When i hear people say that there is no higher being (or beings) I like to ask them, "Think back to the beginning of time,to the ver first time that time existed, you there? Ok, now tell me, if every thing in our cosmos comes from something or somethings, can you tell me where the source of our universe is? who put everything into motion to which now is now...?"

This argument is often used by christians to prove that God exists, however it is deeply flawed when used in its most common context. It assumes that everything has to come from something, so the universe has to come from something. Then it says that for some reason, that something has to be god. However, when confronted with the question of who created god, the common reply is along the lines of "God doesn't need to be a creator." So if god doesn't need a creator, than not everything needs a creator, therefore the universe doesn't necessarily need a creator. Basically, they are back to square 1.

I think the problem here is our view of time as a constant and cause/effects in time. Take basic high school chemistry and physics and you will learn that A: time is not constant, B: everything is mostly empty space (atoms, molecules, etc.), and C: the universe is constantly expanding. Therefore, it is possible that the universe started with a sphere of matter that contains all the matter in the universe and is infinitely small, and this was "before" time itself even existed. Then you have the big bang, and a few billion or trillion years later, our solar system and Earth.

This argument is often used by christians to prove that God exists, however it is deeply flawed when used in its most common context. It assumes that everything has to come from something, so the universe has to come from something. Then it says that for some reason, that something has to be god. However, when confronted with the question of who created god, the common reply is along the lines of "God doesn't need to be a creator." So if god doesn't need a creator, than not everything needs a creator, therefore the universe doesn't necessarily need a creator. Basically, they are back to square 1.I think the problem here is our view of time as a constant and cause/effects in time. Take basic high school chemistry and physics and you will learn that A: time is not constant, B: everything is mostly empty space (atoms, molecules, etc.), and C: the universe is constantly expanding. Therefore, it is possible that the universe started with a sphere of matter that contains all the matter in the universe and is infinitely small, and this was "before" time itself even existed. Then you have the big bang, and a few billion or trillion years later, our solar system and Earth.

--Try again, latour999, you didn't say where the sphere of infinitely small matter come from....hmmm? i'm not saying that the source of everything has to be god, or jehovah, or whatever....i'm looking for the truth to life, religion is in a way a truth that satisfys a group of people...maybe i am contradicting myself or being a hypocrit...thats just what i think....

Stute: The scenario you gave starts with the premise that a Buddhist would say that jehova is real. How about if that doesn't happen? What then? Your logic doesn't work so well in that situation. I don't say that I believe god is real, and I don't say that god is NOT real. I say I don't know, because I don't...and as for life after death, well I don't know about that either. I've never died and come back, so I couldn't say whether the christian idea of heaven is correct.

As for Christianity summing up the whole truth.....what makes you think that? Is it because the bible tells you so?

A true Buddhist can say to another : I am glad that you have found a faith that works for you, that makes sense to you, and that gives you comfort. I have found the same thing. To each his own.....

I concurr Dharmagirl...thats what i was trying to get across...

I'm not buying it, D-girl.

The Buddha teaches that desire leads to suffering, and only by giving up all desires can we achieve enlightenment, peace, and perfection.

The Christ teaches it is our very nature to desire God, and that only by the fulfillment of this desire can we achive enlightenment, peace, and perfection.

There are few religions that contradict each other as fundamentally and clearly as Buddhism and Christianity.

---

BUDDHIST: If you try to fulfill your desire for God, you will fail and suffer. Heaven is learning not to desire God. Hell is refusing to give up your desires.

CHRISTIAN: If you try to avoid fulfilling your desire for God, you will fail and suffer. Heaven is fulfillment of your desire for God. Hell is rejecting the God your soul desires.

---

It still seems to me that should a Buddhist and a Christian meet, they would each have to politely insist that the other's religion was not complete and would not fulfil its eternal, transcendental promises. Either that, or they would each have to renounce the fundamental principles of their faith.

This is a little different from "hey, if it works for you...". To the extent that a religion preaches things that are true, people will benefit from that truth. Buddhism and Christianity both tell us not to get hung up on material possessions. I would certainly expect a Buddhist who practices this principle to be a happier and more content person than someone who does not practice this principle. But both Buddhism and Christianity claim that there is more to life than just simplicity. Both religions claim that there is a transcendent, eternal Truth, and that the purpose of simplicity is to guide us to this Truth. But the two religions disagree on what that Truth is. Simplicity will do wonders for a person, as far as it goes. But religions go much further than that, and none of them go in the same direction. In the end, either the Christian or the Buddhist or both must discover that all the simplicity in the world won't lead them to the enlightenment they seek. One of the other of them (or both) will come to regret the time wasted believing a falsehood, and the lives they might have ruined by preaching their false doctrine.

BUDDHIST: If you try to fulfill your desire for God, you will fail and suffer. Heaven is learning not to desire God. Hell is refusing to give up your desires. CHRISTIAN: If you try to avoid fulfilling your desire for God, you will fail and suffer. Heaven is fulfillment of your desire for God. Hell is rejecting the God your soul desires.

The thing is, you're looking at it from a Christian point of view. We don't look at the afterlife as being the reward to our life's work. Enlightenment can happen now, today....not after you're dead. We don't look at it like the destination of a journey. There is not destination. The journey IS the destination.

Also, you're operating under the premise that everyone's soul desires god, and that's not the case.

Also, there's much more to Buddhism than samsara. Much, much more. Compassion, for example...that's a huge deal to us. Are you telling me that christianity doesn't teach compassion?

D-girl, I'm comparing the Christian point of view to the Buddhist point of view. The reason I'm making this comparison is to show that Christianity and Buddhism clearly contradict each other, and if one is right than the other must be wrong. It looks like you agree with me on this one.

I chose simplicity ("samsara") as an example of where Buddhism and Christianity both agree. I gave this example to show how Buddhism and Christianity may both help people (by teaching them the value of simplicity), without necessarily leading them to the ultimate Truth. Compassion is another good example[1].

I said that Buddhism and Chrstianity both teach the value of simplicity. I never said that they only teach simplicity. I'm not sure why you would think I had.

---

[1] Although I never really understood why compassion was part of Buddhism. You're helping people who are suffering, but the reason they're suffering is because they desire what they do not have. Giving them help just caters to their desires, rather than leading them to enlightenment through indifference. Wouldn't it make more sense for a good Buddhist to simply not care about the suffering of others? I mean, how can you renounce desire and yet desire to help others, at the same time?

--Try again, latour999, you didn't say where the sphere of infinitely small matter come from....hmmm? i'm not saying that the source of everything has to be god, or jehovah, or whatever....i'm looking for the truth to life, religion is in a way a truth that satisfys a group of people...maybe i am contradicting myself or being a hypocrit...thats just what i think....

Perhaps it is a problem with our linear, constant view of time, and cause and effect. Maybe time is something that was created with the creation of the universe. The problem with your argument is that you claim everything needs a creator. Then logically, the creator needs a creator, and he/she/it needs a creator and so on until you have an infinite number of creators.

Religion may satisfy a lot of people, but it is by no means a truth.

The problem with your argument is that you claim everything needs a creator. Then logically, the creator needs a creator, and he/she/it needs a creator and so on until you have an infinite number of creators.Religion may satisfy a lot of people, but it is by no means a truth.

---but if science can explain almost everything, then why not this...those scientist that believe this wat are arrogant (somewhat off topic) maybe i'm wrong, maybe the beginning of everything came from nothing, but it doesn't seem logical, which i guess is why people fall back to religion to explain things, to be satisfyied,...hmmm?

You're helping people who are suffering, but the reason they're suffering is because they desire what they do not have. Giving them help just caters to their desires, rather than leading them to enlightenment through indifference

The premise behind compassion is inter-being; that we are all connected, all sentient beings.  Because we arew all inter-connected, we wish for everyone to be released from the cycle of samsara, regardless.  'Compassion' does not mean 'Helping' as in giving them things. Compassion can be as simple as saying 'I am human too, and I understand your pain/situation.'

Ah. That makes more sense. Thanks, D.

I'm suddenly struck by just how far off-topic I am.

---

The thing is, science can't explain everything. For example, physics can't explain where all the balls on a billiard table will end up, if I grab the cue ball immediately after you hit it. Mathematics can't predict how many cookies you have, if your child raids the cookie jar while you're not looking.

Any phenomenon that has an origin outside of science's frame of reference can't be explained by science. Science just cannot do it. Physics can predict the path of billiard balls, but it can't predict whether or not I'll interfere with the shot.

---

Regarding the concept of an "unsourced source": at a certain point, our own ability to conceptualize things reaches a limit. Might the Creator God not also have a source, a Creator God of His own, that He must worship or renounce, and from which all His Truths originate? Sure. But considering how hard to conceptualize and relate to our own Creator God is (assuming He even exists--something many reasonable people aren't convinced of), it seems kind of pointless to noodle on about what kind of Gods our Gods might worship. Baby steps, right? Let's figure out our proper relationship to our own Source first. Then maybe we can begin the process of wrapping our awareness around the MetaSource.

The Christian God claims to be the Creator of all things, the Source of all Truth, the Alpha and the Omega, the Unsourced Source. Impossible, you say? Maybe. But we're talking about things that precede the Big Bang, here. So it's not like we have any clue at all what's possible and not possible, in the great scheme of things.