It might be comfortable for you to believe that, but it doesn't seem to be true at all. Children have to be told about the idea of divinity. Additionally, there are many commonly held beliefs that are wrong (many common beliefs about physics, for example, are demonstrably false).
Proof there is a God
- Thread starter JBrentonK
- Start date
You're confusing knowledge with tradition. Just because something is traditional doesn't mean it is true.
Tell me why I need your notion of a Supreme being, Jan.
It has no effect on my life, other than that I am obliged to interact with people like you from time to time who consider it important.
It can't be.
You are simply invoking your god-given ability to oppose this fact.
Wrong it is inherent in knowledge, like knowing how to breath. Your position is not even bassd on assumption. It is based on the misuse of your god given ability, namely wishful thinking.
This sentence is nonsensical.
I agree.
Unfortunately it isn't true regarding pop science.
No it's not. It is a belief in God
How one expresses themselves is something entirely different.
The scientific method is possible because God just is. If you did any research on who and what God is, you would know this.
I doubt that it is possible to find out that God doesn't exist, maybe you can enlighten.
I don't need to invest invest belief in God, isuch belief is a natural human consequence.
Your choice.
Sure.
That isn't square.
Sorry mate?
Jan.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No, I am using my evolved ability to think abstractly. And a priori existence of a sentient God is not Necessary.
That is factually incorrect on many levels.
Do you even realize you just uttered an ad hominem?
And why should I wish for a God to Not exist? Would my life change in any way if I believed in God?
No it's not; that's why I recommended you reading up on it.[/quote]
So you admit belief in God it's a purely personal *experience* which varies from individual to individual? God is a variable?
Who told you I haven't? That's prejudicial and one of the problems attached to the Teleology of existence of a God.
- and
No, you make the extraordinary claim, the burden of proof lies with you.
How much time have you invested on useless prayer and religious activities?
Choice of what square to occupy on the chessboard of religious philosophies and what Scripture to follow? Moreover, most religions require you to prostletize the position of your square on the board.
Actually I agree on that, square one is actually a triangle (look up CDT)
Sorry for what? That I am doomed to spend eternity in hell? Thank's that was very generous of you.
On second thought that little throw away comment is prejudicial and hubris.
It reminded me of a Jehovah's Witness at an airport who shoved a piece of paper in my hand and told me "here, you need this" as if he had any standing to make such a prejudicial statement. Do you?
Last edited:
No some believe in some form of re-incarnation with that being driven by the natural laws, not by any god. Read about Karma and how it works and the related cycle of lives that have no "supreme being."
Here is my understanding of Karma and the circle of life, but I'm not well versed in it and there are variations.
Each soul /The “person” that persist after death/ takes their karma load with them into their next life. Their Karma at death will determine what type of next life they start with. I. e. if you live a good (socially useful) life your Karma will get better and thus that life too, but most importantly you get a better start in the next life to make your accumulating Karma better or worse with.
Many do not believe that even really bad Karma at death will get you re-incarnated in a non-human live form and certainly not down to the level of a worm. Thus even if you do believe, for example, that you could come back as at cat or monkey etc. you would not accept the idea of re-incarnation as a worm because worms don't make any significant decisions. It is what you decide to do with your life that changes your Karma, so if re-incarnated as a worm, it would take too many life cycles to climb back to the level of a dog.
If you string together many lives of increasing {better} Karma then you can escape the cycles of life. I don't know what the followers believe happens to you then - perhaps you become an immortal god?
I am an agnostic about all the religious beliefs, but I am more attracted to those that don't postulate things in violation of Occam's rule. We know new life is being born into which you could be re-incarnated. We don't know if there is a heaven, etc. If you do the numbers, you know there almost never is a balance between deaths and births, so if I did believe in Karma, the cycles of life, etc. I would be forced to believe that re-incarnation into animals was possible.
