yahoo delete challenging question to science

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130324105556AAuaooc

Why did yahoo delete challenging question to science?

A copy of the question is as follows:
http://godofgodseyes.blogspot.com/2013/0…

I received following message from yahoo:

Hello Nucleus,
The question on Yahoo! Answers was reported and deleted by one or more trusted members of the Answers community:
"Can science sensibly prove the existence of Magnetic Force?"
This question has been removed and 10 points have been deducted from your account. You may not have realized this, but all questions submitted on Yahoo! Answers must comply with the Answers Community Guidelines.
If you believe that your questionwas wrongly deleted by the community and would like to appeal the deletion of your question, you can have your case reviewed by Answers Customer Care. You have 7 days to submit your appeal. Please be aware that if your appeal is rejected, an additional 10 points will be removed from your account.
Appeal this decision:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/app…
Thanks,
Yahoo! Answers Team

My reply to Yahoo:

Hello dumb Yahoo Answers Team,
How do you expect me to 'Appeal your decision' when I did not receive a complaint?
1. What are the precise reasons for deleting "Can science sensibly prove the existence of Magnetic Force?" question (what exact guidance/acts are breached?).
2. Who complained it?
3. What was the intention for complaining?
This is not the first time I made you aware of your dumb deletion-appealing system.
It is reasonable for intelligence to reject absurdity of such decisions and follow-up.
Thanks,
Nucleus

The deletion procedure should not be cheating.

Additional Details

Who did the coward act to report such an intellectually challenging question?

@MTR 2.0,
This question is philosophical and in correct category. 'offended some one' is a pseudo reasoning.
When I ask a question, others can answer. Why should I prove anything?
Were you the offender to report ?

@Professor Freedom,
I ask a question the way I like it and is open for others to answer. If some people are easily offended, it is their sensitive problem, not mine, because I have no intentions to offend anyone.
I completely reject the absurdity of deletion system, and not worried about the contests of my question.

So far Yahoo deleted many of my questions, and still I do not know the exact reasons.
http://godofgodseyes.blogspot.com/2013/0…
http://godofgodseyes.blogspot.com/2013/0…
and more..
If no accurate complaint, expecting to appeal is a joke.

@Houston, we have a problem,
I cannot agree with your assumption.

I suggest any researcher to skim through other yahoo questions and answers to evaluate the consistency of decision making in deleting.

If your guys see me as a threat, and always get offended, I will not post any more questions with yahoo, and will find elsewhere, to continue my intellectual research.

Answer:

western sciences consider objective and subjective factors

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130324102306AAhdNBs

Why do western sciences consider objective and subjective factors?

Objective and subjective consideration is to accept 'creator concept', the basis for religions.

Answer:

How do western sciences accept objective relativity

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130324101729AAJYZdm

How do western sciences accept objective relativity after Galileo's suggestion?

real knowledge, real objective world, real laws of objective world, etc are the sole/belief/precondition of western sciences.

Galileo was punished by the church for suggesting 'observation is relative' by saying 'Earth move around the Sun'.

'objective relativity' shook the 'objective real' foundation of western sciences.

'relative observations' shifted 'western sciences' into 'relative sciences', degrading the credibility of 'real' belief of existence.

How do western scientists cope with such instability?
Can they enjoy making sand castles, where the tide can wash them off easily?

Answer:

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130324022758AA7Sc9X

Why 2 = 1 is mathematical fallacy?

This question extends from:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

Mathematics is valid only for worldly existence (mundane 'lokika').
Mathematics cannot exist in non-existence.

Therefore, 0 (zero) should exist as an infinitesimal.

But, the existing infinitesimal value (from a subjective universe) as zero may not be emphasized in mathematics, due to 'precision' concern.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…
2 = 1 proof

1 x 0 = 0
2 x 0 = 0
therefore, 1 x 0 = 2 x 0
cut zeros from both sides,
1=2
====
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.fal…

Correct calculation is:

Let, 0 (zero) = Δ (infinitesimal)
If 1 = 1 + Δ then, 2 = 2(1 + Δ) = 2 + Δ2

(1+Δ) x Δ = 1Δ+Δ^2 = Δa

(2+Δ) x Δ = 2Δ+Δ^2 = Δb

Δa != (not equal) Δb

therefore
1=2 is a fallacy.
====

Additional Details

@Learner,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28number…
"The mathematician Brahmagupta was the first to attempt to divide with zero, and thus the first to treat zero as an actual number rather than as just a placeholder or other identifier."

Don't you have any respect to the recommendations of the pioneer of math-zero 'Brahmagupta'?

This is why I already proved in many ways in other questions, that 'current education system' is false and western (not-original) thinking in incomplete.

Answer:

non-existence cannot be referenced with existing logic

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130324014122AAVvUdc

Why non-existence cannot be referenced with existing logic?

Definition of 'non-existence' exists and in not non-existence.

For example;

If 0 (zero) is infinitesimal existence,
then 5+0 = 5

If 0 is non-existence,
then 5 + 0 = 0

Whatever existence you throw into non-existence cannot exist.

Free from existence (nibbana) cannot be referenced by worldly existence!.

Creator based western thinking cannot grasp 'nibbana' in Buddhism.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…


Can you logically reference non-existence?

Additional Details

@kokonut,
You cannot think non-existence, but can experience it.

For example:

(imagine x-y Cartesian diagram)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co…

Let dimension-x is exclusive to dimension-y.
Then dimension-x does not exist (non-existent) within dimension-y.

@come closer, smell this !,
Thank you for sharing your experience with us.

Answer:

science sensibly prove the existence of Magnetic Force

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130323234047AAPPGbN

Can science sensibly prove the existence of Magnetic Force?

When experimenting with iron filings and magnets, we can observe the pattern of iron filings to assume magnetic force.

http://www.fi.edu/htlc/teachers/lettieri…

"A magnetic field is a mathematical description of the magnetic influence of electric currents and magnetic materials."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_fi…

Therefore, 'magnetic field' concept is a fictionally created story, used to explain the aforesaid observations. We can create many alternative fictional stories to justify observations.

Since 'magnetic field' cannot be observed by senses (not empirical evidence), how scientifically stable is 'magnetic field' concept?

Note:
Scientific evidence is expected to be empirical evidence (sense experience) and in accordance with scientific method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_…

Additional Details

The underlying question is, how scientific is science when creationism in involved?

@Dr Redthumb,
How scientific is inference/relation of 'magnetic field' from/to the observations of iron filings, in the first place? Also, Science as a 'subject' taught at school, seems to reference a superior existence.

@D g,
Good luck, if you can see magnetic fields. Do you use a microscope to see them?

3 hours ago

@dawgdays,
You stated: Creativity (NOT "creationism") is actually involved in science.
'Magnetic Force lines' are creativity, the blind belief in science. Confirmed!

@dawgdays,
Scientific method is to conclude if (observations=hypothesis) condition is true or false. It cannot create new knowledge.
(interpretations of observations=hypothesis) is abuse of scientific method, because interpretation is not equal to observation and interpretation always creates new knowledge. (unscientific method)

@Chris Pitchr,
approximation invalidates scientific method.
(if observation=0.9999.. and conclusion=1.0, then the experiment abuses scientific method)

quantum mechanics, particle physics, relativity, etc are man created stories. no difference to creating the concept of God who creates everything.

@Tim S,
If non-testable belief is a precondition of science, how scientific is science, irrespective of prejudice?

Answer:

ignorance makes attachment to believe in non-existing existence

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130323174038AA8vMyy

Why ignorance makes attachment to believe in non-existing existence?

This question extends from:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

Additional Details

@eoin,
The question is accurate if there's a comma after attachment. Attachment/relationship is also created. The question does not limit attachment or belief to people.

@Fake Genius,
Cannot agree with your definition 'mind that has no idea is ignorant'.
Ignorance 'moha' is lack of knowledge on greed 'lobha' (attraction/induction/unification) and hatred 'dvesa' (repulsion/derivations/separation) and their consequence of existence.

Answer:

existence is created out of non-existence

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130323173639AAOY3LZ

Why existence is created out of non-existence?

Additional Details

This question extends to:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

@Special EPhex,
If your referenced 'science' creates so called scientific concepts in mind like 'Laws of Conservation', 'Thermodynamics', 'energy', 'matter', 'gravity', etc as definition, how can that 'science' accept, 'something cannot come from nothing'? It's hypocrisy.

@eoin,
Consider dimension-A is exclusive to dimension-B.
Then, dimension-A cannot exist within dimension-B and dimension-B cannot exist within dimension-A.
Therefore, how can non-existence (cannot exist) be existence?

@Don H,
If 'con+sciousness' is created and exist as a concept to explain 'togetherness of something', it should exist out of non-existence (creator concept).

@glenn123,
The defined 'non-existence' exists as a creation.
But, 'non-existence' cannot be logically relative to 'existence', because non-existence cannot exist..

@nameless,
In your comment you stated: Not anything, ever, is 'created'!
Did you create that statement out of nothing?
(dig deep through reference sources to find that the base is baseless). That's why, existence is created out of non-existence.

@adagio58,
What does not exist can be created to exist by challenging Bashar's definition.
For example: television did not exist, but created to exist.

@A P,
if you consider existence doesn't exist, then how can sensations be part of existence?

You cannot use logic with non-existence.

For example;
If 0 (zero) is infinitesimal existence, then 5+0 = 5
If 0 is non-existence, then 5+0=0

Whatever existence you throw into non-existence cannot exist.
Free from existence (nibbana) cannot be referenced by worldly existence!.

Answer:

believers imagine concepts like God or Allah

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130323160656AARKP4U

How do believers imagine concepts like God or Allah?

Can there be 'mental creations' other than 'abstract' and 'concrete' concepts, because objective-subjective thinking for God or Allah, heaven, unicorn, etc may loose information?

Additional Details

@The Voice of Reason,
Do you conceive 'consciousness' as a subject of creator, because the concept of 'consciousness' is a creation of mind? mind creates mind

@Amar Saleem,
In your comment, you stated "only way you can truly understand god ".
Why do YOU create mental limitations (bondage) to think under a single pyramid creation? (slavery attitude towards a master concept)
Free from any existence cannot have such limitations.

Let me rephrase the main question:
Is there possibility to think/conceptualize away from 'master-slave' and 'peer-to-peer' relationships, if observer and observed are not separate?

Answer:

abstract conception is disjoint to concrete conception in western sciences

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130323044030AAEYQUC

Why abstract conception is disjoint (වියුක්ත) to concrete conception in western sciences?

For example:
You can accurately imagine a particular man you met as concrete conception, but you cannot accurately imagine a category 'man' as abstract conception.

instance of fictional man class ! = (not equal to) living breathing man with flesh and blood

In western medicine, a doctor prescribes medicine to a category/blueprint 'man', and not to the man who sits in front of him. This disjoint gap looses valuable information (incomplete thinking).
Therefore, western medical science manages the problem as solution. (not complete cure)

In contrast, the native Asian thinking does not consider the said disjoint 'abstract' concepts. (complete thinking without gaps). Medicine is 100% customized.
Therefore, Asian traditional medicine uproots the problem as the solution. (complete cure)

How do western sciences justify the highlighted error in abstract (incomplete) thinking?

Additional Details

@Curtis Edward Clark.com,
Both abstract and concrete conceptions exist (real imaginary) as creations of mind.
Subjective-objective view of 'abstract man' as 'any thing' is defined withing the context of 'creator God' pyramid. This 'fictional man' (personification) is then assumed as the sensory perceived man.
Can you see the gap in that assumption? Abstract Man do not exactly fit the sensory perceived concrete man. This gap looses valuable information, resulting 'incomplete thinking' and wrong decision making. Can your physical body be accurately described, even by referring to your own shadow?
In Asian thinking, even the observer and observed are one (complete thinking). Solution and problem are not separate.

Answer:

Buddhism guide Quantum physics

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130321234456AAIshlT

Can Buddhism guide Quantum physics and prove to correct the fundamental error in Western Thinking?

Refer to:

1. Why A=not A if A=A as per Asian Logic? (Intro to Chathuskotika logic associated with Buddhism)
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

2. Why conventional logic always ignore the existence of weak logical states? ('thought-object' analysis)
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

3. Why does western thinking fundamentally fail to observe the living existence?
(cyclic inter-dependency of two 'thought-objects')
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

Additional Details

@Blaise Rascal,
For example, the term 'mother' in western thinking is not similar to 'mother=amma' in Asian thinking. It is a totally different concept. In Asia, mother calls to her baby as 'amma' for love. It is not possible to distinct cultures and their fundamental thinking sources with a closed mind. The way to see as it is, is to intelligently remove the colored glasses.

Get an introduction of the main root sources of 'western thinking'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_lo…

I can see west imported the copies of it, not the original.

Why do you think, 'divide by zero' is an error for western thinking, against the advice of sources of mathematical zero?

Western thinking is built on confusion and CANNOT see as it is.
Simply, western thinking cannot grasp Nibbana (free from existence). I researched it.

Answer:

western thinking fundamentally fail to observe the living existence

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130321232537AASbf92

Why does western thinking fundamentally fail to observe the living existence?

This question extends from:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

Lets consider the motion of a quantum particle, subjected to its own internal forces.

Two 'thought-objects' created and relevant to this particle are it's position X and it's momentum P.

Given that there are no external forces acting on the particle, one could imagine that the two 'thought objects' X and P are conditioned by each other (inter-dependent) by a cyclic relationship.

(I suggest you to draw a truth table to picture it)

In such a case, with conventional Aristotelian logic (ignorance of 'weak states'), X and P can cease to exist in observation, leading to the familiar of the 'uncertainty principal'.

Subjective-Objective view is the basis of western thinking looses information in decision making. It should be corrected as 'observer and observable are the same one'.

Like or not, Quantum physics is following Buddhism, but it can never experiment Nibbana (free from existence).

Additional Details

@MTR 2.0,
It is not fair to say 'Buddhism does not have formal logic in it' from a western view, because Buddhist logical (hetu-pratya) way of thinking is complete, compared to incomplete western thinking. This is why Buddhism is all about non-violent and targets at ultimate achievement, Nibbana (free from existence).
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…
Why do you think, wise people all around the world make attempts to study Buddhism (even with no respect to religious aspects)?

@Not sure,
[Nucleus] is an open thinker.

@Jared,
The answer to your concern is addressed in the question description. Use your wisdom to find it.

@Quantum Observer,
Always, separate the valuable 'core knowledge' behind any religion from their 'spell-binding religious aspects'.

Answer:

conventional logic always ignore the existence of weak logical states

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130321225341AALwjcV

Why conventional logic always ignore the existence of weak logical states?

This question extends:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

For example, consider the existence of a 'thought-object'

Thought object is a piece of knowledge constructed by mind, with or without the aid of sensory organs.

Let Like = True, Dislike = False.

Possible strong logical states are:
1. (Like and Not-Dislike = Like) or 2. (Dislike and Not-Like = Dislike)

Possible weak logical states are:
3. (Like and Dislike) or 4. (Not-Like and Not-Dislike)

Conventional world is clear with 'strong states' and accept them.
But, 'weak states' are confusing/fuzzy to western thinking and rejects them.

Sometimes, weak states are condemned/ misinterpreted as 'signaling to left and turning to right like women drivers'.

Unfortunately, ignorance of 'weak states' in conventional logic misses important information in decisions making.

'Uncertainty principle' also has suggested the same.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovat…

Additional Details

This question extends to inter-dependency of two 'thought-objects'
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

@MTR 2.0,
weak states 3 and 4 are not equal and are in different directions as thought (intention).
Like half full is positive thinking and half empty is negative thinking, though the glass has same water level.

@Robert J,
This question points at a fundamental issue of complete vs incomplete thinking, than a simple argument of definitions. Your comment demonstrates subjective-objective concern in western thinking, with ad-hog collection of knowledge, failing to integrate and loose information. Such a non-stable education breads partial and greedy and self-centered products. See the non-violence fundamental Buddhist thinking in contrast to U.S. foreign policy value system and the destruction to the nature.

I think human with advanced minds should try to think beyond the low standards and correct their fundamental errors in thinking by studying the sources.

@Robert J,
This question points at a fundamental issue of complete vs incomplete thinking, than a simple argument of definitions. Your comment demonstrates subjective-objective concern in western thinking, with ad-hog collection of knowledge, failing to integrate and loose information. Such a non-stable education breads partial and greedy and self-centered products. See the non-violence fundamental Buddhist thinking in contrast to U.S. foreign policy value system and the destruction to the nature.

I think human with advanced minds should try to think beyond the low standards and correct their fundamental errors in thinking by studying the sources.

Thanks guys, I'm getting beautiful comments here.

@mitten,
I agree that "western thought" should not be narrowed to geography.
I refer it's sources to the holistic creator God concept as objectivity. From that objective creator, man got restricted as a subject. Irrespective of religious believes, western thinker is sourced to be dependent. It is a strong self-centered belief, full of greed, hatred and ignorance.

In contrast Buddhist thinking is open, independent and creative and does not attach to it, because the creation is non-existing/fictional. Non-hatred, non-greed and non-ignorance are the reasons behind Buddhist thinking to be non-violent and non-destructive to nature. Asian culture is built on Buddhism for thousands of years, and western invasions with missionary education may have destroyed the good cultural thinking.

@mitten,
I too like Graham Priest's work.

Answer:

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130321030858AAcxPRx

Why A=not A if A=A as per Asian Logic?

if "A is B" and "B is C", then "A is C" is popular logic. Aristotle used it.

Now:

suppose, if A = true then B=true.
then, if A = true, can B=false?
also, if A=false, can B=true?
and, if A=false, can B=false?


It is Chathuskotika logic associated with Buddhism.
Asian culture inherits this knowledge for thousands of years.
I always see that such knowledge is very hard for western thinking to grasp (without skeptics).

Double-slit experiment in Quantum physics also observed that a particle can be in two places at the same time.

Additional Details

@Seyfert,
Subjective-Objective view is the basis of western thinking and is a fundamental error in observation. They always miss important information and make wrong decisions to destroy the environment like a dog biting it's own tail.
The western thinking should be corrected as 'observer and observable are the same one'.
Uncertainty principle conforms it.

@Speed,
Please refer to:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

@Fake Genius,
Buddhism demonstrates the creativity of no-mind by using no-mind.
No-mind as mind can value it's creation.

Answer:

Mr.A have relationship with anyone other than Mr.B and not Mr. B?

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130321024459AAKvEaU

Can Mr.A have relationship with anyone other than Mr.B and not Mr. B?

For example:

1. Can you have relationships with friends? yes (obvious)
2. Can you have relationships with other than friends? yes (non friends = neutral and enemy)

3. Can you have relationships with anyone other than (your friends and non-friends)???

This is a famous IQ question at the introduction of Buddhism to Sri Lanka from ven. Mihindu to king Devanampiyatissa.

Additional Details

@Seyfert,
Yes, the mango-tree question is the other similar IQ test.
This IQ question is about existence of NOT(relation AND non-relation)

@Fake Genius,
Do you consider Dhamma that explains the non-existing existence of relationships as 'wrong view'?
It would be disaster to ignore the traps that restrict achieving Nibbana (free from existence).

Answer:

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130320164930AATSLcq

How to sense an Apple?

I say that it is not possible to sense an apple.

Eyes can sense color and shape, but not the apple.
Nose can sense fragrance, but not the apple.
Tongue can sense taste, but not the apple.
skin can sense smoothness and softness, but not the apple.

Senses can sense attributes of the apple, but not the apple.

Therefore, we learn an apple by creating a mental picture and then matching it's attributes with the sensed attributes.

Simply, apple cannot be sensed, but always created in mind.

By large, the so called 'outside world' is created in mind, and not sensed.

Do you agree?
why?

Additional Details

@MTR 2.0,
Senses are needed to sense attributes, not the object.
Creation and Recognition are the works of mind.
If you think an apple can be sensed, then which of your sense organ(s) can sense an apple?

@The Architect,
This is simple Buddhism aged around 2600 years. George Berkeley (1685–1753) should have studied Buddhist scriptures before proposing it as a philosophy to get the credit.

See how Shakespeare was so profoundly influenced by Buddhism in all his writings in the same Baconian era.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

@Jesere,
Do you always use all your sense organs to recognize an apple?
Apple is a creation of mind, as well as sense organs are creations of mind.
Mind creates mind. It's all mind.

@Scottyboy,
Sense (Vedana) is mind.
http://buddhism.about.com/od/whatisthese…
Perception (Sanna) recognizes the apple, and is also mind.

Answer:

application identify a hardware printer as a software device

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130320053951AAx6fP1

Does a computer o/s or application identify a hardware printer as a software device?

Can a computer software distinctly recognize so called 'outside world'
exclusive to
data and instructions/algorithms or simply voltage differences as bit patters
within it's realm of knowledge?

This question is similar to :
"Can a man perceive 'outside world' without referring to known mental pictures?"

Answer:

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130320050025AAhahKW

Does mathematics Create or Find a fix If fail?

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

[Whyburn] said:
"Mathematics does not fail, as a rule, and if it fails the first time a fix will be found so that it won't happen again, for the same reason"

Is the fix always found or created as well?

If fix is found, from where (from who's creation)?

If fix is created, who (who is the creator)?

Additional Details

@Fake Genius,
Who created that 'law of science' you mentioned in your comment?

@Chris Pitchr,
I do not want to partition mathematics and philosophy as separate subjects. Simply, we are free and open to think. Why bondage?

Answer:

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130320044545AAL0O9J

If creator God(s) do(es) not exist, how do mathematics and nature exist?

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

[alwbsok] said:
"I think God does not exist"

Now,
The 'creator concept' includes both 'revolution' and 'evolution' meaning a creation modifies/expands the system as new creation with 'evolution' and when the system is unstable (cannot handle) the modifications/expansions, it 'revolves' the system structure to a new creation.

Therefore, creator God(s) has/have to be busy without holidays, until he/they free from attachment to creation.

Then,
How can mathematics and nature exist without a creator?

Additional Details

@James,
Under-standing 'God' from a religious view is a failure to man. But, over-standing God as a 'creator concept' is good for mathematics and credits the hard-earned human mind.
"Then who created god?" the one I already credited. Mind creates mind. It will not go endlessly, if free from attachment to creation.

@SpartanCanuck,
If not created, how do mathematics and nature exist?
Darwin's evolution is also a form of creation.

@Liam,
That 'bearded man in the clouds' also exists as a creation in mind.

Answer:

western thinking always fail to creatively grasp Nibbana

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130320041338AAbPnCq

Why western thinking always fail to creatively grasp Nibbana in Buddhism as it is?

Western thinking is comfortable with Liberation, the surrendering to the existing 'main thing'.

Since that 'main thing' (outside to man or objectivity) has created an 'every thing' called nature, where man (subject of nature) is allowed to discover it, prohibiting creative thinking by default.

If man creates new things, he challenges the said 'main thing'. (man is a subject of 'main thing' called Creator)

Now, Nibbana in Buddhism is free from that 'main thing' or simply free from existence.

Free from existence has no rules to restrict creativity and non-attachment to such 'temporal creativity' is non-existence.

Therefore, western thinking always grasps Nibbana as an element (thesis relative to an anti-thesis) withing the 'every thing' of creator.

In other words, western thinking is not free to think outside bondage.

This fundamental issue has made western thinking to confuse 'division by zero' as an error, against the advice of Indian mathematicians.

That is my answer to the question to hint you on my opinion.

I wish to see different fruitful opinions/arguments/comments from you.

Additional Details

@alwbsok,
The said 'null products' exist for cardinality/calculations, meaning irrespective of the name given, they are 'not-null products'.

Answer:

mathematics fail when Empty Products of all is zero

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130320031639AA9zIHx

Why mathematics fail when Empty Products of all is zero?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_produ…

In mathematics, an empty product, or nullary product, is the result of multiplying no factors.
It is equal to the multiplicative identity 1.

If the list has no numbers at all, the 'product of all' is 1.

Why mathematics is so creative (new invention), if it indents to discover the laws of nature?

Einstein said, "God Does Not Play Dice"

Does mathematics tell the creator God what to do to justify consistency of his creation?

Additional Details

@alwbsok,
If creator God(s) do(es) not exist, how do mathematics and nature exist?

@Whyburn,
Is the fix created or found? If always found, from where?

Answer:

x to the power zero equal to x divide by x

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130320025118AAazjoI

Why x to the power zero equal to x divide by x or x^0=x/x=1?

For example:

2^0 = 2^(1-1) = (2^1)/(2^1) = 1

Why?
I expect 'knowledge behind knowledge' (meta knowledge) or 'root source knowledge' as an answer for the above mechanical calculation.

This question extends to:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

Answer:

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130320023536AAMUWmS

Does power sequence deliberately fake zero?

This question extends the previous:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

Consider following power sequence, for example:

... , 7^(-2) , 7^(-1) , 7^(0) , 7^(1) , 7^(2) , ...

Now, 7^(0) = 7/7 = 1
Look how zero vanishes at power of zero in the same sequence:

... , 1/(7^2) , 1/(7^1) , (7^1)/(7^1) , (7^1)/1 , (7^2)/1 , ...

No zero exponent (or index or power).

Does mathematics fake zero for some (untold) reason?
Why?

Answer:

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130320000229AAEl8iV

Why x to the power zero is one x^0=1?

For example:

2^3 * 2^0 = 2^(3+0) = 2^3
meaning, 8 * 1 = 8
Therefore, 2^0 = 1

It seems that 1^0 = 2^0 = 3^0 =4^0 =5^0 = 1

Why?

Additional Details

@Chris Pitchr and @Chris,
I do not buy 'mathematicians defined it that way' because 'Mathematical consistency' seems to be too mechanical. Open thinking would like to see the knowledge behind these mechanical calculations.

This question extends to:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

@Usama PC,
I think, your intelligent example made math look silly. Thank you for sharing active thoughts.

Answer:

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130318173758AA0LYVV

What could have happened before Big Bang?

Answer:

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130318171123AAiBSxa

Why Big Bang took place exactly around 13.7 billion years ago?

Why can't it happen right now at any place?

Answer:

Big Bang take place at any time

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130318170810AAkEL32

Why can't Big Bang take place at any time instead of around 13.7 billion years ago?

Why sudden creation exactly around 13.7 billion years ago?

Why can't it happen right now at any place?

Answer:

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130318170138AAMDha3

What did God or Allah do before creating the world or universe?

Did God or Allah create time at the same time he created world or universe?

Please reference.

Answer:

knowledge created instead of discovered?

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtQIpJsLo6NAGyx4Qyfs0FshBgx.;_ylv=3?qid=20130318154524AAQ6WKf

Why is knowledge created instead of discovered?

If knowledge is discovered Newton and Einstein cannot have different definitions to 'Gravity'.

Additional Details

@Jesere,
How do you know that 'Knowledge is both discovered and created'?

 

Answer:

most convincing definition for the term 'fact'?

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130318124922AA7iO39

Do information qualify as facts, only if not contradict with dominant theory of a case?

I ask this question because I am not satisfied with answers to a similar question, 7 years ago.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?…


What is the most convincing definition for the term 'fact'?

Answer:

scientists scientifically prove the existence

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130318040152AApQNcU

Do scientists scientifically prove the existence they theorize?

This question extends:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

Buddhism states that non-science (ignorance) originates existence, and seeks free from existence (nibbana) as science.
" Avijja-paccaya sankhara"
http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/coarise1.…

Biblical religions base on 'creator concept' to define existence of 'everything'.

So called Scientists hypothetically believe in existence in order to theorize, experiment, etc.

If their hypothetical belief is not blind, can they scientifically prove the 'existence' they theorize?

Additional Details

@Matthew,
You did not answer my question.
The question refers, how to scientifically prove 'existence'?
If 'existence' is not proven with facts to be true, how can 'theory exist' and 'existence be theorized'?

@Paul and @Chris Pitchr,
According to your comments, the pre-belief for existence makes science a religion.

@duke_of_urls,
Your reading on Paticca-samuppada is wrong, because you viewed it through western thinking, like a fish in water try to explain what's on land.
It does NOT speak of a cycle of consideration within the existence already existing.

@duke_of_urls,
A copy (imitation) of knowledge is not the same to original knowledge inherited from an X-culture.
A good example is that western thinking consider 'divide by zero' as an error, disregarding the Rules of Brahmagupta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28number…

Answer:

How reliable is western Education system?

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130318024725AAiRRe3

How reliable is western Education system when it desperately inflates a western civilization as intelligent?

The current education system try to distort the history and brain-wash children by including fake history in to school system text books.

Example:
'Pythagorean theorem' is not a Pythagorean invention.
'Earth revolves around the Sun' is not a Copernicus invention.

Simply Greek civilization did not invent the popular knowledge, but imported knowledge from other cultures (eg: then India, China, Egypt, etc).

Even America was not discovered by Columbus.

It is bias and intellectual piracy to reference the current knowledge to western sources.
Where were the so called 'western scientists' before short-lived Greek civilization?

Look how so called 'western science (Baconian)' destroyed the nature within last 500 years, after exploring/invading missions to other world with greed to build empires.

Think about how other prosperous civilizations existed in Asian, China, etc. Their cultures were advanced in technology and were truly intelligent to not destroy the nature. Buddhism is the greatest science in that culture.

For example: In then Sri Lanka, Anuradhapura civilization prospered and lasted for around 1500 years. The technology used then surprises current scientists. Advanced agricultural projects did not pollute the nature with Arsenic compared to current situation.

Quote "I say the western education copied (imitated) the knowledge of other stable civilizations, but failed to absorb the original culture that inherited such intelligence." Unquote.

The same can be observed with 'error in division by zero', a concept imported to west from Asian civilizations.

How reliable is western Education system?

Additional Details

@Ashleigh,
Victor of battle seems to be the looser of war, since the Nature is getting polluted thick and fast.
Lastly, can looser write a history? This would be the result of current (western) Education system.

Do most adults discover it for themselves or do they parrot what was fed? It is dangerous.

If a non-Englishman communicate in English, he can get the best out of the language if he thinks as an Englishman by studying the English culture.
Likewise, the correct sources need to be referenced (even for children) to learn the original knowledge instead of projected knowledge, where the original you is not your shadow.

Answer:

creator concept differ from Maha-Brahma in Buddhism?

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130318013429AAdcOnx

How does creator concept in Christian, Islam, Jewish, Hindu, etc religions differ from Maha-Brahma in Buddhism?

Refer to Buddhist Cosmology to find the location of Maha Brahma.
http://www.energyenhancement.org/31-Plan…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_co…

"14 - Great Brahmas (Maha brahma) One of this realm's most famous inhabitants is the Great Brahma, a deity whose delusion leads him to regard himself as the all-powerful, all-seeing creator of the Universe."

Note:
Nibbana (free from existence) in Buddhism is superior to entire Buddhist Cosmology (existence).
Existence of 'Buddhist religion' is far inferior to Nibbana in Buddhism.
Therefore, this question does not narrowly compare religions.

The emphasis here is 'existence of permanent creator' concept referring to 'Maha Brahma' in Buddhist Cosmology (existence).

Additional Details

@motivational_raven,
The question expects different opinions, because 'creator concept' can be applied differently.
Please don't be flat on analysis.

Answer:

scientists create new scientific theories

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130318010422AAzfwFt

Do scientists create new scientific theories or discover theories from another creation?

If scientists say scientific theories are created, they accept 'creator concept'.

If scientists say scientific theories are discovered (within existence of another creation), they again accept 'creator concept'.

Biblical Religions also accept 'creator concept'.

Can scientific theory be exclusive to 'creator concept'?

If not, are scientists religious?

Additional Details

@MTR 2.0,
'creator concept' says that 'creator is a creation of a superior creator' referring to your argument 'then you are saying that god must have a creator also'.

Do not mix-up 'creator concept' with 'permanent creator concept (main program that references to all other sub-programs)'.

Both evolution and revolution are included in 'creator concept'
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

Therefore, universe cannot exist (and evolve) without a creator.

Does science blindly believe that universe is one of those things that can exist without a creator?
Can your hypothesis be scientifically proven to make scientists distant from religions?

'divine command theory of ethics' or simply politics and administration of masses inherits 'creator concept'. Epistemology concerned with the nature accepts 'creator concept'.

@Hanazono,
So called Scientists blindly believe in existence to theorize and they do not scientifically prove it (existence).
If western definition of science is not a subject of religion, Vatican has not reason to invest on science research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angels_%26_…

Answer:

How can scientific Theories not be myth?

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130318003109AAlM8pc

How can scientific Theories not be myth when those scientists label religion as myth?

So called scientists in the west may not say that they are religious. (atheists, agnostics, personal God, etc)

But both those Religions (christian, Jewish, Islam Hindu, etc) and Scientific Theories are based on the same permanent creator God concept (name of the creator may differ).

Can any scientific theory exist without accepting the 'permanent creator God concept'?

If religion is seen as myth to the scientists, how can their scientific theories not be myth?

Additional Details

@Possum, @Dr Redthumb and @Graham Earle,
If Science requires proof, what are your evidence based systematic study of facts and observations for 'GRAVITY', 'TIME', etc?
Are they not faith and fairytale somebody made up?

If you say scientific theories are created, you accept 'creator concept' by someone.
If you say scientific theories are discovered (within existence), you again accept 'creator concept' by someone.

@Hanazono,
Can you test Gravity, without blindly believing Newton's Apple hypothesis or Einstein's space-time geometry hypothesis, etc in a religious manner?

@scruffy 14 year old,
How can you prove gravity by dropping something on floor, unless you blindly believe in what gravity is?
Can you senses (example: eyes, ears, etc) feel gravity like you see a picture or hear a sound?

@Pushpa Selvam,
"Scientists are Proving Their Belief" or simply proving their religion (studying what God created to be like God).
http://bible.cc/ephesians/4-24.htm

Answer:

contents if creation of the creator is destroyed?

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130318000011AAzeFIa

What can happen to the contents if creation of the creator is destroyed?

Extending: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

1. Is creation (example: universe) of the Creator (God, Allah, Brahma, etc) permanent?

2. If the existence of creation is impermanent, where do it's contents go, if creation is destroyed?

3. Does the creator use the said same content to create a new creation?

Additional Details

@nameless,
Does Bertrand Russell deny the existence of 'permanent creator concept' in his Critical Thinking?

@Forget Me Not,
Like others you don't feel that science is behind every creation.
Do you feel 'Permanent Creator God concept' is behind all 'science and science theories' prejudiced by so called 'western scientists'?

Answer:

prove the Creator of the creation is permanent?

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130317234723AAnwJOq

How do Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus prove the Creator of the creation is permanent?

How do you prove with facts (or with theology) and beyond doubt that Creator (God, Allah, Brahma, etc) is permanent?

Answer:

Martin Luther challenge the Creator God

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130317233738AA8Gl6F

Did Martin Luther challenge the Creator God Concept by his Ninety-Five Theses sparking the Reformation?

Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses on 31 October 1517 at the door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg, sparking the Reformation.

He clearly challenged the administration/authority/laws of Vatican/pope/church/bible. It is a political issue.

Has he ever challenged the 'Creator God Concept'?
Has he denied the 'Creator God Concept' (with an alternative theory)?

Answer:

Karl Marx and Charles Darwin believe in creator God concept?

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApN14pzQsKDeRBf2CKhCdYchBgx.;_ylv=3?qid=20130317051502AAgKTfp

Did Karl Marx and Charles Darwin believe in creator God concept?

They both theorized evolution (expansion) within the limited frame of struggle.

When such limits are met, Marxism suggests revolution (conflict) like big-bang using Hegel's dialectic.

Evolution and Revolution are Management at Peacetime and Wartime. They can inherit in creator God concept.

thesis and antithesis transcends to (new) synthesis can be seen as creator concept in western thought.

