I think Dr. Yifa has given the clearest answer to our main question of God/universe begining/end or none of the above. It makes sense that whether we beleive or dont beleive could just be a matter of the capacity or programming of our mind and conception of how life is or how we think it should be in the world we have.
Those who practice the types of Eastern Philosophy that, in an ineffable way are internally grateful for all things, that take "no-things" for granted, have amazingly powerful outlooks as well as perceptions of life, nature, mans' achievements such as the vast technological landscape in which we live that makes our lives so abundant and meaningful, know a peacefulness that's associated with that direct mindset.
Breaking through conceptualizations is the single most useful advice for anyone interested in spiritual matters. Undoubtedly, human beings have had insights into the nature of reality through millennia, which slowly sedimented into cultural forms. Religions are just that.
buddhism would really rock if they didn't have the reincarnation bullshit. i like that they don't have a god. but why did they have to add something that has no evidence and cannot be disproven - untestable?
@@The22on I agree, and the Buddha himself argued that hindu reincarnation did not exist but rebirth did, that after you die you have an impact on the world that leads to new things. He was just trying to explain that man is intertwined with nature and should care for it because his actions affect it. I believe it was later that buddhist scholars corrupted this into the reincarnation of the self, and the six realms that you can be reborn into. These scholars then had a really hard time reconsiling the buddha's "no self" message alongside reincarnation.
Danny Rev the religious background i know would teach that religion is not meant to control you but to help you liberate yourself. i don't believe the religion i was taught but in some ways i do believe that religion is less about controlling you and more about you liberating yourself. then someone may say i am talking about spirituality rather than religion, and i would say making that distinction misses the point.
"It's so hard to imagine a beginning!" Yes it was the favorite talking point of the 19th century enlightenment philosophers. Then they discovered the Big Bang. Poor Yifa must have missed that memo? Here's a newsflash, it's not hard at all to imagine the beginning of everything. For about a century now. What actually is interesting is how on Earth could the primitive cultures (both ME and ancient India) come up with the concept of no time and no space. For a primitive mind it should make no sense at all. Up until Newton people used to think about space and time as static and fixed coordinate system. In this world view place without space-time makes absolutely no sense. Yet, against all odds, both Old Testament and Vedas had the concept of no-time/no-space. Now, after Einstein the mankind (as far as we know), for the first time in history have the scientific concept of this strange place without time and space. What once was a primitive fairy tale for the simple minded suddenly morphed into ultra modern scientific fact. Reality has a funny way of making fools of us. As in: all of us, including the most educated, knowledgeable and intelligent. A practical joke of cosmic proportions (yes, pun intended).
I appreciate the insights of my sister. If GOD is, perhaps you cannot know God until you know yourself. Then see thru the b.s. that is your fictional self (ego construct)... and REALIZE the actual SELF concealed by the fictional self... and this fictional self is born of separation... and all apparent separation is artificially constructed by the mind trapped in "concepts and images". To see the REAL nature of things hidden behind the artificial... and thus come to know the REALITY that is GOD. But then again, I could be wrong?? Who knows??
Thats a damn fallacious argument lol! But then again, people made football, so they made the purpose. Humans made gods, so they can make the purpose. So other humans can make other purposes lol. It works if you think of it like that. But we have no evidence for a god. The universe as far as we know doesnt give jack shit about us on our tiny muddy dot in a backwater part of a titanic universe. So, in lieu of that, we can make our own purposes, provided we are fortunate enough to live in a country where we are free to do such things. Moralities are shifting and changing over time through human pressures from all direections and they determine what the "right plays and wrong plays" are for different societies. Garbage video for those who cant think critically and I will post this there.
So you, a human, believe what you think and call it, thinking "critically" You've set your own rules of the game to give it meaning for you.: You trust only your own thinking brain and have made your thinking brain your authority and that which is beyond your critical thinking is of no importance to you. In your narrow world view, only humans create, therefore you have no creator that created you. That is a fallacious argument lol! @@shkotayd9749
"In your narrow world view, only humans create, therefore you have no creator that created you." Thank you for saving me from needing to debate that ridiculous statement with "That is a fallacious argument lol!" It is indeed ;) lol
Argue about it? Answer: "How about not wasting time on that which we cannot prove or disprove in any way, shape, form, or fashion?" "Do you have self awareness, lol?" Answer with a question: What does this question prove? We are still struggling to understand self-awareness, consciousness and other aspects of the human mind. To attach it to some proof of a god or soul or some such seems unlikely as hell and only getting more so the more we learn about the mind. But we arent there yet. How can I answer like this? One thing we know for certain: The qualities of consciousness are embedded in, and depend solely on the state of a physical structure - the brain.
“To speak of “God” properly, then…is to speak of the one infinite source of all that is ...God so understood is not something posed over against the universe, in addition to it, nor is he the universe itself. He is not a “being” ...he is not one more object in the inventory of things that are, or any sort of discrete object at all. Rather, all things that exist receive their being continuously from him, who is the infinite wellspring of all that is ...In one sense he is “beyond being,” if by “being” one means the totality of discrete, finite things. In another sense he is “being itself,” in that he is the inexhaustible source of all reality, the absolute upon which the contingent is always utterly dependent, the unity and simplicity that underlies and sustains the diversity of finite and composite things. ...All the great theistic traditions agree that God, understood in this proper sense, is essentially beyond finite comprehension; hence, much of the language used of him is negative in form and has been reached only by a logical process of abstraction from those qualities of finite reality that make it insufficient to account for its own existence. All agree as well, however, that he can genuinely be known: that is, reasoned toward, intimately encountered, directly experienced with a fullness surpassing mere conceptual comprehension.” Source: Hart, David Bentley (2013). The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. Yale University Press. p. 41-42
@DigitalDan You're welcome, I appreciate the feedback. This description by Dr. Hart has been one of the most helpful in all my years of studying philosophy of religion and theology. Would you mind sharing your concerns about the last sentence?
@DigitalDan I see where you're coming from, and essentially I agree with you. The tricky part is what is meant by "known", and it does appear to be more of a mystical knowing as you put it. Dr. Hart is coming from an Orthodox perspective and their theology is different than western thinkers. Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh explains in more detail how the Orthodox Christians think of the knowledge of God: In the estimation of the spiritual fathers of the Orthodox Church, knowing God is not just another kind of knowledge. ...knowing God is not just another intellectual exercise. It is the kind of Knowledge that commits your entire existence, it is an existential, experiential, apophatic, and doxological Knowledge. We know God when we experience His presence as filling and overtaking us, when we feel completely dependent on him, "as infants feel dependent upon their mothers" (St. Basil). We know God not through our concepts and ideas only, but beyond and above them: for our entire existence is united with Him. We know God when we are familiar with Him as "the cattle are familiar with their manger." We know God when "we breath Him," when we feel His presence any place we are or go; we know God when we constantly depend on Him, when our lives belong to Him, when our lives become a constant praise of His Holy Name. ... Our Christian God, then, is not the "God of Philosophers." He is not a "Supreme Being" similar to other beings, another "essence" among many essences. The Christian God is "super-essential" and "super-existent" only in the sense that He is totally different from created existence. "If everything else is being, God is not a being," said St. Gregory Palamas. Source: www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8038
@DigitalDan You're committing quite the straw man fallacy here. This is no "warm fuzzies" argument and I never suggested this is basing knowledge on feelings. If you can comprehend sense experience granting knowledge of the world then you can comprehend mystical experience granting knowledge of God. You'd have to attack experience as being a genuine source of knowledge, but once you do that then welcoming radical skepticism... Here's a video of several philosophers going into more detail on how religious experience is a genuine form of knowledge and how objections to this tends to lead the skeptic to saw off the branch they sit on: ua-cam.com/video/2MvvauasSvY/v-deo.html and no this is not analogous to aliens, big foot, or Elvis. Those are all objects, entities in the world, while God was explained to you as not a being but rather the ground of being itself. Also, if you avoid the dualism of Descartes, and/or accept a kind of externalism, you have no worries about an evil demon trying to deceive you.
If such a thing as God, the idea of a higher power/ unimaginable force does exist, I personally think ( not believe) that it could have created the singularity and let everything happen from there, either it worked or it didn't and just decided to watch. The claims by theists are so vague yet so define, that I honestly can't accept them as absolute. Why would a God want to be worshipped? Why would someone worship someone who tortures people forever? Why would a God create us and know before but hope we'd think one way? For me, I don't see the point of heaven or hell. If the Abrahamic God for example wanted to be worshipped as claimed by Abrahamic religions, why not just create beings that worship it in some place beyond comprehension without having to earn it? That to me isn't wanting, it's a way to make others fear what they don't know and a way to control them to behave the way a person would need them to by promising a reward for being good and a punishment for being bad. The punishment of hell, the punishment doesn't fit the crime. An average life of 76 years with some sins is deserving of eternal suffering. It makes no sense. We don't know if there is a God. PERIOD
Prophet Muhammad PBUH simple life's is like Budishm principle. It's a ll about how our consciousness manage the free will into a good ways, freewill is like quantum probabilities, our ego can shape our universe However question will approached, do wee still need of God, after we live in a good way? that imply a logical reason to do it, my logical answer is, what consciousness depends into? ;)
You realize that Muhammad was just a man like you and me, right? Except that his understanding of the world was far smaller than that of even many ignorant people alive today, if only because we have discovered so much more over the centuries passed. It is for this same reason that books like the Quran and Bible are so ignorant of nature and science.
@@TehNetherlands You need to learn more about abrahamic religions, since feyman observation on cosmic consciousness, more scientist are going to think about it back again, there is another forces that very-very small that govern our visible mater, supernatural is inevitable, you may call it...fill God in the gap but hey....the word prophet it self is come from prophecies, the greatest secret of quantum Phenomena.
she keeps using the word reincarnation when what she means is rebirth. She has to be clear on this , there is a stark difference between the 2. Rebirth is the mainstream of the buddhist concept, while reincarnation is a concept of the Mahayanist buddhist which is to do with Buddisatvas choosing to reincarnate so that they can continue to devote for the well being of all sentients. I am not sure about this Nun explaining the buddhist concept in english.
It isn't logic or reason that us trapping you. It's your failure to accept truth! Period! Accept the truth that you don't know the truth and you will receive the truth that you don't know. Now decide if you really need to know or if it's just a curiosity. Discover who you are in relation to truth. God is truth!
what you think such a huge organized and planned universe is without God?suppose you come into room saw chair whom a carpenter makes and goes away ,what do you think chair was made himself ?absolutely No ........So there isnt any doubt on existence of God .....even from mouth to heart every thing in us and in universe is indicating about creator ......we human develope doubt because we of ignorance .
When I see a chair I know it's man-made. When I see a Bible I know it's man-made , when I see a religion I know it is man-made .when I see the stars at night I know it's NOT made by a SUPERman.. What I don't know, is how faith ALONE can motivate people to believe that a Superman is needed to MAKE the universe.. Can you explain it to me without using subjective feelings ? Or even a single logical argument on WHY we should believe in gods and angels and Demons?
Did you know that your comment just re-stated the old, disproven "Watchmaker Argument? I bet you don't even know what that argument is - and it's centuries old! Since I'm sure you won't look it up yourself, here's a link: intelligent-design-watchmaker_b_1730878.html Do you really think most educated atheists never heard your argument before? Were you proud that your 'brilliant logic' might turn atheists into theists? Please - read a book about atheism. I suggest 'God is not Great' by Christopher Hitchens. After you've read it, THEN come here and give your view. Of course, by then you will have become atheist.
That's interesting. God is logically inaccessible, because we are yet to develop the sufficient technology in discovering it -- that is, to quantify, enumerate, induct or deduce its existence, at least, mathematically. I understand.
She's saying logic itself is the technology that cannot access God because to logically think about God creates logical contradictions/paradox. God is not a logical object that can be measured, quantified, inducted, etc. The path to God lies outside logic, ie. the realm of faith. It's Immanuel Kant's philosophy of Transcendental Idealism - that the concept of God comes from our finite mind's incapacity to conceptualize the infinite/transcendent. Whether God exists is a problem that cannot be solved logically yet our consciousness demands that we think of it logically due to the fact that we are logical beings.
@@jessewallace12able Are you american? You guys are not christians. Your people worships the economic power and material prosperity as a superior value. You are violent, racists and unfair people. Your god is the dollar. All those "churches" created by AMERICAN CITIZENS has nothing to do with Jesus. You are not christians.
@Jarnagua We aren't logical beings 😂, we are irrational emotional beings. Why the hell do you think formal logic courses exist in college curriculums? Because by nature, humans are motivated by food and sex.
@DigitalDan Well Digi, I SAID it is highly unlikely because the concept of an OMNIPOTENT supernatural entity overseeing the universe without an IOTA of actual evidence makes the idea highly unlikely to the rational mind that is not encumbered by Supernatural thinking..Allowing for a vanishingly SMALL chance of his existence, and realizing how chaotic , violent, and hostile toward life the universe is on the micro AND macro scale, would infer the SAME attributes ( Justifiably ) to God .This isn't hard for an unclouded mind to deduce friend..
@DigitalDan a very ELABORATELY rendered response my young friend.. I can DEDUCE the probability that relative to myself you are young since I am long retired and well beyond the median age for a contemporary human being. I JUSTIFIABLY believe that I am correct in this regard based on probabilities (although I have no evidence) BUT as I did before, I allow for a small chance of being incorrect.. You seem bright enough, so I'll say it like this, one can add ANY number of unsupported, unnecessary, or fantastical ideas to our current understanding of the universe BUT since they are not presented with ANY iota of credible evidence they can RIGHTFULLY be dismissed as NOT credible..( Or as I like to say, very improbable ) your existential ruminations on the nature of knowledge and probabilities sounds straight out of the Bronze Age friend, no undue offense intended. As a lifelong proponent for both the scientific method and scientific materialism, I can confidently report that these disciplines ( Not philosophy) offer our best chance for understanding the universe. Thank you for your engaging conversation.
Double PS: I propose a spiritual belief based on the many worlds Theory. We are nearly infinite in scope and fulfill some unknown purpose in the universe.
The next important question after "Does God exist?" is "What exactly is the soul?". Religions usually fail flat on their bums when they attempt to explain the soul. The cliche explanation "A soul is what is not physical" suffers from a ton of issues including problems with the laws of thermodynamics. It's even more "fun" when you try to wrap your mind around the question "Does the soul contain one's memories?". Neurophysics has already proven that a person's personality can be modified beyond recognizable by brain surgery. So, if the soul does not keep one's memories, then how does the soul describe one's identity? What is it that god is judging after death occurs? Not the person that's lived as it seems, because once dead that person's memories are gone for good. To me the poor job the religions are doing when (desperately and very inconvincibly) trying to explain the soul, projects their own demise among modern society.
The Greek Church Fathers taught that soul and body are one hypostases and that you cannot effect one without doing something to the other (so, with your neurophysics analogy, doing something to the brain is also doing something to the soul, although only one is empirically observable). The pain of death comes about precisely because body and soul split apart, which belong together naturally, and is extremely painful in itself but also causes more prolonged pain for the soul that can no longer satisfy its passions and attachments with the body. You may find the answers you seek in the early Greek fathers.
Also, the fathers would not agree that the soul "is not physical". It is physical, at least philosophically speaking, but not in the sense post-enlightenment thought understands physical. It has substance, but is invisible.
I read about the Church of Reality. Their motto is: If it's real, we believe in it. It sounds funny until you realize that is what science does - find out if something is real. The "church" has a website online somewhere. Sounded good to me.
I am saying nothing created everything so there is no all knowing creator. There is no creator with more power than I have. Someone could murder me for saying this and it would not prove there is a creator. I say everything is literally nothing- shunyata.
What's so interesting is that to her the thought of God was silly. The Catholic thought reincarnation was silly. The Catholic didn't convince her, but rather made her see that the reason both beliefs were was because they were based on nothing but faith. "If you can recognize that world come to be without a creator, then you don't need a God." I think she meant that if you can imagine the world came into existence without being created then it can be. Which is an inverse of the cosmological argument it seems. I like what she said about the paradox of eternity in the negative and the positive. If no beginning is incomprehensible then so something just beginning. Both are incomprehensible, even if eternity seems more logical. Or is it? How can something always have been? Can we understand that? Then why cannot it not be that something just began to be?
The one thing we humans cannot picture is ORIGINS. I can't picture infinity or creation. Saying that a god created the universe is silly. Where did that god come from? And you keep going back in an infinite regression of gods. Again - infinity and creation = origin... which we can't picture. Personally, I don't think we will ever picture creation without an infinite string of gods going back. In quantum mechanics, particles can pop into existence from nothing. That sounds cool, but... huh? lol I'm content to say there's no god until someone can provide scientific evidence. Because it can't be done by trying to use logic.
She's basically telling us to examine what we believe and why. That's all we can ask of people. Telling people to get outside of their little echo chambers and expand their minds. Excellent stuff.
What a cool accent you have, Venerable Dr Yifa! *_1_* Gautama Buddha was uninterested in God, or a Supreme Being. At 35 he realized that the *most* important thing in life is to end psychological suffering, which is caused by *the self.* *_2_* Is there a personal or impersonal God? Is there continuity after death? Is reincarnation or resurrection a fact? Are there heaven and hell? In the end we-atheists, agnostics, materialists, skeptics, freethinkers, and believers-have to find out for ourselves the answer to these questions: *_why_* do we want to believe or not to believe in those things? what is our *_motivation_* in accepting or rejecting them? what is our *_intention?_* *_3_* _It's hard to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if the cat does not exist._ -Confucius A good, happy, loving human being has no followers, follows no one, and needs no recreational drugs (including coffee, tobacco, and alcohol), no weapons, no flags, no holy books, no religions, no churches, no saviors, no gods. 💕 ☮ 🌎 🌌
"how should we think about god" answer: think of it as another myth to be studied and appreciated from a literary pov and leave it at that. that way we can focus on solving human problems based in reality.
The Buddhist idea that there's no first condition, that all conditions emerge from previous conditions, as Yifa explained, fits many contemporary cosmological models. For Christians it's difficult to grasp a world without beginning (or end). Cosmic inflation is the prevailing branch in today's cosmology, and it's hard to build a coherent model of inflation, if there's a beginning or a first condition.
Though you try hard not to appear arrogant, Robert Lawrence. Isn't it unavoidable that as a Western, with a Western brain, speaking for a Western audience, with a Western logig, you meet the Buddhist and want to discuss this absolutely fundamental subject? Because the Buddhist doesn't believe in Logig as a vehicle for knowledge? He (she) finds your attempt at rapprochement hard to bear? Because she would so much wish that you, as a wise westerner, should have overcome such questions as the question of God long ago? Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
How about compassion for the man trying to understand existence and to bring that understanding to a greater audience. Should he be ashamed if it is as you say and he hasnt had such realisation?
We certainly try to grant him that, Luke. If we want to enlighten other people, we should do it with great seriousness. The educated enlightened person of today should also behave in such a way that his spiritual, mental status is visible to others. @@lukeduncan3647
@@silberlinie Yes. One cannot make their spiritual mental status evident in all, or even most circumstances. Their ability to do so is relative to their environment, their past traumas, their culture, and so on. I get the impression that there is a spark in him there that is looking for enlightenment and that he is attempting to be open to everything Dr. Yifa says. That he sees the fallibility of pure rationality. incredibly smart man though, the path of philosophy or knowledge would be well open to him
What irritates me is the continuous comparisons between God and something we have and use (like the fridge/computer she mentioned), which I'd say is simply invalid and naive that shows our limited knowledge. If God exits, God would be beyond our comprehension, on a much higher dimension.
She wasn't comparing God to a fridge or a computer. Robert misunderstood her there. The thing about "we used to have a box with ice cubes in it and now we have a fridge with a computer in it" was supposed to be an analogy for the cosmos, not for God. She was saying that we don't need a creator, because the universe just evolved from prior conditions. Then he asked where those conditions came from, and she said even earlier conditions. I think the fridge thing was a poor metaphor, but that's what she meant. Buddhism tends to reject the idea of a creator god on the basis that if you posit a cause, you can always ask what caused that cause? The Western, Abrahamic, answer has been to say that it is inconceivable that the cosmos has simply existed for ever with no cause, so there must be an uncaused first cause. This uncaused first cause is called God. Buddhism, on the other hand, says that the concept of an uncaused cause makes no sense either, because anything that exists must have been caused by prior conditions. Therefore, you cannot answer this question using ordinary human logic. That last point was what she meant when she was talking about the computer. She was saying that a person trying to answer this question with logic is like a computer trying to open a file when it does not have the necessary program to open this file type. It just won't work.
@@ahmedp800 These books pretend to be descriptive of a god that by your own definition is beyond our understanding. Bizarre books like the Quran attribute a whole range of qualities and characteristics to the so called creator of the universe. Qualities that are all too often curiously similar to those of human beings.
@@TehNetherlands First we have to agree that these books were not written by humans but were handed down to us by God. And considering these books are supposedly for all kind of people, the description needed to be something simple, general and closer to what and who we are. It just doesn't make sense that God would talk about higher dimensions and such advanced scientific ideas at the time these books came to be thousands of years ago!
I was lost from the start and lost it all the way. Gautama Buddha was a religious leader and teacher. So he was teaching about Indian God's prayer and mantras (That's how all the Buddhist do mantras & chanting while doing hawan). Up north and some parts of south believed that Gautama Buddha was reincarnated from GOD.
Even if you presume god(s) exist, which I don't, this discussion and all others cannot define what god is, is so vague and reeks of moralising on what other people do.
I once asked a young electrician who works with me, "Do you think that, in a far distant galaxy on a planet orbiting some other Sun, that 2+2 still equals 4?" He answered, "Well not necessarily, maybe maybe not, it could be anything ...." What I was trying to do was test HOW he came to conclusions, that is WHETHER he had a valid system of distinction for ideas such that he could make determinate decisions in a way that was consistent. As you see, he did not. And neither does this monk. He's as lost as my young electrician, who was mostly just all about getting extra hours so he could get over a lot of bills he'd run up earlier in his life. What this monk has is a dogma, not a process for knowing. Knowing takes two things, 1. consistency & 2. courage. For instance consider the supernatural, 500 years of hard study in science, seeking one iota of the supernatural, had found none. The conclusion is that: In the whole history of the universe not one supernatural event has ever happened, not once, ever. That is what you can know if you have the courage. As the supernatural is therefore a failed project for the brave, what is left is the natural ie that which is allowed under the Laws of Physics. No proposal for a god that obeys physical law is known, and therefore as much as you can know anything, you can know no god exists.
Buddhist apologetics is primarily about narratives, nice rhetorics. It is incoherent. She also does not understand the concept of contingent vs necessary beings. I am actually again really disappointed by the level of intellectual discourse here. At best buddhism is a mental training school.
- .."Maybe we are looking for the same thing" - ??? I wouldn't think so, because theists are not looking for anything since they already have a God, who is everything. On the other hand, the way of Zen Buddhism is an effort to achieve illumination through, precisely, not looking for anything. Therefore, I believe that those who are looking for a God, are simply big-headed bigots who think that their reasoning is good enough to understand that which is not understandable to human reason. Zen Masters, however, recommend you to "go and empty your cap" before they allow you to enter and join their monasteries.
God exists take a look at what we as limited humans have discovered about ancient historical humans whether hieroglyphics stone hange bible Dead Sea scrolls and so on they all show the worship of God this is where Christianity is officially the truth and logical.
@@lukeduncan3647 Mankind has been looking for the existence of a God for a very very long time with nothing to show for it. If a God or Gods existed we would have the evidence by now.
@@JohnG-tv3gc Well yes and I feel we would actually generally agree overall about this. But the idea of "stupid conversations" - These conversations challenge our perception to see beyond our normally perceived reality into much greater depths. Similar to physics, perhaps trying to understand and visualize relativity or set theory in mathematics. Conversations about God or reincarnation have within them different paths that end up centering around topics like evolution (as Yifa brings us) and the concept of time, change, space and so on. Which also comes up if theres an intellectual approach like god. So looking at God can be like looking at something else that challenges the rational mind. The process of being challenged leads to greater realizations and a greater understanding with which to approach everyday life and in a more complete manner. Without Einsteins relativity we would be set back hugely, but without Einsteins ability to perceive reality in the way that he did, we would be monumentally set back, and quality of consciousness is what is more important than whether or not e=mc(2). Its like in music, without Chopins ability to play piano we would be set back, but without Chopins mind that could perceive and create music the way that he could, the evolution of consciousness would be missing something. This stuff gets translated through einstein and chopins work for us to grow, but it is where they were coming from that is important if consciousness is going to continue to evolve.
