Logic (Kebir Blue)

I'm sure everyone is vaguely familiar with the four "noble" truths of Buddhism. Look them up for more information.

One day, I had heard them expressed in a manner that struck me:
1. All is sorrow.
2. All sorrow is caused by desire.
3. End sorrow by ending desire.
4. End desire by following the noble eightfold path.

Or:
1. A is B
2. All B is caused by C.
3. End B by ending C.
4. End C by following D.

Where:
A = All
B = Sorrow
C = Desire
D = Eightfold Path

In reverse:
4. By following D, C is ended.
2,3. When C ends, B ends.
1. When C ends, A ends.

Therefore:
By following D, A ends.

A represents "all"... everything: life, death, pleasure, pain, etc. Reading some explications of these "noble" truths, I see this logic holding up. By following Buddhism, you oppose life.

Anyone want to defend Buddhism?

If A = B,
And C => B,
Then C => A.

It is obvious that the source of "all", as you put it, is not desire. Death is not a result of desire - we more than often enough desire not to die. From here, we apply the theorem "you can't get true conclusions from false premises", to say that Buddhism does not oppose life - or that you haven't proven otherwise, to be exact. If you want it to be true, you will have to define A differently. And it appears to me, that for any definition of A that suits this, the conclusion Buddhism opposes life will be invalid.

Yes, thank you.

"A = All" is problematic. What is A?
A = That which leads to suffering through desire.

Accordingly, the first noble truth is explained as:
"This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."
A = "the five aggregates subject to clinging" = Skandha

If life can be defined as something that is independent of form, matter, sensation, feeling, perception, conception, apperception, cognition, discrimination, mental formations, impulses, volition, compositional factors, consciousness, or discernment, then Budd

Interesting.

I'm now noticing a possible mistake in my formulation. #2 is not written as "C => B". That is read as desire implies sorrow. The text states "all sorrow is born from desire", which to be more precise, means a subset of C, possibly even equal to C, implies sorrow. In the case that is not equal, it might mean that there is some desire that does not harbor sorrow. That is not, however, the impression I'm getting from the whole that is all of the Four Noble Truths.

My first inclination when reading the explanation given for "all" was to expand it to "life is suffering". However, that would not satisfy the above condition. Skandha does satisfy the condition.

By looking at the whole, I draw that if Life is possible without skandha, Life is possible without sorrow. I gather you believe that this life without skandha isn't a life worth living, or even not a life at all. That i

"This beggar was a chosen object of divine mercy. He was both poor and helpless, but there were many others in that condition around the temple. Luke tells us that this man was "a certain man". God had chosen him and was determined to be gracious to him (II Thess. 2:13-14). Providence had made him poor and helpless and put him in the place where grace would be found."


DESIRELESS

The issue with the rejection of the material world for another spiritual world (doesn't matter what kind) lies in the fact that you are rejecting the certain for the uncertain. The spiritual world is uncertain to exist, uncertain as to what it exactly is, and uncertain as to whether or not it is a better world.

This would be equivalent to betting on a team that wasn't signed up for the tournament in hopes not only that they exist, but that they also show up ready to play and are good enough to win the tournament.

If there were evidence for this existence of the spiritual world, it could only be accessed through one of the skandha. It must be felt, seen, acknowledged, remembered, etc. to actually be evident to exist (and therefore certain).

The ridiculousness of nix's statement is this:
The beggar chosen for God's mercy is both poor and helpless. He is chosen for God's grace on this basis ov

Philosophers: Proving *nothing* more intelligently than the rest of us since 1000 BC.

But what is nothing? If nothing can be defined, does that make it something? If something is nothing, how come nothing cannot be something?

We all know that the only thing missing in Philosophy is LOLcats. Economics, now, that's the one true science! The rest is just pictures and fancy talk. ;0

LOL

Scarlet. Maybe the other Beggars were in a position of begging because they had been bad? Maybe they were there looking for help and forgivness? Maybe this "certain man" was in a position of begging because he was a good man? Maybe he was there to help and offer forgivness?


LOL Quote: 'However, if one did not put oneself in this state of poorness and helplessness, would one require God's mercy?'

LAOF

I guess it all depends on what definitions you use for poorness and helplessness.

Hmm, maybe... maybe... maybe... is there anything certain about this situation?

Consider the saying: "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." This is what I'm seeing here. How can a man who cannot fish teach others to fish (helplessness)? How can a man who is poor even give others a fish (poorness)? Of what use is this poor, helpless man to other poor, helpless men?

When I read nix's quote I assumed it was from the Bible, but upon researching I realize it is not, it is someone else's commentary. Others may have assumed as I did, so just for some clarity:

Act 3 contains the actual verses referred to.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour. And a certain man lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple; Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms. And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us. And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them. Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. And he took him b

dAM jO jo. Just come in from the pub thinking I knew what I was gonna say to Scarlet and now my head feels like it needs a cuppa tea.

Ill be back when the kettles boiled.

Your right. I have no idea where that quote came from. But the more I think about it the more it holds water.

To be poor and helpless means you are only reliant on you and who you are.

Then it appears the beggar is chosen for two reasons:
1. He cannot walk.
2. His walking will lend credence to Peter's teaching (or God's word).

If his walking were not required to lend credence to Peter's teaching, would not this mean that he would remain lame? Or if he were capable of walking, wouldn't this mean that he would have been overlooked for God's miracle? There is still no criteria that truly sets this man apart from other lame men save that of convenience (he was in the right place at the right time for God's purposes).

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

To be poor and helpless means you are only reliant on you and who you are.<!-/Quote-!>

If you are self-reliant, then you are poor and helpless?

I don't believe this statement can possibly be true or at least in the manner you appear to intend it.

1. What if you are

Very well put Scarlet. Very well indeed.

As you put it, is as it is.

Faith is to believe, and biblically speaking, faith in itself is proof of the existence of God and at the same time, to believe in God, one needs faith. Beyond that, there is no way to prove him, except by a miracle, something that happens that defies the laws of physics and our present reality (enter the lame man). But isn't it something, biblically, as faith is a "gift" of God, he gives it as he pleases, and only through faith can one find him. "As it is written", "all men have not faith" (2 Thesslonians 3:2), it would seem that God holds all the cards?

I would like to give my input in somethings though.

What if...
One were to believe in the God, and in his will, therefore believing that he controls one's destiny. Nevertheless, at the same time, one works hard, is driven, yet prays? Could it be that o

I don't think there's any great lesson about the beggar in that story--nothing against him, I'm sure he was a nice guy, but in the story he's just a prop.

So, for example, "If his walking were not required to lend credence to Peter's teaching, would not this mean that he would remain lame?" Yes, it would, and he would. And then "yes," and "yes," to Scarlet's next 2 questions...but I don't think this means anything significant.

Anyway, "Hard work, critical thinking, and dedication will yield far more apparent and desirable consequences than faith." Perhaps, but I don't see that they are exclusive. I would prefer hard work, critical thinking, dedication, and faith.

"The spiritual world is not even guaranteed to exist." Guaranteed is a strong word. There is no guarantee that the material world exists. Tomorrow, it all could go POOF, and you would loo

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

"The spiritual world is not even guaranteed to exist." Guaranteed is a strong word. There is no guarantee that the material world exists. Tomorrow, it all could go POOF, and you would look in vain for your guarantee. <!-/Quote-!>

If the material world ceases to exist, then I cease to exist. If the spiritual world ceases to exist, then is there any evidence that would show that I cease to exist? Accordingly, my very existence is inextricably and undeniably tied to the existence of the material world. Beyond that, the mental world is included in the material one as thought is demonstrably tied to the brain and has physical manifestation. The brain is the vehicle of thought. The absence of the brain will lead to an apparent lack of thought. The fact that I can be taught abstract concepts that I did not before know or understand is evidence of the reality of the mind.

Almost forgot about hard work and prayer. My point is merely that the deciding factor in success is hard work. Even if God exists, God's will could only be at most a contributing factor. Isn't the saying: "God helps them that help themselves." or something like that. If somebody wants to believe that God is the cause of their success, that's fine. Their entitled to it, but were it not for their own hard work and dedication, I strongly doubt they would have achieved any success whatsoever. I'm sure this can be demonstrated merely by looking at the common denominator of success:
1. What percentage of successful people worked hard?
2. What percentage of successful people prayed?
3. What percentage of unsuccessful people worked hard?
4. What percentage of unsuccessful people prayed?
While I'm not going to make up statistics, I'm sure that hard work corresponds more closely to success than prayer.

