It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A simple explanation of why Buddhism is correct.

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn
Care to explain? Otherwise you're just tossing sentences out based on nothing.


Prove that God is a physical object, and you will disprove my statement.


Prove He's not in order to prove your statement.




posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn
Care to explain? Otherwise you're just tossing sentences out based on nothing.


Prove that God is a physical object, and you will disprove my statement.


Can you prove that you are a spiritual being, or that you have a soul?



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
I should probably make it very clear that I am in no way discouraging the belief system of any faith, only showing by man made means the premise behind Buddhism to be correct.

I would have edited this into the first post, but the board only allows for editing within 4 hours.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn
Care to explain? Otherwise you're just tossing sentences out based on nothing.


Prove that God is a physical object, and you will disprove my statement.


Prove He's not in order to prove your statement.


Can't prove a negative, Ace :-) But you're welcome to prove your positive.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn
Care to explain? Otherwise you're just tossing sentences out based on nothing.


Prove that God is a physical object, and you will disprove my statement.


Can you prove that you are a spiritual being, or that you have a soul?


Nope, but that is of no consequence to my statement. Can you disprove it?



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn
Care to explain? Otherwise you're just tossing sentences out based on nothing.


Prove that God is a physical object, and you will disprove my statement.


Prove He's not in order to prove your statement.


Can't prove a negative, Ace :-) But you're welcome to prove your positive.


So, basically, you cannot prove your statement. So it is false, then.

0 - 1 = -1
edit on 12-8-2012 by mkmasn because: proved a negative.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn
Care to explain? Otherwise you're just tossing sentences out based on nothing.


Prove that God is a physical object, and you will disprove my statement.


Prove He's not in order to prove your statement.


Can't prove a negative, Ace :-) But you're welcome to prove your positive.


So, basically, you cannot prove your statement. So it is false, then.


You're new to the science of logic?

You made the first affirmative statement, that "God is not a a physical object, prove otherwise", meaning that you are asking me to prove a negative, which is an argument from ignorance. As the basis of your claim relies on the fact that God IS physical, you are welcome to evidence that, otherwise your argument is invalidated, because it is predicated on irrational premises.

And Lord knows, we don't want you to appear irrational



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mkmasn
So, basically, you cannot prove your statement. So it is false, then.

0 - 1 = -1


What are you, 12 years old? You cannot argue from a negative, and philosophy doesn't equal maths.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn
Care to explain? Otherwise you're just tossing sentences out based on nothing.


Prove that God is a physical object, and you will disprove my statement.


Prove He's not in order to prove your statement.


Can't prove a negative, Ace :-) But you're welcome to prove your positive.


So, basically, you cannot prove your statement. So it is false, then.


You're new to the science of logic?

You made the first affirmative statement, that "God is not a a physical object, prove otherwise", meaning that you are asking me to prove a negative, which is an argument from ignorance. As the basis of your claim relies on the fact that God IS physical, you are welcome to evidence that, otherwise your argument is invalidated, because it is predicated on irrational premises.

And Lord knows, we don't want you to appear irrational


Right, so you're making statements you can't prove.

New to logic, huh? You made a statement, therefore you must prove said statement. You said God is not a physical being, not me. Even though the definition of God in western terms is that he is omnipotent, meaning he can be a physical being.

Sound like you're the irrational one, Ace.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by mkmasn
 



God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth. (John 4:24 NIV)


Let me know if you need more evidence, okay?



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by mkmasn
 



God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth. (John 4:24 NIV)


Let me know if you need more evidence, okay?


But wasn't God a physical being as Jesus? That's what the bible says... (I've already stated I don't believe Jesus existed, but we are using the Christian bible for the rules of this discussion, and if God wanted to do it he could).

What say your evidence?



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by mkmasn
 



God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth. (John 4:24 NIV)


Let me know if you need more evidence, okay?


But wasn't God a physical being as Jesus? That's what the bible says... (I've already stated I don't believe Jesus existed, but we are using the Christian bible for the rules of this discussion, and if God wanted to do it he could).

