--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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? >
You assume that the universe would even exist without some uber-deity.
