Regarding this recent question:
I would very much like to give the following answer which is reason-based, not faith-based. However, I strongly suspect that it will be deleted according to the site's policy. So I thought it would be best to post it here so that moderators can say whether it complies with the site's policy or not.
Hinduist and buddhist cosmologies have a much more serious conflict with current scientific cosmology than biblical cosmology has. While the times in biblical cosmology can just be understood as symbolical, hinduist and buddhist cosmologies are inherently cyclical, which is directly incompatible with the accelerated expansion of the universe that has been conclusively ascertained from multiple observations time and time again since 1998.
This is quite easy to understand. Let us assume that the universe has been evolving in cycles of the type: Big Bounce, decelerated expansion to a maximum size, accelerated contraction to a minimum size, Big Bounce and so on. Since we know beyond doubt that the expansion of the current cycle has been accelerating since around the half point between Big Bang and now and is tending to the exponential regime, we must ask ourselves:
"What could have possibly changed between the (infinitely many) previous cycles and the current one whereby the current cycle will not turn into a contraction but will expand forever, and moreover in an accelerated way?"
To which the only rational answer is:
"Nothing could have changed. Rather, the case is that there were no such previous cycles."