The point of the cosmological argument is that there must've been a first cause. Hence necessary non-contingent being.

Everything isn't just there, we kick a football, it moves. A painting - it didn't just appear, somebody painted it, somebody got inspiration from a tree to paint it, the tree grew because a seed fell, and so on.

Everything we know has a cause, yet nothing we know is infinite. So, you can either say the cosmological argument is correct, or just say the universe is a series of infinite causes and effects.

Then why does the first cause have to be God, bringing me right back to my very first point and proving that the Cosmological argument proves absolutely NOTHING.

If you're expecting to find immaculate proof of God in a goth forum, you're going to be waiting a long time.

The point of that line of logic is that there must be something (a being, or a force, etc.) that is outside the realm of time and space, and created the finite (either on purpose or by accident) for this universe to exist.

As that argument originated with Plato, I doubt that it's supposed to prove the existence of the capital "G" god.

When applying deity to the physical world, it is a forever catch-up game:

The Native Americans didn't know what caused lightning, and so attributed it to a spirit. Now we know what causes lightning. But now we don't know why, when we play back in reverse the mathematics describing the observed universe, everything krunches up into an extremely hot singularity, and so some assign this cosmic "egg" as evidence of divine creation.

Eventually we will understand the reason, whether it be a fault in our observations, math or an unknown property of the universe, and then we will go on to the next unknown. We will always have one foot in the unknown, and the other foot on a banana peel.

Faith should only be applied to the individual mind, not to physics. Well, maybe theoretical physics. :D

I can gladly point them out for you, and I think I've done this before. You're jumping all over the word that was chosen in some English translations. You're biggest problem is that you think that by "desire" they actually mean wanting anything, which is not true. In fact, most scholars translate it as "attachment" rather than "desire". Desire in itself is innocent and harmless so long as you are not attached to it. We spend our lives striving from goal to goal to goal, and nothing we achieve makes us happy for very long. We are happy for a while, but then we get a new goal. It could be wanting a better car, wanting a house, but it can be non material, like wanting to be accepted or wanting a spouse, craving love and attention.

So by quenching attachment, its not meant to starve yourself and serve the government blindly! It means to know and be mindful that absolutely nothing you have is permanent, and as long as you move from craving to craving, your craving will never be quenched. But even knowing that in a logical sense will not bring you peace, there is the last noble truth, the way to end suffering and rebirth is Nirvana.

Whoops, and I forgot to mention that we do not have commandments, we have precepts and paths, but like Buddha said, do not do anything just because a teacher tells you to, even the Buddha. "Be a lamp unto yourself" the Buddha said on his death bed, when his disciple asked him what they would do without him. And in Zen, we say "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." And also "Our teachings are a finger pointing you to the moon. Woe to him who mistakes the finger for the moon." All our precepts and paths are meant to guide us to enlightenment, but it is essentially up to the Buddhist.

Just noticed this. As I've said, arguing religion with a vitriolic fourteen year old is not my cup of tea. As Saya has already pointed out you don't even understand that basic concept you're so rabidly attacking, and quite frankly, I don't believe you want to understand it. From the way that you've been speaking in this thread your only goal seems to me to be to further cement your own painfully narrow, dogmatic, worldview.

All you've done in this thread is regurgitate some information you most likely gleaned from "The God Delusion", and then fire off a constant string of straw-man, appeals to ridicule, and ad-hominem attacks. For someone to come out as strongly against something as you have, when they posses as little knowledge on the subject matter, as you clearly do, It speaks to a particular warped brand of thinking. One which does not easily lend itself to understanding the intricacies of a religion which comes from a completely different cultural context to than the ones you're used to.

So sorry kid, I'm really not interested in setting you straight at the moment. I suspect it would fall on deaf ears, and I'm not in the mood to waste my time.

Unless you have read the very first original Buddhist scripture and translated it yourself, I think it's fairly ridiculous for you to say that I shouldn't trust the widely-accepted tenet over your version.

They're not mentioned explicitly, but there's obvious cocercion in Buddhism.

Why would I take any notice of you if you can't even point out where I'm wrong? I'm perfectly open to being proven wrong, just point something out.

You're the worst kind of person.

You are either to lazy to finish what you started, or you realized you just got your ass handed to you so you pull this cop-out shit and say point out the fact that he's younger, thinking everyone will be distracted.