I. e. when more humans are dying than are born, like in the great plague, the souls that had bad Karma went into other apes, monkeys, cats and dogs mainly. If you are rational either you take this POV about how the balance is achieved or you must violate Occam's rule and postulate there is some sort of "limbo" where souls can be stored until births exceed deaths again. If there is a "limbo" I suspect the "first in/ first out" rule applies. I. e. the soul that has been longest in limbo, gets first claim on a new born baby and all dying then must spend time in limbo until their number comes up.
Comapared to Christianity, it is a straight forward system, can be consistent with Occam's rule, seems quite just and not nearly as full of postulates and assumptions. Christianity, with its "three in one gods" angels, saints, etc. seems to be a barely evolved pagan myth; but it is only 2000 years old. - Short time compared the the cycle of life /Karma beliefs.
For an intertaining view of Christianity, the church, etc. see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE (warning, crude language)
Each soul /The “person” that persist after death/ takes their karma load with them into their next life. Their Karma at death will determine what type of next life they start with. I. e. if you live a good (socially useful) life your Karma will get better and thus that life too, but most importantly you get a better start in the next life to make your accumulating Karma better or worse with.
Many do not believe that even really bad Karma at death will get you re-incarnated in a non-human live form and certainly not down to the level of a worm. Thus even if you do believe, for example, that you could come back as at cat or monkey etc. you would not accept the idea of re-incarnation as a worm because worms don't make any significant decisions. It is what you decide to do with your life that changes your Karma, so if re-incarnated as a worm, it would take too many life cycles to climb back to the level of a dog.
If you string together many lives of increasing {better} Karma then you can escape the cycles of life. I don't know what the followers believe happens to you then - perhaps you become an immortal god?
I am an agnostic about all the religious beliefs, but I am more attracted to those that don't postulate things in violation of Occam's rule. We know new life is being born into which you could be re-incarnated. We don't know if there is a heaven, etc. If you do the numbers, you know there almost never is a balance between deaths and births, so if I did believe in Karma, the cycles of life, etc. I would be forced to believe that re-incarnation into animals was possible.
I. e. when more humans are dying than are born, like in the great plague, the souls that had bad Karma went into other apes, monkeys, cats and dogs mainly. If you are rational either you take this POV about how the balance is achieved or you must violate Occam's rule and postulate there is some sort of "limbo" where souls can be stored until births exceed deaths again. If there is a "limbo" I suspect the "first in/ first out" rule applies. I. e. the soul that has been longest in limbo, gets first claim on a new born baby and all dying then must spend time in limbo until their number comes up.
Comapared to Christianity, it is a straight forward system, can be consistent with Occam's rule, seems quite just and not nearly as full of postulates and assumptions. Christianity, with its "three in one gods" angels, saints, etc. seems to be a barely evolved pagan myth; but it is only 2000 years old. - Short time compared the the cycle of life /Karma beliefs.
For an intertaining view of Christianity, the church, etc. see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE (warning, crude language)
Last edited:
You think abstractly by virtue of your human bodily machine. Period.
Whether or not you think you evolved from goo, is of no consequence.
Really?
So it's okay for you to accuse me of lazy thinking?
That is what you have to work out. But thus far you've given no good reason as to why God does not exist.
And you deny that the existence of a supreme being, or authority, is known or understood by every single human passed a certain age, meaning it is as natural as the air we breathe.
You're the one who decided that God does not exist, so that is a question for you to answer.
We are persons, so everything we do is personal.
Belief doesn't mean anything regarding the existence of God.
It wouldn't matter if every single person on the face of the planet was atheist.
It obviously doesn't matter to you that the majority of the people on the planet are theists. Does it?
Then let's talk about God.
I've heard this nonsense before.
What is extraordinary about God?
How is this question related to the point?
I'll reiterate. It matters not what I do, or think, as to whether God exists or not.
I may believe the air is green in colour, or that frogs congregate on the bottom of the pond to tell each other ghost stories. But it does nothing to change the reality.
When we accept that god does not exist, we are attempting to change a reality which has been around before you, me, everyone you know, ever known, and yet to know, existed.
Firstly, I don't give a toss about most religions.
Secondly, it is your choice to change the reality mention above.
How do you know that I am not doomed to spend an eternity in hell, for the choices I make.
I'm not judging you. I've got my own shit to deal with.
jan.
Okay.
It works off what is understood to be the spiritual evolution system, where the soul, once it desires to become separate from it's source (God), begins it's journey of material life through lower life forms. Each time those forms ceases to exist, it takes it's birth in the next form (upward). This goes on until it reaches a human form. In this form the soul has the opportunity to realise what it is, and where it came from. From this platform the soul can elevate itself to a position where it can stop the cycle of birth and death, and return to it's source. Or if not fully successful, can incarnate into a situation (eg: god conscious parents), where it can continue it's spiritual growth. If it decides to go the other way, then it will go into a situation which exactly suits the conscious awareness at the time of death. So for example if someone enjoys unlimited illicit sex, it may be born into a family of chimps who are able to have sex all day without cessation. It doesn't mean that you will have the memories of your current life while in the body of a chimp. It means you will be a chimp, knowing nothing else. IOW, all memories of past lives are gone.
It is understood that there are innumerable souls. That the innumerable universes are teaming with innumerable souls, in all different forms.
Souls are understood to be separated parts and parcels of God, who desire to enjoy, like God. IOW, we are envious of God.
jan.
An admirable stance, yet karma and reincarnation would not pass Occam's razor compared to even simple belief in "cause of all causes" type God, or a deistic God.
Furthermore, Occam's razor is not a "rule" to be obeyed; it is simply a guide as to which alternative to follow when presented with alternative theories that both equally address the known facts, and the one to follow first is the one that makes the fewest assumptions.
Karma and reincarnation have more assumptions than simply the notion of God as original cause.
So you would also be forced into accepting that, of a given species of animal, some would have souls and some would not? How would you be able to tell them apart?
How does the notion of limbo "violate" Occam's razor? All you seem to be doing is cherry picking an assumption that one notion has that the other doesn't and claiming a violation, yet ignoring all the countless assumptions made by either theory up to that point, and furthermore you are making an assumption that the theory might not actually need... For example:
Why should there be a special place called limbo compared to just a bodiless soul inhabiting the same plane as the body?
You mean just like prison operates on a FIFO basis?
If you cherry pick a single notion for comparison without examining what gives rise to the notion in the first place, then perhaps your argument holds water as to being more "straight forward". But there can still be a God associated with beliefs in karma, it does not operate in isolation to assumptions and beliefs similar to those you might find in Christianity or other religions.
But again, I am not sure you quite appreciate what Occam's razor is, especially as you think things "can be consistent with" it.
It is merely a lens through which to compare competing theories. To look at a theory chock full of assumptions from the get go and to then claim it "can be consistent with Occam's rule" displays a lack of understanding, I fear.
Jan help me understand your post 728, which is very different from your usual POV. In it is offered an alternative to the standard Christian POV that (1) you don't believe is true OR (2) is a more detailed POV of Christianity, souls, etc.
I had understood the Christian POV to be: Get born, with a unique non-material* soul in some way "tied" to your body, live your life, die and then your soul goes to heaven or hell, depending on how you lived your life. One, and only one, visit of the soul to earth; but now you are accepting re-incarnation of the soul, and not just is human bodies, but including non-human forms ,at least the apes and monkeys.
* It must be "non-material" as material things are 100% controlled by the law of nature. I. e. No free will or real choices by any material agent, but what is chosen (by the laws of nature) may not be determined in advance because of quantum uncertainties** which are part of the laws of nature.
** I. e. a mixed QM state has more than one way to resolve into a definite macro state.
I had understood the Christian POV to be: Get born, with a unique non-material* soul in some way "tied" to your body, live your life, die and then your soul goes to heaven or hell, depending on how you lived your life. One, and only one, visit of the soul to earth; but now you are accepting re-incarnation of the soul, and not just is human bodies, but including non-human forms ,at least the apes and monkeys.
