Well, it depends on how you define supernatural. Quantum physics already has some explanations for the supernatural although it has a long way to go. Therefore it is not entirely 'unexplainable' by science, and that is my point. But to ppl at large it is still supernatural.Originally posted by casino_king:You are speculating. Until science shows that it is indeed natural, science says that it is unnatural or super natural. You cannot say that you are scientific and then throw scientific principles out the window. Which brings us to a very interesting observation and that is, you seem unsure of Buddhism's ability to stand on its own and need supporting evidence? Please do not take this as I am attacking Buddhism, I am merely "attacking" your logic and convictions.
AEN, that is very unscientific, can you see that?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Well, it depends on how you define supernatural. Quantum physics already has some explanations for the supernatural although it has a long way to go. Therefore it is not entirely 'unexplainable' by science, and that is my point. But to ppl at large it is still supernatural.
'Surely you cannot insist that something that is "super" is still in the realm of natural?' - secondly, this is as a perspective of a Buddhist, and since there are already many documented cases of such occurence many people are convinced and concludes that is must exist as part of the natural world.
Hmm.... guess its all been discussed before. Maybe u can refer to the very old topics. Im going to sleep, gd nite.
Originally posted by casino_king:There is no lack of evidence of such occurence at all, only a lack of explanation until recently, where scientific explanations are beginning to form.
AEN, that is very unscientific, can you see that?
In science lack of evidence [b]IS evidence of lack.[/b]
In the scientific method, evidence is not evidence unless it is gathered in a properly conducted experiment that can be replicated.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:There is no lack of evidence of such occurence at all, only a lack of explanation until recently, where scientific explanations are beginning to form.
Yes, there are lots of evidences, but I am tired of doing research for you or typing things out. I suggest you read 'The Holographic Universe' and decide for yourself.Originally posted by casino_king:In the scientific method, evidence is not evidence unless it is gathered in a properly conducted experiment that can be replicated.
Not all things could be tested, and not every evidence exist. But we cannot presume that they are presume their non existence. Everyday, the scientists round the world are discovering new knowledge, new techniques, and new informations, so no evidence now doesn't equate to no evidence forever. Just like the Pacific Ocean, because no one has the technology to explore the sea bed, hence we don't know about the sea creatures living in that environment. There are many places in this world that are still unexplored, likewise for theory.Originally posted by casino_king:In the scientific method, evidence is not evidence unless it is gathered in a properly conducted experiment that can be replicated.
I did not say that "no evidence" means "non existing." As far as science is concerned; "no evidence" (derived by the scientific method) means "non existing."Originally posted by coolbluewater:Not all things could be tested, and not every evidence exist. But we cannot presume that they are presume their non existence. Everyday, the scientists round the world are discovering new knowledge, new techniques, and new informations, so no evidence now doesn't equate to no evidence forever. Just like the Pacific Ocean, because no one has the technology to explore the sea bed, hence we don't know about the sea creatures living in that environment. There are many places in this world that are still unexplored, likewise for theory.
However, I'm not saying that you should just believe that it's truth. You can investigate, but if you can't find an answer, maybe you have to learn to let go and focus on the more important problems that you have encountered in your cultivation. You may find the answer not in this life, but next life.
Buddhism is not exactly science however test of a religious teaching is in its conformity with the findings of science and the attraction it casts on the minds of persons possessed of acute intelligence.Originally posted by casino_king:I did not say that "no evidence" means "non existing." As far as science is concerned; "no evidence" (derived by the scientific method) means "non existing."
It has to be. Otherwise, knowledge and technology cannot move forward. You see what "no evidence" can be "existing" do? Religion. There are hundreds and thousands of beliefs. If you ask each individual, there might be as many as a slightly different belief for each human on earth.
In science, if you agree or disagree, your agreement or disagreement comes from a review of the evidence that is obtained from the scientific method. When there is no evidence, you do not even try to agree or disagree about something.
All I am saying is that to call Buddhism like science is in error. To understand Buddhism as science is in error. You have to face the truth if you want to find the truth.
What if you only highlight those that happened to seem to be in compliance with science?Originally posted by neutral_onliner:Buddhism is not exactly science ........ the more they seem to be convinced of this conclusion.
Genesis 1 WEBYou notice that that in verse 3 it says: "God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. God's Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.
3 God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
4 God saw the light, and saw that it was good. God divided the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." There was evening and there was morning, one day.
6 God said, "Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."
7 God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
8 God called the expanse "sky." There was evening and there was morning, a second day.
9 God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear;" and it was so.
10 God called the dry land "earth," and the gathering together of the waters he called "seas." God saw that it was good.
11 God said, "Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with its seed in it, on the earth;" and it was so.
12 The earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with its seed in it, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
14 God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;
15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of sky to give light on the earth;" and it was so.
16 God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He also made the stars.
17 God set them in the expanse of sky to give light to the earth,
18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good.
19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
"Let There Be Light"
Buddhism believes in the indestructibility or preservation of energy. This is in line with the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be transformed from one form to anotherWhat if you only highlight those that happened to seem to be in compliance with science?
