Prove Allah exists

[CosmicPathos]

It doesn't remain. Finally, that desire too must go but its extinction by that point is an inevitable and natural process. When you have finally crossed the river, the boat you needed to do so can be allowed to just drift away.

Anyway, although An33za's contribution contained little of merit, he was probably right about this thread not being the place for a discussion of Buddhism!

You see that boat analogy is very interesting, very subtle and very romantic. But hold on, lets compare it to what Noble truths are saying. Cessation of suffering can only be attained once all desires have been eliminated. How can the desire to eliminate suffering be itself eliminated when it is necessary to hold on to it cease suffering. In the boat analogy, the boat is not needed once river has been crossed. But in noble truths, the desire to get rid of desires, to cease suffering is constantly needed in order to cease suffering and to get rid of desires.

 

[Masuma]

Please don't be so arrogant as to suggest I read Buddhist scripture 'carefully' when you are so woefully ignorant of it.

Well so far I have quoted things rightly! I didn't read Buddhist scriptures, just like you didn't read Quran!

The third Noble Truth is simply that the cessation of suffering is possible, essentially by eliminating craving and clinging (the causes of suffering).

"craving and clinging" you mean "desires"?;D

The fourth Noble Truth - the Eightfold Path - explains how such elimination can be achieved.

Can one follow the fourth noble truth until and unless he has a DESIRE for it (until he craves to follow it, until he clings to these teachings???

There is no contradiction whatsoever, just ignorance on your part. Try reading 'carefully' yourself and you might avoid posting total garbage like that.

Keep it civil man or you gonna lose your respect here! (and I used to think that Buddhists are very calm minded people) Seems like there are still more surprises awaiting!

I trust that's a joke. Anyone who believes the existence of God is 100% proven to be true is totally deluding themselves. It is a matter of faith. Christians have no problem with that; why do muslims?

Faith and spirituality demands authenticity! how authentic the belief is! (but of course why would Buddhists care for proofs?!)

Anyway, although An33za's contribution contained little of merit, he was probably right about this thread not being the place for a discussion of Buddhism!

Now why because we are busting your own made up beliefs and you considering chickening out? LOL!

 

[tango92]

ive yet to hear any coherent argument regarding this verse 21:30

Do the Unbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, before We clove them asunder? We made every living thing from water. Will they not then believe?

im interested in the first half of the verse. as the second half is a discussion on its own

 

[Trumble]

You see that boat analogy is very interesting, very subtle and very romantic. But hold on, lets compare it to what Noble truths are saying. Cessation of suffering can only be attained once all desires have been eliminated. How can the desire to eliminate suffering be itself eliminated when it is necessary to hold on to it cease suffering. In the boat analogy, the boat is not needed once river has been crossed. But in noble truths, the desire to get rid of desires, to cease suffering is constantly needed in order to cease suffering and to get rid of desires.

I'm not sure I can really add much to what I said before. The desire to cease suffering is not constantly needed; it too can eventually be abandoned... sticking with the boat analogy imagine that that that desire to eliminate craving and selfish desire is not the boat itself, but the use of the oars to row it. Row far enough then you can stop and the boat will drift the rest of the way.

It could even be argued (although I'm not sure I'd personally agree) that such a desire to end desire is not necessary at all, at any stage, if there is sufficient faith. What the Buddha offered was a prescription for what he saw as the only 'disease' ultimately worth worrying about, that prescription being the Eightfold Path. If the Eightfold Path is followed, not casually but exclusively, it WILL eventually - according to the Buddha - result in the cessation of craving and selfish desire, and hence suffering even in total ignorance of the reason for following it, i.e. of the first three Noble Truths. No school of Buddhism to my knowledge has ever actually adopted such an extreme approach in practice, but some haven't been too far from it.

 

[Masuma]

I'm not sure I can really add much to what I said before.

Yeah because you don't have anything to say. The "truths" are so contradicting and even if your DESPERATE to prove them to be right, you still can't!!!

The desire to cease suffering is not constantly needed;

Ehem! We are not talking about the time period for which "desire" is needed! We are telling you that DESIRE IS needed for following the 4th noble truth! Please stop working with deceit!

