Well if the question is the same then the standards should also be the same? Otherwise you can change your standards all the time depending on what you want to prove, and then there is no point to discussion.
A race horse
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Well if the question is the same then the standards should also be the same? Otherwise you can change your standards all the time depending on what you want to prove, and then there is no point to discussion.
I haven't a clue.
Of what significance is that?
That's neither here nor there.Well I have not experienced Buddha's existence either but I am willing to concede on faith that he may have existed.
Allah's existence is central to and necessary for Islam - Siddhartha's existence is not necessary for Buddhism. It is the words attributed to teh Buddha that form Buddhism - whether or not Siddhartha ever existed makes no difference at all.
The above two both have the same answer.
Does something exist because it exists in toto[? not sure if that is the right expression to describe what I mean] or because we construct a paradigm which brings it into existence?
In other words, what makes the words of Gautama more "real" than Allah?
Absolutely nothing.
That's not at all what I was saying.
What I said was that the belief in the existence if Allah is central and necessary for Islam.
The same can not be said about the Buddha.
You don't have to believe that Siddhartha ever existed to be a Buddhist, but you do have to believe that Allah existed to be a Muslim - Islam requires faith in Allah, Buddhism requires no such faith.
I am not saying that Islam is wrong or any other such thing.
I am just stating that Islam requires faith in unsubstantiable claims and Buddhism does not.
Apparently I saw an "'s" where there was none.
My apologies.
What makes his words more real than Allah?
That question makes no sense to me.
I have read many of the discourses in the Pali Canon – I have never met Allah, nor have I seen any evidence of his existence.
if you were to grant a provisional existence to either god or the buddha based on theoretical or experimental grounds, who would you choose?
we talk of probability, not certitude
walk me thru your reasoning and methodology
Are you saying that Allah exists because people have determined he exists?
If that's the case, then I completely agree.
In fact, I made the same argument for the existence of Jesus about a year ago:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85618&highlight=historicity
If enough people believe in the historicity of Jesus then, pragmatically speaking, it is true, because there is no real difference in the outcome.
In that sense, I believe all Gods and demons exist.
However, there s a great chasm between pragmatic truth and metaphysical reality.
If you are strictly looking at the Quran in an alegorical sense and Allah as a pragmatic truth, that is something entirely different. In that case, then I agree 100% that the only difference between the Quran and the Pali Canon is a matter of personal value and reason of what the texts taught.
If, on the other hand, when you say you believe in Allah (and heaven and other such ideas contained within the Quran) in the sense that he is a metaphysical reality, then that brings us back to Islam requiring faith, as opposed to Buddhism and the whole point of the man's metaphor in the opening post.
Does that make sense :bugeye
No. :bugeye:
Okay let me think about it some more. I'm trying to describe/compare two mental constructs but I am unable to figure out how to compare the "truth" value by synthesising them into parallel frames of reference
i.e. if Truth=Allah, why does your metaphysical reality make more sense than mine?
i.e. if Truth=Allah, why does your metaphysical reality make more sense than mine?
How many clerics or scholars have you spoken to about it?
I recommend The Incoherence of the Philosophers and the The Incoherence of the Incoherence if you are interested
I recommend The Incoherence of the Philosophers and the The Incoherence of the Incoherence if you are interested
According to the description in the Wiki links there, both of those very ancient works directly contradict your claims above. So they join the rest, as I have read and heard, and the Quran on my desk.SAM said:
I really don't think you can assert that Allah is in any way an interpretation of reality or other creation of the human mind, and remain a theist within Islam. You certainly can't present yourself as any kind of representative Muslim.
I can create any construct I want in a philosophical exercise. Thats what the whole argument in the two books is based on.
I may not even agree or disagree with the rational output of the exercise, but then faith is as subjective as justice. Or truth.
I may not even agree or disagree with the rational output of the exercise, but then faith is as subjective as justice. Or truth.
Last edited:
Not necessarily.This black and white thinking is limited to a certain kind of mental process or perhaps social conditioning.
Being Indian has its advantages.
Lateral thinking is a necessity. Perhaps its all the languages.
Although wasn't it Aristotle who said: It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it
Last edited:
You know what, this makes sense. Probably the best replies I've read at Sciforms in years.
Intelligence and thoughtfulness, attributes lacking in most of my posts as of late.