I w

Short response now: You're stacking the deck, if you only accept physical evidence as evidence, and then state that the evidence only supports a material world.

You're also stacking the deck if you assume that anything we do is by definition self-serving, then claim that such is evidence that there is no spiritual existence.

Proof that nature ALWAYS follows her own laws? None, in fact. Maybe it does, but there's no proof. And depending on how you define laws, there's plenty of evidence against it, in quantum physics.

I'm not stacking the deck, and it would appear as though you are making several unwarranted assumptions. Perhaps this is because of my word choice.

1. State an example of non-physical evidence. If non-physical evidence exists, then a non-physical world can exist. If, however, I cannot access non-physical evidence, then I do not have non-physical senses. If I do not have non-physical senses, I can't know of or participate in a non-physical world. If I can never know of or participate in a non-physical world, then it's existence is irrelevant to my own.

2. I'm not assuming anything we do is self-serving, and I'm certainly not using this as evidence. I clearly stated a counter-example. My evidence was the fact that you were using circular reasoning. Rather, my point was how the right thing does not need to be opposed to the personal good.

3. Nature ALWAYS follows her own laws. This is INHERENTLY true. There cannot

Ok, I'm arguing that the non-material world exists as much as the material, physical world exists. You ask for proof that it exists, yet you provide no proof that the material world exists, you just take it as a given. Where's your proof?

And I'm saying that I have direct evidence of something that's not part of the material, physical world...my perceptions and consciousness. All you argued on that point was that perceptions and consciousness are connected to the material, physical world. Granted. The "so-called material, physical world," that is, until you prove its existence.

Just because it is connected to the so-called material, physical world (SCMPW) doesn't mean it is part of the SCMPW. Any more than the SCMPW is a part of the non-SCMPW, just because it is connected to it. Though that is more plausible.

And finally I just have to argue this highly speculative "Nature always follows her own laws" business.

You seem to be just defining whatever happens as nature following its own laws. There's no content to that statement; it's a useless tautology. A rock can fall up on Tuesdays, and sideways on Wednesdays, and you'd say that it's just following the laws of nature. A man could turn water into wine, and you'd says it's just nature following its laws.

Usually when scientists say nature follows laws they are excluding most imaginable occurrences as 'against the laws' and thus not possible.

Laws of nature tend to be independent of time, and independent of location, and independent of velocity. Furthermore, scientists say that the laws of nature tend to be simple, and that they tend to be expressible mathematically. The fact that we can make these generalizations has made a profound impres

Rocks falling sideways?
I can't follow the laws of nature if it doesn't happen. The point of "Nature always follows her own laws" is two-fold:
1. Nature functions in a predictable manner.
2. Science can be wrong, but nature is what it is.

Perception is impossible without the material world because perception requires:
1. Something to do the perceiving. (The senses)
2. Something to be perceived. (The material world)
3. Something to interpret the perception. (The mind)

Perception requires these things to occur.
Perception occurs.
If perception requires these things to occur and perception occurs, then these things exist.

Now, the question of the mind's existence is whether or not it is part of the material world. You say that I merely pointed out that it was connected... but this is a misinterpretation of what I was trying to point out. Rather, the mind DEP

Laws of Nature
Scarlet, when you say "Nature functions in a predictable manner," do you mean sometimes, or always? Because we can only predict it sometimes. I don't think you're going to get around the fact that you're just guessing or taking it on faith if you think it always functions in a predictable manner.

Perception
Senses don't perceive. Minds perceive.

I'll agree that the thing to be perceived must be part of the material world. But I don't automatically agree that perception occurs. Maybe our "perceptions" are really hallucinations or dreams.

Mind's existence
Okay, you're saying very clearly that the mind depends on the material world for its existence. So you're cleverly implying (intentionally or not) that the material world must be at least as real as the non-material world of the mind.

I could fall ba