 

[Masuma]

The desire to cease suffering is not constantly needed; it too can eventually be abandoned...

For following the "fourth noble truth" you REQUIRE desire. Without desiring to follow the "fourth noble truth" how can you follow it?

It could even be argued (although I'm not sure I'd personally agree) that such a desire to end desire is not necessary at all, at any stage, if there is sufficient faith.

Your ill-logical. Faith is what? Faith requires you to be good and kind. Unless you don't DESIRE to be good and kind, you don't have faith! LOL!

What the Buddha offered was a prescription for what he saw as the only 'disease' ultimately worth worrying about, that prescription being the Eightfold Path. If the Eightfold Path is followed, not casually but exclusively, it WILL eventually - according to the Buddha - result in the cessation of craving and selfish desire,

How would you follow the "Eight fold path" unless you don't even DESIRE to follow it?

and hence suffering even in total ignorance of the reason for following it,

Oh, did we talk about the REASON for following? I don't think so! We were talking about the "DESIRE" of following the Eight Fold Path! AAAAHAHAHA!

 

[Trumble]

Quite why I'm bothering, I dont know, but....

"craving and clinging" you mean "desires"?;D

No, I mean selfish desires that perpetuate the (illusory) ego. The distinction is essential.

Can one follow the fourth noble truth until and unless he has a DESIRE for it (until he craves to follow it, until he clings to these teachings???

I have already explained that. Twice.

Faith and spirituality demands authenticity!

Don't be absurd. If there was '100% proof' or 'authenticity', there can be no faith nor any need for it.

 

[Masuma]

No, I mean selfish desires that perpetuate the (illusory) ego.

Oh! So now your adding stuff by yourself? Now that we simplified things down for you, clearly proved how contradictory the "noble truths" were, that you started doing addition by yourself; to make the "truths" sound sensible? Please don't be like the old Christians who did so much additions by themselves that the whole Bible was changed!

Remain a Buddhist.

Selfish desire was not mentioned. Only desire was mentioned. It is now you, who is treacherously adding up words by yourself.

Don't be absurd. If there was '100% proof' or 'authenticity', there can be no faith nor any need for it.

I think you are being one! If one doesn't have any proofs for their beliefs, how would one be sure of their veracity? How would one know whether their beliefs are true? And as your selective in reading, I asked you first that why don't you then believe in Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism right at the same time? You just need to have FAITH. Why not have FAITH in other things too?

 

[Trumble]

Oh! So now your adding stuff by yourself? Now that we simplified things down for you, clearly proved how contradictory the "noble truths" were, that you started doing addition by yourself; to make the "truths" sound sensible? Please don't be like the old Christians who did so much additions by themselves that the whole Bible was changed!

Remain a Buddhist.

Selfish desire was not mentioned. Only desire was mentioned. It is now you, who is treacherously adding up words by yourself.

You didn't mention selfish desire but then you, as I have said, do not have a clue what you are talking about. The Pali word used is, in fact, tanha (excuse the absence of diacritics) which means something like thirst , craving, unsatisfied longing, although as with dukkha ('suffering') there is no direct English equivalent. Contextually it refers to selfish or egotistical desire and is specified as, among other things, craving for being, craving for non-being and craving for sensual pleasure. I have already explained - twice - why there is no such 'contradiction' and all you are proving, I'm afraid, is your own ignorance.

I think you are being one! If one doesn't have any proofs for their beliefs, how would one be sure of their veracity? How would one know whether their beliefs are true? And as your selective in reading, I asked you first that why don't you then believe in Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism right at the same time? You just need to have FAITH. Why not have FAITH in other things too?

This is gibberish. Do you know what the word 'faith' actually means? We all have faith in other things too. We have faith that our spouses and children will continue to love us and make us proud, but we never have proof of that. Indeed, sometimes that faith might be misguided. But without it, family life could not exist. We DON'T know that our beliefs are true. I might believe that I will still be alive in ten years time, indeed I do believe that! But I don't know it.

 

[Masuma]

You didn't mention selfish desire but then you, as I have said, do not have a clue what you are talking about.

Actually it applies more to YOU! So far everyone can see who was making more sense and who was simply giving further proofs for one's ignorance!

The Pali word used is, in fact, tanha (excuse the absence of diacritics) which means something like thirst , craving, unsatisfied longing,

Lets add a few more. Taṇhā = "the thirst that leads to attachment", craving, unwholesome desire, wish, thirst, covers all craving.
3rd "noble truth" says that cessation could be achieved through nirodha; by attaining dispassion.

So like I've repeated zillion times before, if one removes the "taṇhā", he can't follow the fourth truth, because for following the fourth truth, one requires a taṇhā.

This is gibberish. Do you know what the word 'faith' actually means? We all have faith in other things too. We have faith that our spouses and children will continue to love us and make us proud, but we never have proof of that. Indeed, sometimes that faith might be misguided. But without it, family life could not exist. We DON'T know that our beliefs are true. I might believe that I will still be alive in ten years time, indeed I do believe that! But I don't know it.

So you should then question your FAITH! You have faith that Buddhism is the right religion but what if your Faith is actually wrong? What if in the reality you end up in loss? How your faith is the right one? It might be that you've faith to enter paradise but instead you end up in hell? So don't you think your faith needs to be questioned? ;D

And please I'm like hell tired and bored...didn't sleep the whole night! So I'll reply to your gibberish later!

 

[Trumble]

So far everyone can see who was making more sense and who was simply giving further proofs for one's ignorance!

Let's hope so, although I suspect everyone else has long since lost interest.

Lets add a few more. Taṇhā = "the thirst that leads to attachment", craving, unwholesome desire, wish, thirst, covers all craving.

Ah.. so now you are a Pali scholar? Please don't tell me what the word means, I've studied the language - in context - for many years. Regardless, you seem oblivious even to your own inclusion of the word 'unwholesome' as a qualifier of 'desire'! Tell me, as you are such an expert, where would a desire that all sentient beings be liberated from suffering fit into your unique interpretation of the Four Noble Truths?

3rd "noble truth" says that cessation could be achieved through nirodha; by attaining dispassion.

So like I've repeated zillion times before, if one removes the "taṇhā", he can't follow the fourth truth, because for following the fourth truth, one requires a taṇhā.

Yet again, I have already explained this what seems like a zillion times. As you seem either too arrogant to read it, or unable to understand it, I see no reason to do so again. You might try reading the part on the fourth Noble Truth from the article you just Googled.

So you should then question your FAITH! You have faith that Buddhism is the right religion but what if your Faith is actually wrong? What if in the reality you end up in loss? How your faith is the right one? It might be that you've faith to enter paradise but instead you end up in hell? So don't you think your faith needs to be questioned? ;D

I have faith, based on many years consideration and, to a limited extent, direct experience that the Buddha's teachings are true, and hence that Buddhism is the right religion for me. I make no such claim in relation to anybody else, the spiritual progress of others might well be served better by belief in God or gods, however misplaced, at least in the short term. All the monotheistic religions share their principle behavioural ethics with both each other and Buddhism.

I still see no evidence you understand what religious faith actually IS. Religious beliefs are always questioned by anyone who gives serious consideration to their religion, and are often tested by experiences in life. When, for whatever reason, an unproven (and unprovable) belief survives such questioning, it is then that you have faith. But there is no reason why your faith (despite your nonsense about '100% proof') is any more likely to be justified than mine.. if you can't deal with that, that's your problem. We are grown ups, and we make our own choices. If it's any consolation, if I'm right you would never know it. If you are, I will!

 

[Ramadhan]

I haven't even mentioned the FSM. Are you confusing me with someone else?

My bad. I was confusing you with pygoscelis.

No, I'm saying that as that information was known several hundred years before the Qur'an was written, it was quite possible, indeed probable, that it would be known in the principal centres of scholarship at that time.

I have no idea how he, or any possible co-authors, may have acquired it. It is quite sufficient that it may have been acquired from any passing scholar of what passed for doctors, indeed was 'common knowledge' at the time. On establishment that that knowledge was in existence, the case that it could only appear in the Qur'an because it was provided by God collapses. Those who actually understand what the word 'logical' actually means will realize that, of course, that possibility is not 'disproven' either, even if somebody popped back 1300 years or so in a time machine and photocopied copies of the scrolls!

Again.. I am not suggesting he got 'info from the Greeks', the Greeks concerned were long dead. The point is that the knowledge existed, and indeed at that time was probably more likely to be found among Arabs than Europeans.

This is what you wrote then:

Because it was copied from the Greeks who got there rather earlier, that's how it's possible. But we've been here before..... you will find plenty of desperate denials of that obvious fact (that you will no doubt find perfectly satisfactory) elsewhere.

You believe what you want to believe, 'proof' has next to nothing to do with it.

So you were accusing that prophet Muhammad got the info from the greeks.
And since you were the one who threw allegation, it is incumbent upon you to give evidence.
But I see that you have changed tact since.

 

[Ramadhan]

ive yet to hear any coherent argument regarding this verse 21:30

Do the Unbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, before We clove them asunder? We made every living thing from water. Will they not then believe?

im interested in the first half of the verse. as the second half is a discussion on its own

I would also be very interested to know if the athiests and buddhists would atribute this knowledge to the greeks.

;D

 

[Trumble]

I would also be very interested to know if the athiests and buddhists would atribute this knowledge to the greeks.

Oddly enough, the 7th century BCE Greek philosopher Thales, often considered the 'father' of science in the sense that he discarded supernatural and mythological explanations in favour of looking for natural ones, believed that every thing (obviously including all living things) ultimately came from water.

As to the bit about heavens and earth being joined and clove asunder, the only thing worthy of a ';D' is the strange delusion this has any resemblance or relation to the Big Bang theory. It does not. Some people really will convince themselves of anything... are you really so insecure in the truth of the Qur'an you have to embrace such utter drivel to prop up your belief?

Anyway, yet again, been here, done that, off topic.

 

[Ramadhan]

You seem to be suffering severe comprehension difficulties. Nowhere did I say Buddhists do not question their beliefs; they do, perhaps rather more than muslims, as Buddhism is a religion of self-effort and self choice, not dictat by deity. In contrast, I don't see the muslims here questioning much about their own beliefs.

With the thousands of threads and discussions going on in many sections, you dare to say that muslims here are not questioning much about our own beliefs?
If what you mean by "the cores and fundamentals of our beliefs" then yes maybe we are not asking much, and do you k ow why?
It;s because Islam has answered all our life's most important questions very satisfactorily, logically and with much sense and practicality.
Unlike the other religions/beliefs/faiths whose cores and fundamentals are not understood by their masses, all muslims understand with ease the basics of Islam theology.
Muslims do not need priests/monks/theologians/brahmins etc to explain:
who is The Creator, why we are created, what is the purpose of our existance, what happens after death, etc.

so yes, buddhists as well as followers of other religions will have to keep questioning their beliefs until they die, and by the time that happnes, it will be too late for them

If you want to touch the subject of questionings beliefs and faiths to arrive at the truth, you may want to ask about the experiences of our reverts here. Uncle Woodrow has written quite a few posts on the matter a while ago if you want to search for them, or you may want to head over to the "new muslim" section.

 

[Ramadhan]

Oddly enough, the 7th century BCE Greek philosopher Thales, often considered the 'father' of science in the sense that he discarded supernatural and mythological explanations in favour of looking for natural ones, believed that every thing (obviously including all living things) ultimately came from water.

Is your DESIRE (pun truly intended) to reject Islam and the truth that strong that makes you to keep arguing even though you have no basis to do so?

Thales proposed:
every thing is came from water
The Qur'an says:
every LIVING thing came from water

Do you not see the blinding truth or are you that stubborn?

If you are insinuating that somehow the Qur'an got its fact from Thales, how come the Qur'an got it right PRECISELY, while Thales was waaaaay of base.

Did you also know that Thales also proposed that earth sit on water, and earthquake is caused by waves of the water?

As to the bit about heavens and earth being joined and clove asunder, the only thing worthy of a ';D' is the strange delusion this has any resemblance or relation to the Big Bang theory. It does not. Some people really will convince themselves of anything... are you really so insecure in the truth of the Qur'an you have to embrace such utter drivel to prop up your belief?

Anyway, yet again, been here, done that, off topic.

So, if the verse is not explaining about the singularity beginning of the universe which then split apart, how do yo propose the meaning of the verse?
For me, its meaning is so simple for anyone to understand.

