Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 53

Thread: Buddhism

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Buddhism

    Does anyone want to take a guess?

    I think Buddhism is for the most part an ENFp or INFj religion.

  2. #2
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I disagree, I think it's Beta.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What do you guys think are the essential main differences between Buddhism and Taoism? I have said it before, and I am still convinced that Taoism is INTp or at least INXp. I am not sure about Buddhism.

  4. #4
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,626
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    I disagree, I think it's Beta.
    I guess, all the fuss around it smells of Fe to me.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  5. #5
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have an INTj friend who has explored pretty much all religions and settled in (atheistic interpretation) of Zen-Buddhism. Now he is a very active Zen-Buddhist even considering becoming a monk at some point (at least temporarily). I'm not sure if this means Zen-Buddhism is Alpha or if it is Ti or Fe or what but his approach to life is extremely methodical and scientific and he is an atheist with strong spiritual needs. I'm not sure how Zen-Buddhism differs from "average" Buddhism though.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Really? You guys think it is Beta with emphasis on Fe and Ni ?

    Just last friday I listened to a two hour lecture on the fundamentals of Buddhism by the Lead Abbot of a famous Zen Buddhist monastery not too far from where I live now. I can see Fe and Ni in there, but the whole thing came off as Ne and Fi to me. I've also been reading some books some of the monks gave to me and some others at this thing on buddhism. Seems rather interesting.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Buddhism

    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
    Does anyone want to take a guess?
    The types of people who enjoy having imaginary friends?
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Buddhism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
    Does anyone want to take a guess?
    The types of people who enjoy having imaginary friends?
    Note the title of the thread is "Buddhism" not "let us insult Buddhists" ...

  9. #9
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I do not think that religion is necessarily tied to type, but to functions, which can lead to a variety of different approaches to the dogma or institution of a religion. For example, if we were to say that Religion A were tied to , then it may be that would enjoy it for it being what it is, but may in turn also be attracted to Religion A due to the -seeking quality of . This may mean that Religion A may appeal to not a given type, but to multiple quadras. And perhaps there is an additional element of in the practice of Religion A. This may mean that it may have some level of appeal from Delta quadra (-element), Beta (-element), and Alpha ( & -elements). And so it may be that Religion A is as such that it holds some level of appeal in all quadras but Gamma, who may find the religious functional elements of Religion A to be alien or unappealing. Furthermore, the involvement of these three different quadras may develop the different themes, schools, and divisions within Religion A to stress their Quadratic values. No object, idea, or institution exists solely as a singular entity unto itself, but as a fixed and shared point among many individuals each with their own different associations of ideas and utility of that thing. Religion operates in the same manner. An Alpha NT and a Beta ST may both see value in Religion A but for entirely different reasons, because the religion has breadth of field which allows for them to naturally exist.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  10. #10
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
    Really? You guys think it is Beta with emphasis on Fe and Ni ?

    Just last friday I listened to a two hour lecture on the fundamentals of Buddhism by the Lead Abbot of a famous Zen Buddhist monastery not too far from where I live now. I can see Fe and Ni in there, but the whole thing came off as Ne and Fi to me. I've also been reading some books some of the monks gave to me and some others at this thing on buddhism. Seems rather interesting.
    I listened to a lecture by a Tibetan lama once high in the mountains of Spain. The dude was ILE and made the religion come off very to me, with his focus on the logical and metaphysical apparatus of the teaching. Also, some ILEs I know of have gotten into buddhism (well, mostly the Zen branch). But from what I've seen of it since then, I'm inclined to think dominant , too. I think a religion or teaching with leading would be focused on expanding one's real-life experience and devouring new information or ideas. You mostly see Buddhists focusing on their inner experiences and learning to tune out the world. That seems like an introverted focus to me. But I don't know enough to be able to pick out the quintessential elements of Buddhism.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think Buddhism is very much about the deemphasizing of , and at the same time glorifying

    Take the Four noble truths for instance:

    1. Life is suffering; Goes against the view/emphasize of enjoyment and maintaining

    2. Suffering is due to attachment; Limiting the body, weak S

    3. Attachment can be overcome; Previous point

    4. There is a path for accomplishing this. I think this emphasizes more than other function

  12. #12
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apres
    I think Buddhism is very much about the deemphasizing of , and at the same time glorifying