How old are you that you're so wizened and experienced? I guess you're 22 tops.

Have you translated it yourself? The first Buddhist doctrines were in Pali, and none of them used a word that specifically means "desire", but the problem was the translators had to find a word in English that suited it. This was back in the nineteenth century before Buddhism actually came to the West. Buddhist teachers who later came from the East didn't really have a big problem with the word "desire" but most of them use words like "craving" and "attachment", I just flipped through a few books I have handy and if they do use the word desire its followed by pages explaining what is meant by it. And thats the problem with a lot of Buddhist terms and where there is room for misconceptions, a lot of the original words are hard to translate because there is no direct equivalent. Some books just leave the original words alone, and include a glossary in the back explaining them. I don't know if you have studied a second language but it is a common problem, you'll look up a word in the dictionary and it will say there's no direct translation, just an explanation as to what is meant by it.

You'll have to point them out, I trust you have a few sutras handy. If not or you're having trouble understanding them I would suggest reading The Morning Star by Robert Aitken or Wanting Enlightenment Is A Big Mistake or The Compass of Zen by Seung Sahn to give you a more educated view on Buddhism. Probably The Morning Star more, Aitken was an English professor and I think has a better way of relating to a Western audience without catering to them.

WOW. The worst kind of person? Really Opy? REALLY? I mean, I might have saved that for Hitler or Bin Laden, but yeah, I suppose refusing to engage in a pointless debate with someone who's clearly doesn't know what he's talking about and doesn't want to know what he's talking about TOTALLY trumps genocide.

I didn't "start" anything. My first post was saying that his position was so mind-bogglingly stupid I wasn't even going to bother to correct him, and my second post was elaborating on why I would not. Where pray tell did I get "schooled" as you put it? I make a habit of never wreastling with pigs, you just get muddy and the pig likes it.

My age (25) is clearly listed in my profile.

How on earth can you have a religion that states the way to Enlightenment and the perfect state of being, and then argue that this religion is not coercive?

Uh...

Make me wrong. The man who asks is a fool for a day, he who never asks is a fool for a lifetime and all that.

This is classically defined as starting something. That's like saying walking into a massive group of people and saying:

"YOU'RE ALL WANKERS AND YOU'RE SO STUPID I REFUSE TO TELL YOU WHY"

is not starting something.

Apparently standards have slipped if pointing out my age and misusing the names of logical fallacies is any sort of elaborate explanation of anything.

What did you feel when Rome burnt?

Yes, curse that Buddha, instructing us all that we are all equal and have buddha nature, that we are all inherently perfect, and leaving us guide lines in case we would like to follow in his footsteps and find out the nature of truth and reality! Curse him for telling us we should all mellow out and get along! Trying to trick us into something, that guy was.

The first cause has to be something without cause, and outside the universe, outside time etc etc. This is God. Whether you believe this God is as most people see God is another matter. The cosmological argument says nothing about God's nature.

Nothing can be proven, ever. Although, that argument is somewhat stale. Just some arguments are better than others. I.E. Cosmological > Ontological.

...this is a weird post.
I didn't say "schooled" anywhere, and no, your age is not listed in your profile.

I thought Buddhism wasn't coercive? That's what you implied.

"Ass-handed too" pretty much = "Schooled" in this context Opy. My mistake on the profile thing, I though I had it listed. I know I've mentioned my age here before.

Saya's already doing a pretty good job of that, and you're already doing a pretty good job of ignoring it. As I've said, I don't believe that you're really ready to consider the fact that you're mistaken. You seem to embrace open-mindedness intellectually, but your actions are those of an extremely close-minded individual. From what I've seen in this thread you're not reading Saya's posts to understand our beliefs, you're reading them so that you may find fault in them. If I were, for instance, to explain the Doctrine of Emptiness for you, from the way you've been acting till now it's safe to assume you'd most likely cry "Nihilism!" and proceed to jump on a political tirade about how Buddhism is using nihilism to keep people from wanting a better life. Then I'd spend a half-hour explaining to you exactly how you are mistaken about the concept, and most likely you would find some other straw-man inspired tangent to go off on. As long as you're in this state of mind we would both be wasting our time.

Look, I have been a little harsh, but you have to understand that when you're using the pop-culture version of the second noble truth as evidence that Buddhism is no more than political coercion, it's the equivalent of coming into a discussion on evolution saying: "Evolution leads to eugenics...just ask Hitler!" or "If evolution is real, why are there still monkeys?!" It's an incorrect conclusion based upon a gross misunderstanding of the concept.

In short, to correctly understand Buddhist teachings and their political implications you have to have context. You need to understand the people, the culture, and the teachings themselves. You do not, and based upon how you have behaved thus far I do not believe at this time that you want to.

And for the record, I'm not saying that you're fourteen to automatically discredit you; I'm saying it to put things in perspective for you. Frankly you're pretty mature for your age, and you usually manage to string sentences together quite logically (kudos). To tell you the truth, for the most part I like you; but you also have to remember that you have an alarming lack of experience and you're ability to think is still in a process of refinement. Hence your tendency to pass judgement as quickly and self-righteously as you have in this thread. Hence your tendency to continue to argue the same point even after you have been corrected. Hence your tendency to approach analysis from the wrong way around: Instead of starting with data, and drawing a conclusion from it, you're starting with a conclusion and finding data to fit it. I am not just objecting to your facts, I'm objecting to the way which you are thinking.

Yes, a guide line. Does a sign on the road telling you where to find St.John's coerce you into going to St.John's?

Not to mention the fact that you don't technically even have to be a Buddhist to reach enlightenment, it's just easier that way. So really, you don't have to even take that particular road to st. John's if you'd prefer to go by a more roundabout route.

No, but if someone tells you how you need to act to get to St Johns and then states that St Johns is the perfect place that everyone should strive to be, it's being coercive.

Yeah, I'm looking for fault in it. I shouldn't be able to find any, and I can. I would love for someone to make a real argument for Buddhism that wasn't easily dismissable, so far I've not seen it. I'm fine with you telling me how I'm wrong, and putting forward what is right. However, you're wasting your time if you think I'm going to change what I think purely because you come in without saying anything as to why I'm wrong, and tell me I'm wrong.

This is the problem. I've not been corrected, I've been told I'm wrong, I've had Saya tell me that I'm merely reading the wrong version. I've not had anyone actually discredit anything I've said. Maybe I was quick to dismiss Saya's point about mistranslation, but she didn't even give a source and I've never heard it described as "attachment".

The acting are guide lines, nothing more. Zen Master Ikkyu was drunk all the time and fucked whores, for example. Everything we are given we take with a grain of salt. To succeed one must have Great Faith, Great Doubt and Great Determination. Always always question everything, and do not even become attached to your own beliefs.

Besides, it does not dictate anywhere that this is something that everyone has to do. Traditionally it was usually the monks who were devoted to achieving enlightenment, it wasn't expected of laymen.

I'm putting forth whats right but you just dismiss it.


I didn't say you're reading the wrong version (actually, what version of what? What are you reading this from?), just that you look at the word and don't even seem to care what it means to Buddhists. I have no problem using the word desire, but like I said, for someone to understand what is meant by that more research is needed. And the original Pali word was Trsna, which means "thirst." I already listened three books for reference and sources, Aitken's The Morning Star is what detailed the translation history, but if you don't want to read a book there are a few websites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths desire is not here

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html attachments

http://www.buddhaweb.org/ attachment to desire

http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm attachment to desire

http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/4_noble_truths.html attachment, anger, ignorance

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religi...letruths.shtml
"Trsna: The root of suffering can be defined as a craving or clinging to the wrong things; searching to find stability in a shifting world is the wrong way."

http://dharma.ncf.ca/introduction/tr...leTruth-2.html attachment to desire or craving

http://www.buddhist-temples.com/budd...le-truths.html craving

http://buddhism.about.com/od/thefour...obletruths.htm craving

http://www.maithri.com/links/article...obletruths.htm attachment

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...r-Noble-Truths craving or attachment

There, you've got your sources dude.

Damn those street signs, coercing me to where I want to go. DAMN THEM! From now on I'll be the Ubermench and cut through that construction yard...Oh crap...I just got ***** by a hobo...
You can find fault in anything if you look hard enough. There's no truth which can't be conquered by adequate amounts of arrogance and ignorance. It's like that Isacc Asimov story where the Robot refuses to believe that humans created him. You can prove anything with logic, so long as you pick your postulates.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php...cs&id=54#comic
That about sums it up.

I like This one.