently - no one can out debate me. I'll have to go over to the Forum at the National Academy of Sciences
It's not that we can't, we just don't care to. Do you think you're original? I've only been here about 2-3 weeks and seen the same weak arguments and logical fallacies you make more than a couple of times. I'm sure the old timers are so tired of it they probably don't fully even read shit like your novel anymore.
My 11 year old sons: "Dad, where does all the matter that goes into a black hole go?', I respond "That's one of the things they're trying to figure out, Nick." He considers it for a moment and says "I think it probably starts another universe somewhere else."
An 11 year old can develop a recognized theory on his, yet religious people can't even when explained to them, that says a LOT.
Quote from: "Buddhist Alternative"The bottom line is that if you are an Atheist and you state that you don't belive in God; that is absolutely and perfectly fine. However, if you state, as a matter of fact, that there is no God, you are taking a Leap of Faith and crossing over into the world of Religious Dogma. If you state that a God-belief is stupid, you are a religious fanatic.
This is basically the only reason I do not self-identify as a strong atheist. If you don't believe in God, you're fine. But say that God (typically, the Christian God gets special billing for some reason) doesn't exist in the same way that Zeus and IPU and Santa Claus don't exist, and suddenly, you're a "fanatic".
Apparently, disagreement is fine, but opposition isn't.
QuoteThe bottom line is that if you are an Atheist and you state that you don't belive in God; that is absolutely and perfectly fine. However, if you state, as a matter of fact, that there is no God, you are taking a Leap of Faith and crossing over into the world of Religious Dogma. If you state that a God-belief is stupid, you are a religious fanatic.
Semantics. Again with the null Hypothesis;
if you fish in a pond and get no bites,
look all over the pond and see no fish
swim underwater through the pond and still see no fish
you can conclude with assurance there are no fish. The difference between "hard" atheist and agnostic atheist is a matter of a personal conclusion, not defined by any specific set of criteria. If I declare myself a hard atheist it is because I have come to that conclusion. That is not a leap of faith. Leap of faith is your interpretation, period. I have not made a leap of faith, I have concluded that after years of study and observation.
Quote from: "Buddhist Alternative"Quote from: "Moriarty"Science, however requires a LOT less faith since there is SO much more evidence compared to say oh "Just believe in something that has NEVER revealed itself in any real measurable way, because we said so!".
Apparently - no one can out debate me. I'll have to go over to the Forum at the National Academy of Sciences
I had trouble finding a coherent thought in that wall of quotation text.
Quote from: "Buddhist Alternative"I'll have to go over to the Forum at the National Academy of Sciences
I'll get your coat for you..... :roll:
Quote from: "Buddhist Alternative"Quote from: "Moriarty"Science, however requires a LOT less faith since there is SO much more evidence compared to say oh "Just believe in something that has NEVER revealed itself in any real measurable way, because we said so!".
Apparently - no one can out debate me. I'll have to go over to the Forum at the National Academy of Sciences
Riiiiight. :rollin:
Quote from: "Buddhist Alternative"Quote from: "Moriarty"Science, however requires a LOT less faith since there is SO much more evidence compared to say oh "Just believe in something that has NEVER revealed itself in any real measurable way, because we said so!".
Apparently - no one can out debate me. I'll have to go over to the Forum at the National Academy of Sciences
That's a good one. Seriously. I'm thinking it's meant as a humorous quip, and I appreciate it. If not, it's rather egotistical.
Quote from: "Buddhist Alternative"Apparently - no one can out debate me. I'll have to go over to the Forum at the National Academy of Sciences
1: A wall of illegible page vomit is not a debate position.
2: Most of us don't care to respond to copy/paste arguments.
3: You will never be able to prove to me that any god exists. Gods are indistinguishable from fantasy, because they
are fantasy. (//http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=3580&p=988640#p988640) (Read the full post in the link before criticizing that statement, because I'm not repeating it for you.)
You aren't a buddhist anyway. Your post shows ignorance about buddhism Buddhist alternative.
Quote from: "Buddhist Alternative"Quote from: "Moriarty"Science, however requires a LOT less faith since there is SO much more evidence compared to say oh "Just believe in something that has NEVER revealed itself in any real measurable way, because we said so!".
Apparently - no one can out debate me. I'll have to go over to the Forum at the National Academy of Sciences
That is because you are so much more rational than anyone else here. Who is going to debate that?
Buddhist Alternative: Bite me! A Buddhist that believes in God? Buddha never believed in a God, or thought what he said was from divine intervention. You need to read his original writings and not those of the various schools that have been corrupted by Christian dogma. There were no rituals, prayers, no absolute rules written on stone, or gods in his dogma. He also said to never worry yourself with superstitious and supernatural nonsense. Atheism is no way fanaticism, it's a non belief period. You want to debate Buddhism I'm all ears. What a condescending jerk, which is very non-Buddhist way to be. [-X :P #-o :lol: Solitary
QuoteBuddha has a view about 'self' - NOT
Buddha has no view about 'self' and it is not his starting point. He starts from the fact of human suffering (persistent dissatisfaction with life). What he says about our sense of 'self' only arises in connection with understanding the causes of suffering. He does have a practice in which we 'look into ourselves'.
Buddha denies the existence of self - NOT
Buddha neither affirms nor denies the existence of self, because that is a fruitless question. In the practice of meditation we look into ourselves and eventually notice that everything going on in us (sensations, thoughts, feelings, pain, etc.) is not permanent but impermanent, not separate and isolated but interdependent, and not substantial but insubstantial. When we see this for ourselves we first feel insecure, and then we have to accept it as a fact and this changes our sense of what we are.
Buddha has a theory of non-self. Buddha was a philosopher and/or psychologist who wanted to promote a theory about self - NOT
Buddha has no theory of non-self, and no theory about anything at all. He is not a theorist. He teaches us only how to do something to change our understanding of ourselves so that dissatisfaction is subdued.
Buddha had a theory or belief in impermanence, interdependence and insubstantiality - NOT
Buddha had no theory or belief in impermanence, interdependence and insubstantiality but used similar words and phrases in his own language only to draw our attention to what we can see for ourselves when we look into ourselves. Eventually, we can see that a refusal to accept these facts (i.e. ignorance) is the source of clinging, craving and dissatisfaction. These are the facts that we have to accept in order to change and live in peace.
Buddha denied the existence of 'soul' and of 'God' - NOT
Buddha neither affirmed nor denied the existence of soul and God, because he thought these were fruitless questions. People can always argue about beliefs, but they cannot argue about what they find in themselves – so the Buddha teaches us how to look.
The Buddha argued that you do not really exist, you just appear to exist - NOT
The Buddha taught nothing about the nature of reality or existence, and no theory about the distinction between reality and appearance.
The Buddha argued that the 'self' is unreal because it is a temporary construction of five elements (aggregates, khandha) - NOT
The Buddha had no theory about five elements (aggregates, khandha). As a teacher trying to be helpful about the method of seeing the source of dissatisfaction he said that if you look into yourself (insight meditation) you may at first get the idea that you are 'essentially' body, or pain and pleasure, or sensations, or thoughts and feelings, or consciousness, etc. (E.g. 'I am really my consciousness'.) But actually one can see that these only arise in the act of looking into oneself. They are not 'separate things' at all. With this insight we become free of attachment to them, and thus free of clinging, craving and dissatisfaction.
If I have no self how can I be responsible for my actions? - NOT
Wrong questions arise from wrong views. The Buddha did not think you have no self, and instead emphasized that you and only you are responsible for looking into yourself in a way that leads to letting go (not clinging) and thus to peace.
Question: If there is no self then who becomes enlightened.
Answer: No one does.
- What?'''
Wrong answers arise from wrong questions which arise from a wrong view of the Buddha's teaching.
You become more enlightened every time you accept the facts (mentioned above) that you find when you look honestly into yourself. You become more endarkened (ignorant and dissatisfied) every time you ignore or reject these facts.
What is the state of enlightenment like? - What?
Wrong Question again.
There is no separate and unique state of enlightenment to be achieved, so the question of what it is 'like' does not arise. Instead enlightenment is a process or path. You are traveling along it, stuck on it or traveling backwards. Traveling forward along it there may be a significant point, in which one's entire view of things fundamentally changes and this is (metaphorically) a 'rebirth'.
There is a 'fully enlightened being' called an 'arahant', who is perfect - NOT
There is no such thing as an arahant who is completely different from ordinary people because he/she is perfect. The question of whether someone can be perfect is fruitless and unhelpful. Every person can move in the enlightenment direction, and away from the endarkenment direction. (It is probably better not to speak of 'arahants'.)
Question: If there is no self, then who accumulates good karma or bad karma?
Answer: No self accumulates it; it accumulates by itself.
What?
A wrong view gives rise to a wrong question and a wrong answer. The Buddha did not hold the belief that there is no self. Obviously, if you do good it has results for you and others and if you do wrong it has results for you and others.
If there is no self, who is reborn?
You are not reincarnated, but something with a likeness to you is reborn (like one candle flame from another) - NOT
A wrong view gives rise to a wrong question and a wrong answer. The Buddha neither affirmed nor denied the existence of a person after death, because it is a fruitless question. When you have looked into yourself sufficiently you will see things differently and you will have no further interest in the question of birth and death.
Bad karma is reborn, and good karma accumulates and eventually releases us from the 'round of rebirth' - NOT
The Buddha thought it was fruitless to ponder whether life and the world is eternal or cyclic or whatever.
It is obvious to most people that good thoughts and actions live on in other people and the environment, and bad ones do too. This is one way in which all human life is interconnected. But this is not a belief or philosophy, but ordinary experience of life.
How you live your life determines whether you become more enlightened, stuck or endarkened. A whole society can also (historically) become more enlightened or stuck or more endarkened. But this was not the Buddha's main concern.
'Rebirth' is not primarily about what happens in time or history, but about you 'here and now'. As mentioned above, as you persistently and honestly look into yourself you become more enlightened until you feel a significant change has come over you. You might like to describe such a point as a 'rebirth'.
So, if I am really good I won't come back to this world, but if I am bad then I will? - NOT
The belief or theory about 'release from the round of rebirth' is confused, and arises from misunderstanding 'rebirth' as a historical process. Although in some Buddhist scriptures we find such a belief put into the mouth of the Buddha, he could not have held such a view. This is because it contradicts his basic teaching (which he discovered for himself) about looking into oneself to dissolve the source of dissatisfaction. The Buddha said many times that he was not concerned with the intellectual question of whether there is life after death (whether you will be historically reborn, etc.).
The Buddha was a 'Lord' and savior of the world - NOT
The Buddha never professed to be 'Lord' and savior of the world. He was concerned only with you seeing the truth for yourself now so that your dissatisfaction ceases. ''' The Buddha gave''' a great deal of guidance on what we can sensibly talk about, and on what we should sensibly remain silent. This crucial teachings of his cannot be ignored in any discussion of 'rebirth', 'kamma' etc. or other 'philosophical' matters.
On matter and consciousness; We can look at the brain and say, "Okay, this part is lit up therefor this person is thinking or feeling this.". Likewise if you cut out piece x or y of the brain we know what effect it will have... remove their ability to feel pain, to be able to think in an organized manner, etc. etc.. Brain injuries are also becoming more and more understood on how damage to the matter of the brain causes predictable changes in the consciousness. Finally we have all sorts of drugs, from prescriptions for depression to THC and DMT for recreational use that we can track the chemicals as they find the brain and alter consciousness in all sorts of crazy ways.
To say that consciousness transcends matter is to say something that frankly runs contradictory to all modern science. While we do not fully understand consciousness, the medical science all points to it being a product of our brain... matter.
As for not being able to go back before the Big Bang, that is correct as far as I know... but what you are proposing cannot be observed either and has the added flaw of being logically less likely. Therefor it is safer to assume that nature works with natural causes rather than some outside force, because there is nothing in nature that we have observed to this date that is influenced by outside causes.
Quote from: "Solitary"Buddhist Alternative: Bite me! A Buddhist that believes in God? Buddha never believed in a God, or thought what he said was from divine intervention. You need to read his original writings and not those of the various schools that have been corrupted by Christian dogma. There were no rituals, prayers, no absolute rules written on stone, or gods in his dogma. He also said to never worry yourself with superstitious and supernatural nonsense. Atheism is no way fanaticism, it's a non belief period. You want to debate Buddhism I'm all ears. What a condescending jerk, which is very non-Buddhist way to be. [-X :P #-o :lol: Solitary
Western Buddhism like this guy's ALMOST manages to annoy me as much as Tibetan Buddhism.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "Solitary"Buddhist Alternative: Bite me! A Buddhist that believes in God? Buddha never believed in a God, or thought what he said was from divine intervention. You need to read his original writings and not those of the various schools that have been corrupted by Christian dogma. There were no rituals, prayers, no absolute rules written on stone, or gods in his dogma. He also said to never worry yourself with superstitious and supernatural nonsense. Atheism is no way fanaticism, it's a non belief period. You want to debate Buddhism I'm all ears. What a condescending jerk, which is very non-Buddhist way to be. [-X :P #-o :lol: Solitary
Western Buddhism like this guy's ALMOST manages to annoy me as much as Tibetan Buddhism.
I think this guy is confusing buddhism with the new age crap. Tibet buddhism is the biggest corruption of the Buddha original teachings.
Quote from: "Moriarty"My 11 year old sons: "Dad, where does all the matter that goes into a black hole go?', I respond "That's one of the things they're trying to figure out, Nick." He considers it for a moment and says "I think it probably starts another universe somewhere else."
An 11 year old can develop a recognized theory on his, yet religious people can't even when explained to them, that says a LOT.
That's a pretty cool theory, actually. Not sure if it is at all scientifically accurate... but I don't see why a black hole couldn't warp space and time enough to have another side where it is ejecting the raw material of everything it's sucked in given the stupid amounts of gravity they have.
My money is still just a ridiculously tight pack of matter and energy though...
In other news, OP was returned to us from National Academy of Sciences.
In three boxes.
What, they didn't ride his remains out to the four corners of Albion? What do these uppity fucks think they are trying to pull on us, do they have no respect for Atheist Alliance™ treaties on how to dispose of such trash?
Quote from: "Buddhist Alternative"My two B.A.'s are not in Philosophy or Physics, so feel free to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Okay. You don't know what you're talking about. Seriously.
QuoteMy rebuttal is that the Universe is composed of Matter, Energy, Gravity, Time and Space; all of which require being created.
Says who?
QuoteIn fact, if you're a follower of the Niels Bohr Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, it is Consciousness that creates Matter.
Nope.
QuoteA Supreme Consciousness may very well indeed not have required being created.
So things as simple and mundane as fundamental forces and elementary particles need to be created, but something as grandiose and sophisticated as a supreme consciousness needs no creation? Why is that?
Quote... you should know that using the word 'somehow' poses a lot of philosophical problems and questions.
Science can't explain something, therefore God... Nope... It's not working for me.
QuoteFor example, Immanuel Kant in 'The Critique Of Pure Reason' surmised that Space and Time are only the relationship of one object to another; but, if we did not have the concept of Space and Time 'A Priori' in our Minds before we were born, we would not have been able to relate one sense impression to another. There would be no Awareness or Consciousness.
Kant was neither a physicist nor a cognitive scientist. His ideas on both subjects were conjectural and are not supported by modern science.
QuoteFirst, Quantum Mechanics has become all things to all people. [snip]
You're not rebutting the current state of physics, just listing some cranks and rhetorical flourishes and taking exception to them. The musings of cranks and the purple passages of science writers don't represent the current state of physics.
Quote... the question is: 'Why is there something instead of nothing ?'
Why
should there be nothing instead of something? What makes "nothing" the default? Also, if nothing is the default, then there should be no God.
QuoteMy answer to that is: If you want to stay up all night outside your kid's bedroom after one of them loses a tooth; and the tooth fairy never shows up – you can reasonably assert that there is no tooth fairy.
No, you can't because everybody knows the Tooth Fairy won't come unless everyone in the room is asleep. It's the same with God. When people make predictions about his existence and they fail, there's always some excuse for why.
Quote"This is why Issac Asimov preferred Rationalism over Atheism..."
A distinction without a difference if ever there was one.
Quote"...and why Buddhists, although they believe in God..."
Er... You do know that Buddhism is a nontheistic religion, right????