Prove Allah exists

[Zafran]

Intresting where did the Quran get it wrong - By the way did you read that article that I posted.

 

[CosmicPathos]

@ Aneeza: I have to say that using the argument that "the atheist has not disproven the existence of God then it means God exists" is not valid. I can equally ask you this "Aneeza, disprove to me Santa Claus' existence." How will you disprove it? For that, you will have to check EVERY single pico meter of the universe. On the other hand, to prove that Santa Claus exists, you will just have to bring Santa in front of one's eyes.

All we can say is that the atheist has failed to rule out the possibility of God's existence. Everything that an atheist explains in a god-less way, it can be explained via God as well.

 

[Trumble]

Intresting where did the Quran get it wrong - By the way did you read that article that I posted.

Yes; it's actually a great example of what I was talking about, one sided and full of dubious and convenient 'interpretation'. For example, what do we have as an explanation that even something as fundamental as the duration of pregnancy is totally wrong;

The explanation is that the real period of pregnancy is 6 months, during which the foetus is essentially dependent on his mother for its survival. However, if born immature at the end of a minimum of 6 months of pregnancy, the child can survive outside the body of the mother with outside support. Thus the last 3 months not accounted for, in fact correspond to this period of possible survival outside the mother’s body.

Absolutely desperate. Even today, with the vast differences in medical technology from those times (when babies 3 months premature might well survive), the length of pregnancy is always referred to as nine months, not six. However, if you find such nonsense convincing, there's not much I can do. As I said, this has been discussed ad nauseam before if you look, and is not exactly on topic here.

 

[جوري]

I don't know what is going on here and who is interpreting what and have no desire to go over 14 pages of two sided nonsense.. the real period of pregnancy is 9m a fetus is considered a human being in accordance to Islamic beliefs after it has been 'ensouled' and as such if it dies before being ensouled is different than after in terms of rituals and burials etc.
modern science also sees a fetus as a viable 'human' some where around 4 months of age.. premature children do very poorly, the lungs are the last thing to develop and we all know that you need those to breathe as well a host of other problems which I have no desire to go into because I am pressed for time..

if anyone finds themselves rendering their own interpretation to the word of God, then please stop, and ask a scholar!
of course I have to apologize if I missed something since I wasn't following this thread, I just read the last post...

There are NO errors in the Quran, but we shouldn't render our own interpretations-- the Quran is a book of signs not a book of science. It is important that it is in concert with the natural science as we know them but we shouldn't turn it into a chemistry book or one of genetic engineering.. the point will have been totally lost no?

 

[Masuma]

@ Trumble:


Just why are you using word “desperate” so much? Its making me feel like it fits you even more than anybody else. And please no offence there. Your desperate to prove that Islam has no authenticity and logical back up (at least that’s what I understand).

and to me that alone is convincing evidence (not 'proof') that man created God and not vice versa. If it makes you feel better there are absolutely no logical or scientific 'proofs' for the 'truth' of my own religion either; but I've never met a Buddhist to whom that mattered in the slightest

This is just so hopeless! Buddhists don’t even question their beliefs?! If you won’t ask questions, then how would you at all know what is right and what’s wrong? Believing in everything which your forefathers believed…you are just following them blindly. In this way then, why not accept Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism etc right at the same time? It is only through questioning your belief and demanding the proofs for the veracity of any thing which you are taught that you finally arrive at truth.

And please don’t compare my Islam with your Buddhism. I don’t want to start a new discussion about how Buddhism doesn’t stand any chance to be a true religion of God. Comparing Islam, the most logical, natural and true religion with your Buddhism is something which I consider disgraceful (to Islam).

Even the basic teachings of Buddhism like the 4 Noble Truths are ill-logical.

Noble Truths:

The principal teachings of Gautama Buddha can be summarised in what the Buddhists call the ‘Four Noble Truths’:

First – There is suffering and misery in life .

Second – The cause of this suffering and misery is desire.

Third – Suffering and misery can be removed by removing desire.

Fourth – Desire can be removed by following the Eight Fold Path.

(Carefully read third and fourth point. Third “noble truth” teaches human beings to remove desires but it is contradicting “truth number 4”; “Desire can be removed by following the Eight Fold Path”! For FOLLOWING the Eight Fold Path, one requires a DESIRE, so where is the question of removing it! ) And please, no further discussions on Buddhism as the thread has already reached 14 pages!

For Buddhists, it might work, but for us Muslims, we will not accept anything as long as it is 100% proven to be true. Unless we know it’s not a fantasy, or anything invented by a person’s own mind!

I'm not remotely interested in 'scientific proofs' for the existence of God, as there are none.

You might not know them but that is not the case with everyone! (And why would you require any, as you people would believe anything blindly)

@ Aneeza: I have to say that using the argument that "the atheist has not disproven the existence of God then it means God exists" is not valid. I can equally ask you this "Aneeza, disprove to me Santa Claus' existence." How will you disprove it? For that, you will have to check EVERY single pico meter of the universe. On the other hand, to prove that Santa Claus exists, you will just have to bring Santa in front of one's eyes.
All we can say is that the atheist has failed to rule out the possibility of God's existence. Everything that an atheist explains in a god-less way, it can be explained via God as well.

Okay so of all the Atheists and Buddhists here, you chose to argue with your own brethren?! Very well!

@ Aneeza: I have to say that using the argument that "the atheist has not disproven the existence of God then it means God exists" is not valid.

Now SHOW ME where I said that “Atheist has not disproved the existence of God then it means that God exists”???

My exact words are here. Read them again!

Same way it goes for the “Existence of God”. We 100% know that God exists. No one, yes NO ONE has ever been able to disprove God’s existence.

And I’ve like zillion times given my proofs for the existence of God. And as you have been so selective in reading, here is it again.

PROOF FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE

I can equally ask you this "Aneeza, disprove to me Santa Claus' existence." How will you disprove it? For that, you will have to check EVERY single pico meter of the universe. On the other hand, to prove that Santa Claus exists, you will just have to bring Santa in front of one's eyes.

What a waste of words!

And now I’m going to ignore your posts again. Please don’t mind , so called “brother”!

 

[Woodrow]

Several things are being overlooked in these 14 pages of argument. For an actual argument to take place there has to be mutually accepted sources of proof. This is something that does not exist in dialogs between Theists and Atheists. There can be no argument as there are no mutually accepted sources for proof. It is almost like a Cook and a Veterinarian arguing about the value of a Renoir painting and one using books of Aesthetics as the source of value and the other using auction receipts. One may point out the high Dollar value and the other may say it is worthless from an aesthetic view.

To argue a point and prove anything there first needs to be established mutual sources of proof and an agreement as to what constitutes proof. If that is not first agreed upon an argument is only a display of emotional responses.

 

[Masuma]

To argue a point and prove anything there first needs to be established mutual sources of proof and an agreement as to what constitutes proof. If that is not first agreed upon an argument is only a display of emotional responses.

Excellent point mentioned brother! And that is why we tried to give "Scientific Proofs" for the existence of God as science is acceptable to both Atheists and Muslims!

But still the whole argument is useless and the REASON for this is that people here are JUST FOR AN ARGUMENT, NOT FOR UNDERSTANDING! You may close the thread if you want. But I don't know whether it should be done or not.

 

[Woodrow]

Excellent point mentioned brother! And that is why we tried to give "Scientific Proofs" for the existence of God as science is acceptable to both Atheists and Muslims!

But still the whole argument is useless and the REASON for this is that people here are JUST FOR AN ARGUMENT, NOT FOR UNDERSTANDING! You may close the thread if you want. But I don't know whether it should be done or not.

