You certainly don't know what this karma thing is. To you it's not real, but to others it is. No point in preaching why it's not real. I took a 3-day course over it and it was pretty damn confusing. There are books just about karma. It's not simple stuff dude. What I got out of it is that the bad or good karma doesn't always happen fast. It takes time for a karma to mature and to take effect on you. So if you kill someone, you won't be dead right away. I'm no expert though. Don't bother debating with me.
Oh no, you have the terms confused. Talking from the Buddhism faith, nirvana is NOT the same as karma. The Buddha had nirvana after he reached enlightment. However, he was NOT free from karma...the bad karma. That's why he died from poison. He freed himself from DESIRES, but NOT the karma. Nirvana is a mental state, karma is NOT. You can be in jail get yourself to believe you're in a good state, when physically you're not. Basically, if your mind is strong enough, you can have nirvana anywhere, but reality is you could be suffering physically or mentally or both.
Whatever it is, there's no scientific basis (i.e. evidence) for it. If we want someone to suffer the consequences of their actions, we can't rely on the cosmos to do it for us. But getting people (or ourselves) to believe in it has its uses. It's akin to stories we tell our children about Santa Claus or the Bogeyman to get them to behave.
You're right. Just like their is no scientific evidence for the the creation of the Big Bang. But if we don't know what created the Big Bang, why do we believe the Big Bang existed that created the universe? There could have been mulitiple Big Bangs or whatever. Just because science cannot explain something, that does not mean something is not there. Just like scientists were amazed when they discovered quantum mechanics and that it didn't follow the laws of physics that have been around for centuries. So what we believe to be scientifically correct today could be wrong tomorrow. What science can't explain today could explain tomorrow. Or science might never explain something. I'm not saying you have to believe karma is real. I'm just saying that science is not something everything should be based on.
So that explains how the Big Bang was created? No, it doesn't. It wouldn't suprise me if say a century later they discover something they've never seen as they voyage beyond this solar system using high tech star ships and come up with new theories for the creation of the universe. Like for now, they already say that what's going on inside a black hole can't be explained using today's physics.
Nobody has ever said it was 'created' except whacky Creationist Christians who think God made it. It exists. That is enough to lead back to it as the starting point for the universe, and that is all that has ever been claimed of it.
Do you have a problem with anything said there? Could you articulate it? Do you want to post something about dinasaurs or something? I used that link as it was the first return on 'CMB'. Any of these work as well. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html http://aether.lbl.gov/www/science/cmb.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB.html
God created the heavans and the earth.....it doesn't say how, or why, or when. I wonder where all of the necessary componets for the big bang came from...perhaps it didn't come from your 'whacky christian' perception of God, but at least admit that the idea it all came from something greater than you and I, and even science, is at the very least, plausible.
What I think is whacky is the fact that highly intelligent, highly educated people refer to people that believe in God with derrogatory names and comments.
why so defensive? I like dinosaurs, sure, why not, lets talk about em. I also like cavemen, any chance we could work them into the conversation?
And you seem to miss the point the second time around, as well. No scientist has ever claimed that the science makes any claims about the creation of the big bang. For the subject that the poster posted about - the value of the Scientific method and its ability to discern absolute truths relative to religious teachings - it is irrelevant.
But the point of science is to take things to the root of the matter right? Like I said earlier, quantum mechanics threw off the physics made by Newton. All those theories about worm holes, parallel universe, warp drive, etc. are only theories that are based on mathematical laws written from observations on this planet. These laws could go wrong on a different part of the universe. So just like there are no proofs for karma, there are no proofs for the above things I stated. I'm no scientist, but I think there could be something lost in translation from all the theoretical stuffs they've been talking about. A light particle travelling for 14 billion years and not run into an obstruction or some kind of interspace mirror that makes it seems like it's travelling that long? Just bored.
<a href="http://media.photobucket.com/image/crying%20smiley/K0modoDragon/Smileys/crying.gif?o=5" target="_blank"><img src="http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b371/K0modoDragon/Smileys/crying.gif"></a>
I don't understand that question. There is evidence for the existence of the Big Bang. There isn't any evidence, as far as I know, of how the big bang was "created". Theories on the creation of the big bang would fall under the category of speculation. The existence of the big bang and it's consequences can be understood in scientific terms. You're saying two things here. I agree that something can exist, even if our limited understanding of the universe does not at present allow for it. But, does it make sense to actually believe in it? Santa Claus could actually exist, even if based it seems unlikely given my understanding of the universe. Is it sensible for me, therefore, to believe in his existence? Without evidence, of course not. Similarly, it would have been wrong for any scientist to believe in the quantum mechanical model a hundred years ago, if he/she didn't have a shred of evidence for it. We could dream up any number of ways to model the universe that don't actually connect to reality. Only once it became clear that classical mechanics was not sufficient to understand certain phenomenon in the universe, and that quantum mechanics provided a framework to more accurately and fully understand the world around us, did it become really meaningful. If someone wants to advance the idea of karma as a way of really understanding how the universe works, then I absolutely think the scientific merits of it should be considered. That's really the only way to gain real understanding about our world. If we prefer to theorize about a world that is outside the scope of our universe and the laws that govern it, well then I guess we could believe in anything that isn't a self-contradiction. I could just as easily say I believe in anti-karma -- the more good I do, the more bad will come to me and vice-versa. But of course that would do us no good, because if people actually believed in that our society would implode. But if such considerations guide our beliefs -- that is the belief becomes a means to a certain end (a healthy, sustainable society) -- who's to say it's not really a delusion?
Fools! Faith must be LIVED not found. If you seek evidence you will certainly find it when there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
And to others Hell is real, and to a child the tooth fairy is real. I never took a 3-day course, I just have the experience of growing up with a conservative Hindu family that put a very strong emphasis on spirituality and forcing us to go to temple and all that stuff. I also have an outside prospective having to go to private school which was Catholic and told I and my family were going to hell of course. But I truly appreciate the perspectives I gained from two very old ways of approaching spirituality. YOu're right, I don't have book knowledge. What I have learned is family traditions and the type of knowledge that is passed down through generations.