What say your evidence?


That you'll need to explain how a physical being can exist in all places at all times... to a physicist, lol.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by mkmasn
 



God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth. (John 4:24 NIV)


Let me know if you need more evidence, okay?


But wasn't God a physical being as Jesus? That's what the bible says... (I've already stated I don't believe Jesus existed, but we are using the Christian bible for the rules of this discussion, and if God wanted to do it he could).

What say your evidence?


That you'll need to explain how a physical being can exist in all places at all times... to a physicist, lol.


That's the point of the Holy Trinity in the Christian faith, the father in heaven, the son on earth and the holy spirit at the cross. God can physically exist in all things at all times... Omnipotence, omnipresence.

I don't understand why we need to discuss this repeatedly.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
See, you're looking at it from one side only and that's why you didn't figure out what he's talking about: you can't have an inside without an outside. That's completely logical and makes perfect sense. If it's inside you then it's outside you.


Sorry, that's about as far as I got through your wall of text. Organize your thoughts and use carriage returns next time, please.
Should I have written in crayon for you as well?


Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by mkmasn
 



God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth. (John 4:24 NIV)


Let me know if you need more evidence, okay?
And spirit means breath. In other words, the inhale and exhale; the two that act as one. There is no life without this act of "pulsation." That was already touched upon in my post which you ignored.

The non-duality that is the act of inhalation and exhalation is spirit, and that non-duality is the truth. You can't have a breath with only an exhale or an inhale, just like you can't have an electron without a positive and a negative.


Originally posted by adjensen

That you'll need to explain how a physical being can exist in all places at all times... to a physicist, lol.
Quantum mechanics. A physicist should already know it's theoretically possible for an object to be in more than one place at the same time.
edit on 12/8/12 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by mkmasn
 


"If God is everywhere, God is inside the smallest building block. If nothing is smaller, God comprises the whole."

God is the space. The space is the whole, the nothingness is the container for all 'things.
This moment is all there is- there is no other 'time' so God is present at all 'times', because it is never not the present. God is presence.
God is the seer and knower of all 'things' appearing presently.

God is not a 'thing' of material substance. God is the no thing that sees the some thing. There really is no thing but God.
What is seen is no thing happening.

Buddhism says; Emptiness is form, form is emptiness.
youtu.be...
youtu.be...

This moment cannot be without the seeing of it, without the knowing of it. All seeing, all knowing and everpresent.
edit on 12-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by mkmasn
 


'Becoming' God is not an option.
To be or not to be? That is the question.

It is impossible to 'become'.
'Being' is all there is.
The being of the present.
Presence.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:10 AM
link   
Humans do not realize that they are 'the being of the present'. Humans 'think' they are in time. The 'thinking' is what creates the illusion of time but time can only be imagined presently.
Find yourself now as presence. Lose yourself in time.
When you are lost in time you don't know where you are and this is what causes all confusion and fear.
You are never not here. You are never not present.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mkmasn
Care to explain? Otherwise you're just tossing sentences out based on nothing.


Prove that God is a physical object, and you will disprove my statement.


Can you prove that you are a spiritual being, or that you have a soul?


NDEs prove that. Especially interesting are the ones from people born deaf or blind who describe what they saw or heard in their experiences.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Have you ever been dreaming and realized that you are dreaming and then told the people appearing in your dream to wake up? The people appearing in your dream are made of your dream so will not beable to wake up. They are just appearances, it is you who is dreaming.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Let me say it in this way instead. The reality around you is nondual and that is the nature of both the human (who belive he is separated) and god. God an creation are not separated and every human is connected to god but most are unable to use the connection. The idea of a duality driven reality where everything is separate is an illusion of the unknowing mind who cannot accept nonduality.

Buddhism is knowledge that can be thought of as a theory to explain the nondual reality and so is Bhagavad Gita. I like the theory but since I do not have solid proof of it being the thruth yeet then I will not call it thruth even if I do behave like it was true in some ways.




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join