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?
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'?
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.
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.
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…
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:
No comments:
Post a Comment