-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Atheism
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
antman said:
It's interesting isn't it.
The Buddha is using the exact same arguments via clear thinking that the atheists have been using in the Christianity thread for 300 pages.
1st paragraph- the problems thrown up by omniprescence and alleged 'free will'
2nd paragrapg-the problem of evil
3rd paragraph-the problem of first cause
The only real difference is he was making them 500 years before Jesus even showed up and 2500 years before we did.
Yes,Buddha understands 'tree'.He does have a knack of getting to the heart of the matter in the least amount of words.Unfortunately for most readers they won't understand what he is saying though.Stripes said:
Kierkegaard has a good go here.It's a little long winded but it's worth attempting to cut through what he is saying.
The positiveness of historical knowledge is illusory, since it is approximation-knowledge; the speculative result is delusion. For all this positive knowledge fails to express the situation of the knowing subject in existence. It concerns rather a fictitious objective subject, and to confuse oneself with such a subject is to be duped. Every subject is an existing subject, which should receive an essential expression in all his knowledge. Particularly, it must be expressed through the prevention of an illusory finality, whether in perceptual certainty, or in historical knowledge, or in illusory speculative results. In historical knowledge, the subject learns a great deal about the world, but nothing about himself. He moves constantly in a sphere of approximation-knowledge, in his supposed positivity deluding himself with the semblance of certainty; but certainty can only be had in the infinite, where he cannot as an existing subject remain, but only repeatedly arrive. Nothing historical can become infinitely certain for me except the fact that of my own existence (which again cannot become infinitely certain for any other individual, who has infinite certainty of only his own existence), and this is not something historical.