Additional Details

@jac the hat,
Do not mix up politics in religion with 'creator god' concept.
Both Marx and Darwin theorized to explain the existence of 'creator god' concept.
What are the facts for you to deny that?

Answer:

Ghost be considered as science in the same respect to time

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130317042946AAigdFm&r=w

Can a Ghost be considered as science in the same respect to time, since both are man-made and not sensed?

(Some claim to sense Ghosts)

This question extends from:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

Answer:

sense dark matter using sense faculties

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130317040649AAMy8yW&r=w

How to sense dark matter using sense faculties as scientific fact?

Answer:

sense Newtonian gravity

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130317040517AACskoH

How to sense Newtonian gravity using sense faculties as scientific fact?

Answer:

What is Postmodernism?

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130317040236AAgmiJN

What is post Postmodernism?

Is there Postmodernism?

Answer:

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130317035725AAmVtZU

Can time be sensed like pictures and sounds?

How to sense time using sense faculties?

Additional Details

@Danny,
If time cannot be perceived through senses, then how can western thinking on science consider time in the form of testable explanations about the universe?

Simply, how physical is time to use it in (material) physics?

@azzk1kr,
Time is visualized by projecting to a visual 4th space dimension. It makes sense to differentiate velocity, acceleration, etc. What do you think?

Answer:

Pay for tuition when one can develop intuition for Free

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130314235133AAe3EjD

Why Pay for tuition when one can develop intuition for Free?

tuition:= A fee for instruction, especially at a formal institution of learning.; Instruction; teaching.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tuition

intuition:= The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition.; Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/intuiti…

1. Good Education is so expensive in society.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/data…
2. The main objective of tuition education is to build a mechanical part (human resource as any other material resource) to fit the social system.
3. Individual effort invested on tuition education is a waste for the individual, since the benefits of society is sucked by the top of hierarchy as per social justice.

In contrast,

1. The best education is Free when one knows how to study within.
2. The main objective of intuition education is self realization to be the master
3. The individual can enjoy the fruits of intuition without harassment from others' judgements

Concerning the benefits of intuition over tuition, how do you develop intuition?

Answer:

Muslims intentionally deceive non-Muslims

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130311182812AAyVHWN

Do Muslims intentionally deceive non-Muslims in the name of Allah?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgsrnmzxE…

5:54 "Muslims are allowed to deceive non-Muslims if it helps Islam.
For non-Muslims, this principle called TAQIYYA is another surprising concept of Islam.

While most other religions speak of truthfulness, the Quran instructs Muslims to lie to non-Muslims about their believes and their political ambitions to protect and spread Islam.

There are many examples of today's Islamic leaders saying one thing in English for the western press and then saying something entirely different to their own follower in Arabic a few days later."

If the above statement is true, then it is scary for non-Muslims to be friendly with Muslims.

Additional Details

Do Muslims consider non-Muslims as their enemy?

6:29 "Deceiving the enemy is always useful in war, and Islam is at war with non-Islamic world until the whole world follows Shari'a law.

All non-Muslims living in non-Islamic states are therefore enemies.

So, deceiving westerners is totally acceptable - even encouraged - if it can forward the goals of the spread of Islam."

@Paul,
Agree with your comment, but 'Two Wrongs Make a Right' is a fallacy.

@Lamp,
That part is not missed and written in the question description.
Why do Muslims consider innocent non-Muslims as their enemy? It's not fair to hurt non-violent good people.

Answer:

Muslims genuinely abide by the laws of the country

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130311175930AAD0K2l

Do Muslims genuinely abide by the laws of the country they live?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgsrnmzxE…

5:32 "As written in the Quran, Shari'a is the law of Allah. Any other form of Government is a sin.
It is the duty of every Muslim to keep striving until all governments have been converted to Shari'a law."

Australian prime minister Julia Gillard's speech on Muslim behavior supports the above statement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azZen2rV5…

Additional Details

@Datx,
Do you suggest that half-Muslims (liberals) don't surrender to the full package of Allah? Just a pick and choose to fit to their circumstances?

@George,
It's Catholic (universal) code. UCC
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/ucc.table…

"International Criminal Court and a world government under the United Nations and the Universal Commercial Code which is controlled by the Vatican."
http://www.libertyforlife.com/religion/g…

Answer:

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130311173820AAQaQTb

Do Muslims find peace after achieving a monopoly?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgsrnmzxE…

7:14 "Islam as a religion of peace"

7:40 "According to Quran, the world will be at peace only when Islam and Shari'a reign in every country - and never until then.
This is why every Muslim can truthfully say that Islam is a religion of peace."

Answer:

Baconian method reject the creative use of hypotheses?

Question:

Why does Baconian method reject the creative use of hypotheses?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_me…

"The Baconian method is the investigative method developed by Sir Francis Bacon. "

"This method was influential upon the development of scientific method in modern science; but also more generally in the early modern rejection of medieval Aristotelianism."

Isaac Newton, a noted Baconian, used such principles in the Philosophy section of his Principia, writing "hypotheses non fingo" (I don't make hypotheses). He also wrote in his Optiks that "hypotheses have no place in experimental science."

Answer:

Nicolas Copernicus learn from Aryabhatta

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130311163325AAFNEUw

Did Nicolas Copernicus learn from Aryabhatta's work to say that earth revolves around the sun?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentri…

"Aryabhata (476–550), in his magnum opus Aryabhatiya (499), propounded a planetary model in which the Earth was taken to be spinning on its axis and the periods of the planets were given with respect to the Sun. He accurately calculated many astronomical constants, such as the periods of the planets, times of the solar and lunar eclipses, and the instantaneous motion of the Moon."

"It was not until the 16th century that a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus of Poland, leading to the Copernican Revolution."

Answer:

bondage or freedom if you have a choice?

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130311160323AAxxak7

Do you prefer bondage or freedom if you have a choice?

1. Why?

2. What holds you to stop achieving your preference?
(if your preference is freedom, why not yet free?)

Answer:

difference in results when 2/0 and 3/0?

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130311155107AAwYLXy

What is the difference in results when 2/0 and 3/0?

1/0 = ?

2/0 = ?

3/0 = ?

Is there a difference in their results? why?

Answer:

Question:http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130311152026AA5einm

Does empty exist or non-exist?

If full exist, then does empty exist or non-exist?

Additional Details

@Cameron,
Why do you use emptiness as a true fact?

@Grimes,
Do you mean to say that 'Empty is free from existence' OR 'Empty does not exist within existence'?

Answer:

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130311151214AAgn5Wo

Can there be Mathematics in Religious scriptures?

Why?

Answer:

something added to nothing?

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130311150400AASvRFa

What results when something added to nothing?

5+ 0 = ?

Answer 1: 5+ 0 = 0

Answer 2: 5+ 0 = 5

Which answer would you agree?
why?

Additional Details

@Sean,
Your answer is fundamental to western thinking. Why?

Answer:

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130311145438AArfqtX

Is Zero just a balance point?

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

[Don H] stated:
"I just see it as the balance point."

How else do you see zero?

Answer:

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130311144944AAGdBiJ

Does 'zero divided by zero' exist as a number?

If zero exist as a number,
does 'zero divided by zero' exist as a number?

Answer:

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130311144838AAKYMW4

Is Zero just another number in existence?

If zero exist as a number, does 'zero divided by zero' exist as a number?