 

[CosmicPathos]

Is your DESIRE (pun truly intended) to reject Islam and the truth that strong that makes you to keep arguing even though you have no basis to do so?

Thales proposed:
every thing is came from water
The Qur'an says:
every LIVING thing came from water

Do you not see the blinding truth or are you that stubborn?

If you are insinuating that somehow the Qur'an got its fact from Thales, how come the Qur'an got it right PRECISELY, while Thales was waaaaay of base.

Did you also know that Thales also proposed that earth sit on water, and earthquake is caused by waves of the water?





So, if the verse is not explaining about the singularity beginning of the universe which then split apart, how do yo propose the meaning of the verse?
For me, its meaning is so simple for anyone to understand.

That, sir, is an epic comeback. Trumble is just getting pushed into a corner now and cannot really defend the inherent contradiction of Buddha's noble truths. I even wonder if Buddha really preached those as his first biography was written about 400 years after his death!

Imagine, Mark was written about 70 years after Jesus' death and how much damage it has caused to the authenticity of Christianity. Now can you comprehend 400 years????? Buddhism ... yet another system of values with no authentic Noble truths which could be attributed to Buddah with 100% certainty.

 

[Masuma]

Let's hope so, although I suspect everyone else has long since lost interest.

That’s what I’m all hoping for, man, that’s what I’m all hoping for! And I too have lost my interest now…just wasted my time so far. And I won’t be replying any further.

Ah.. so now you are a Pali scholar?

No. Where did I say so? But it’s another thing if you consider me one. Lol!


I have just offered more interpretations of the word “Taṇhā” just like YOU did. You added selfish desires into the category and I added “thirst that leads to attachment, craving, unwholesome desire, wish, thirst, covers all craving.”
And now this further proves how selective you are in reading that you simply ignored (on purpose I think) the finishing clause which says that “it covers all cravings”!

Tell me where would a desire that all sentient beings be liberated from suffering fit into your unique interpretation of the Four Noble Truths?

Excuse me! Please lol! Its not me interpreting your contradictory Four Noble Paths, it is your own Buddhism! I have simply quoted the exact words of your Four Noble Truths! (deal with the truth!)

Your stupidity and arrogance is just shocking! How many times we explained to you the self defeating, self contradictory “Four Noble Truths” but you still stick to your ignorance. So now I can only say good luck with that!

And just to summaries the whole thing, (as this is my last reply here), I’m again going to repeat myself which would make it like a trillion times now.

Third noble Truth teaches you that cessation of suffering can be attainable through nirodha. Nirodha extinguishes all forms of clinging and attachment; which means something like thirst, craving; craving for sensual pleasure. (very well explains your excessive use of the word DESPERATE)
If Nirodha extinguishes all types of craving; clinging and attachment; thirst; then how can one follow the Fourth noble truth as for following the fourth noble truth, one requires this craving; thirst; attachment etc.
If your going to remove your desire as being asked in the Third noble truth, then how can one follow the Eight Fold Path?! That is, desire can only be removed by having a desire to follow the “Eight Fold Path”!

And it’s actually quite funny. Buddhists want to reach nirvana, they DESIRE to reach this stage, and still they want to remove their desires of all type, cravings of all form! Isn’t this also a craving of Buddhists to reach nirvana, (their sensual craving etc)?!

I still see no evidence you understand what religious faith actually IS.

Oh I did! And explained it to you which you so cleverly ignored!

Religious beliefs are always questioned by anyone who gives serious consideration to their religion, and are often tested by experiences in life. When, for whatever reason, an unproven (and unprovable) belief survives such questioning, it is then that you have faith. But there is no reason why your faith (despite your nonsense about '100% proof') is any more likely to be justified than mine.. if you can't deal with that, that's your problem. We are grown ups, and we make our own choices. If it's any consolation, if I'm right you would never know it. If you are, I will!

Sorry to say but all YOUR crap can easily be refuted by this quote from someone (arrrgh… I forgot the name)

“Unless a religion is able to show its truth apart from its own text and EXPERIENCE and have it verified in the public forum, the veracity of any religion and our claims remains simply an article of faith, and unprovable except to those who already accept it as and need no such proof”.

Isn’t it just beautiful?!!! :statisfie


What exactly is your Buddhism, did you ever wonder?

“Historical criticism has proved that the original teachings of Buddha can never be known. It seems that Gautama Buddha’s teachings were memorized by his disciples. After Buddha’s death a council was held at Rajagaha so that the words of Buddha could be recited and agreed upon. (how hilarious!)
There were differences of opinion and conflicting memories in the council.(lol! Good joke)
Opinion of Kayshapa and Ananda who were prominent disciples of Buddha were given preference. A hundred years later, a second council at Vesali was held. Only after 400 years, after the death of Buddha were his teachings and doctrines written down. Little attention was paid regarding its authenticity, genuineness and purity.”

Now that’s all from me. I was so patient with your stupidity but when you started being proud of it, that simply did the job. No more discussions with someone so ignorant!

 

[Masuma]

That, sir, is an epic comeback. Trumble is just getting pushed into a corner now and cannot really defend the inherent contradiction of Buddha's noble truths. I even wonder if Buddha really preached those as his first biography was written about 400 years after his death!

Imagine, Mark was written about 70 years after Jesus' death and how much damage it has caused to the authenticity of Christianity. Now can you comprehend 400 years????? Buddhism ... yet another system of values with no authentic Noble truths which could be attributed to Buddah with 100% certainty.

LOL! Exactly!

 

[Trumble]

Thales proposed:
every thing is came from water
The Qur'an says:
every LIVING thing came from water

Do you not see the blinding truth or are you that stubborn?

If you are insinuating that somehow the Qur'an got its fact from Thales, how come the Qur'an got it right PRECISELY, while Thales was waaaaay of base.

It seems you too are suffering increasing comprehension difficulties. I'm not 'insinuating' anything, I just stated what Thales happened to believe in response to Tango 92. Of course, the Qu'ran does nothing of the sort with regard to precision without the usual ludicrous 'interpretation' - you are again deluding yourself. In one place it's clay, another water. Not assorted stuff that might be found in clay, or all water. Wrong and wrong... just more creation myths, not 'science'. As a claimed logician, you will of course appreciate that as the Qur'an is only speaking about living things in the relevant passages, any comparison with Thales is mute.

So, if the verse is not explaining about the singularity beginning of the universe which then split apart, how do yo propose the meaning of the verse?
For me, its meaning is so simple for anyone to understand.

Nonsense! If it's so simple to understand in those terms, how come no muslim ever did until a decade or so ago!! As a muslim, you tell me how every muslim for fourteen hundred years or so interpreted it.. before somebody happened to pick up a copy of Scientific American in a dentist's reception room while still under the influence of anasthetic. Why were muslim scholars not bombarding the early astronomers and cosmologists with letters explaining that the Qur'an provided 'so simple' an explanation of the origin of the universe?

There is no reference at all to a singularity in the verse. According to that theory there was no earth and sky 'connected' to then be cloven asunder. According to that theory the universe was not 'split apart'. Earth, in the sense of the planet, wouldn't even exist for another seven billion years or so. In the sense of earth as the 'stuff of the ground' there were no elements heavier than lithium until the first stars had formed, and died. The verse has nothing to do with the Big Bang, and I genuinely don't understand why you are so (forgive me) so desperate to think it does.

Trumble is just getting pushed into a corner now and cannot really defend the inherent contradiction of Buddha's noble truths.

I have repeatedly explained that there is no such contradiction. If you are unable to understand that explanation or, as I suspect, you are not even seriously trying to, there's not a lot I can do about it.

Now can you comprehend 400 years????? Buddhism ... yet another system of values with no authentic Noble truths which could be attributed to Buddah with 100% certainty.

In two and a half millennia there has never been any dispute whatsoever as to what they are. Ultimately, it doesn't even matter. The Buddha was a man, not a God, as were those who came after him that contributed to the exp[ansion of Buddhist doctrine. Buddhists judge the Dharma not because of the claimed authority of some imaginary God or gods, but on it's own merit.

As to Mark, it's not to me to speak for Christians but I wasn't under the impression that the 70 years or whatever it is has any significant influence on their perception of their religion's 'authenticity'. And it's really their view on the subject that's important, isn't it?