    Take the Four noble truths for instance:

    1. Life is suffering; Goes against the view/emphasize of enjoyment and maintaining

    2. Suffering is due to attachment; Limiting the body, weak S

    3. Attachment can be overcome; Previous point

    4. There is a path for accomplishing this. I think this emphasizes more than other function
    Well said. Definitely.
    dominant teachings glory in the body and its capabilities. And based teachings leave plenty of room for developing . A hypothetical based teaching might say, "freedom comes from being open to the world and not being materially tied down to any setting" (i.e. not an internal attachment like in Buddhism, but the external attachment of having material assets, duties, and obligations that limit your ability to engage in new experience). You can focus on as much as you like as you are letting your curiosity lead you new places.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think Buddhism is very much about the deemphasizing of , and at the same time glorifying

    Take the Four noble truths for instance:

    1. Life is suffering; Goes against the view/emphasize of enjoyment and maintaining

    2. Suffering is due to attachment; Limiting the body, weak S

    3. Attachment can be overcome; Previous point

    4. There is a path for accomplishing this. I think this emphasizes more than other function

    Alright, apparently there is something I need to emphasize here that might shed a little different light on this, and also to further clarify what is written above.

    In relations to Knoble truth number one, the reason there is suffering is because we are attached to the temporary and unpermanent. We are simply gooped out globs of the essence of life and creation, an eternal unlimited natural force. This forms something called an Ego, which creates the illusion of individuality. An Ego binds us to the wheel of life, causing greed, hate, anger, and as a result suffering. This leads to Knoble truth number 2. People suffer because they are attached to the things of this world in result of having an ego. Hence, they want some and do not get what they want or want what they can not have. In Knoble truth 3 attachment can be overcome by removing the dillusion of the Ego, which involves greed, lust, anger, etc. In Knowble truth 4 this is done by removing a persons ignorance, which is the actions people do unawarely that cause things like greed, lust, and anger. There are practical steps a person can take to learn to remove the illusion and ignorance. Buddhists do in general have many steps that they can take that allow them to remove this illusion, but there is no standard. Buddhist believe that there is no particular way that a person can reach enlightenment and acknowledge that by following, for example, Judeo-Christian doctrine a person can reach enlightenment. All religions strive for the same goal much as everyone strives for enlightenment.

    Now, I think the fact that Buddhist believe that there is no invididual soul, that we are all one of the same essence, that all religions are valid, that all religions strive for the same goal shows that this is not necessarily a religion, but points towards the possibility of being a religion.

    And this statement by Rick:

    I'm inclined to think dominant , too. I think a religion or teaching with leading would be focused on expanding one's real-life experience and devouring new information or ideas.
    While Buddhism in itself has genralized concepts, there are many sects of buddhist who do not teach the same thing and have different ways of reaching enlightenment, or so they claim. When Buddhists meet, it is not uncommon for them to ask each other to clarify what each of them means in relations to what they say, because of these differences. Also many of these Buddhist's sects have assimilated native cultures, for example, in Japan there are Buddhists who are Polytheistic. There are even Christian Buddhists and Muslim Buddhists who are practicing Christians and Practicing Muslims. I would think that an based religion similar to Buddhism would state that there is only one subjective way to enlightenment followed by a certain plan that is unfolding in the Universe. Instead, Buddhists say that you can assimilate Christian or Muslim or Jewish doctrine with Buddhism and it would be a valid way to enlightenment. I am going to have to stick with over simply on this account.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A hypothetical based teaching might say, "freedom comes from being open to the world and not being materially tied down to any setting"
    Buddhism does not teach that there is any one certain way to reach enlightenment and that follows of other religions, meaning other religions are valid, can reach enlightenment without necessarily hearing about Buddhism, so long as people are willing to detach themselves from Ego, which causes things like, greed, anger, hate, which causes things like "not getting what you want." However, Buddhism does have practical steps to reach enlightenment. I am not sure if practicality is directly related to a function like or any function, though. If asked about this buddhists will always tell you that it is valid and alright to be a Christian for example, but that it is not their way necessarily to follow Christian doctrine.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I would think that an Introverted Intution based religion similar to Buddhism would state that there is only one subjective way to enlightenment followed by a certain plan that is unfolding in the Universe. Instead, Buddhists say that you can assimilate Christian or Muslim or Jewish doctrine with Buddhism and it would be a valid way to enlightenment. I am going to have to stick with Extraverted Intution over Introverted Intution simply on this account.
    according to: http://socionics.us/works/semantics.shtml

    interconnections between things are considered a theme.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    buddhism = most other mainstream east asian religions (perhaps not shintoism but i don't know much about it) = very similar in nature and general style of belief =