Secondly (I am sure you are familiar with Hindu scriptures) I can also point out to you why the Bible is in compliance with science in the same respect of undestanding the nature of the universe as "not mass" "not energy" [/quote]
Modern science says that some millions of years ago, the newly cooled earth was lifeless and that life originated in the ocean. Buddhism never claimed that the world, sun, moon, stars, wind, water, days and nights were created by a powerful god or by a Buddha. Buddhists believe that the world was not created once upon a time, but that the world has been created millions of times every second and will continue to do so by itself and will break away by itself. According to Buddhism, world systems always appear and disappear in the universe.
H.G. Wells, in A Short History of the World,says 'It is universally recognized that the universe in which we live, has to all appearance, existed for an enormous period of time and possibly for endless time. But that the universe in which we live, has existed only for six or seven thousand years may be regarded as an altogether exploded idea. No life seems to have happened suddenly upon earth.'
The efforts made by many religions to explain the beginning and the end of the universe are indeed ill-conceived. The position of religions which propound the view that the universe was created by god in an exactly fixed year, has become a difficult one to maintain in the light of modern and scientific knowledg
Today scientists, historians, astronomers, biologists, botanists, anthropologists and great thinkers have all contributed vast new knowledge about the origin of the world. This latest discovery and knowledge is not at all contradictory to the Teachings of the Buddha. Bertrand Russell again says that he respects the Buddha for not making false statements like others who committed themselves regarding the origin of the world.The speculative explanations of the origin of the universe that are presented by various religions are not acceptable to the modern scientists and intellectuals. Even the commentaries of the Buddhist Scriptures, written by certain Buddhist writers, cannot be challenged by scientific thinking in regard to this question.The lights in the expense of sky, now that is energy.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Let There Be Light"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must not take the Bible as a science text book. It is a collection of man's experiences with God. It is like the parables in Buddhism. Anybody can find inconsistencies and illogic in parables.Originally posted by neutral_onliner:[b]mr casino care to explain the inconsistancies of Bible
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)
"Let There Be Light?"
Originally posted by casino_king:u did not answer the question.wat i'm trying to tell u is tat christianity explaination of the beginning and the end of the universe are indeed ill-conceived. The position of tis religion which propound the view that the universe was created by god in an exactly fixed year, has become a difficult one to maintain in the light of modern and scientific knowledg
[b]mr casino care to explain the inconsistancies of Bible
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)
You must not take the Bible as a science text book. It is a collection of man's experiences with God. It is like the parables in Buddhism. Anybody can find inconsistencies and illogic in parables.
People anywhere and everywhere understand that parables are not to be taken literally and one must find the essence of what the parables say. Similarly with the Bible. One is "inspired" by the bible and not "taught" by the bible.
Similarly in Buddhism, you want to know more about science, you read science text books and not Buddhist scriptures. To try to understand science from Buddhist scriptures is nonsensical.
When God said "LET THERE BE LIGHT"
Was the man having that experience and revelation from God "blur?" He is after all only a man and recording down what was revealed to him in terms that he understood.
It is clear that since it was revealed to him that the sun and the stars were created after "LET THERE BE LIGHT" then when God said, "LET THERE BE LIGHT" what came into being, was not light!
It was the basis of what everything else came after. The building block of the universe. The man who had the experience and revelation could not understand what it was and so he used the word "Light."
So you see that in the creation of man, the one writing down the revelation said God used mud. He could not understand what it was that God used and so he said, mud.
So you see in the third verse of the whole Bible you have the mystery of the universe that scientists all over the world are puzzling over. What came into being when God said:
[/b]
What I am telling you is that you must not insist that the Bible be a science text book. If is a recording of man's experiences with God. You do not then "believe" in other people's experiences with God and call that Faith.Originally posted by neutral_onliner:u did not answer the question.wat i'm trying to tell u is tat christianity explaination of the beginning and the end of the universe are indeed ill-conceived. The position of tis religion which propound the view that the universe was created by god in an exactly fixed year, has become a difficult one to maintain in the light of modern and scientific knowledg
i'm not talking abt 'experience' as i have said tat christianity explaination of the beginning and the end of the universe are indeed ill-conceived. The position of tis religion which propound the view that the universe was created by god in an exactly fixed year, has become a difficult one to maintain in the light of modern and scientific knowledg.In another words the philosophical basis of Christianity is weak. Many of its fundamental tenets, such as the doctrine of Original Sin, have their origins in a literal interpretation of Genesis, and are completely at variance with scientific evidence.Originally posted by casino_king:What I am telling you is that you must not insist that the Bible be a science text book. If is a recording of man's experiences with God. You do not then "believe" in other people's experiences with God and call that Faith.
You must have your own experiences with God.
Just like in Buddhism, you do not stop at listening to Dharma even if people tell you that the Dharma comes from an enlightened being.
You become enlightened yourself.
Originally posted by neutral_onliner:Is it any wonder that they are at varience with scientific evidence? It is not a science text book. It is a recording of people's experiences with God. Even if it is in full accordence with science text books so what? What is required of you is not believe in the Bible but Faith In God.
i'm not talking abt 'experience' as i have said tat christianity explaination of the beginning and the end of the universe are indeed ill-conceived. The position of tis religion which propound the view that the universe was created by god in an exactly fixed year, has become a difficult one to maintain in the light of modern and scientific knowledg.In another words the philosophical basis of Christianity is weak. [b]Many of its fundamental tenets, such as the doctrine of Original Sin, have their origins in a literal interpretation of Genesis, and are completely at variance with scientific evidence.
[/b]