Why did you even mention God when we were discussing Buddhism?

Why are you frightened to answer my refutation? If you are stumped then it is okay to admit it.

Okay.

Beautiful work, Matt!  My compliments.  :)  I, too, have a point to argue Buddhism.  If, as Siddhartha Gautama reported to have said, Nirvana is "beyond...good and evil", then, it follows, in the ultimate sense, there is genuinely no difference between a Hitler and a Mother Theresa, or between helping an old lady across the street and running her down, is there?  Further - how do we reconcile the Dalai Lama's observation that "Every human being has the potential to create happiness", with the teaching that suffering is caused by desire?  If one sets out to resist desire, why would one ever then entertain the desire for happiness, and thus work to create it?

Nirvanna the path of enlightenment. To be perfect is to be enlightened.

*Bangs matt's head into computer*

Matt said:

Buddha's four noble truths are as follows:

1. the noble truth of dukkha (suffering, dissatisfaction, stress): life is fundamentally fraught with disappointment of every description.

Okay, to say that everything is suffering, one should have some idea of joy and pleasure. We see suffering as suffering only in contrast to something that can be enjoyed. We would not know suffering as suffering if everything were indeed suffering.

Source: C.S. Lewis
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal; a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, my argument against God collapsed too- for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist- in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless- I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice- was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should have never found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known that it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.

End of Source

As we contemplate this quote, we ought not to mistake Buddhism to have logically concluded that God does not exist because of the first noble truth- that everything is suffering. God simply does not figure in the writings of the Buddha. We can, on the other hand, point out from a philosophical point of view that pain is understandable only against the back-drop of pleasure- and both are realities in our existence. We should therefore encourage the Buddhist to look for the causes of suffering elsewhere. What's more, we should be able to show that, even at the pragmatic level, there is much in life that is good, and there are good people who try to alleviate suffering. Even the Buddhist teaching to practice dana ( which means generosity) is a tacit admission that suffering can and is being alleviated in this world of suffering.

2. the noble truth of the cause of dukkha: the cause of this dissatisfaction is tanha- craving in all its form.
There is an admirable fact in the second noble truth- the location of the reason for suffering in tanha (which means craving). The apostle John warns of "the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does" (1 John 2:16).

3. the noble truth of the cessation of dukkha: an end to all dissatisfaction can be found through relinquishment and abandonment of craving.
However, the third noble truth runs into a contradiction. Relinquishment of craving can itself be a craving; that is, the desire to get rid of craving is itself a desire. An existence without desire is an existential as well as a logical contradiction. Instead, we need to focus our desires on an object worthy of our desire (Psalm 27:4).

4. the noble truth of the path leading to the cessation of dukkha: there is a method of achieving the end of all dissatisfaction, namely, the Noble Eightfold Path.
The fourth noble truth lays down the basis for an admirable lifestyle but offers little to actually execute it. We come back then to the serious weakness of knowing what is right and being unable to do it.

I am wandering why you are comparing the Bible to Nirvanna. Nirvanna is how you should live your lifestyle, unlike the New Testament where it just has how Jesus live His life.

We are made in the image of God, and we should follow after God's own teachings. Those teachings are found in the Bible.

Why you answering the question with saying part of the question.

I give up defending a religion I don't even believe in.