At the moment I see value in this thread. I doubt if any conclusions will be reached in it regarding the existence of Allaah(swt) but there may be value in all of us learning a little about why others believe or do not believe.

 

[Masuma]

:wasalamex

At the moment I see value in this thread. I doubt if any conclusions will be reached in it regarding the existence of Allaah(swt) but there may be value in all of us learning a little about why others believe or do not believe.

Yeah definitely brother!

And I forgot to mention before that we also used logical proofs here to prove the existence of God, but nothing worked for REASONS identified before.

At least this thread cleared many things, (speaking on my behalf only)

 

[Zafran]

Several things are being overlooked in these 14 pages of argument. For an actual argument to take place there has to be mutually accepted sources of proof. This is something that does not exist in dialogs between Theists and Atheists. There can be no argument as there are no mutually accepted sources for proof. It is almost like a Cook and a Veterinarian arguing about the value of a Renoir painting and one using books of Aesthetics as the source of value and the other using auction receipts. One may point out the high Dollar value and the other may say it is worthless from an aesthetic view.

To argue a point and prove anything there first needs to be established mutual sources of proof and an agreement as to what constitutes proof. If that is not first agreed upon an argument is only a display of emotional responses.

salaam

you nailed it.

peace

 

[CosmicPathos]

@ Trumble:


Just why are you using word “desperate” so much? Its making me feel like it fits you even more than anybody else. And please no offence there. Your desperate to prove that Islam has no authenticity and logical back up (at least that’s what I understand).



This is just so hopeless! Buddhists don’t even question their beliefs?! If you won’t ask questions, then how would you at all know what is right and what’s wrong? Believing in everything which your forefathers believed…you are just following them blindly. In this way then, why not accept Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism etc right at the same time? It is only through questioning your belief and demanding the proofs for the veracity of any thing which you are taught that you finally arrive at truth.

And please don’t compare my Islam with your Buddhism. I don’t want to start a new discussion about how Buddhism doesn’t stand any chance to be a true religion of God. Comparing Islam, the most logical, natural and true religion with your Buddhism is something which I consider disgraceful (to Islam).

Even the basic teachings of Buddhism like the 4 Noble Truths are ill-logical.

(Carefully read third and fourth point. Third “noble truth” teaches human beings to remove desires but it is contradicting “truth number 4”; “Desire can be removed by following the Eight Fold Path”! For FOLLOWING the Eight Fold Path, one requires a DESIRE, so where is the question of removing it! ) And please, no further discussions on Buddhism as the thread has already reached 14 pages!

For Buddhists, it might work, but for us Muslims, we will not accept anything as long as it is 100% proven to be true. Unless we know it’s not a fantasy, or anything invented by a person’s own mind!



You might not know them but that is not the case with everyone! (And why would you require any, as you people would believe anything blindly)




Okay so of all the Atheists and Buddhists here, you chose to argue with your own brethren?! Very well!



Now SHOW ME where I said that “Atheist has not disproved the existence of God then it means that God exists”???

My exact words are here. Read them again!



And I’ve like zillion times given my proofs for the existence of God. And as you have been so selective in reading, here is it again.

PROOF FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE



What a waste of words!

And now I’m going to ignore your posts again. Please don’t mind , so called “brother”!

When you say that no one has been able to disprove the existence of God, it is implied that God exists because His existence cannot be disproven.

Islam tells me to correct my "brethren" when they are not on truth.

Regarding my comment as being waste of words, you are just a 16-17 year old teenager who still has not finished high school. I should not expect higher levels of maturity.

Feel free to ignore my comments. I dont write them for you. People can still read them and see where you went wrong.

Good day.

 

[Woodrow]

:wasalamex



Yeah definitely brother!

And I forgot to mention before that we also used logical proofs here to prove the existence of God, but nothing worked for REASONS identified before.

At least this thread cleared many things, (speaking on my behalf only)

:wa:

Since Allaah(swt) does not fall within the realm of the material world and is not limited by scientific quantification and qualification we need to look at the effects of what he has done and how he has revealed himself to mankind throughout the ages.

Some very interesting things can be found through the studies of sociology and the history of civilization.

Some areas to explore:

1. The concept of free will, how did that originate?

2. The ability to even think of the existence of Allaah(swt)

3. The almost if not universal belief in a creator in even the most ancient of societies.

4. The concepts of morality

5. The desire to serve Allaah(swt)

6. The acceptance of Prophets in virtually every culture.

7. The recognition of miracles

8. The almost universal acceptance of life after death

9. The concept of eternal reward or eternal punishment for our deeds.

10. The feeling of the joy of believing as experienced by so many.

 

[Masuma]

:salamext:

:wa:

Since Allaah(swt) does not fall within the realm of the material world and is not limited by scientific quantification and qualification we need to look at the effects of what he has done and how he has revealed himself to mankind throughout the ages.

Some very interesting things can be found through the studies of sociology and the history of civilization.

Some areas to explore:

1. The concept of free will, how did that originate?

2. The ability to even think of the existence of Allaah(swt)

3. The almost if not universal belief in a creator in even the most ancient of societies.

4. The concepts of morality

5. The desire to serve Allaah(swt)

6. The acceptance of Prophets in virtually every culture.

7. The recognition of miracles

8. The almost universal acceptance of life after death

9. The concept of eternal reward or eternal punishment for our deeds.

10. The feeling of the joy of believing as experienced by so many.

subhanAllah brother! Good points.

But again "sociology" and "history" be not everyone's criteria to judge between right and wrong?!

What if people don't regard these topics as of some importance to themselves?

What if they are not

mutually accepted sources for proof and an agreement as to what constitutes proof.

 

[h-n]

Just like to say to the Muslims that the Atheists are liars, and they say they don't believe in Allah because of this scientific theory etc, (which does not prove anything). But they did not know about the scientific theory before rejecting Islam! They try and claim its because of Science they reject Allah, nay, they use science as an excuse. That is why they run, and find, and pluck anything out of Science to throw around. AS per my other thread there is no such thing as Atheism.

They say that we are believing in nothing when they themselves have nothing, they are not part of anything, even Scientists going after things that they will never be a part of.

All atheists know that Allah exists, Allah has provided them with free will and a soul which tells them that Allah exists. that is why when they hear someone talking about Allah and the stories of the Prophet Noah peace be upon him etc to be true, the afterlife etc.

WE are happy to serve Allah, the atheists are arrogant as of the people of old. They say its wrong for Muslims to serve Allah, but they have heard about angels-they would not think to say that it is unacceptable for angels to bow down to Allah. If they say this it is only by way of lies. But mentally thinking that it is wrong of angels to bow down and be servants of Allah is wrong and a lie. This is why Allah has also mentioned about angels bowing down to Allah, they themselves no matter their sizes etc, have bowed down and praise Allah constantly. It is acceptable, it is right, it is the perfect way of living to serve, and praise and worship Allah.

All we need to do is give them the message of Islam, if they don't choose to accept it that is upto them.

They ask why for the proof of Allah when the proof is there, they think this new, even the people of old used to ask about why they can't see him. When they can't even stand looking at the sun, and even the mountain crumbled in his presence, at the time of Prophet Moses peace be upon him.

The fact is even if they saw God, then there is no test, just like even Allah stated in the Quran if people saw angels and they came to teach them. Allah stated that if they came to do one evil sin after that then they will not have another chance to repent. Just like he said to the people who had the table spreadth, at the time of Prophet Jesus peace be upon him, if they chose to be sinful after this, then he will punish them severely, as he had punished no other.

 

[Ramadhan]

No, I do not get the difference. If you're absolutely sure in a belief, then you believe it to be absolutely true. You are therefore claiming to know some absolute truth. Perhaps you're using belief in a slightly different context to how I use it. Please can you explain how you perceive the difference between absolute (100%) belief and absolute truth - it appears to me that the first implies knowledge of the second.