* It must be "non-material" as material things are 100% controlled by the law of nature. I. e. No free will or real choices by any material agent, but what is chosen (by the laws of nature) may not be determined in advance because of quantum uncertainties** which are part of the laws of nature.
** I. e. a mixed QM state has more than one way to resolve into a definite macro state.
Last edited:
Billy T,
I'll get back to you.
jan.
I'll get back to you.
jan.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I mostly agree with that analysis, however Occam's Razor is "square one".An admirable stance, yet karma and reincarnation would not pass Occam's razor compared to even simple belief in "cause of all causes" type God, or a deistic God.
Furthermore, Occam's razor is not a "rule" to be obeyed; it is simply a guide as to which alternative to follow when presented with alternative theories that both equally address the known facts, and the one to follow first is the one that makes the fewest assumptions.
Karma and reincarnation have more assumptions than simply the notion of God as original cause.
So you would also be forced into accepting that, of a given species of animal, some would have souls and some would not? How would you be able to tell them apart?
How does the notion of limbo "violate" Occam's razor? All you seem to be doing is cherry picking an assumption that one notion has that the other doesn't and claiming a violation, yet ignoring all the countless assumptions made by either theory up to that point, and furthermore you are making an assumption that the theory might not actually need... For example:
Why should there be a special place called limbo compared to just a bodiless soul inhabiting the same plane as the body?
You mean just like prison operates on a FIFO basis?
If you cherry pick a single notion for comparison without examining what gives rise to the notion in the first place, then perhaps your argument holds water as to being more "straight forward". But there can still be a God associated with beliefs in karma, it does not operate in isolation to assumptions and beliefs similar to those you might find in Christianity or other religions.
But again, I am not sure you quite appreciate what Occam's razor is, especially as you think things "can be consistent with" it.
It is merely a lens through which to compare competing theories. To look at a theory chock full of assumptions from the get go and to then claim it "can be consistent with Occam's rule" displays a lack of understanding, I fear.
It is imperative that at least something about God can be agreed on. Both Theology and Science are trying to dicover *original cause*.
But that does not describe the causality itself.
Most *spiritually" inclined people see *original causality* as a sentient and motivated concept as an in: "God (the original causality) *saw* that it was good".
Science investigates how such a concept can be in agreement with a universe which is in constant flux and *nothing* retains its present form. IMO that would include *souls* .
Therefore the notion that a soul could retain its *qualities* abstractly, other than as a fading memory in people who knew him, or as *legend and myth* in those who did not know him, seems subject to Occam's razor.
IMO, the very first question is the necessity of a *sentient* God. If original cause does not require a sentient and motivated *creator*, but as a purely mathematical (not sentient in and of itself) function should be a default position and until there is evidence of divine intervention, I see no reason to call a TOE by the name of God and partake in religious pomp and circumstance.
I find it amusing to follow the history of the Higgs Boson. It became known as the God particle, because of its extraordiary properties.
But now we have proof of the Higgs Boson. Have we not identified God as the Higgs Field (and perhaps some related *virtual* particles)?
The answer of *why* there should be a God can never be established. Only through the *how* can we discover *original causality*. One thing is clear to me, whatever OC is, it must be "probabilistic" and possess the *potential* for a natural hierarchy of mathematical processes leading to expression in *our reality*.
Last edited:
On (1): Agreed that Karma / re-incarnation like Christianity, and most religious do postulate an immortal soul (some "person" that survives death). They differ in what happens to the soul after death. Thus their Occam razor violation count is both one on this fact, but for Christianity it is 2 as Christianity postulates at least a "heaven" exist for soul, no longer tied to the dead body to go to. Actually most postulate a hell too and some limbo, bringing the OVC (Occam Violation Count) to up to four more than the one both have. (The postulate with zero evidence of an immortal soul)(1) Karma and reincarnation would not pass Occam's razor compared to even simple belief in "cause of all causes" type God, or a deistic God.
Furthermore, Occam's razor is not a "rule" to be obeyed; it is simply a guide as to which alternative to follow when presented with alternative theories that both equally address the known facts, and the one to follow first is the one that makes the fewest assumptions.
(2) Karma and reincarnation have more assumptions than simply the notion of God as original cause.
So you would also be forced into accepting that, of a given species of animal, some would have souls and some would not? How would you be able to tell them apart?
(3) How does the notion of limbo "violate" Occam's razor? All you seem to be doing is cherry picking an assumption that one notion has that the other doesn't and claiming a violation, yet ignoring all the countless assumptions made by either theory up to that point, and furthermore you are making an assumption that the theory might not actually need... For example:
(4)Why should there be a special place called limbo compared to just a bodiless soul inhabiting the same plane as the body? You mean just like prison operates on a FIFO basis?
(5)If you cherry pick a single notion for comparison without examining what gives rise to the notion in the first place, then perhaps your argument holds water as to being more "straight forward". But there can still be a God associated with beliefs in karma, it does not operate in isolation to assumptions and beliefs similar to those you might find in Christianity or other religions.
But again, I am not sure you quite appreciate what Occam's razor is, especially as you think things "can be consistent with" it. It is merely a lens through which to compare competing theories. To look at a theory chock full of assumptions from the get go and to then claim it "can be consistent with Occam's rule" displays a lack of understanding, I fear.
I of course agree Occam's rule is not a true rule, just a guide: Chose the system with lowest OVC.
On(2): No they are equal in their OVC 1 = 1. Christianity and all other religions don't stop with just assuming a creator of the universe. They give him many assumed attributes: For example that he gives a shit about what we do, has many main guiding rules (10 for Christians) we are to obey, has a place called heaven, for which there is no evidence of its existence, where we get to go after death; (if we were socially useful and more places with zero evidence if we were not).
Re-incarnation also has place for us to go after death and there is abundant evidence it at least exists. You assert that re-incarnation makes more unfounded assumption than the one it shares with others (existence of an immortal soul). Name one, which is not also part of Christianity.
On (3)&(4): Some versions of re-incarnation which only allow re-incarnation into new born humans, as I discussed, do have an imbalance between number of deaths and births problem; but I agree the limbo that solves it does not need to be a real place - it could be just the name for where the immortal souls are while waiting for a body to be born they can attach to. The version of re-incarnation I prefer, avoids need of even a non-existing limbo (one lower OVC) by using animals as their waiting place (Animals do exist, we know.) That does mean the number of animals with souls is a variable, but as you say: “How would we know?” Even some “humans” may not have a soul - they are "Philosophical Zombies." and we can't know if they exist or not as by definition PZs behave exactly as humans with souls do.
On(5): Yes, I agree there could be a god associated with Karma/re-incarnation, but assuming that increases the OVC by one.
How is the re-incarnation "a theory chock full of assumptions from the get go ... " Again I ask for an example of even one unsupported assumption it makes which Christianity does not also make. The OVC of Christianity is huge - It assumes without any evidence: the existence of heaven, hell, often of limbo, saints, angels, the devil, miracles (in large number, each adding one to the OVC) with the "virgin birth" a special miracle and that God has dozens of characteristic in addition to being the creator of the universe.
I follow Hawkings and many other great physicists with the POV that the universe, with still zero total energy (dark energy is negative and with the positive forms makes the total zero) is the result of a brief statistical fluctuation, like on a much smaller scale, is constantly creating out of nothing electron positron pairs in the vacuum of space.- It "inflated" so rapidly* that the dark energy, with the postive energy matter, did not like the virtual electron positron pairs, return promptly to nothing.
* Space expanded thousands of times more rapidly than the light speed. (No matter can move faster than light, but space expansion is not so limited.) That inability of the negative and positive matter to “keep up” I suspected is why the universe, unlike virtual electron positron pairs, could not mutually kill each other to restore the “nothingness” they came from - but I am in way over my head (mathematical ability to offer support), with this idea.
Last edited:
I agree. For a "godless" theory of creation, read last two pargraphs of post 733.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Where did that come from? How did you learn it?
My guess is that it's an article of faith in ISKCON. God is known through 'Krishna consciousness', and that is found within. God is either identical to or somehow revealed in the human soul/atman itself, right? So presumably the ability to find God is already present within everyone if they would just seek it. So, why are you so sure that ISKCON and theistic Hinduism is correct about all that?
If this idea of yours didn't come from ISKCON, where did it come from? Did you just dream it up for yourself? What reason can you give for why anyone else should believe it?
You seem to be suggesting that every individual and every culture that has ever existed was monotheist. That's just historically false.
The Pali Canon. The Jaina Sutras. Neither of those has a creator God.
In your mind, what's a 'scripture'? How do religious writings that you consider 'scriptures' differ from religious writings that aren't?
You keep insisting that we define 'God' when you are never willing to define how you are using the word 'scripture'.
Your constantly repeated demand that we define the word 'God' would seem to be an impossible task in much of traditional Christian theology. (I believe that many Muslims would agree.) Traditional Christian theology has often held that God is unknowable in his essence (his 'ousia') and that he is known by humans by his actions (his 'energies') in this world. That's mainstream theology in the Eastern Orthodox traditions.
You're always trying to push everyone's emotional buttons. Suggesting that your opponents are afraid is a great way to keep them responding to you and of making you the center of their attention.
I want to know what religious traditions have influenced you. Do you consider yourself a member of any tradition now? Why do you quote the Gita? Are you currently or formerly a member of ISKCON?
If you aren't a member of any tradition, how in the world can you write as if you are the voice of religious tradition (scripture!) while not adhering to anything? Are you a 'new-age' religious free-lancer? Do you just make it up for yourself as you go along? If so, why should anyone else take you seriously? Even if you belong to no tradition, you must have had influences (the Gita is clearly one). Can tell us what your influences were?
Last edited:
No, it's not as simple as a gross OVC. Assumptions are rarely equal in weight, relevance or value.
When offered competing "theories" (I use the term loosely in relation to the two being discussed) both riddled with assumptions then Occam would simply suggest that there is probably a better theory than either.
In my view, to apply anything like an OVC is to misunderstand/misuse Occam's razor entirely.
Here you are now trying to compare the doctrine of karma to the entirety of the Christian religion, when karma is but a single doctrine within the larger scope of the religion it forms part of.
On the matter of reincarnation or a place called heaven, neither are true theories, neither can be tested, and neither are based on anything but assumption. Does it matter after that that one assumes a separate place while the other assumes a recycling within the material realm? Both assume a material realm for the spirit to exist in the first instance etc, so having a heaven is not exactly a stretch.
You are simply misusing Occam's razor.
karma is not a religion. It is a doctrine held within some religions, so your efforts to compare are fallacious.
You mean other than the assumption of the existence of a soul, the assumption of transference of the soul, of a material plane by which soul can operate?
That alone is sufficient for the theory to be "chock full of assumptions from the get go".
Other than transference of the soul from one body to another? But that is neither here nor there, as you are comparing a doctrine with an entire religion.
FYI, I will almost certainly ignore anything you write from now on if you use such nonsense as on OVC by which to justify your position, and if you continue to try to compare an entire religion with one doctrine: both just make any conversation pointless, IMO.
I'm fairly sure it's not dark energy that is negative in the equation but gravity. Dark energy merely acts as though it has negative pressure (hence the expansion), but is positive within the equation. It is gravity that is negative and balances the zero-sum.
I had no idea what ISKCON was, so went to Google and soon found this 14:20 minute over view. It is annoying at times, but informative -an entirely new to me set of claims /alternative to Christianity:
What Hare Krishna is all about.
Nice art work any way, and different music from western experiences. It is big on acquiring "transcendental knowledge" - reminded me of one of my favorite biblical passages: "and the truth shall set you free" from John 8:32
I was quite religious thru the first years of high school, even one of the accolades of my church. This admonishment is some times preceded by "Seek ye knowledge..." and is to some extent why I did not become a doctor like my father, but went to college to study physics. And low-and-behold, physics did. {as John 8:32 promissed.}
Nice art work any way, and different music from western experiences. It is big on acquiring "transcendental knowledge" - reminded me of one of my favorite biblical passages: "and the truth shall set you free" from John 8:32
I was quite religious thru the first years of high school, even one of the accolades of my church. This admonishment is some times preceded by "Seek ye knowledge..." and is to some extent why I did not become a doctor like my father, but went to college to study physics. And low-and-behold, physics did. {as John 8:32 promissed.}
Last edited:
This has been my pov from day one of coming to SciForums.
The modern Christian POV has changed over time. Reincarnation has not always been alien to the religion.
http://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/history/church-history.html#a06
That is the Christian doctrine, but not the doctrine of Yeshua Ben.
The Christian doctrine basically holds that souls are what we have, as opposed to we are the soul, and have acquired a body.
It also holds that only human beings have souls, and animals don't, hence they eat animals whereas before they didn't.
It wouldn't surprise me if these changes were the result of Roman intervention.
However man was allowed to eat certain types animal flesh if it was offered properly. This was done to award the soul of the animal a human form in it's next life.
Right, the material world is basically a machine that accommodates souls that have become conditioned. It is a virtual reality field in which souls can basically act out their fantasies. The problem is that souls become lost within it, thinking that it is real, binding themselves up through a network of actions and reactions. Every act, and thought transmitted into this field is an action, and every action has a reaction. We are bound to accept the reaction of our actions (whatever it is), hence the verse...
...For the wages of sin is death, and the gift of God is eternal life.
Sin being actions that transgress the laws of God. This is why there is religion. To curtail actions that increasingly binds us to the material world, in an endless cycle of birth and death.
Now, I'm not offering this as an argument, and I'm not offering this as a truth. I'm merely responding to your request. So please don't start with the where is the scientific evidence nonsense.
If you don't accept it, that's fair enough, but at least hopefully you have another perspective .
jan.
Bhagavad Gita is a brilliant source of information about God. I recommend it (for what it's worth)
jan.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
The Buddhists would disagree with that. They believe in karma but don't believe in the existence of souls. That's one of the things most fundamental to and distinctive about the religion.
So, the obvious question is how transmigration can happen without any souls that transmigrate. The Buddhist answer is what they call 'dependent origination'. This is basically an ancient idea of causation, conceived in a moral as well as a physical way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idappaccayatā
The Buddhists imagine human beings as processes as opposed to substances. That applies especially to our psychological lives. There's no mind-substance in Buddhism, just a sequence of psychological events causally conditioned by past psychological events and casually conditioning future ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
So what extends from life to life isn't the persistence of any soul-substance, its just the chain of causal influences.
The Buddhists don't believe in the existence of souls, but do traditionally believe in heavens and hells. That's because the future and past causal chains don't necessarily extend into the future and past of this world. The Buddhist cosmology is basically a multiverse, with a whole hierarchy of realms characterized by how prevalent suffering is in them. I believe that Buddhists would argue that there is empirical evidence for the existence of these, since they correspond to states attainable in certain kinds of meditation (samatha particularly). In other words, it's possible to peek into some of the heavens during meditation.
That's the basis of a great deal of popular street-level ethics in Buddhist countries. Behave so as to earn a rebirth in a heavenly realm. That doesn't imply divine judgement since it's entirely causal.
And technically speaking, it won't even be you being born in that realm, just a being whose circumstances are shaped by your actions here and now. In Buddhism, there isn't even any essence-of-you that lasts from moment to moment in this life, just a chain of causal influences including memories. So arguably the being who is born in the next life is just as continuous with you today as you are continuous with your infant self right after birth. (In both cases, perhaps not so much since their isn't much continuity of memories.)
Buddhists philosophers put a lot of thought into the problems of personal identity for obvious reasons and current analytic philosophy has started paying attention to those ancient and early-medieval discussions in India which in many cases are more sophisticated and acute than Western thinking on the same problems.
Last edited: