Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Of course not, they are not based on modern science yet it is interesting that nothingness is at the core of both.Not sure what your point is.
My point is that neither buddhism nor taoism are corresponding to modern scientific theories.
Genesis 1 is both creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) and creatio ex materia (creation out of materials).
Creationism Test:
1. Explain the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia; and give two examples of each.
2. Explain the difference between "God" and "LORD God".
3. Eden in the Bible is known as __________ on a secular map.
4. What literary device reconciles Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
5. Put the following in order that they appeared in the universe: whales, stars, trees, sun, land, sea, outer space.
6. What day was Adam created on?
7. Was the universe created a closed system and, if not, what kind of energy did it run off of? if it was created open, what closed it?
8. Describe terra aqua and what kind of water it consisted of and why.
9. Photosynthesis required light from the sun prior to the Fall. true or false?
10. Explain how a 24-hour day could transpire before the sun was created.
11. Explain the difference between "miracles" and "magic."
12. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?
13. Why is "heaven" singular in Genesis 1, but plural in Genesis 2?
You think that multiverse is nothingness? Or strings are nothingness? I do not understand what you mean.Of course not, they are not based on modern science yet it is interesting that nothingness is at the core of both.
I am not saying that they are. Much of the discussion on here has to do with the friction between religion and science, I am just pointing out the compatibility between Buddhism and science.You think that multiverse is nothingness? Or strings are nothingness? I do not understand what you mean.
Where do you see the compatibility?I am not saying that they are. Much of the discussion on here has to do with the friction between religion and science, I am just pointing out the compatibility between Buddhism and science.
Modern ReceptionWhere do you see the compatibility?
Electrons are not people after death, though.
So you contradict your own standards with what you cannot believe in.I'll let the Judge of all the earth decide.
1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.
In short, science keeps many of my beliefs in check.
I can't believe in a flat earth, I can't believe in geocentrism, I can't believe in a static universe, and so on.
But then, the Bible keeps science in check.
Science can't speak for anything beyond its empirical observations.
It can't speak for God, for angels, for the tripartite nature of man (body, soul, spirit), miracles, and so on.
You appear to have misunderstood a previous post. Quote and link please.You contradicted your earlier claim that science doesn't deal in facts. And I still don't know what you think I copied.
Again you contradict yourself. Gravity, for example, isn't a fact. We only know that what we call gravity acts certain ways. Doesn't mean that the way we think it works is right.You appear to have misunderstood a previous post. Quote and link please.
You contradict yourself quite often and it appeared that you were copying that correction.
EDIT: You may have conflated an earlier error that you made and a correction to it. Creationists quite often misuse the word "proof". Science does not do "proofs". But it does deal in facts.
Gravity = observed phenomena, a fact. Theory of gravity explains how it works.Again you contradict yourself. Gravity, for example, isn't a fact. We only know that what we call gravity acts certain ways. Doesn't mean that the way we think it works is right.
And certainly evolution isn't fact but theory.
No it really isnt, but either way you where in error.Only it doesn't...because it's full of Holes.
Then your definition is in error too. Learn the basics, ignorance is not a virtue.No, because it's not fact. But it comes down to the semantics of how you define the words.
I define evolution as the whole theory of origins, not just natural selection in an organism.
You can add electricity to the list. It's an observed phenomena, but we only have theories to explain how it works.Gravity = observed phenomena, a fact. Theory of gravity explains how it works.
Evolution = observed phenomena, a fact. Theory of evolution explains how it works.
Actually, its electromagnetismYou can add electricity to the list. It's an observed phenomena, but we only have theories to explain how it works.
If I remember right, there's a theory that combines exectromagnetism with the weak nuclear force and calls it the "electroweak force."Gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces.
To explain them perfectly is a totally different topics.
(But as one poster pointed out earlier, someone once said that something that explains everything explains nothing.)
You miss my point. For the second time, I am not making any claims on Buddhism and modern science beyond their compatibility. The link was on Modern Reception which I meant to be a window into their compatibility.Electrons are not people after death, though.
Also, these are just statements of few scientists, no direct comparison of statements of buddhism about nature and modern science. Who knows what they read and from where. Also, these quotations are quite ambiguous, not certain what is their context.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?