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apres
    I would think that an Introverted Intution based religion similar to Buddhism would state that there is only one subjective way to enlightenment followed by a certain plan that is unfolding in the Universe. Instead, Buddhists say that you can assimilate Christian or Muslim or Jewish doctrine with Buddhism and it would be a valid way to enlightenment. I am going to have to stick with Extraverted Intution over Introverted Intution simply on this account.
    according to: http://socionics.us/works/semantics.shtml

    interconnections between things are considered a theme.
    Despite the fact that 'interconnection' is a one word description of Ni, it does say that on the page; though I am not so sure that any sort of an interconnection is so much the important thing in Buddhism, but the strivation for improvement and the strivation for enlightenment found in all world religions even though they are all different. They are all valid and adaptable ways to reach englightment, which is dependant on subjective circumstances and personal motivations. adaptability of religion IMHO is a much better way to describe this concept in Buddhism than to say that it interconnects with religions, even though it is quite evidently easy to see it either way depending upon how one chooses to look at it.

  18. #18
    cunnilingus epilepsy inducer
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,428
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I know there are different forms of Buddhism. So when we say Buddhism is a religion which one do we really mean?

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You know what ... I think it is possible to take either an or approach to Buddhism depending upon whether you are a hardcore believer or simply a convert that modifies Buddhism to suit his or her needs. Whether that means that Buddhism is an or religion, I am not sure now.

    All I am going to say is that Buddhism is a non-dualistic religion that says nothing about God nor anything against God and does not really care what other religions you belong to so long as you share some principles with it. That is pretty much it.

  20. #20
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
    You know what ... I think it is possible to take either an or approach to Buddhism depending upon whether you are a hardcore believer or simply a convert that modifies Buddhism to suit his or her needs. Whether that means that Buddhism is an or religion, I am not sure now.
    but, if or , it is likely to be , because bouddhism is built upon stability, not risk-taking initiative...

  21. #21
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,612
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
    Really? You guys think it is Beta with emphasis on Fe and Ni ?

    Just last friday I listened to a two hour lecture on the fundamentals of Buddhism by the Lead Abbot of a famous Zen Buddhist monastery not too far from where I live now. I can see Fe and Ni in there, but the whole thing came off as Ne and Fi to me. I've also been reading some books some of the monks gave to me and some others at this thing on buddhism. Seems rather interesting.
    I listened to a lecture by a Tibetan lama once high in the mountains of Spain. The dude was ILE and made the religion come off very to me, with his focus on the logical and metaphysical apparatus of the teaching. Also, some ILEs I know of have gotten into buddhism (well, mostly the Zen branch). But from what I've seen of it since then, I'm inclined to think dominant , too. I think a religion or teaching with leading would be focused on expanding one's real-life experience and devouring new information or ideas. You mostly see Buddhists focusing on their inner experiences and learning to tune out the world. That seems like an introverted focus to me. But I don't know enough to be able to pick out the quintessential elements of Buddhism.
    Aren't most religions introverted then?

    Maybe not Judaism?

  22. #22
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Aren't most religions introverted then?
    Yes, with such a vague and broad qualification for religiosity, I am wondering about that as well because I do not think that this conclusion would necessarily be the case nor do I think that religions are mostly tied to .
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Confucianism, for example, is a rational type religion.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it might be safer to say that religions are mostly intuitive and/or subjective ...

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Religions are basically for people who live in fear.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  26. #26
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    from what little I know of it, Ni
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  27. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Religions are basically for people who live in fear.
    That has to be one of the most least true statements I have ever heard.

