"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Dont be pain Cap'n' quip you do it all the time.Kurieuo wrote:1) I didn't ask you, but it is a public forum soo, ok.
2) If you're going to disagree with what is perhaps the most common sense interpretation to the majority of people of all time, then you need to have something else to offer.
Otherwise it's like having a kid play in a game who just likes to run off with the ball and offers nothing really.
Don't throw down the gauntlet, because I'll pick it up every time.Audie wrote:Dont be pain Cap'n' quip you do it all the time.Kurieuo wrote:1) I didn't ask you, but it is a public forum soo, ok.
2) If you're going to disagree with what is perhaps the most common sense interpretation to the majority of people of all time, then you need to have something else to offer.
Otherwise it's like having a kid play in a game who just likes to run off with the ball and offers nothing really.
Buddhism isn't overly restrictive in terms of non-physical, without the non-physical the basic techniques of Buddhism are still very relevant to my day to day life as it's hard to abandon the practices of sitting or breathing and this is where I feel the foundation lies. On the other hand you're free to mix in gods, monsters, daemons, angels, life after death, resurrections, silver tongued devils, miracles, miraculous objects and of course buddhas. The objection is not so much to an overwhelming possibility of phenomena, more to the specific description of a theistic creator God.Kurieuo wrote:If not God, my I ask how Buddhism fills the vacuum of a non-physical reality?
Your venture into Buddhism seems to suggest that you ventured out.
So what say you about such matters?
Take up consciousness.
Do you think it makes sense to say something like from physical, physical things come. And from consciousness, consciousness comes?
Perhaps consciousness is actually a part of the fabric of the world, such that some sort Pantheism is true.
That is a possible option I suppose.
Is that what you are leaning towards when you say the immaterial (non-physical things) doesn't imply God?