Originally posted by BroInChrist:The laws of nature (physics, chemistry, biology etc) are not to be confused with the laws of morality. But both have their source in an eternal Mind, God.
there's still a discriminating mind at work.
/\
Originally posted by sinweiy:
there's still a discriminating mind at work./\
Yes, the divine Mind of God.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:You can judge it to be 'wrong', I wouldn't have problem with that. But karma in and of itself isn't about 'wrong' or 'right'... karma is either wholesome, unwholesome, and pure [i.e. actions not done out of craving, aggression and delusion].
With regards to karma, nobody decides something to be wholesome or unwholesome just like nobody decides something to be black or white... what is black is seen to be black by a discerning eye, and a black seed seen plainly in sight produces a black result, while a white seed produces a white result... just like a black animal produces a black offspring and a white animal produces a white offspring. A chinese man produces a chinese offspring, a western man produces a western offspring [lets not talk about mix blood]. You don't need to "judge" if someone is a chinese, i.e. his skin colour is already plain in sight for you to see, and if you have the intelligence to discern. Seeing is enough, no need for judgement. Same goes for karma.
When the Buddha calls it 'wholesome' or 'unwholesome' he is not making a judgement on things, he is simply describing the action and its results. What is wholesome produces states of well being, happiness, freedom from suffering and afflictions. What is unwholesome is... well... the opposite of that.
For example smoking two packs of cigarettes a day is certainly unwholesome because it does damage to one's body. You don't get cancer because of someone's judgement that it is 'evil' and 'wrong', you get cancer because smoking is unwholesome, it causes addiction and the tars accumulate and cause cancer. We don't say smoking is 'evil' or 'wrong' - well, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but regardless of your opinion whether it is 'right' or 'wrong' - it is a fact that smoking is 'unwholesome', so karma is non-judgemental in that sense yet can be catergorized as wholesome/unwholesome with its corresponding effects:Wholesome:
1.conducive to moral or general well-being; salutary; beneficial: wholesome recreation; wholesome environment.2.conducive to bodily health; healthful; salubrious: wholesome food; wholesome air; wholesome exercise.3.suggestive of physical or moral health, especially in appearance.4.
Buddha:The Wholesome and the Unwholesome
3. "When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, in that way he is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma.
4. "And what, friends, is the unwholesome, what is the root of the unwholesome, what is the wholesome, what is the root of the wholesome? Killing living beings is unwholesome; taking what is not given is unwholesome; misconduct in sensual pleasures is unwholesome; false speech is unwholesome; malicious speech is unwholesome; harsh speech is unwholesome; gossip is unwholesome; covetousness is unwholesome; ill will is unwholesome; wrong view is unwholesome. This is called the unwholesome.
5. "And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.
6. "And what is the wholesome? Abstention from killing living beings is wholesome; abstention from taking what is not given is wholesome; abstention from misconduct in sensual pleasures is wholesome; abstention from false speech is wholesome; abstention from malicious speech is wholesome; abstention from harsh speech is wholesome; abstention from gossip is wholesome; non-covetousness is wholesome; non-ill will is wholesome; right view is wholesome. This is called the wholesome.
7. "And what is the root of the wholesome? Non-greed is a root of the wholesome; non-hate is a root of the wholesome; non-delusion is a root of the wholesome. This is called the root of the wholesome.
8. "When a noble disciple has thus understood the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, he entirely abandons the underlying tendency to lust, he abolishes the underlying tendency to aversion, he extirpates the underlying tendency to the view and conceit 'I am,' and by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma and has arrived at this true Dhamma."
It seems that the only basis for using the words "wholesome" or "unwholesome" is simply because of the rejection of God. Otherwise, in most instances cited the words would be "good" or "evil" in a moral sense. Everyday we make moral judgements, we call some behaviour good or bad, and some evil. Our legal system uses the same lingo, recognising somethings as good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust.
Why is covetousness, greed, adultery, murder etc wrong? Because God said so. He made us, so He sets the rules. It is not the 10 Suggestions, but the 10 Commandments. God sets the moral standards by which we are judged.
I submit that underlying the Buddhist notions of wholesome and unwholesome actions is some knowledge that some things are just plain wrong. Murder is not just unwholesome, it is evil. Hitler wasn't just doing unwholesome acts, he was actually an evil person and did evil things that required punishment.
