--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Can't comment on that. I'm a Buddhist who doesn't > > > > even believe that God exists. :-) > > > > > > Really? If Buddha-->Buddhism-->Buddhist exists, how can God not > > > exist? I'd like to hear your definition of Buddha. > > > > Just a normal, everyday guy, who realized what it > > really is to be a normal, everyday guy. Buddha > > would have laughed himself silly at the notion > > that he was anything else. > > > > What I don't believe in is God as a being with > > sentience of his/her/its own or the universe > > having a will or design/direction of its own. > > I have no problem with the concept of the Absolute, > > merely with it having a will or sentience other > > than that made up of the combination of all the > > will and sentience of its separate "parts." > > Why not? The sentience of the Whole may be so incomprensible > as to be undetectable by any of the sentient parts, so it > may not matter, but why assume that there is or isn't such a > "thing?"
Occam's razor. The universe would work perfectly well through the combination of karma and free will. No sentient God is required to ensure its eternal, effortless functioning, given those two forces. Therefore, why postulate something that is not necessary?
