Andrew4Handel wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:The universe is quite capable of making itself.

Show me a cake that has made itself..

Andrew4Handel wrote:Utter rubbish...

Andrew4Handel wrote:I am 100% NOT AN UNDEFRCOVER THEIST i'D ADMITT IT AT THE DROP OF A HAT IF I WERE.

Andrew4Handel wrote:drunk but no theist.

Andrew4Handel wrote:
I am not lying to myself about logic like you.

Andrew4Handel wrote:i understand that everything needs a cause...

Andrew4Handel wrote:Absolutely no alternative to a deity has been presented.

Full stop.

Andrew4Handel wrote:You think otherwise?

You are fooling yourselves.

Andrew4Handel wrote:it doesn't mean you have to consider yourself a sinner and start repenting...Just stop promoting NIHILISTIC atheism.

Andrew4Handel wrote:There is no alternative explanation for the existence of reality.

Noone has presented a genuine alternative except ignorance.

Andrew4Handel wrote:

CookieJon wrote:Well apart from the fact that alternatives have been presented, why do you assume that if nobody did know of any alternative there isn't one?

Do we really need to explain a false dichotomy to you, or are you just taking the piss?

The Big bang explains the origin of being?

Excuse me whilst I piss myself laughing at the inadequacy of this answer...

Andrew4Handel wrote:

CookieJon wrote:You said everything has a cause, as if you know. I simply asked what the cause of God is.

Why can't you answer?

How the F**ck am I supposed to know the cause of god? Why don't you ask him?

The cause of God is absolutely NO LESS problematic than the cause of the universe they are equal problems EQUAL!!!

Andrew4Handel wrote:Absolutely no alternative to a deity has been presented.

Full stop.

You think otherwise?

You are fooling yourselves.

it doesn't mean you have to consider yourself a sinner and start repenting...Just stop promoting NIHILISTIC atheism.

CookieJon wrote:I was intrigued by Andrew's nosedive in one page from a statement about god, to a confession that he feels guilty when he maturbates.

Considering his contribution in this thread, though, I agree he ought to feel real guilty.

NineOneFour wrote:

CookieJon wrote:I was intrigued by Andrew's nosedive in one page from a statement about god, to a confession that he feels guilty when he maturbates.

Considering his contribution in this thread, though, I agree he ought to feel real guilty.

You are intrigued rather easily.

Reflecting a common understanding of the Buddha's earliest teachings, Nyanaponika Thera asserts:

From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality. ... In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world.

In addition, nowhere in the Pali Canon are Buddhas ascribed powers of creation, salvation and judgement. In fact, Buddhism is critical of all theories on the origin of the universe and holds the belief in creation as a fetter binding one to samsara. However, the Aggañña Sutta does contain a detailed account of the Buddha describing the origin of human life on earth. In this text, the Buddha provides an explanation of the caste system alternate to the one contained in the Vedas, and shows why one caste is not really any better than the other. According to scholar Richard Gombrich, the sutta gives strong evidence that it was conceived entirely as a satire of pre-existing beliefs, and he and scholar David Kalupahana have asserted that the primary intent of this text is to satirize and debunk the brahminical claims regarding the divine nature of the caste system, showing that it is nothing but a human convention. Strictly speaking, the sutta is not a cosmogony, as in Buddhism, an absolute beginning is inconceivable. Since the earliest times Buddhists have, however, taken it seriously as an account of the origins of society and kingship. Gombrich, however, finds it to be a parody of brahminical cosmogony as presented in the Rig Vedic "Hymn of creation" (RV X, 129) and BAU 1, 2. He states: "The Buddha never intended to propound a cosmogony. If we take a close look at the Aggañña Sutta, there are considerable incoherencies if it is taken seriously as an explanatory account - though once it is perceived to be a parody these inconsistencies are of no account." In particular, he finds that it violates the basic Buddhist theory of how the law of karma operates. However, scholar Rupert Gethin strongly disagrees, stating

While certain of the details of the Aggainia-sutta's account of the evolution of human society may be, as Gombrich has persuasively argued, satirical in intent, there is nothing in the Nikayas to suggest that these basic cosmological principles that I have identified should be so understood; there is nothing to suggest that the Aggafinia-sutta's introductory formula describing the expansion and contraction of the world is merely a joke. We should surely expect early Buddhism and indeed the Buddha to have some specific ideas about the nature of the round of rebirth, and essentially this is what the cosmological details presented in the Aggafifia-sutta and elsewhere in Nikayas constitute ... far from being out of key with what we can understand of Buddhist thought from the rest of the Nikayas, the cosmogonic views offered by the Aggañña Sutta in fact harmonize very well with it . .I would go further and say that something along the lines of the Aggañña myth is actually required by it.

In Buddhism, the focus is primarily on the effect the belief in theories of creation and a creator have on the human mind. The Buddhist attitude towards every view is one of critical examination from the perspective of what effect the belief has on the mind and whether the belief binds one to samsara or not.

The Buddha declared that "it is not possible to know or determine the first beginning of the cycle of existence of beings who wander therein deluded by ignorance and obsessed by craving." Speculation about the origin and extent of the universe is generally discouraged in early Buddhism

Andrew4Handel wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:The universe is quite capable of making itself.

Show me a cake that has made itself..

hackenslash wrote: as The Blue Wingéd One would say

Andrew4Handel wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:The universe is quite capable of making itself.

Show me a cake god that has made itself..


Utter rubbish...

I am 100% NOT AN UNDEFRCOVER THEIST i'D ADMITT IT AT THE DROP OF A HAT IF I WERE.

drunk but no theist.