I think it still somehow comes back to the question, is there a Creator God? If there is, it changes the whole game, doesn't it?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:It seems that the only basis for using the words "wholesome" or "unwholesome" is simply because of the rejection of God. Otherwise, in most instances cited the words would be "good" or "evil" in a moral sense. Everyday we make moral judgements, we call some behaviour good or bad, and some evil. Our legal system uses the same lingo, recognising somethings as good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust.
Why is covetousness, greed, adultery, murder etc wrong? Because God said so. He made us, so He sets the rules. It is not the 10 Suggestions, but the 10 Commandments. God sets the moral standards by which we are judged.
I submit that underlying the Buddhist notions of wholesome and unwholesome actions is some knowledge that some things are just plain wrong. Murder is not just unwholesome, it is evil. Hitler wasn't just doing unwholesome acts, he was actually an evil person and did evil things that required punishment.
I think it still somehow comes back to the question, is there a Creator God? If there is, it changes the whole game, doesn't it?
Well again, that is entirely your opinion whether something is evil or not. Karma is not about good/bad, evil, wrong/right, etc. 'Wholesome' 'unwholesome' is describing something factual - nonjudgemental. Smoking causes cancer and is thus 'unwholesome', this is factual. No judgement required, only a discerning eye and intelligence to see that it is so.
You say Hitler is evil... I'd think otherwise. I think he is seeking happiness in a very ignorant way for his people. His compassion for his people is limited by his inability to feel beyond his limited nationalistic and racial scope or identity.
Just like a lion/lioness loves its cubs but kills deers, etc.
So his actions and thoughts are indeed very very unwholesome... and it is rooted in the three roots of unwholesome karma which Buddha said is craving, aggression, and delusion.
But still his actions were founded in, albeit very deluded, intentions for the welfare of his people.
It seems that the only basis for using the words
"wholesome" or "unwholesome" is simply because of the rejection of
God.
No, not necessarily. You don't see the government telling people "smoking cigarettes is evil". You see them telling people "smoking cigarettes is unhealthy and causes early death".
You see, whether smoking cigarettes is evil or not is besides the point. And you are entitled to your own opinion whether smoking is evil. But the purpose of the government is to tell us the harmful, factual, effects of smoking. The government has a job to educate us about cause and effect, same with Buddha. It has nothing to do with rejection of God. The government didn't avoid saying "smoking is evil" because it rejects God, and even if the government is Christian, saying that "smoking is evil" is still besides the point.
The fact is that whether smoking is evil or not, or whether there is a God or not, smoking IS going to accumulate tar in the lungs that causes cancer etc.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Well again, that is entirely your opinion whether something is evil or not. Karma is not about good/bad, evil, wrong/right, etc. 'Wholesome' 'unwholesome' is describing something factual - nonjudgemental. Smoking causes cancer and is thus 'unwholesome', this is factual. No judgement required, only a discerning eye and intelligence to see that it is so.
You say Hitler is evil... I'd think otherwise. I think he is seeking happiness in a very ignorant way for his people. His compassion for his people is limited by his inability to feel beyond his limited nationalistic scope or identity.
Just like a lion loves his child but kills deers, etc.
I think you have misunderstood. I am not saying that everything have a moral judgement involved. Though I would qualify my statement by saying that it was because of Adam's rebellion that death and suffering (which cancer can cause) entered the perfect world that God created.
In the Bible, God tells us what is right and wrong. When we say something is evil we are only aligning ourselves with God's view. Which is why God is angry with those who call evil good and good evil.
If Hitler was just ignorant and seeking happiness in his own way, then he ought not be judged. He is not morally wrong or accountable. We do not bring lions to court and put them on trial and charge them with murder etc, and it would seem that to be consistent you wouldn't do that to Hitler, or any wrongdoer for that matter. Is that your view?
The point about Hitler was not about his lack of compassion or his ignorance, but that he was guided and influenced by the scientists of his day who championed Darwinian causes and ethics, to root out the weaker races to prevent them from contaminating the Aryan superior race, and to breed an elite race of supermen. You can see the documentation here http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Nazi-Darwinian-worldview-Holocaust/dp/1894400496
Buddhism strives to overcome the roots of the unwholesome, i.e. craving, aggression, and delusion. We strive to cultivate wisdom and compassion, and through wisdom and compassion, we no longer need to follow rules/precepts/commandments. Because the underlying tendency towards the unwholesome is eliminated.