Answer:

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130311144535AAodeGb

Is Nibbana just another state of existence?

1. Is Nibbana just another state of existence?

2. Is Moksha just another state of existence?

3. Is Liberation just another state of existence?

 

Is FREE just another fact of existence?

 

Answer:

Buddhists understand the pure message

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130311134305AA9L0uz

Can Buddhists understand the pure message of Buddha without reading a fiction on paper?

Only a fiction can be written on paper and/or spoken by mouth and/or think as thought, etc.

Interestingly, a fiction can be altered at will.

Tipitaka is written on paper.

No religious Buddhist can prove with evidence beyond doubt that the message on Tipitaka is straight from the Buddha's mouth.

Therefore the message of Tipitaka is a fiction.


Can Buddhists believe in Buddha's pure message, without believing fiction on paper or word of mouth?

Please do not use dreams and hypnotism as facts to answer, because they are fake.

Additional Details

@Narathzul Arantheal,
Irrespective of blind believes, 'every book ever written' refer to a fiction on paper, where editors can change the content. You can fly in a fictional story/movie.

@Arctic Fox,
Why don't you consider the 'Ehi Passiko' scientific experimentation challenge in Buddhism?

Answer:

Muslims understand the pure message

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130311133758AAIJGcl

Can Muslims understand the pure message of Allah without reading a fiction on paper?

Only a fiction can be written on paper and/or spoken by mouth and/or think as thought, etc.
Interestingly, a fiction can be altered at will.

Quran is written on paper.

No religious Islamic / Muslim can prove with evidence beyond doubt that the message on Quran is straight from the Allah's mouth.

Therefore the message of Quran is a fiction.


Can Muslims believe in Allah's pure message, without believing fiction on paper or word of mouth?

Please do not use dreams and hypnotism as facts to answer, because they are fake.

Additional Details

@Paki American,
You refer to a fiction on paper as 'The Quran in it's native Arabic'.
You can fly in a fictional story/movie.

@Diana B,
'etc' includes 'some kind of skin' in your comment.

@Farah,
Anything written on paper and/or spoken by mouth and/or think as thought, etc is/are fictional and editable.
Greeks studied Pythagoras Theorem from Asia.
http://harmonist.us/wp-content/uploads/2…

"The Quran cannot be altered" is an invalid recording on quick sand.

Did you forget Uthman's version of the Quran?
http://www.muslimhope.com/ChangesInTheQu…

Also refer to: "How to judge the subjects of all knowing?"
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

@Paul,
It is unwise to guess fiction as non-fiction and to guess on others.

Answer:

message of God without reading a fiction

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130311133348AAzKW6J

Can Christians understand the pure message of God without reading a fiction on paper?

Only a fiction can be written on paper and/or spoken by mouth and/or think as thought, etc.
Interestingly, a fiction can be altered at will.

Bible is written on paper.

No religious Christians can prove with evidence beyond doubt that the message on Bible is straight from the God's mouth.

Therefore the message of Bible is a fiction.


Can Christians believe in God's pure message, without believing a fiction on paper?

Please do not use dreams and hypnotism as facts to answer, because they are fake.

Additional Details

@JAY,
Can you can hear the message, straight from God's mouth?

@Gerry Roush,
You refer to a fiction on paper. You can fly in a fictional story/movie.

@Kerry,
I bill the Judge to each and every order like in a restaurant. Both judge and written court orders are fictional. Better learn law to know your rights.

Answer:

Zero a controversial concept to western thinking?

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130311022955AAvKiZz

Why is Zero a controversial concept to western thinking?

This question refers to [JohnMath] comment at:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

Zero is new to the western thinking. But, western thinking finds zero concept interesting.

A simple example from yahoo:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…
"The number zero is my favourite number and I would welcome any interesting facts about it."

The same magical controversies and lack of comforts apply to 'infinity concept' and 'imaginary numbers'.

Answer:

Yahoo delete the zero math expert challenge

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130311015633AAFNF1u

Why did Yahoo delete the zero math expert challenge question aimed at western thinking?

Here is a copy of the 'zero expert challenge' question:

http://godofgodseyes.blogspot.com/2013/0…
"Can western zero experts challenge the Asian Math brains?"

Here, 'zero experts' means the mathematicians who expertize 'zero'. The question is an intellectual challenge. (interpret 'western zero experts' as 'non-mathematicians' is a narrowed view.)

This question challenges western thinking to justify their standard on zero, because they already condemned Asian brains of 'zero' knowledge.

For example (refer to the deleted question):
"He is certainly wrong when he then claims that zero divided by zero is zero."

"...but he was wrong to have supposed that n/0 = Infinity. If n/0 = Infinity were to be true there would arise results which don’t make sense. ..."

What is wrong with yahoo to delete this fundamental question that challenges the knowledge of 'zero'?

Are western thinkers so scared to take the 'zero' challenge on fair grounds?

I think the sparks of intellectual clashes can enlighten many seekers of truth.

Please note that:

Zero 'Shunyatha' and 'nibbana' concepts are deep rooted in Asian culture over thousands of years.

Indian mathematicians divided by zero (even 0/0) in calculations, because they knew what they did.

But, western thinkers altered the said great knowledge of 'zero', simply on the basis of guessing and gross justifications, because they did not want to learn the root sources of such knowledge and were not humble to credit others on their own merits.

Popular western catholic (universal) education (currently used in Asia) lacks the valuable 'zero knowledge'.


If yahoo acts narrowly to delete the question, where further questions cannot be based upon it, how can ignorance in the name of mathematics be corrected with wisdom?

Answer:

Question [Don]:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130302235123AA2hBzY

Buddha's doctrine of anatman?

According to buddha 'There is no self. There is no I or mine. It is just a preconceived notion and the primary delusion that leads to false knowledge.'
Is the sense of self, a mistaken idea conceived by our mind? How did we arrive at that conclusion of self(I, me, myself or mine)?

Additional Details

Rene descartes in his Meditations on the First Philosophy did not seem to have notice the preconceived notion of Self.. He says he has discarded all his beliefs in the beginning but then he directly arrives at that conclusion 'I am.' what do you think?

 
Answer [Nucleus]:

In Buddhism, non-self (anattā) is one of the three characteristics 'tilakkhaṇa' of existence (shared by all sentient beings).
Other two characteristics of existence are impermanence (anicca) and suffering (dukkha).

Here, existence is self/definition (continuation of births and deaths).

It is true that non-self is a characteristic of self, where self may believe/reference to another self (new creation).
Example: I think, therefore I am (existence as continuation of self instances)

Dependent Origination states that ignorance originates existence.
http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/coarise1.…

That means such beliefs in continuous self (existence) is the result of ignorance where self is illusion.

True wisdom is capable to free (nibbana) from existence (self).

@ananth,
"One with all Existence, and so an unlimited Love for everything" is ignorance, my friend.

There is a difference between liberation 'moksha' and freedom 'nibbana'.

'atman' (self) liberate to 'paramathman' (permanent sole/ creator concept) is dealt in Buddhism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_co…

'Maha brahma' a deity whose delusion leads him to regard himself as the all-powerful, all-seeing creator of the Universe

Source(s):

Analysis of Abhi Dhamma - Core scripture of Buddhism

exact definition for Dhamma

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130310031155AAcdfji

What is the exact definition for Dhamma in Buddhism or Hinduism or other system?

If 'Dhamma' is defined using the word 'Dhamma' the term is circling and confusing.

Many highly respectable Pali/Sanskrit dictionaries give different meanings to the term 'Dhamma' and use the aforesaid circular form in definition.

A Pali-English Glossary of Buddhist Technical Terms - compiled by Bhikkhu Nanamoli' clearly states:

"Dhamma:= Idea (state) ; Inseparable from the idea of, subject to, having the nature of."

A term can have only one definition in one system and many definitions in many systems.
Also, a system can inherit many other systems (partially and/or completely).

Therefore,
1. What is the one and only definition for 'Dhamma' in Buddhism?

2. What is the one and only definition for 'Dhamma' in Hinduism?

3. What is the one and only definition for 'Dhamma' in any other system?

Additional Details

@Seyfert,
'Definition' is not same as 'usages/applications' of the definition.
For example:
if number '2' is defined as the 'sum/addition of a unit to unit (itself) [unit(1)+unit(1)=2 unit(1)]', it's applications/usages are '2 toffees', '2 atoms', 'wedded couple', etc.

Answer:

dhamma-niyama included in Pancha Niyama Dhamma

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130310015450AAFCP2G

Why dhamma-niyama is included in Pancha Niyama Dhamma of Buddhism?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfDq8weDLAY

Why Dhamma is a niyama (Condition / Law) of Dhamma itself?

Why circular conditioning?

This question is an extension to the previous question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

Additional Details

@Seyfert,
If 'Dhamma conditions Dhamma', does 'birth condition birth'?
No, because birth is not existence, but an attribute/property of existence.

If Dhamma is 'existence as idea', does existence condition existence according to dependent origination cycle?

Answer:

brainy religious people kill and or harm intelligent animals

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130307123614AA9kH3c

Why do brainy religious people kill and/or harm intelligent animals?

Look at this cute baby elephant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJq_zLEJ0…

Now, look at this innocent cow for showing gratitude for saving it's life.
http://living-vegan.blogspot.com/2009/09…

My Cat also bows and greets me like dogs do. It wags tail when happy, in contrast to other cats.

I notice that my cat always watch the behaviors of dogs in the road by crawling under the gate.

It is amazing to find the level of intelligence and logical thinking of animals, if we have time to observe them with empathy and with open minds.

Additional Details

This question extends the earlier question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

@Devoted to Truth,
Why don't you sacrifice the single you to find a cure for cancer, AIDS, etc.?

@WannaHelp,
To fictional creationism and selfishness, it is easy to put human state above animal state. Even human is considered as resource (HR) to handle like any other material.
But in nature, all living beings are born equal, have equal rights to live and die equal in the broadest sense. Narrow mindedness is primitive thinking, any fool can do.

@Richard,
If a fictional system breaches the laws of nature, it is condemned as an unlawful system. A true lawyer can swipe off the bases of these fictional corporations, since they violate nature, including direct and/or indirect influences to offend the unalienable rights of animals. Their justification of food is not valid, since they take lives of animals using unreasonable forces by ignoring the obvious alternatives. The superior power to effectively surrender and judge them is wisdom, not nukes or any other material weapons.

@Schadenfreude,
I disagree to your narrowed opinion. Animals have ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute. That fulfills the definition of 'literacy' by UNESCO. Sometimes animals read the nature far ahead and accurately, compared to man and his state of the art technology. It is your inability that fails you to appreciate animal intelligence in their own merits.

@jesus_disciple777,
Read my comment to [WannaHelp] regarding fictional stories on paper.

@Adam,
You are yet to learn the nature, and to find out where the dumb foolishness lies.

@jesus_disciple777,
It is not the God's wish that humans shall rule over animals.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

Answer:

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130307120017AAYEeCG

Is natural farting halal or haram to Muslims?

A humanly practical question follows with utmost respect:

The Islamic faith has particular rules regarding personal hygiene when going to the toilet.
This code is known as Qadaa' al-Haajah.

It is common knowledge that women don't fart under natural conditions.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxxsP7VWVN8

If farting is not specifically mentioned as halal (approved) to Muslims, can there be genuine Muslims who stick to the rules?

Allah is all knowing and all seeing! Be careful..

Additional Details

@Amar Saleem,
Why then explicitly Halal in islam?

@Amar Saleem,
[Quran 5:96] All fish of the sea are made lawful for you to eat.
That is explicitly Halal.

@Amar Saleem,
Is human flesh Haram in islam?
If not, as per your comment "...there's just what's haram, then everything else is permitted.. that's the majority opinion anyway, and mine.. if there's no specific commands in the qur'an or sunnah against a practice, then it's halal", then it is fair to say that cannibalism is Halal in Islam.

[Quran 5:87] ...do not prohibit the good things which Allah has made lawful to you and do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.

@Rationandheart,
Do you think, asking whether something is halal or haram is a silly question? Muslims should thank Allah for not prohibiting the fart as haram.

'.. go and fart where there is no one' is prohibiting to fart where there is one.
Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors who prohibit the good things which Allah has made lawful to you..

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

Answer by [darkfung]:

Good morning brother - it is halal to fart as even Allah (ptuh) did it - but it is completely Haram for you to take in the fart of another by breathing. Women speciifcally wear their hajibs to stop this practice of taking in a male fart.
May Allah and Aisha bless you.

Source(s): I'm an Immam

Sensible humor from an a true Imam.

That's the way to go, instead of promoting hatred to pollute the intelligent minds.

Answer:

Haram to Muslims - Halal to non-violence

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130307103902AArv2SQ

Why pork oil injected Animals are Haram to Muslims and Halal to non-violence Hindus, Buddhists?

Intelligent people are non-violent and think beyond primate instincts to seek peace and harmony with environment.
Buddhists and some Hindu sects care for animals with empathy, specially the cow who gives milk.

They get hurt when Muslims in neighborhood do not respect their non-violence value system.
Unsolved conflict of interest! ???

Interestingly, Muslims are allergic/haram to swine/pork/pig ingredients containing products like Gelatin, medicine, powder milk, soap, cosmetics, etc.

Considering the common factors of both Muslim haram and non-violence value system,

***
if all cows are injected with swine (pig) oil and announced as haram to Muslims,
where the offsprings (future generations) of those cows will inherit pork genes,

then, the said conflict of interest problem would easily get solved.
***

See this picture: (Cow kneels and begs for his/her right to live)
http://living-vegan.blogspot.com/2009/09…

The proposed solution is practical than protesting to the thin air.
http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/05…

Additional Details

@Nightwind,
Concern here is tactical non violence.
Food is not an insult to Hindus, but killing a cow is. Killing is heart breaking and unacceptable for human values.
Reference to genetic makeup, even the highly diluted substances are effective (as energy) in homeopathy. Therefore, injecting "pig oil" has considerable effect to spare the lives of animals.

"Every community has peaceful and violent members" is a crooked justification to promote violence and not an intelligent premise to justify violence towards all living beings.

@ssrvj,
Does you attitude for prosperity kill your neighbor or be friendly with mutual respect?
We live a short time. So, why such greed to kill animals and pollute environment to make a living (the loosing battle of life)?

@John,
So do human and pigs provide a good source of Protein, to extend your argument.
Is human flesh specifically mentioned as haram for Muslims?

Answer: