DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**soyclocky** · 12-05-2011, 04:13 AM

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Can you be specific. Are you criticizing my logic, that asserting ghosts is illogical? Tibetan Buddhism uniformly reject the concept of a creator God deity. They uniformly claim that any Buddha they assert was a human and became a buddha

Hi Tijampel,

Seems today is a bad day about my comments...

I reread your comment quoted at #32 and indeed I rush my commentary because I couldn't understood well if you wrote "can" or "can't" at:

You can assert something based on an absence where the appearance of something else mandates that conclusion. Even with "can" or "can't" I couldn't understand the above statement.

About ghosts, well I don't believe in them. About deity, I know that Tibetan Buddhism has many like the Green Tara. About God, I don't believe in any sort of God, Goddess or Gods, being them creators or not like the case of the new age "universal consciousness".

About philosophers of God, well we have a bunch of them that, through philosophical struggle, think that such exists.

It is quiet common to read that if you can't prove the existence of God, ghosts or whatever, that do not means that they do not exist for real...

But anyway... that is in the realm of personal believes...

And no, I am not being critical with your logic... just tried to state my opinion (not very welcome at times).

12-05-2011, 04:13 AM	#37
soyclocky Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 371 Senior Member	I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Can you be specific. Are you criticizing my logic, that asserting ghosts is illogical? Tibetan Buddhism uniformly reject the concept of a creator God deity. They uniformly claim that any Buddha they assert was a human and became a buddha Hi Tijampel, Seems today is a bad day about my comments... I reread your comment quoted at #32 and indeed I rush my commentary because I couldn't understood well if you wrote "can" or "can't" at: You can assert something based on an absence where the appearance of something else mandates that conclusion. Even with "can" or "can't" I couldn't understand the above statement. About ghosts, well I don't believe in them. About deity, I know that Tibetan Buddhism has many like the Green Tara. About God, I don't believe in any sort of God, Goddess or Gods, being them creators or not like the case of the new age "universal consciousness". About philosophers of God, well we have a bunch of them that, through philosophical struggle, think that such exists. It is quiet common to read that if you can't prove the existence of God, ghosts or whatever, that do not means that they do not exist for real... But anyway... that is in the realm of personal believes... And no, I am not being critical with your logic... just tried to state my opinion (not very welcome at times).
	Quote