paarsurrey
Veteran Member
The simple fact is that cause and effect is not a scientific law, never was.
It was the philosophic one, in vogue in the West not very long ago. Wasn't it?
Regards
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The simple fact is that cause and effect is not a scientific law, never was.
It is inescapably dishonest
Before he became a monk, Ricard was a well-regarded scientist in France but gave it all up to work with the Dalai Lama in India. His position is rather quite logical, which is not to say it must be correct. Also, Buddhists do not have a belief in a creator-god for various reasons, and I already gave you one.The Tibetan Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard has wrongly understood the truthful fact about our G-d. Please give the claim from the scripture of the religion he believes in and the argument given by the scripture if he believes in a living scripture.
What do you understand about YHWH in this respect from Torah? Please quote from Torah with the argument given by Torah itself if it is a living book.
I respect you both and and your religions, yet we have to explore the truth.
Regards
Well, it was a notion of classical physics that was disproven by the emergence of quantum physics more than a century ago.It was the philosophic one, in vogue in the West not very long ago. Wasn't it?
Regards
David Hume? The philosopher who died in 1776? How does an 18th century philosophers view relate to quantum physics? Are you seriously suggesting that Hume's philosophical opinion somehow trumps the findings of quantum physics?"Cause and effect" was advanced by David Hume, you know. Was he dishonest?
I don't think so.
Regards
LOL! I'm pretty much an "agnostic", and maybe you should look up that word to see what it means instead of inventing your own definition of even that word. I also was in science, not including my education, for just under 40 years, and I do believe I know how we operate. I taught anthropology for over 30 of those years, and have been a subscriber to Scientific American for almost 50 years now. There are many thngs I don't know, but I do know how we operate and what's an "axiom" and what isn't.
I was just going to stop this discussion on this thread with you, but now I've had enough of your juvenile trash-talk to put you on my ignore list. Grow up!
Not at all a logical relation. It is just an appeal to supernatural exception with no logical content whatsoever.
Sure, it is an exception that disproves cause and effect.The problem is that you don't understand the difference between a logical relation and a temporal one. God is not a cause among other causes. The first cause is on an entirely different conceptual level than other causes.
God is not a cause among other causes. The first cause is on an entirely different conceptual level than other causes.
David Hume? The philosopher who died in 1776? How does an 18th century philosophers view relate to quantum physics? Are you seriously suggesting that Hume's philosophical opinion somehow trumps the findings of quantum physics?
Before he became a monk, Ricard was a well-regarded scientist in France but gave it all up to work with the Dalai Lama in India. His position is rather quite logical, which is not to say it must be correct. Also, Buddhists do not have a belief in a creator-god for various reasons, and I already gave you one.
I'm not going to get into Judaism as that doesn't directly relate to what's being discussed.
The cosmological argument, unedited;
Everything except for God has a cause, therefore the universe has a cause - therefore God must exist!
But isn't this just based on the assumption that there is a creator-god?
Let's both just pretend you meant to humor me and call it a day. You can't hope for any better results by now.The problem is that you don't understand the difference between a logical relation and a temporal one. God is not a cause among other causes. The first cause is on an entirely different conceptual level than other causes.
Relying too much on scripture is adharmic. And the Buddha explicitly taught not to make too much of an effort to trust the words attributed to him.Since one has read book of the Buddhist monk who belongs to Tibetan Buddhism; may I ask a little question.
Don't the Tibetan Buddhism believe in a scripture?
Any body, please.
Regards
Except god, right?You need to qualify that. Everything that comes into existence must have a cause for its existence.
Except god, right?
Right. God does not come into existence. God simply is.
I didn't say otherwise. I was just asking you if you think Hume's philosophical notion somehow relates to the origin of the universe.Sorry sir,
The thread/topic is not restricted to quantum physics, an important part of the thread/topic is "evidence of a creator god ". I was expressing my thoughts on this.
I think I was on topic.
Regards