I wrote "THE absolute truth", not "some absolute truth" or "an absolute truth".
in this universe, we can never know THE absolute truth because there will always be questions that we cannot answer.
"The absolute truth" only lies with The Creator who has ALL the answers.
However, within myself, I know that my surety in my belief is absolute.
So you see, what is absolute in this case is the certainty of my belief, and NOT the truth.

Do you count these as evidence for God? If so, could you expand on the reasoning, perhaps putting them into a syllogistic, deductive

I think you need to read your own original post to which I made the reply.
I never made the case that unchanged holy scriptures as evidence for God. I was addressing your own speculations about why the purity and exactness of teh Qur'an is maintained.


but let me entertain your current question (which veered away from your own allegations about the Qur'an anyway)
Let's say you write a book and you claim it's your own.
But then I decided to change the texts in your book, but I still attribute it as your book. What do you think?

It's the same with holy scriptures. Most religions claim their holy scriptures are from God, but you know that all of them (bar one) have been changed throughout history that no one even know what the original was like. Do you then believe that those current holy scriptures are from God?

Now, in The Qur'an Allah SWT Himself gives His promise that He will guard the purity of the Qur'an (I am too tired to look up the exact verse, but it is in the Qur'an).
1,400 years later after the Qur'an was revealed, it still stays exactly the same, and memorised by millions of muslims (so in order to change the Quran, you need to burn absolutely all the texts and kill all the millions muslims who have memorised it).
This is not the only evidence that Allah SWT exists, mind you, but this fact alone shows you that the promise and claim have been perfectly kept and maintained.

 

[Ramadhan]

I'm not claiming the Prophet ever went to Greece; at that time classical Greece and the Western Roman Empire were no more, and the knowledge far more likely to be found in Byzantium, Alexandria or Baghdad anyway. The point is that, far from being otherwise unknown to science until recently, as is constantly claimed, this 'embryology' had been around for centuries.

I have noticed that you seem to skirt around questions that you know you can't answer, including twice about the flying spaghetti monster.

You claim the information about development of embryo were available in Alexandria, Baghdad, Byzantine during Rasulullah SAW.
1. Please cite evidence and references for this.
2. Please tell us how prophet SAW acquired this information.

It's ironice isn't it, that atheists (or "buddhists" in your case) always demand hard evidence for something or else they won't believe in it.
But in so many times (including in this one about accusation that prophet SAW received info from the greeks) the lack of even the tiniest evidence is brushed off.

You guys are more militant about your beliefs and definitely not interested in trying to get closer to the truth.

 

[Trumble]

This is just so hopeless! Buddhists don’t even question their beliefs?! If you won’t ask questions, then how would you at all know what is right and what’s wrong? Believing in everything which your forefathers believed…you are just following them blindly.

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. What I actually said was that Buddhists have no great desire for any scientific 'proof' those beliefs are true hence, although as much 'science' can be drawn from Buddhist scripture and commentary as from the Qur'an, Buddhists themselves don't bother. Buddhist teachings are judged on their own merit by Buddhists.. they have no need to seek 'authenticity' in the same way you seem to.

And please don’t compare my Islam with your Buddhism. I don’t want to start a new discussion about how Buddhism doesn’t stand any chance to be a true religion of God. Comparing Islam, the most logical, natural and true religion with your Buddhism is something which I consider disgraceful (to Islam).

It can hardly be a true 'religion of God' as it is does not accept the existence of such a being, at least in the way you understand it. I'll ignore your idiotic comment about 'disgraceful' comparisons because you clearly don't have the first idea what you are talking about.

Even the basic teachings of Buddhism like the 4 Noble Truths are ill-logical.