If you have great compassion, there is no need for you to practice non-violence. There is already no violence in your mind. If you have great wisdom, there is no need for you to practice the precepts of non-killing, etc etc... the underlying tendencies towards them are eliminated.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:It seems that the only basis for using the words "wholesome" or "unwholesome" is simply because of the rejection of God.
No, not necessarily. You don't see the government telling people "smoking cigarettes is evil". You see them telling people "smoking cigarettes is unhealthy and causes early death".
You see, whether smoking cigarettes is evil or not is besides the point. And you are entitled to your own opinion whether smoking is evil. But the purpose of the government is to tell us the harmful, factual, effects of smoking. The government has a job to educate us about cause and effect, same with Buddha. It has nothing to do with rejection of God. The government didn't avoid saying "smoking is evil" because it rejects God, and even if the government is Christian, saying that "smoking is evil" is still besides the point.
The fact is that whether smoking is evil or not, or whether there is a God or not, smoking IS going to accumulate tar in the lungs that causes cancer etc.
1. The government does not deny the fact that there is good or evil even if they do not say that smoking is evil, though they say it is harmful to health. I would also make the distinction between a moral issue and a health issue. BTW, I do not hold the view that smoking is evil, anymore than to say that drinking is evil.
2. I think the issue is again not that cancer brings death. We are again back to the issue of origins. Life comes first, not death. Where then does life come from? Even if you say the conditions are right, they are not sufficient to cause life, as I have explained earlier. Life comes only from life. God, who is Life, created life. God, who is Mind, made man intelligent. God, who is a moral being, created us as moral beings. A car doesn't come together because of right conditions, but because intelligence was applied to materials. A car existed in the mind before it became matter.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:I think you have misunderstood. I am not saying that everything have a moral judgement involved. Though I would qualify my statement by saying that it was because of Adam's rebellion that death and suffering (which cancer can cause) entered the perfect world that God created.
In the Bible, God tells us what is right and wrong. When we say something is evil we are only aligning ourselves with God's view. Which is why God is angry with those who call evil good and good evil.
If Hitler was just ignorant and seeking happiness in his own way, then he ought not be judged. He is not morally wrong or accountable. We do not bring lions to court and put them on trial and charge them with murder etc, and it would seem that to be consistent you wouldn't do that to Hitler, or any wrongdoer for that matter. Is that your view?
The point about Hitler was not about his lack of compassion or his ignorance, but that he was guided and influenced by the scientists of his day who championed Darwinian causes and ethics, to root out the weaker races to prevent them from contaminating the Aryan superior race, and to breed an elite race of supermen. You can see the documentation here http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Nazi-Darwinian-worldview-Holocaust/dp/1894400496
Well, the fact that he was guided and influenced by the misguided notions of 'weaker' and 'stronger' races or the notion that their own race is the 'Aryan superior race' - that already proves my point that Hitler is guided by ignorance.
He may have good (or rather what he felt was good) intentions for his people and race and for the future of mankind. But it is guided by ignorance and lack of being able to extend compassion beyond his limited nationalistic and racial scope.
Hitler should be made accountable to his actions before a court of law, no doubt, but not necessarily because it is 'evil' or 'wrong' but because he was responsible for so many unwholesome actions such as the deaths of so many people and countless untold sufferings as a result of his actions driven by the mental afflictions of craving, aggression and delusion. The court of law's job is simply to ensure that law and order is enforced on the people. If no law and order is enforced, people will be free to commit crimes without deterrence.
Lastly I understand your point about God and God's judgement... I'm just saying this does not apply to Buddhist karma.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:1. The government does not deny the fact that there is good or evil even if they do not say that smoking is evil, though they say it is harmful to health. I would also make the distinction between a moral issue and a health issue. BTW, I do not hold the view that smoking is evil, anymore than to say that drinking is evil.
2. I think the issue is again not that cancer brings death. We are again back to the issue of origins. Life comes first, not death. Where then does life come from? Even if you say the conditions are right, they are not sufficient to cause life, as I have explained earlier. Life comes only from life. God, who is Life, created life. God, who is Mind, made man intelligent. God, who is a moral being, created us as moral beings. A car doesn't come together because of right conditions, but because intelligence was applied to materials. A car existed in the mind before it became matter.
1) In Buddhism, morality and health is intertwined. Why? Morality to us means actions that does not bring harm and suffering to oneself and others. The (physical and mental) health of oneself and others is intimately linked with the moral actions, or whether one's actions is wholesome or unwholesome.
For example: Engaging in violence is unwholesome because 1) seeds of violence negatively affects one's psyche - participants of war often have flashback, nightmares, terrors, depression, are very likely going to commit suicide, etc, just look at war veterans 2) it causes harm and suffering on others, which produces karmic effects on oneself in the future as well, both in this and future lifetimes.
Engaging in violence is not "evil" or "wrong" "because Buddha said so" but because it has unwholesome effects on one's and another's "health" or "well-being". It causes suffering rather than alleviate suffering.
Actions that alleviate or does not bring harm and suffering are wholesome.
In Buddhism, also, wholesome actions is *NOT* an ends in our practice. It is merely a support for the cultivation of samadhi (meditative concentration) and wisdom/prajna, that perceives the nature of reality to achieve liberation from afflictions. Without a base of morality, one will be tied up with remorse, with all the negative mental disturbances (like the war veterans) that one can hardly achieve mental concentration and wisdom. Morality is not an end, but a means to an end. The end, the goal, is liberation and morality alone is insufficient to achieve it, but merely a support.
2) I understand the point that Christian God breathes life on people. I already said it before and there is such experience that one feels like being lived and given life by a higher power.
But the Buddhist understand it another way - mindstreams and continuums are without beginning, so it is not that a non-sentient element turns sentient but the sentient mindstream or continuum flows like a river without a beginning through a beginingless stream of cause and effect.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Buddhism strives to overcome the roots of the unwholesome, i.e. craving, aggression, and delusion. We strive to cultivate wisdom and compassion, and through wisdom and compassion, we no longer need to follow rules/precepts/commandments. Because the underlying tendency towards the unwholesome is eliminated.
If you have great compassion, there is no need for you to practice non-violence. There is already no violence in your mind. If you have great wisdom, there is no need for you to practice the precepts of non-killing, etc etc... the underlying tendencies towards them are eliminated.
What Buddhism tries to overcome is the effects of a cursed world. I think there is a misdiagnosis here. We crave, fight, hate, hurt each other because we are fallen creatures in Adam. We inherited Adam's sin nature, which is why we are dead in Adam. We have a disposition to sin. The Bible says that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. God's wisdom, not man's, is peaceable and true. The Bible sums up God's moral commands as (1) Loving God, and (2) Loving your neighbour as yourself. God is love, and thus He tells us to love each other just as He loves us. If we love God we would obey His commandments. The natural state of fallen man is to do wrong, not good. Little kids can lie and cause hurt even without having been taught to do so.
By the way I have no problem calling unwholesome actions as 'evil' - it all just depends on the definition. Unwholesome action is 'evil' or 'immoral' in Buddhism not because it is someone's judgement to be so but because unwholesome actions create negative effects, i.e. suffering, on oneself and others.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:What Buddhism tries to overcome is the effects of a cursed world. I think there is a misdiagnosis here. We crave, fight, hate, hurt each other because we are fallen creatures in Adam. We inherited Adam's sin nature, which is why we are dead in Adam. We have a disposition to sin. The Bible says that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. God's wisdom, not man's, is peaceable and true. The Bible sums up God's moral commands as (1) Loving God, and (2) Loving your neighbour as yourself. God is love, and thus He tells us to love each other just as He loves us. If we love God we would obey His commandments. The natural state of fallen man is to do wrong, not good. Little kids can lie and cause hurt even without having been taught to do so.
I understand the Christian point of view. Buddhists have a different understanding. So we simply have to agree to disagree.
Our disposition to unwholesome actions (not 'sin' per se) is not inherited from any persons at all... it is simply a continuum of ignorance that has continued on and on without a beginning.
Ignorance does not only mean the absence of knowledge in Buddhism, knowledge of four noble truths, karma, interdependent origination, emptiness, etc... it furthermore also implies the presence of false knowledge or assumptions or positions/views/beliefs or framework at viewing things and reality.
It is because of ignorance, the false sense of a separate self, identity, etc, that causes attachments, subject and object, perceiver and perceived separation, that drives craving, aggression, and many other forms of 'unwholesomeness'.
This ignorance has been going on and on without a beginning in time... it does not come from anywhere else other than our own mental continuum - i.e. a previous moment of mental aggregate fuels the next moment and then the next moment... of mental-physical aggregate ad infinitum until liberation.
As for wisdom, in Buddhism we do not believe in a creator God... we believe wisdom and liberation can be achieved. Not only do we 'believe'... we can actually experience it for ourselves, like Buddha always said "ehi passiko" - come and see for yourselves. Countless beings have attained enlightenment and liberation.
We can overcome the roots of afflictions that drives unwholesome action... and it is not a matter of following rules and precepts or what someone else says, it is an actual eliminating of the roots of suffering and unwholesome actions and results. A man without disposition to violence need not follow the rules of someone else, etc. Of course, until then, following the Buddhist precepts is still important.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:By the way I have no problem calling unwholesome actions as 'evil' - it all just depends on the definition. Unwholesome action is 'evil' or 'immoral' in Buddhism not because it is someone's judgement to be so but because unwholesome actions create negative effects, i.e. suffering, on oneself and others.
But if there is no absolute moral law or law giver, then what's wrong with causing suffering on others if one can get away with it or derive happiness from doing certain actions? As mentioned, if there is only natural law, and lions eat deer because this is the way nature works, then you can't pass a moral judgement on what is a matter of natural law. Yet we make moral judgements all the time, in fact, we have to do that. We are made in this way. Good and evil is a universal way to make moral judgements.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:But if there is no absolute moral law or law giver, then what's wrong with causing suffering on others if one can get away with it or derive happiness from doing certain actions? As mentioned, if there is only natural law, and lions eat deer because this is the way nature works, then you can't pass a moral judgement on what is a matter of natural law. Yet we make moral judgements all the time, in fact, we have to do that. We are made in this way. Good and evil is a universal way to make moral judgements.
In Buddhism, karma is the inescapable law but it does not require a judge. Even if you can escape from every being in the world, the law of karma will still catch up.
My moral judgement is always on the basis of: does this cause suffering to myself and others? And not necessarily "is this what Buddha or what God said I should do?" Though of course I still reference the Buddha's words in times of need but it is not treated as some commandments but guidelines.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:In Buddhism, karma is the inescapable law but it does not require a judge. Even if you can escape from every being in the world, the law of karma will still catch up.
My moral judgement is always on the basis of: does this cause suffering to myself and others? And not necessarily "is this what Buddha or what God said I should do?" Though of course I still reference the Buddha's words in times of need but it is not treated as some commandments but guidelines.
But then I have a question: Every law requires a law-maker. A law does not just exists. So who sets up the law of karma to function as it does?
If the basis of moral judgment is whether it causes suffering to you or others, the question then is, what's wrong with causing suffering to others? The answer may be "because it is unwholesome." But one can also ask, who's to say that causing suffering is unwholesome? I hope you get the point of my persistent asking. Ultimately some absolute standard must be forthcoming, it cannot be a matter of man's opinions. It must be an authority.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Yes, the divine Mind of God.
but i think the different in yours is that it's independent, where it can think by itself, while ours is Dependent arising, where it react upon the action of the beings' (or "children's" in your term). as all beings came from it.
/\
Originally posted by sinweiy:
but i think the different in yours is that it's independent, where it can think by itself, while ours is Dependent arising, where it react upon the action of the beings' (or "children's" in your term). as all beings came from it./\
But I thought it was mentioned that it was the Mind that existed eternally? Then surely the Mind can think and judge, and make moral rules and enforce them. If the view is that the law of karma is dependent arising and merely react, the question is, who set it up this way? How does it "know" if some action is wholesome or if it produces suffering since it would have to be an impersonal law?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:But then I have a question: Every law requires a law-maker. A law does not just exists. So who sets up the law of karma to function as it does?
If the basis of moral judgment is whether it causes suffering to you or others, the question then is, what's wrong with causing suffering to others? The answer may be "because it is unwholesome." But one can also ask, who's to say that causing suffering is unwholesome? I hope you get the point of my persistent asking. Ultimately some absolute standard must be forthcoming, it cannot be a matter of man's opinions. It must be an authority.
Buddhist don't believe in a lawmaker. Just like science doesn't tell you the law of gravity is created. It is simply so.
Causing suffering to oneself and others is not about whether it is "wrong" or "right". It is simply unwholesome to do so, just like smoking is unwholesome.
Unwholesome is precisely defined as : detrimental to physical, mental, or moral well-being
If it causes suffering, that by definition, is unwholesome since it is characterized by actions that are not conducive to someone's wellbeing, be it self or others.
You don't need to judge whether smoking causes cancer. Factually, it causes cancer. No opinions or authority is needed on this matter. Same with karma. Unwholesome/wholesome pertains to facts, not judgement like 'good and evil' 'right or wrong', such as smoking causes cancer is not a judgement but a fact.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Buddhist don't believe in a lawmaker. Just like science doesn't tell you the law of gravity is created. It is simply so.
Wholesome is precisely defined as "Not characterized by or conducive to health or moral well-being."
If it causes suffering, that by definition, is unwholesome since it is characterized by actions that are not conducive to someone's wellbeing, be it self or others.
You don't need to judge whether smoking causes cancer. Factually, it causes cancer.
It is not within the domain of science to ask such questions but that does not mean such questions ought not be asked. Science have assume the uniformity of the laws of nature and the intelligibility of the universe without being able to account for why the laws of nature are uniform and why the universe is intelligible. Modern science was founded upon the Christian worldview that the universe is a creation of a rational Mind, and that is why there is order, and why humans can discover the order in the universe, and peep a little in the "Mind" of God. To say that the laws of nature are simply so does not account for it, since if the universe does not exist, then neither do the laws of nature. The laws of nature are as contingent as the universe. Again the reasonable conclusion is that someone (Mind) created the universe and put in place the laws of nature.
That smoking causes cancer is an observable fact. I think this is not in dispute. That unwholesome actions causes suffering to others is also an observable fact. But the point is still, before you can do something you need to exist. We are right back to the question of origins.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:It is not within the domain of science to ask such questions but that does not mean such questions ought not be asked. Science have assume the uniformity of the laws of nature and the intelligibility of the universe without being able to account for why the laws of nature are uniform and why the universe is intelligible. Modern science was founded upon the Christian worldview that the universe is a creation of a rational Mind, and that is why there is order, and why humans can discover the order in the universe, and peep a little in the "Mind" of God. To say that the laws of nature are simply so does not account for it, since if the universe does not exist, then neither do the laws of nature. The laws of nature are as contingent as the universe. Again the reasonable conclusion is that someone (Mind) created the universe and put in place the laws of nature.
That smoking causes cancer is an observable fact. I think this is not in dispute. That unwholesome actions causes suffering to others is also an observable fact. But the point is still, before you can do something you need to exist. We are right back to the question of origins.
I wouldn't say "before you can do something you need to exist" but rather, before action can be done, a physical-mental aggregate must manifest, which itself is made manifest by causes and conditions.
And Buddhists attribute it to a beginningless mental continuum driven by causes and conditions.
As to your argument on order etc:
3. The Argument from Design
In response to the above refutation the Christian will maintain that the universe not only exists but that its existence shows perfect design. Here is, a Christian might say, an order and balance in the universe which point to its having been designed by a higher intelligence and that this higher intelligence is God. But as before there are some problems with this argument. Firstly, how does the Christian know that it was his God who is behind creation? Perhaps it was the gods of non-Christian religions who designed and created the universe. Secondly, how does the Christian know that only one God designed everything? In fact, as the universe is so intricate and complex we could expect itto need the intelligence of several, perhaps dozens, of gods to design it. So if anything the argument from design could be used to prove that there are many gods, not one as Christians claim.
Next, we would have to ask whether the universe is really perfectly designed? We must ask this question because it is only natural to expect a perfect God to design a perfect universe. Let us look first at inanimate phenomena to see whether they show perfect design. Rain gives us pure water to drink but sometimes it rains too much and people lose their lives, their homes and their means of livelihood in floods. At other times it doesn’t rain at all and millions die because of drought and famine. Is this perfect design? The mountains give us joy as we see them reaching up into the sky. But landslides and volcanic eruptions have caused havoc and death for centuries. Is this perfect design? The gentle breezes cool us but storms and tornadoes repeatedly cause death and destruction. Is this perfect design? ese and other natural calamities prove that inanimate phenomena do not exhibit perfect design and therefore that they were not created by a perfect God.
Now let us look at animate phenomena. At a superficial glance nature seems to be beautiful and harmonious; all creatures are provided for and each has its task to perform. However, nature is utterly ruthless as any biologist or careful observer will confirm. To live, each creature has to feed on other creatures and struggle to avoid being eaten by other creatures. In nature there is no room for pity, love or mercy. If a loving God really designed everything, why did such a cruel design result? But the animal kingdom is not only imperfect in the ethical sense; it is also imperfect in that it often goes wrong. Every year millions of babies are born with physical or mental disabilities, are stillbornor die soon after birth. Why would a perfect creator God design such terrible things? So if there is design in the universe, much of it is either cruel or faulty. This indicates that the universe was not created by a perfect all-loving God.
