Long story short: Buddhists don't believe in a creator God.
buddhists believe that by meditating they can become a "deva" (god) in their next life or in this life itself. they honor those that they claim to have made it to god. each deva rank has it's own things. (powers and flaws) and those that have become the highest rank of Baka Brahma. will be seen as how we see "god" in the western world. (all knowing, eternal etc. from my last post) but ofcours not the part that they created humans etc. they once were humans themself.
so yea they do not believe in a creator god. but that doesn't realy matter for me. believing in above natural beings just sound silly to me. if they are creator gods or not. i want to be able to test it and if i can't because it is not there in real life. then i can't get proof of it being right. and so i wont be able to believe in it.
That's only one way the scientific method can be conducted.
i know thats also why i wrote that it is not compleet because it's ment for a childrens project.
and at that example experiment of yours. it has 1 flaw. for a real result in that experiment you should trow the object whit the same speed evry time. if you do not duplicate a experiment preciesly evry time then you will never be able to get the same numbers. in a real experiment you must get a canon or something to always shoot it at the same speed. humans are to random for that. and that the object will fly away from gravity is because of the earth magnetic field. wich basicly is gravity. the result of it flying away from earth is also a result that gravity is real.
but let's not discuss gravity. we all know it is what keeps evrything on the ground. and their is no denying of it being real. and also is this topic not about gravity.
Ok, so in some way 'god' in buddhism is a stage you can reach, it's a condition of existence if you like... so it can't be compared to our 'gods' who were always gods and have the reins of the world in their hands. So buddhism has no deities in the way we understand it. There is something divine but it is within the system itself and not personified. Am I right?
it is sofar personified that the 1st scrips of bhuddhism have names in them of people who they claimend to be at that stage. and that the stages are named after those people. no1 knows if those names where actual people or made up names so some might say that the names from the scripts are not actual people. but that doesn't matter because they will call evry1 reaching that stage that same name.
but your right. they are not gods like we know god in the western world. only the highest gods have about the same "owers" you could say that they believe that divine and god is inside evryones spirit. and that you can become that by meditating. and finding peace in yourself.
and that the object will fly away from gravity is because of the earth magnetic field
What? Hell no. It's because the earth's gravitational force (and therefore the negative acceleration of the object) is getting weaker and weaker as you go away from the earth (proportional to 1/r^2).
earth magnetic field. wich basicly is gravity.
Gravitational fields and magnetic fields are two totally different things.
we all know it is what keeps evrything on the ground.
As far as I know we do't know (yet) how the gravitational force is created.
yea i know that was wrong. i was writing it and not realy thinking about it or seeking it up fast to make sure what i wrote was right. anyway i can make excuses what i want i was total wrong there =)
anyway i can't believe you are willing to deny gravity xD
Research on the (up to now hypothetical, if I'm correct) Higgs-boson is precisely what should clear up, or at least give new insights, in how gravity is created. We know how gravity works up to a certain scale, but beyond that we don't know.
anyway i can't believe you are willing to deny gravity xD
I'm not denying it. I just say that we don't know yet for sure what causes gravity.
Research on the (up to now hypothetical, if I'm correct) Higgs-boson is precisely what should clear up, or at least give new insights, in how gravity is created.
Maybe I'm wrong but I thought that the Higgs boson would clear up how particles get their mass (because the Standard Model only works if the particles have no mass). The transmission of the gravitational force is explained by Gravitons (but we haven't discovered them yet).
I'm not denying it. I just say that we don't know yet for sure what causes gravity.
i thought we knew, can't remember nor have the time to check it atm. but that was not my point. my point (example) was that gravity is a fact. wich is 100% true. (or for the record 99.9%)
if we dunno what causes it then we can still experiment whit it that will tell us that gravity is stable and almost the same evrywhere in the world. only change in gravity we find on earth is on the high Himalayan mountains. where there is less gravity causing that people can jump around 5CM higher then when you jump at sea level. the reason for this ive forgot for the moment maybe i'll get back on the subject later when i remember or had time to seek it up.
i know thats also why i wrote that it is not compleet because it's ment for a childrens project.
It's complete, there are just other ways of doing it.
and at that example experiment of yours. it has 1 flaw. for a real result in that experiment you should trow the object whit the same speed evry time. if you do not duplicate a experiment preciesly evry time then you will never be able to get the same numbers. in a real experiment you must get a canon or something to always shoot it at the same speed. humans are to random for that. and that the object will fly away from gravity is because of the earth magnetic field. wich basicly is gravity. the result of it flying away from earth is also a result that gravity is real.
I think you completely missed the point of the analogy. The claim being tested is "what goes up must come down" As we test the claim under different variables we find this to not always be true in the last test. While ever other test shows this to be true. Your claim that something can be said to be 100% true if "you are getting is the same time after time after time" is not a claim that can be made, because the next time you run your test you could end up with a different result.
it's not compleet because for it to be recognized as real sience you have to confirm on the other experiments aswell.
what i ment was when you are getting the same results evry time you do the same thing. when your going to change variables you change results. in the claim of "what goes up must come down" it results in not true. or you get spry and say it hits a other planet =P but not sometimes the results are always the same. "fuel + air + heat = fire"
it's not compleet because for it to be recognized as real sience you have to confirm on the other experiments aswell.
The procedure being used in that link is complete. What they do does have to be repeatable, but that doesn't mean they have to be the one to repeat it.
what i ment was when you are getting the same results evry time you do the same thing. when your going to change variables you change results.
Even here we can't say with 100% certainty as the next experiment can turn out a different result. We can been 99.9999...% certain but you still have to leave room for fallible. If you say that with 100% certainty X will happen every time you don't leave that room.