@@lukeduncan3647 Not sure what you mean when you say, these conversations challenge our perception to see beyond our normally perceived reality into much greater depths. What is the purpose of having a conversation that is outside the realm of reality? By your reasoning, talking about tooth fairies is going to challenge our perception to see beyond our normally perceived reality into much greater depths? Really? Things are either real or they are not real. And what on earth does physics, relativity and, mathematics have to do with things outside the realm of reality? You do realise that physics deals with physical things? You think mixing science with hocus pocus gives hocus pocus more credibility? I don't think so. There is no point to have conversations about God when we haven't even established that a God exists. Should we have conversations about tooth fairies? Should we have conversations about flying pigs? Conversations are a great way to understand what is around us, conversations that are outside the realm of reality have little value. You appear to have simplistic approach about consciousness. Consciousness is only a part of what we have, it doesn't merely take consciousness for people like Einstein and Chopin to have achieved what what they have. It takes intelligence, creativity, and a whole lot of other qualities that combine in forming who we are.
@@JohnG-tv3gc We should talk about tooth fairies if our discussion about them leads to greater insight about the nature of reality. If we talk enough about flying pigs we will learn about concepts of absurdity, evolution, physics, mathematics. This could be away to teach kids about basic physics principles. After all, physicist are ALWAYS in the realm of speculation in its most strict sense, and are working within that. If they were not speculating, their would be no physics to be done, as it would be solved. They may be speculating within a realm of certainty, such as within the realm of particle physics, but until that realm is married harmoniously with relativity and quantum physics, it is a realm that is incomplete and one of partial truth. If we talk about fairies we will talk about mythology and its impact on the mind. Their are tales of tooth fairies for a reason, they have some relation to the mind as it is, not as you perceive it to be, as some metaphysical construct that is made of numbers and logic. They are tales for kids, say. So why are their tales for kids? What is it about the universe that has this curious property where little beings are being entranced by magic and mythology by bigger beings? If the mind was simply logical or capable of simply being logical, their would be no discussion at all ever. And no "stupid conversations". Someone would point at something and know it, and everyone else around them would just agree because its the truth. Everything would be just understood. I think the universe is bigger than you or me, or than what you are allowing it to be. It cant be writ in an equation, summed up in a sentence within philosophy, painted into a single painting, or spoken of in totality within a poem. And it is in the very nature of things for all of those ideas to be absurd themselves! This does not mean there is a God. Or a Hindu God. Or a bunch of greek Gods. But it does mean that there is mystery, and we have certain ways of thinking about and approaching that mystery so as to progress our understanding of the universe. And so when we talk about God we are talking about this great uncovered mystery that has been ca huge part of the growth and of consciousness. It has also a topic to be used for great power to destroy other nations through terrible narcissism and acts of violence. It is totally cool you dont want to talk about God. I get that. Religion has been the bane of humanity in a lot of ways. And the idea of a creator dude is dumb. So Yeah, these are stupid conversations in that sense. To say it doesnt have a purpose for other people, and that you know that to be the truth, well, alright, thanks god.
Kant, Descartes, Hitchens, Dawkins, MY PASTOR... none of those minds, in addition to these two are any closer to resolving this issue. We won’t know either way until we are in the hole. Here’s a little tip for life: Quit waiting for your ship to come in. This is the f$&king ship, people. Make the most of it.
The physicist Lawrence Krauss agrees with you. His conclusions after studying physics and cosmology is that we only go around once; we're lucky to live during the universe's history when stars can form so we can exist; therefore, let's each enjoy our brief moment in the sun.
How should we think about Santa Claus' existence? Spoiler alert: meditating doesn't teach you anything about the universe or gods. This is just rambling noises, pulled straight out of Yifa's ass.
You're wrong. You clearly are not listening, but just got triggered at the very idea of someone discussing this topic without making an utter mockery of it. This isn't dumb Fundamentalism that's being discussed here. Listen a bit and you'll see the layers. And I'm an utterly convinced atheist btw.
Actually Buddhism does include philosophical perspectives on metaphysics and the nature of the cosmos. These parts of Buddhism are really secondary to (and largely rise out of) meditative contemplation of the nature of self, of suffering, and of how to escape suffering. This is different to the Abrahamic faiths, where cosmology - "there is a creator god, an earth, heaven, hell etc." - is really the primary tenet of the system, but cosmological questions as to the true nature of reality do come up within Buddhism as well. I don't think she explained the Buddhist perspective terribly clearly, and she appeared to not be terribly well versed in comparative analysis of Christian and Buddhist cosmologies - there are those who have written on it in some detail - but she was not just pulling it out of her ass (some speculative musings aside).
She says, "we don't need a god" and "the beginning is incomprehensible" (to our human mind), Therefore, she says, to see the limitation of conceptualization. This is deception. I used to be on this "path". It appears to be a noble, intelligent, open-minded path, and I took it for decades, but it is a dead "path". All religions are man's way, but God's way is God's way. Closed-minded people, who trust in themselves, are kept from God, as long as PRIDE keeps them from trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ, that He died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day. "Things are not as they appear, nor are they otherwise" Truth is Truth.
@@bruceonlygoodvibes3639 You just contradicted yourself by saying I'm "wrong", as if you believe there's right and wrong, but you also seem to believe there's no right and wrong, because you think truth is relative - by saying, "but it's right for you".
How dare you say god is unproven? Who created our universe? And don't ask me who created the creator! I know that's what you were planning. Well, my answer is: I ignore questions like that! So there! oops. sorry. I'll wipe that up. Somebody please get me a Kleenex. Thanks.
God, or Lord is just the name of the AI of the simulation we're involved in. God has a voice that can speak directly into an individual mind called a created man. The visible body is only an illusion that is formed in an individual mind along with all the other illusions that make him believe he's walking around in a real world.
You simply were not chosen by our creator to believe the knowledge about how we're created. You will have to wait until you awaken in the next generation of the simulation to hear his voice. His voice is what will be your teacher in the next generation.
I think Dr. Yifa has given the clearest answer to our main question of God/universe begining/end or none of the above. It makes sense that whether we beleive or dont beleive could just be a matter of the capacity or programming of our mind and conception of how life is or how we think it should be in the world we have.
Words and logic are only symbols of reality ...words and logic we must use but we must never let ourselves be used by them. ^^
Nothing like getting stoned and having a thoughtful intelligent trip .
Exactly what I was thinking.
mhhmmm
Damnnnn nnn yea Herbert the plant.
Your so right! Mind blowingly phenomenal!
Those who practice the types of Eastern Philosophy that, in an ineffable way are internally grateful for all things, that take "no-things" for granted, have amazingly powerful outlooks as well as perceptions of life, nature, mans' achievements such as the vast technological landscape in which we live that makes our lives so abundant and meaningful, know a peacefulness that's associated with that direct mindset.
Breaking through conceptualizations is the single most useful advice for anyone interested in spiritual matters. Undoubtedly, human beings have had insights into the nature of reality through millennia, which slowly sedimented into cultural forms. Religions are just that.
One nice thing about Buddhism is that you don't have to be a Buddhist to be a Buddhist.
Twirlip Of The Mists
That makes me quite Buddhist
Yeah that's awesome truth...
buddhism would really rock if they didn't have the reincarnation bullshit. i like that they don't have a god. but why did they have to add something that has no evidence and cannot be disproven - untestable?
@@The22on I agree, and the Buddha himself argued that hindu reincarnation did not exist but rebirth did, that after you die you have an impact on the world that leads to new things. He was just trying to explain that man is intertwined with nature and should care for it because his actions affect it. I believe it was later that buddhist scholars corrupted this into the reincarnation of the self, and the six realms that you can be reborn into. These scholars then had a really hard time reconsiling the buddha's "no self" message alongside reincarnation.
@@allbums7038 If that's the Buddha's stance, then I'm cool with that. Thanks for telling me.
I have problem when i am told i cannot ask about god because he is beyond my understanding. It is a way for religions to control you.
Danny Rev the religious background i know would teach that religion is not meant to control you but to help you liberate yourself. i don't believe the religion i was taught but in some ways i do believe that religion is less about controlling you and more about you liberating yourself. then someone may say i am talking about spirituality rather than religion, and i would say making that distinction misses the point.
@@etermena96 In a sense scientism is a religion ...It's just another way of saying, "Oh look, it's done it again." ^^
"It's so hard to imagine a beginning!"
Yes it was the favorite talking point of the 19th century enlightenment philosophers. Then they discovered the Big Bang. Poor Yifa must have missed that memo? Here's a newsflash, it's not hard at all to imagine the beginning of everything. For about a century now.
What actually is interesting is how on Earth could the primitive cultures (both ME and ancient India) come up with the concept of no time and no space. For a primitive mind it should make no sense at all. Up until Newton people used to think about space and time as static and fixed coordinate system. In this world view place without space-time makes absolutely no sense. Yet, against all odds, both Old Testament and Vedas had the concept of no-time/no-space.
Now, after Einstein the mankind (as far as we know), for the first time in history have the scientific concept of this strange place without time and space. What once was a primitive fairy tale for the simple minded suddenly morphed into ultra modern scientific fact. Reality has a funny way of making fools of us. As in: all of us, including the most educated, knowledgeable and intelligent. A practical joke of cosmic proportions (yes, pun intended).
I AM JESUS CHRIST ABSOLUTELY.
if I can suggest a topic for reflection regarding the existence of God, I suggest that you interview a master of the non-dualistic Vedanta tradition.
First time I've seen this woman , I like her humour !
"Unless you become like a child,you cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven"....Jesus.
Crayons taste delicious with peanut butter. ^^
@@bruhweexist If you can't explain it to an 8 year old, you don't understand the universe yourself. 🙄😋
@@bruhweexist Perhaps, like most theological thought, the context is suffering from a hardening of the orthodoxies (content).
I appreciate the insights of my sister. If GOD is, perhaps you cannot know God until you know yourself. Then see thru the b.s. that is your fictional self (ego construct)... and REALIZE the actual SELF concealed by the fictional self... and this fictional self is born of separation... and all apparent separation is artificially constructed by the mind trapped in "concepts and images". To see the REAL nature of things hidden behind the artificial... and thus come to know the REALITY that is GOD. But then again, I could be wrong?? Who knows??
"How Should We Think About God's Existence?"
How about not wasting time on that which we cannot prove or disprove in any way, shape, form, or fashion?
This is why thinking about it is not a waste of time: ua-cam.com/video/1hWOUciR28w/v-deo.html
Thats a damn fallacious argument lol! But then again, people made football, so they made the purpose.
Humans made gods, so they can make the purpose. So other humans can make other purposes lol. It works if you think of it like that. But we have no evidence for a god.
The universe as far as we know doesnt give jack shit about us on our tiny muddy dot in a backwater part of a titanic universe. So, in lieu of that, we can make our own purposes, provided we are fortunate enough to live in a country where we are free to do such things.
Moralities are shifting and changing over time through human pressures from all direections and they determine what the "right plays and wrong plays" are for different societies.
Garbage video for those who cant think critically and I will post this there.
So you, a human, believe what you think and call it, thinking "critically" You've set your own rules of the game to give it meaning for you.: You trust only your own thinking brain and have made your thinking brain your authority and that which is beyond your critical thinking is of no importance to you. In your narrow world view, only humans create, therefore you have no creator that created you. That is a fallacious argument lol! @@shkotayd9749
"In your narrow world view, only humans create, therefore you have no creator that created you."
Thank you for saving me from needing to debate that ridiculous statement with "That is a fallacious argument lol!"
It is indeed ;)
lol
Argue about it? Answer:
"How about not wasting time on that which we cannot prove or disprove in any way, shape, form, or fashion?"
"Do you have self awareness, lol?"
Answer with a question: What does this question prove?
We are still struggling to understand self-awareness, consciousness and other aspects of the human mind. To attach it to some proof of a god or soul or some such seems unlikely as hell and only getting more so the more we learn about the mind. But we arent there yet. How can I answer like this?
One thing we know for certain: The qualities of consciousness are embedded in, and depend solely on the state of a physical structure - the brain.
special thank you for this one, it was so clear .Peace to Dr.Yifa
“To speak of “God” properly, then…is to speak of the one infinite source of all that is ...God so understood is not something posed over against the universe, in addition to it, nor is he the universe itself. He is not a “being” ...he is not one more object in the inventory of things that are, or any sort of discrete object at all. Rather, all things that exist receive their being continuously from him, who is the infinite wellspring of all that is ...In one sense he is “beyond being,” if by “being” one means the totality of discrete, finite things. In another sense he is “being itself,” in that he is the inexhaustible source of all reality, the absolute upon which the contingent is always utterly dependent, the unity and simplicity that underlies and sustains the diversity of finite and composite things. ...All the great theistic traditions agree that God, understood in this proper sense, is essentially beyond finite comprehension; hence, much of the language used of him is negative in form and has been reached only by a logical process of abstraction from those qualities of finite reality that make it insufficient to account for its own existence. All agree as well, however, that he can genuinely be known: that is, reasoned toward, intimately encountered, directly experienced with a fullness surpassing mere conceptual comprehension.”
Source: Hart, David Bentley (2013). The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. Yale University Press. p. 41-42
@DigitalDan You're welcome, I appreciate the feedback. This description by Dr. Hart has been one of the most helpful in all my years of studying philosophy of religion and theology. Would you mind sharing your concerns about the last sentence?
@DigitalDan I see where you're coming from, and essentially I agree with you. The tricky part is what is meant by "known", and it does appear to be more of a mystical knowing as you put it. Dr. Hart is coming from an Orthodox perspective and their theology is different than western thinkers. Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh explains in more detail how the Orthodox Christians think of the knowledge of God:
In the estimation of the spiritual fathers of the Orthodox Church, knowing God is not just another kind of knowledge. ...knowing God is not just another intellectual exercise. It is the kind of Knowledge that commits your entire existence, it is an existential, experiential, apophatic, and doxological Knowledge. We know God when we experience His presence as filling and overtaking us, when we feel completely dependent on him, "as infants feel dependent upon their mothers" (St. Basil). We know God not through our concepts and ideas only, but beyond and above them: for our entire existence is united with Him. We know God when we are familiar with Him as "the cattle are familiar with their manger." We know God when "we breath Him," when we feel His presence any place we are or go; we know God when we constantly depend on Him, when our lives belong to Him, when our lives become a constant praise of His Holy Name. ... Our Christian God, then, is not the "God of Philosophers." He is not a "Supreme Being" similar to other beings, another "essence" among many essences. The Christian God is "super-essential" and "super-existent" only in the sense that He is totally different from created existence. "If everything else is being, God is not a being," said St. Gregory Palamas.
Source: www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8038
@DigitalDan You're committing quite the straw man fallacy here. This is no "warm fuzzies" argument and I never suggested this is basing knowledge on feelings. If you can comprehend sense experience granting knowledge of the world then you can comprehend mystical experience granting knowledge of God. You'd have to attack experience as being a genuine source of knowledge, but once you do that then welcoming radical skepticism... Here's a video of several philosophers going into more detail on how religious experience is a genuine form of knowledge and how objections to this tends to lead the skeptic to saw off the branch they sit on: ua-cam.com/video/2MvvauasSvY/v-deo.html
and no this is not analogous to aliens, big foot, or Elvis. Those are all objects, entities in the world, while God was explained to you as not a being but rather the ground of being itself. Also, if you avoid the dualism of Descartes, and/or accept a kind of externalism, you have no worries about an evil demon trying to deceive you.
she is a beautiful person.
She’s right bout this: supernatural explanations are a way to try to conceptualize what we do not understand or fails to fit our conceptualizations...
How does one get to be Venerable
Yes or no?
Always question your God!
God, if you are so wise, why have you created your own demise in the form of the second law of thermodynamics (heat death of yourself)?
She looks like Chow Yun Fatt or Jet Li.
A like for the program boot file analogy limiting our possible knowledge
If such a thing as God, the idea of a higher power/ unimaginable force does exist, I personally think ( not believe) that it could have created the singularity and let everything happen from there, either it worked or it didn't and just decided to watch. The claims by theists are so vague yet so define, that I honestly can't accept them as absolute. Why would a God want to be worshipped? Why would someone worship someone who tortures people forever? Why would a God create us and know before but hope we'd think one way? For me, I don't see the point of heaven or hell. If the Abrahamic God for example wanted to be worshipped as claimed by Abrahamic religions, why not just create beings that worship it in some place beyond comprehension without having to earn it? That to me isn't wanting, it's a way to make others fear what they don't know and a way to control them to behave the way a person would need them to by promising a reward for being good and a punishment for being bad. The punishment of hell, the punishment doesn't fit the crime. An average life of 76 years with some sins is deserving of eternal suffering. It makes no sense. We don't know if there is a God. PERIOD
Prophet Muhammad PBUH simple life's is like Budishm principle. It's a ll about how our consciousness manage the free will into a good ways, freewill is like quantum probabilities, our ego can shape our universe
However question will approached, do wee still need of God, after we live in a good way? that imply a logical reason to do it, my logical answer is, what consciousness depends into? ;)
You realize that Muhammad was just a man like you and me, right? Except that his understanding of the world was far smaller than that of even many ignorant people alive today, if only because we have discovered so much more over the centuries passed. It is for this same reason that books like the Quran and Bible are so ignorant of nature and science.
@@TehNetherlands
You need to learn more about abrahamic religions, since feyman observation on cosmic consciousness, more scientist are going to think about it back again, there is another forces that very-very small that govern our visible mater, supernatural is inevitable, you may call it...fill God in the gap but hey....the word prophet it self is come from prophecies, the greatest secret of quantum Phenomena.
Another fantastic discussion!
she keeps using the word reincarnation when what she means is rebirth. She has to be clear on this , there is a stark difference between the 2. Rebirth is the mainstream of the buddhist concept, while reincarnation is a concept of the Mahayanist buddhist which is to do with Buddisatvas choosing to reincarnate so that they can continue to devote for the well being of all sentients.
I am not sure about this Nun explaining the buddhist concept in english.
It isn't logic or reason that us trapping you. It's your failure to accept truth! Period! Accept the truth that you don't know the truth and you will receive the truth that you don't know. Now decide if you really need to know or if it's just a curiosity. Discover who you are in relation to truth.
God is truth!
Can't get to the answer he needed.
First of all don't let anybody tell you how you should think about God.
what you think such a huge organized and planned universe is without God?suppose you come into room saw chair whom a carpenter makes and goes away ,what do you think chair was made himself ?absolutely No ........So there isnt any doubt on existence of God .....even from mouth to heart every thing in us and in universe is indicating about creator ......we human develope doubt because we of ignorance .
When I see a chair I know it's man-made. When I see a Bible I know it's man-made , when I see a religion I know it is man-made .when I see the stars at night I know it's NOT made by a SUPERman.. What I don't know, is how faith ALONE can motivate people to believe that a Superman is needed to MAKE the universe.. Can you explain it to me without using subjective feelings ? Or even a single logical argument on WHY we should believe in gods and angels and Demons?
Did you know that your comment just re-stated the old, disproven "Watchmaker Argument? I bet you don't even know what that argument is - and it's centuries old! Since I'm sure you won't look it up yourself, here's a link:
intelligent-design-watchmaker_b_1730878.html
Do you really think most educated atheists never heard your argument before? Were you proud that your 'brilliant logic' might turn atheists into theists?
Please - read a book about atheism. I suggest 'God is not Great' by Christopher Hitchens. After you've read it, THEN come here and give your view. Of course, by then you will have become atheist.
doubt is the mother of knowledge not of ignorance
ok ~~~~~where does mind come from and why is there Logic
~~~~~~probability cloud of empty space time continuum. ^^ ok?!
got u thinking
@@Sportliveonline ~~~~~mind made me do it.^^
I WENT TO COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.
That's interesting. God is logically inaccessible, because we are yet to develop the sufficient technology in discovering it -- that is, to quantify, enumerate, induct or deduce its existence, at least, mathematically. I understand.
Shean Crane As a Christian I read comments like yours and I laugh and feel for you. You are looking in the wrong place.
She's saying logic itself is the technology that cannot access God because to logically think about God creates logical contradictions/paradox. God is not a logical object that can be measured, quantified, inducted, etc. The path to God lies outside logic, ie. the realm of faith. It's Immanuel Kant's philosophy of Transcendental Idealism - that the concept of God comes from our finite mind's incapacity to conceptualize the infinite/transcendent. Whether God exists is a problem that cannot be solved logically yet our consciousness demands that we think of it logically due to the fact that we are logical beings.
@@jessewallace12able Are you american? You guys are not christians. Your people worships the economic power and material prosperity as a superior value. You are violent, racists and unfair people. Your god is the dollar. All those "churches" created by AMERICAN CITIZENS has nothing to do with Jesus. You are not christians.
@Jarnagua
We aren't logical beings 😂, we are irrational emotional beings. Why the hell do you think formal logic courses exist in college curriculums?
Because by nature, humans are motivated by food and sex.
If a universal God exists, ( HIGHLY improbable) then he certainly ISN'T interacting with it in any compassionate or concerned manner..
@DigitalDan Well Digi, I SAID it is highly unlikely because the concept of an OMNIPOTENT supernatural entity overseeing the universe without an IOTA of actual evidence makes the idea highly unlikely to the rational mind that is not encumbered by Supernatural thinking..Allowing for a vanishingly SMALL chance of his existence, and realizing how chaotic , violent, and hostile toward life the universe is on the micro AND macro scale, would infer the SAME attributes ( Justifiably ) to God .This isn't hard for an unclouded mind to deduce friend..
Ps. I would be interested to know how Supernatural beliefs ARE Justified ?
@DigitalDan a very ELABORATELY rendered response my young friend.. I can DEDUCE the probability that relative to myself you are young since I am long retired and well beyond the median age for a contemporary human being. I JUSTIFIABLY believe that I am correct in this regard based on probabilities (although I have no evidence) BUT as I did before, I allow for a small chance of being incorrect.. You seem bright enough, so I'll say it like this, one can add ANY number of unsupported, unnecessary, or fantastical ideas to our current understanding of the universe BUT since they are not presented with ANY iota of credible evidence they can RIGHTFULLY be dismissed as NOT credible..( Or as I like to say, very improbable ) your existential ruminations on the nature of knowledge and probabilities sounds straight out of the Bronze Age friend, no undue offense intended. As a lifelong proponent for both the scientific method and scientific materialism, I can confidently report that these disciplines ( Not philosophy) offer our best chance for understanding the universe. Thank you for your engaging conversation.
Ps. To say that one or more gods were created along with the universe is by definition superstitious.
Double PS: I propose a spiritual belief based on the many worlds Theory. We are nearly infinite in scope and fulfill some unknown purpose in the universe.
this human reminds me of the last airbender
EXIST.
Asking someone who doesn't believe in God how we should think about God's Existence. Makes perfect sense lol
Buddhism has many gods and goddesses ...some may be believed, most must be discarded. ^^
God is the idea of a first cause and religion is the material about which that idea is clothed.
Whose idea? ^^
Causality and time are illusions of our extremely limited minds.
The next important question after "Does God exist?" is "What exactly is the soul?". Religions usually fail flat on their bums when they attempt to explain the soul. The cliche explanation "A soul is what is not physical" suffers from a ton of issues including problems with the laws of thermodynamics. It's even more "fun" when you try to wrap your mind around the question "Does the soul contain one's memories?". Neurophysics has already proven that a person's personality can be modified beyond recognizable by brain surgery. So, if the soul does not keep one's memories, then how does the soul describe one's identity? What is it that god is judging after death occurs? Not the person that's lived as it seems, because once dead that person's memories are gone for good.
To me the poor job the religions are doing when (desperately and very inconvincibly) trying to explain the soul, projects their own demise among modern society.
Buddha taught there is no soul, no self. ^^
The Greek Church Fathers taught that soul and body are one hypostases and that you cannot effect one without doing something to the other (so, with your neurophysics analogy, doing something to the brain is also doing something to the soul, although only one is empirically observable). The pain of death comes about precisely because body and soul split apart, which belong together naturally, and is extremely painful in itself but also causes more prolonged pain for the soul that can no longer satisfy its passions and attachments with the body. You may find the answers you seek in the early Greek fathers.
Also, the fathers would not agree that the soul "is not physical". It is physical, at least philosophically speaking, but not in the sense post-enlightenment thought understands physical. It has substance, but is invisible.
Modern religion is bad at dealing with these problems because no on reads the church fathers anymore. They have the answers though.
I AM SCIENCE.
I read about the Church of Reality. Their motto is: If it's real, we believe in it.
It sounds funny until you realize that is what science does - find out if something is real.
The "church" has a website online somewhere. Sounded good to me.
I am saying nothing created everything so there is no all knowing creator. There is no creator with more power than I have. Someone could murder me for saying this and it would not prove there is a creator. I say everything is literally nothing- shunyata.
I do not have to be careful. There is no Satan.
What's so interesting is that to her the thought of God was silly. The Catholic thought reincarnation was silly. The Catholic didn't convince her, but rather made her see that the reason both beliefs were was because they were based on nothing but faith.
"If you can recognize that world come to be without a creator, then you don't need a God."
I think she meant that if you can imagine the world came into existence without being created then it can be. Which is an inverse of the cosmological argument it seems.
I like what she said about the paradox of eternity in the negative and the positive. If no beginning is incomprehensible then so something just beginning. Both are incomprehensible, even if eternity seems more logical. Or is it? How can something always have been? Can we understand that? Then why cannot it not be that something just began to be?
The one thing we humans cannot picture is ORIGINS. I can't picture infinity or creation.
Saying that a god created the universe is silly. Where did that god come from? And you keep going back in an infinite regression of gods. Again - infinity and creation = origin... which we can't picture.
Personally, I don't think we will ever picture creation without an infinite string of gods going back. In quantum mechanics, particles can pop into existence from nothing. That sounds cool, but... huh? lol
I'm content to say there's no god until someone can provide scientific evidence. Because it can't be done by trying to use logic.
AMERICA ETERNALLY EXIST.
I didn't follow this.
She's basically telling us to examine what we believe and why. That's all we can ask of people. Telling people to get outside of their little echo chambers and expand their minds. Excellent stuff.
What a cool accent you have, Venerable Dr Yifa!
*_1_* Gautama Buddha was uninterested in God, or a Supreme Being. At 35 he realized that the *most* important thing in life is to end psychological suffering, which is caused by *the self.*
*_2_* Is there a personal or impersonal God? Is there continuity after death? Is reincarnation or resurrection a fact? Are there heaven and hell? In the end we-atheists, agnostics, materialists, skeptics, freethinkers, and believers-have to find out for ourselves the answer to these questions: *_why_* do we want to believe or not to believe in those things? what is our *_motivation_* in accepting or rejecting them? what is our *_intention?_*
*_3_* _It's hard to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if the cat does not exist._ -Confucius
A good, happy, loving human being has no followers, follows no one, and needs no recreational drugs (including coffee, tobacco, and alcohol), no weapons, no flags, no holy books, no religions, no churches, no saviors, no gods. 💕 ☮ 🌎 🌌
"how should we think about god" answer: think of it as another myth to be studied and appreciated from a literary pov and leave it at that. that way we can focus on solving human problems based in reality.
Reincarnation does make logical sense tho. Think about it...
What's the process of reincarnation?
There are many reincarnation on UA-cam.
@@nadeemshaikh7863 1 set of eyes closes, another set opens.
The Buddhist idea that there's no first condition, that all conditions emerge from previous conditions, as Yifa explained, fits many contemporary cosmological models. For Christians it's difficult to grasp a world without beginning (or end). Cosmic inflation is the prevailing branch in today's cosmology, and it's hard to build a coherent model of inflation, if there's a beginning or a first condition.
Though you try hard not to appear arrogant,
Robert Lawrence. Isn't it unavoidable that as
a Western, with a Western brain, speaking for
a Western audience, with a Western logig,
you meet the Buddhist and want to discuss
this absolutely fundamental subject?
Because the Buddhist doesn't believe in Logig
as a vehicle for knowledge? He (she) finds your
attempt at rapprochement hard to bear?
Because she would so much wish that you, as
a wise westerner, should have overcome such
questions as the question of God long ago?
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
How about compassion for the man trying to understand existence and to bring that understanding to a greater audience. Should he be ashamed if it is as you say and he hasnt had such realisation?
We certainly try to grant him that, Luke. If we
want to enlighten other people, we should do
it with great seriousness. The educated
enlightened person of today should also
behave in such a way that his spiritual,
mental status is visible to others. @@lukeduncan3647
@@silberlinie Yes.
One cannot make their spiritual mental status evident in all, or even most circumstances. Their ability to do so is relative to their environment, their past traumas, their culture, and so on.
I get the impression that there is a spark in him there that is looking for enlightenment and that he is attempting to be open to everything Dr. Yifa says. That he sees the fallibility of pure rationality. incredibly smart man though, the path of philosophy or knowledge would be well open to him
What irritates me is the continuous comparisons between God and something we have and use (like the fridge/computer she mentioned), which I'd say is simply invalid and naive that shows our limited knowledge.
If God exits, God would be beyond our comprehension, on a much higher dimension.
She wasn't comparing God to a fridge or a computer. Robert misunderstood her there. The thing about "we used to have a box with ice cubes in it and now we have a fridge with a computer in it" was supposed to be an analogy for the cosmos, not for God. She was saying that we don't need a creator, because the universe just evolved from prior conditions. Then he asked where those conditions came from, and she said even earlier conditions. I think the fridge thing was a poor metaphor, but that's what she meant. Buddhism tends to reject the idea of a creator god on the basis that if you posit a cause, you can always ask what caused that cause? The Western, Abrahamic, answer has been to say that it is inconceivable that the cosmos has simply existed for ever with no cause, so there must be an uncaused first cause. This uncaused first cause is called God. Buddhism, on the other hand, says that the concept of an uncaused cause makes no sense either, because anything that exists must have been caused by prior conditions. Therefore, you cannot answer this question using ordinary human logic. That last point was what she meant when she was talking about the computer. She was saying that a person trying to answer this question with logic is like a computer trying to open a file when it does not have the necessary program to open this file type. It just won't work.
If god is beyond our comprehension, then books like the Quran and Bible are useless garbage filled with iron age superstition. (which they are!)
TehNetherlands Ummm your comment doesn't make sense...God being beyond us makes the books useless?? what kind of logic is that?
@@ahmedp800 These books pretend to be descriptive of a god that by your own definition is beyond our understanding.
Bizarre books like the Quran attribute a whole range of qualities and characteristics to the so called creator of the universe. Qualities that are all too often curiously similar to those of human beings.
@@TehNetherlands First we have to agree that these books were not written by humans but were handed down to us by God.
And considering these books are supposedly for all kind of people, the description needed to be something simple, general and closer to what and who we are.
It just doesn't make sense that God would talk about higher dimensions and such advanced scientific ideas at the time these books came to be thousands of years ago!
I was lost from the start and lost it all the way. Gautama Buddha was a religious leader and teacher. So he was teaching about Indian God's prayer and mantras (That's how all the Buddhist do mantras & chanting while doing hawan). Up north and some parts of south believed that Gautama Buddha was reincarnated from GOD.
Even if you presume god(s) exist, which I don't, this discussion and all others cannot define what god is, is so vague and reeks of moralising on what other people do.
I once asked a young electrician who works with me, "Do you think that, in a far distant galaxy on a planet orbiting some other Sun, that 2+2 still equals 4?" He answered, "Well not necessarily, maybe maybe not, it could be anything ...." What I was trying to do was test HOW he came to conclusions, that is WHETHER he had a valid system of distinction for ideas such that he could make determinate decisions in a way that was consistent. As you see, he did not. And neither does this monk. He's as lost as my young electrician, who was mostly just all about getting extra hours so he could get over a lot of bills he'd run up earlier in his life. What this monk has is a dogma, not a process for knowing.
Knowing takes two things, 1. consistency & 2. courage. For instance consider the supernatural, 500 years of hard study in science, seeking one iota of the supernatural, had found none. The conclusion is that: In the whole history of the universe not one supernatural event has ever happened, not once, ever. That is what you can know if you have the courage. As the supernatural is therefore a failed project for the brave, what is left is the natural ie that which is allowed under the Laws of Physics. No proposal for a god that obeys physical law is known, and therefore as much as you can know anything, you can know no god exists.
I have the answer!..It now is a question of how people can accept the answer give our basic nature.
Reincarnation or not, it's all beyond our understanding.
Buddhist apologetics is primarily about narratives, nice rhetorics. It is incoherent. She also does not understand the concept of contingent vs necessary beings. I am actually again really disappointed by the level of intellectual discourse here. At best buddhism is a mental training school.
BUDDHA.
WTF.
- .."Maybe we are looking for the same thing" - ??? I wouldn't think so, because theists are not looking for anything since they already have a God, who is everything. On the other hand, the way of Zen Buddhism is an effort to achieve illumination through, precisely, not looking for anything. Therefore, I believe that those who are looking for a God, are simply big-headed bigots who think that their reasoning is good enough to understand that which is not understandable to human reason. Zen Masters, however, recommend you to "go and empty your cap" before they allow you to enter and join their monasteries.
God exists take a look at what we as limited humans have discovered about ancient historical humans whether hieroglyphics stone hange bible Dead Sea scrolls and so on they all show the worship of God this is where Christianity is officially the truth and logical.
Buddhist weed
is that a woman ?
is it important ? ^^
@@mael-strom9707 u replied
@@Sportliveonline synaptic neuronal unambiguous algorithm made me do it ^^
Hint...Just ask 10 people to explain what god means to them.
All religions and gods are man-made. Live and let live.
I can't believe that in 2019 we are still having these stupid conversations.
God forbid we think about the nature of existence?
@@lukeduncan3647 Mankind has been looking for the existence of a God for a very very long time with nothing to show for it. If a God or Gods existed we would have the evidence by now.
@@JohnG-tv3gc Well yes and I feel we would actually generally agree overall about this. But the idea of "stupid conversations" - These conversations challenge our perception to see beyond our normally perceived reality into much greater depths. Similar to physics, perhaps trying to understand and visualize relativity or set theory in mathematics. Conversations about God or reincarnation have within them different paths that end up centering around topics like evolution (as Yifa brings us) and the concept of time, change, space and so on. Which also comes up if theres an intellectual approach like god. So looking at God can be like looking at something else that challenges the rational mind. The process of being challenged leads to greater realizations and a greater understanding with which to approach everyday life and in a more complete manner. Without Einsteins relativity we would be set back hugely, but without Einsteins ability to perceive reality in the way that he did, we would be monumentally set back, and quality of consciousness is what is more important than whether or not e=mc(2). Its like in music, without Chopins ability to play piano we would be set back, but without Chopins mind that could perceive and create music the way that he could, the evolution of consciousness would be missing something. This stuff gets translated through einstein and chopins work for us to grow, but it is where they were coming from that is important if consciousness is going to continue to evolve.
@@lukeduncan3647 Not sure what you mean when you say, these conversations challenge our perception to see beyond our normally perceived reality into much greater depths.
What is the purpose of having a conversation that is outside the realm of reality? By your reasoning, talking about tooth fairies is going to challenge our perception to see beyond our normally perceived reality into much greater depths? Really? Things are either real or they are not real. And what on earth does physics, relativity and, mathematics have to do with things outside the realm of reality? You do realise that physics deals with physical things? You think mixing science with hocus pocus gives hocus pocus more credibility? I don't think so. There is no point to have conversations about God when we haven't even established that a God exists. Should we have conversations about tooth fairies?
Should we have conversations about flying pigs? Conversations are a great way to understand what is around us, conversations that are outside the realm of reality have little value. You appear to have simplistic approach about consciousness. Consciousness is only a part of what we have, it doesn't merely take consciousness for people like Einstein and Chopin to have achieved what what they have. It takes intelligence, creativity, and a whole lot of other qualities that combine in forming who we are.
@@JohnG-tv3gc We should talk about tooth fairies if our discussion about them leads to greater insight about the nature of reality.
If we talk enough about flying pigs we will learn about concepts of absurdity, evolution, physics, mathematics. This could be away to teach kids about basic physics principles.
After all, physicist are ALWAYS in the realm of speculation in its most strict sense, and are working within that. If they were not speculating, their would be no physics to be done, as it would be solved. They may be speculating within a realm of certainty, such as within the realm of particle physics, but until that realm is married harmoniously with relativity and quantum physics, it is a realm that is incomplete and one of partial truth.
If we talk about fairies we will talk about mythology and its impact on the mind. Their are tales of tooth fairies for a reason, they have some relation to the mind as it is, not as you perceive it to be, as some metaphysical construct that is made of numbers and logic. They are tales for kids, say. So why are their tales for kids? What is it about the universe that has this curious property where little beings are being entranced by magic and mythology by bigger beings?
If the mind was simply logical or capable of simply being logical, their would be no discussion at all ever. And no "stupid conversations". Someone would point at something and know it, and everyone else around them would just agree because its the truth. Everything would be just understood.
I think the universe is bigger than you or me, or than what you are allowing it to be. It cant be writ in an equation, summed up in a sentence within philosophy, painted into a single painting, or spoken of in totality within a poem. And it is in the very nature of things for all of those ideas to be absurd themselves! This does not mean there is a God. Or a Hindu God. Or a bunch of greek Gods. But it does mean that there is mystery, and we have certain ways of thinking about and approaching that mystery so as to progress our understanding of the universe.
And so when we talk about God we are talking about this great uncovered mystery that has been ca huge part of the growth and of consciousness. It has also a topic to be used for great power to destroy other nations through terrible narcissism and acts of violence.
It is totally cool you dont want to talk about God. I get that. Religion has been the bane of humanity in a lot of ways. And the idea of a creator dude is dumb. So Yeah, these are stupid conversations in that sense. To say it doesnt have a purpose for other people, and that you know that to be the truth, well, alright, thanks god.
ATHEIST.
Kant, Descartes, Hitchens, Dawkins, MY PASTOR... none of those minds, in addition to these two are any closer to resolving this issue. We won’t know either way until we are in the hole. Here’s a little tip for life: Quit waiting for your ship to come in. This is the f$&king ship, people. Make the most of it.
The physicist Lawrence Krauss agrees with you. His conclusions after studying physics and cosmology is that we only go around once; we're lucky to live during the universe's history when stars can form so we can exist; therefore, let's each enjoy our brief moment in the sun.
Question for the skinhead: why would there be re-incarnation? What would cause it?
How should we think about Santa Claus' existence? Spoiler alert: meditating doesn't teach you anything about the universe or gods. This is just rambling noises, pulled straight out of Yifa's ass.
@DigitalDan Trusting in your own brain is vanity, yes.
You're wrong. You clearly are not listening, but just got triggered at the very idea of someone discussing this topic without making an utter mockery of it. This isn't dumb Fundamentalism that's being discussed here. Listen a bit and you'll see the layers. And I'm an utterly convinced atheist btw.
"Btw gawd is basically Santa Claus" this year again designated as BestAtheistArgumentEver™ by philosophers of religion
Yes, I would disagree with that.
Actually Buddhism does include philosophical perspectives on metaphysics and the nature of the cosmos. These parts of Buddhism are really secondary to (and largely rise out of) meditative contemplation of the nature of self, of suffering, and of how to escape suffering. This is different to the Abrahamic faiths, where cosmology - "there is a creator god, an earth, heaven, hell etc." - is really the primary tenet of the system, but cosmological questions as to the true nature of reality do come up within Buddhism as well. I don't think she explained the Buddhist perspective terribly clearly, and she appeared to not be terribly well versed in comparative analysis of Christian and Buddhist cosmologies - there are those who have written on it in some detail - but she was not just pulling it out of her ass (some speculative musings aside).
She says, "we don't need a god" and "the beginning is incomprehensible" (to our human mind), Therefore, she says, to see the limitation of conceptualization. This is deception. I used to be on this "path". It appears to be a noble, intelligent, open-minded path, and I took it for decades, but it is a dead "path". All religions are man's way, but God's way is God's way. Closed-minded people, who trust in themselves, are kept from God, as long as PRIDE keeps them from trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ, that He died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day. "Things are not as they appear, nor are they otherwise" Truth is Truth.
Not all faith is blind. Can you prove your belief that to believe in God is a game of make-believe? Prove that it is make-believe.
@@mobymagg What makes some faith not blind?
mobymagg you couldn't be more wrong...but it's right for you
@@twirlipofthemists3201 Reasonable faith is not blind: crossexamined.org/why-do-you-believe-in-god/
@@bruceonlygoodvibes3639 You just contradicted yourself by saying I'm "wrong", as if you believe there's right and wrong, but you also seem to believe there's no right and wrong, because you think truth is relative - by saying, "but it's right for you".
The only things you should think about God's existence is it's unproven and unnecessary.
How dare you say god is unproven? Who created our universe? And don't ask me who created the creator! I know that's what you were planning. Well, my answer is: I ignore questions like that! So there! oops. sorry. I'll wipe that up. Somebody please get me a Kleenex. Thanks.
God, or Lord is just the name of the AI of the simulation we're involved in. God has a voice that can speak directly into an individual mind called a created man. The visible body is only an illusion that is formed in an individual mind along with all the other illusions that make him believe he's walking around in a real world.
Just stop trying to spread your con around.
Sounds like the Langan's CTMU
@@ElectricQualia He didn't mention in this post that he is god's voice and for a few he can let you in on what god says.
You simply were not chosen by our creator to believe the knowledge about how we're created. You will have to wait until you awaken in the next generation of the simulation to hear his voice. His voice is what will be your teacher in the next generation.
@@BradHolkesvig Sorry that is just another lie from your con. I have been chosen by the universe to expose you for the liar that you are.
Please never share eastern "philosophy"