2. The Existence of the Universe
In their attempts to prove God’s existence Christians will sometimes say that the universe didn’t just happen, someone must have made it and therefore there must be a creator God. There is a major flaw in this argument. When it starts to rain we do not ask, “Who is making it rain?” because we know that rainis not caused by someone but by something — natural phenomena like heat, evaporation, precipitation, etc. When we see smooth stones in a river we do not ask, “Who polished those stones?” because we know that their smooth surface was not caused by someone but by something — natural causes like the abrasive action of water and sand.
All of these things have a cause or causes but this need not be
a being. It is the same with the universe — it was not brought into
being by a god but by natural phenomena like nuclear fission,
gravity, inertia, etc. However, even if we insist that a divine
being is needed to explain how the universe came into existence,
what proof is there that it was the Christian God? Perhaps the
Hindu God, the God of Islam or one of the gods worshipped by tribal
religions created it. After all, Christianity is not the only
religion to claim that there is a creator god or gods.
......
4. The First Cause Argument
Christians will sometimes say that everything has a cause, that there must be a first cause and that God is the first cause. This old argument contains its own refutation because if everything has a first cause then the first cause must also have a cause. There is another problem with the first cause argument. Logically, there is no good reason to assume that everything had a single first cause. Perhaps six, ten or three hundred causes occurring simultaneously caused everything. And as before, even if we accept the necessity of a first cause, what proof is there that it was the Christian God? None.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I wouldn't say "before you can do something you need to exist" but rather, before action can be done, a physical-mental aggregate must manifest.
And Buddhists attribute it to a beginningless mental continuum driven by causes and conditions.
As to your argument on order etc:BEYOND BELIEF by A. L. De Silva
3. The Argument from Design
In response to the above refutation the Christian will maintain that the universe not only exists but that its existence shows perfect design. Here is, a Christian might say, an order and balance in the universe which point to its having been designed by a higher intelligence and that this higher intelligence is God. But as before there are some problems with this argument. Firstly, how does the Christian know that it was his God who is behind creation? Perhaps it was the gods of non-Christian religions who designed and created the universe. Secondly, how does the Christian know that only one God designed everything? In fact, as the universe is so intricate and complex we could expect itto need the intelligence of several, perhaps dozens, of gods to design it. So if anything the argument from design could be used to prove that there are many gods, not one as Christians claim.
Next, we would have to ask whether the universe is really perfectly designed? We must ask this question because it is only natural to expect a perfect God to design a perfect universe. Let us look first at inanimate phenomena to see whether they show perfect design. Rain gives us pure water to drink but sometimes it rains too much and people lose their lives, their homes and their means of livelihood in floods. At other times it doesn’t rain at all and millions die because of drought and famine. Is this perfect design? The mountains give us joy as we see them reaching up into the sky. But landslides and volcanic eruptions have caused havoc and death for centuries. Is this perfect design? The gentle breezes cool us but storms and tornadoes repeatedly cause death and destruction. Is this perfect design? ese and other natural calamities prove that inanimate phenomena do not exhibit perfect design and therefore that they were not created by a perfect God.
Now let us look at animate phenomena. At a superficial glance nature seems to be beautiful and harmonious; all creatures are provided for and each has its task to perform. However, nature is utterly ruthless as any biologist or careful observer will confirm. To live, each creature has to feed on other creatures and struggle to avoid being eaten by other creatures. In nature there is no room for pity, love or mercy. If a loving God really designed everything, why did such a cruel design result? But the animal kingdom is not only imperfect in the ethical sense; it is also imperfect in that it often goes wrong. Every year millions of babies are born with physical or mental disabilities, are stillbornor die soon after birth. Why would a perfect creator God design such terrible things? So if there is design in the universe, much of it is either cruel or faulty. This indicates that the universe was not created by a perfect all-loving God.
1. Which is simply another way of saying that you must exist before you can do anything.
2. Regarding the supposed refutation of the argument from design, I think the article failed to refute the argument from design. The argument is that there is evidence of design in the universe and in living things. That the best explanation is that there is an intelligent designer. Even your article conceded that point, though it throws in the additional point that there could be many designers and not on. But I can use Occam's Razor and say that one supreme omnipotent Designer is all it takes to do the job and need not invoke multiple ones.
3. The article also failed to note the Bible's teaching that the universe we live in today is a FALLEN and cursed world. I mentioned many times that God created the universe perfect but it has been ruined by sin. Thus it is no longer a pretty world like it once was. This does not negate the argument from design, but it does explain why we do not see a perfect world. The argument from design is that there are features in the universe that is best explained by an intelligent designer. I can create a perfect car but you can drive it and kill people. Whose fault is it?
4. In short, only by careful attention to what the Bible teaches can one understand why the world is the way it is. The Bible does not teach that we live in a perfect world. It teaches that this is a perfect world gone wrong because of sin. Thus I believe I have amply shown why your article has not refuted the Christian view.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
2. The Existence of the Universe
In their attempts to prove God’s existence Christians will sometimes say that the universe didn’t just happen, someone must have made it and therefore there must be a creator God. There is a major flaw in this argument. When it starts to rain we do not ask, “Who is making it rain?” because we know that rainis not caused by someone but by something — natural phenomena like heat, evaporation, precipitation, etc. When we see smooth stones in a river we do not ask, “Who polished those stones?” because we know that their smooth surface was not caused by someone but by something — natural causes like the abrasive action of water and sand.
All of these things have a cause or causes but this need not be a being. It is the same with the universe — it was not brought into being by a god but by natural phenomena like nuclear fission, gravity, inertia, etc. However, even if we insist that a divine being is needed to explain how the universe came into existence, what proof is there that it was the Christian God? Perhaps the Hindu God, the God of Islam or one of the gods worshipped by tribal religions created it. After all, Christianity is not the only religion to claim that there is a creator god or gods.
......4. The First Cause Argument
Christians will sometimes say that everything has a cause, that there must be a first cause and that God is the first cause. This old argument contains its own refutation because if everything has a first cause then the first cause must also have a cause. There is another problem with the first cause argument. Logically, there is no good reason to assume that everything had a single first cause. Perhaps six, ten or three hundred causes occurring simultaneously caused everything. And as before, even if we accept the necessity of a first cause, what proof is there that it was the Christian God? None.
1. The universe has a beginning, thus it must have a cause. This line of argument is water tight. As for rain, it also have its cause. And the Christian worldview is that God is the one who sets the laws of nature in place. Thus the natural phenomena we observed ultimately points to God.
2.If even the Buddhist can ask "why must it be the Christian God and not some other deity?", then it only proves the point that the argument from first cause or design is rational and logical. Creation is the logical explanation.
3. The first cause argument has not been correctly understood. It is incoherent to ask that the first cause must have a cause. The first to win the race cannot have someone before him! Every effect requires a cause, but not every cause needs a cause. That's why we have to start/end somewhere. Buddhists said a Mind existed eternally, isn't this also the same starting point?
4. As to proof of it being the Christian God, there was good reasons for it. But perhaps another post.
1. Yes but only a conventional you, not an inherently existing you.
2. It does not concede 'evidence of design'. It points out the logical fallacy that the universe has a perfect order or design.
I'd add that the universe manifest due to so many causes and conditions. And people too, manifest out of many causes and conditions. Out of the billions of planets in the universe, it so happens that this planet Earth has all the conditions for life. The Earth is "people-ing" like Alan Watts said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppyF1iQ0-dM
People manifest when the conditions are there. If the temperature is hotter by 20 degrees, the Earth can no longer do its people-ing - the conditions would have ceased. We grow out of this Earth just like apple grows out of an apple tree.
3. and 4. Again, the notion that there is a universe that is "best explained by a intelligent designer" is the very notion that is being negated as having inconsistency and being a logical fallacy. There is no need to posit everything to have come from an intelligent first cause, just like rain isn't a result of 'intelligent design' but countless causes and conditions.
By the way, other planets rain also, but they probably don't rain H2O and their rain probably isn't conducive to human life. But I personally believe there are other extraterrestial planets that harbour life or even advanced forms of life, but I digress.
If you put water, food, etc and ants in a place, they will soon grow into an ant colony. If you remove the water, food, etc, the ants cannot do their ant-ing anymore. So we know ants grow out of suitable causes and conditions and so do we. They are not anymore created than we are.