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    2,916
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Religions are basically for people who live in fear.
    That has to be one of the most least true statements I have ever heard.
    = = I agree.
    INTp
    sx/sp

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mea
    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Religions are basically for people who live in fear.
    That has to be one of the most least true statements I have ever heard.
    = = I agree.
    How so? What motivates you to believe in a religion? For anyone to believe? They're all based on the fear of God and a fear of the unknown. If people weren't afraid, they wouldn't believe.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  30. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I see ... what one can consider the fear of God is never interpreted as meaning that Christians are scared, but that they respect God. True motivation to have a relationship with God is always based on love and not on account of being afraid. Christians who teach people that they must repent to God or be destroyed are not doing what they are suppose to be doing.

  31. #31
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky

    How so? What motivates you to believe in a religion? For anyone to believe? They're all based on the fear of God and a fear of the unknown. If people weren't afraid, they wouldn't believe.
    and what motivates you to not believe in a religion ?

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky

    How so? What motivates you to believe in a religion? For anyone to believe? They're all based on the fear of God and a fear of the unknown. If people weren't afraid, they wouldn't believe.
    and what motivates you to not believe in a religion ?
    Because God, or anything else that religon tries to make people believe in, is something outside the capacity of any human knowledge, yet all religons are created by humans! Ridiculous.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In front of the computer
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky

    How so? What motivates you to believe in a religion? For anyone to believe? They're all based on the fear of God and a fear of the unknown. If people weren't afraid, they wouldn't believe.
    and what motivates you to not believe in a religion ?
    Because God, or anything else that religon tries to make people believe in, is something outside the capacity of any human knowledge, yet all religons are created by humans! Ridiculous.
    I see a strong in your reasoning.
    Intuition

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "It is in our lives and not our words that our religion must be read."
    Thomas Jefferson
    "Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
    martin_g_karlsson


  35. #35
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky

    How so? What motivates you to believe in a religion? For anyone to believe? They're all based on the fear of God and a fear of the unknown. If people weren't afraid, they wouldn't believe.
    and what motivates you to not believe in a religion ?
    Because God, or anything else that religon tries to make people believe in, is something outside the capacity of any human knowledge, yet all religons are created by humans! Ridiculous.

    But if you weren't created by God, who did create you ?

    And who created the Big Bang ? Did the Big Bang create itself ?

    Where are the law of physics' algorithms stocked ? In the universe itself ?

    If there was no God before the universe, is the nothingness' existance possible ? No. Nothingness does not contain the capacity to exist by itself

    Did the universe create itself ? Nothing can create itself, because that would mean "it already existed before creating itself"

    That basically proves that God exist.

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    And who created the God, etc?
    Basically your argument amounts to another variant on the God of the Gaps theme.
    Believe if you must, but try not to find any proofs, because there are none.
    "Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
    martin_g_karlsson


  37. #37
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    But if you weren't created by God, who did create you ?

    And who created the Big Bang ? Did the Big Bang create itself ?

    Where are the law of physics' algorithms stocked ? In the universe itself ?

    If there was no God before the universe, is the nothingness' existance possible ? No. Nothingness does not contain the capacity to exist by itself

    Did the universe create itself ? Nothing can create itself, because that would mean "it already existed before creating itself"

    That basically proves that God exist.
    But if God exists, then who created God? And if God exists, then God by the very nature of existence must be finite. Conversely if God is infinite, then God must not exist. That basically proves that God does not exist. See the logical flaws in your argument yet? :wink:

    But theoretical physicists are looking into the possibility and probability of the universe more or less creating itself, and according to some it is certainly possible. And is certainly more believable than a mystical creator creating itself or existing without cause.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  38. #38
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    But if you weren't created by God, who did create you ?

    And who created the Big Bang ? Did the Big Bang create itself ?

    Where are the law of physics' algorithms stocked ? In the universe itself ?

    If there was no God before the universe, is the nothingness' existance possible ? No. Nothingness does not contain the capacity to exist by itself

    Did the universe create itself ? Nothing can create itself, because that would mean "it already existed before creating itself"

    That basically proves that God exist.
    But if God exists, then who created God?
    God has always been ; He has no beginning, neither He has an end.

    You know obstinacy in I-T- types...

  39. #39
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    God has always been ; He has no beginning, neither He has an end.
    The Universe has always been; it has no beginning, neither does it have an end. :wink:
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  40. #40
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    God has always been ; He has no beginning, neither He has an end.
    The Universe has always been; it has no beginning, neither does it have an end. :wink:
    Planck proved that was impossible.

    if time and space are seeds, there is a first time-seed, and a last time-seed

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •