[Buddha-l] Paul Williams

SJZiobro at cs.com SJZiobro at cs.com
Wed Dec 26 11:55:12 MST 2007

Not really.  There is also idealism, dualism, etc.

Timothy Smith <smith at wheelwrightassoc.com> wrote:

>So, if the choice of either position is naive realism, then we are  
>left with no choice but the Buddha's.  Don't ask.  Don't tell.
>Timothy Smith
>Wheelwright Associates
>On Dec 24, 2007, at 4:15 PM, SJZiobro at cs.com wrote:
>> "[DPD Web] Shen Shi'an" <shian at kmspks.org> wrote:
>>> Causation already answers about the nature of why there is  
>>> anything at
>>> all. On the other hand, postulating the existence of an uncaused God
>>> stirs up the classic problems.
>>> Once again, from
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thedailyenlightenment-realisation/ 
>>> message/
>>> 221 : (The 3rd para is the crux - a simple "proof" on why there is no
>>> God)
>>> Why "Intelligent Design" Lacks Intelligence
>>> Recently, there was much outrage in the academic world when  
>>> "intelligent
>>> design" was proposed by some to be scientific. The theory of
>>> "intelligent design" argues that the universe, being so intricately
>>> structured, must surely be the design of a super-intelligent  
>>> being. This
>>> belief is creationism, which is based on mere faith. It is the  
>>> opposite
>>> of evolution, which is the largely observable fact that life and the
>>> universe evolves over time, adapting to changes of natural  
>>> conditions.
>> the statement for a creator or against are not based simply on  
>> observation, since one can conclude either from reflection upon  
>> what is observed.  There is an element of faith in either position,  
>> which to deny or overlook places one in the position of naive realism.
>> Stan Ziobro
>> _______________________________________________
>> buddha-l mailing list
>> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
>> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>buddha-l mailing list
>buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com

More information about the buddha-l mailing list