# Buddhism



## Don (Jan 15, 2005)

What are some presuppositional refutations of buddhism? 

I know Bahnsen deals with a little bit in one of his tape series but I was wondering if anyone had anything alittle more exhaustive.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 15, 2005)

I know next to nothing about presup - I start talking to Buddhists, Krsna-people, and others of that ilk about how Christianity agrees with them that we have come into the world already bearing sin, and then start talking about atonement. One guy actually got this horrified expression - and I'm visually-impaired, but I could see it! - and slowly backed away. So much for his polite "Jeusu is your guru" business!

Was that Classical or Pre-Suppositional or Seeker-Sensitive(God forbid!)?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Don_
> What are some presuppositional refutations of buddhism?
> 
> I know Bahnsen deals with a little bit in one of his tape series but I was wondering if anyone had anything alittle more exhaustive.



What Bahnsen tape series?


----------



## Peter (Jan 15, 2005)

If reality is an illusion (Brahman is all that is), you cannot assume the laws of logic, which are part of reality, to disprove reality. I think some like that is at the end of Bahnsen's debate w/ Stein.

And where did this come from?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 15, 2005)

that was helpful, Paul, thanks


----------



## Peter (Jan 15, 2005)

I thought Brahman was the *kindof* pantheistic, impersonal super-deity, distinct from the rest of the hindu pantheon, in both Hinduism and Buddhism (Buddhism being a split off from Hinduism).


----------



## Don (Jan 16, 2005)

Good article, Paul. Thanks.


Do you know of any other articles or links that attack Buddhism from a different angle besides impermanence?


----------



## A.J.A. (Jan 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> I thought Brahman was the *kindof* pantheistic, impersonal super-deity, distinct from the rest of the hindu pantheon, in both Hinduism and Buddhism (Buddhism being a split off from Hinduism).



Except for the distinct part. Brahman isn't considered distinct from anything.

I had to write a paper about it and went in circles for a few hundred words before concluding it can only make sense if you deliberately screw with your mind.


----------



## crhoades (Jan 16, 2005)

Click here for free audio downloads of Johannes G Vos's lectures on comparitive religions. There are 5 lectures on Buddhism in there.

Cool note: listen to the first couple of lectures and in the series and tell me who is lecturing. It's not Vos.
Hint: Paul really likes this guy...


----------



## Don (Jan 16, 2005)

Paul, 

I know Bahnsen addressed this as well but what would be wrong with having some kind of impersonal god or impersonal force as most other religions seem to? 

The buddhist I know seems to think that a personal God such as that in Christianity is "comical".


----------