(Carefully read third and fourth point. Third “noble truth” teaches human beings to remove desires but it is contradicting “truth number 4”; “Desire can be removed by following the Eight Fold Path”! For FOLLOWING the Eight Fold Path, one requires a DESIRE, so where is the question of removing it! ) And please, no further discussions on Buddhism as the thread has already reached 14 pages!

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

The third Noble Truth is simply that the cessation of suffering is possible, essentially by eliminating craving and clinging (the causes of suffering). The fourth Noble Truth - the Eightfold Path - explains how such elimination can be achieved. Obviously until it has been achieved, desires and cravings still exist. There is no contradiction whatsoever, just ignorance on your part. Try reading 'carefully' yourself and you might avoid posting total garbage like that.

For Buddhists, it might work, but for us Muslims, we will not accept anything as long as it is 100% proven to be true.

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?

I have noticed that you seem to skirt around questions that you know you can't answer, including twice about the flying spaghetti monster.

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

You claim the information about development of embryo were available in Alexandria, Baghdad, Byzantine during Rasulullah SAW.
1. Please cite evidence and references for this.
2. Please tell us how prophet SAW acquired this information.

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!

It's ironice isn't it, that atheists (or "buddhists" in your case) always demand hard evidence for something or else they won't believe in it.

In view of the above, the ludicrous nature of that comment should be obvious.

But in so many times (including in this one about accusation that prophet SAW received info from the greeks) the lack of even the tiniest evidence is brushed off.

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.

 

[CosmicPathos]

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. What I actually said was that Buddhists have no great desire for any scientific 'proof' those beliefs are true hence, although as much 'science' can be drawn from Buddhist scripture and commentary as from the Qur'an, Buddhists themselves don't bother. Buddhist teachings are judged on their own merit by Buddhists.. they have no need to seek 'authenticity' in the same way you seem to.



It can hardly be a true 'religion of God' as it is does not accept the existence of such a being, at least in the way you understand it. I'll ignore your idiotic comment about 'disgraceful' comparisons because you clearly don't have the first idea what you are talking about.



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

The third Noble Truth is simply that the cessation of suffering is possible, essentially by eliminating craving and clinging (the causes of suffering). The fourth Noble Truth - the Eightfold Path - explains how such elimination can be achieved. Obviously until it has been achieved, desires and cravings still exist. There is no contradiction whatsoever, just ignorance on your part. Try reading 'carefully' yourself and you might avoid posting total garbage like that.



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?

Well I dont claim authority in Buddhism but I do have some university level knowledge of comparative studies of Buddhism as it emerged in the context of Hinduism etc.

Anyways, it does seem there is a contradiction. One has to have a desire of not clinging to desires in order to cease suffering .... I am not sure how suffering can be ceased in totality when the desire to cease suffering remains ....

 

[Masuma]

You seem to be suffering severe comprehension difficulties.

AAAHAHA! LOL! no i'm not!

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.

Oh so now you turn on your own words and say that you people DO question your beliefs? Then how come your still sticking to them? They are just so contradicting to each other!

In contrast, I don't see the muslims here questioning much about their own beliefs. What I actually said was that Buddhists have no great desire for any scientific 'proof' those beliefs

Well I did question mine and here I'm, as a Muslimah! YeAAAY!:statisfie

...although as much 'science' can be drawn from Buddhist scripture and commentary as from the Qur'an, Buddhists themselves don't bother. Buddhist teachings are judged on their own merit by Buddhists.. they have no need to seek 'authenticity' in the same way you seem to.

So how do you exactly judge your beliefs then if not by science, logic etc????

I'll ignore your idiotic comment about 'disgraceful' comparisons because you clearly don't have the first idea what you are talking about.

Now there there Trumble, just because I explained how contradictory your 4 Noble paths are, why are you taking all your anger out at me? ;D

 

[Trumble]

Anyways, it does seem there is a contradiction. One has to have a desire of not clinging to desires in order to cease suffering .... I am not sure how suffering can be ceased in totality when the desire to cease suffering remains ....

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!