Post by: JT on Mar 23, 2015 at 01:03 PM
I am inspired to prepare a course entitled "Proving God Without The Bible". Got an idea a very old outline and I would like to update it. But I need your help to comment or discuss regarding every outline that will be posting weekly starting today.
So here it goes...
Post by: JT on Mar 23, 2015 at 01:06 PM
Even though many believe in God and believe that the Bible as His inspired word, there are many people who have no knowledge of God or Jesus or many of the other things we Christians hold dear. A person who has never been introduced to the concept of God is similar to when I wake up in a very dark room. When I first woke up, I knew nothing. As I began to “know” things through personal observation I discovered (and came to believe) in the world around me. It was a step by step process.
We Christians are challenged to take the message into all the world. Mark 16:15 “Jesus said to them, ‘Go throughout the whole world and preach the gospel to all mankind. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.’” Paul said we need to meet people where they are 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. and Paul arguing in Acts 17:16-33. We need to be prepared to explain why we believe what we believe – I Peter 3:15.
The Foundation – Truth
a) To begin our proof of God, we first must agree on the subject of “TRUTH”.
• We demand truth in just about every aspect of our lives: money, marriages, safety, and health. So why would we not also demand it on matters related to faith?
• Truth is “telling it like it is” or “that which describes an actual state of affairs”.
• If something is true, it is true for all people, at all times, in all places. All truth claims are absolute, narrow and exclusive. All truths exclude their opposites. Even religious truths.
o Truth is discovered, not invented.
o Truth is trans-cultural.
o Truth is unchanging even though our beliefs about truth may change. (e.g. flat earth belief)
o Beliefs cannot change a fact, no matter how sincerely they are held.
o Truth is not affected by the one professing it.
o All truths are absolute truths.
o In short, contrary beliefs are possible but not contrary truths.
o What does our world today says about “Truth”?
b) Our society will often try to say that “truth does not exist” or “truth cannot be known”. Can you comment on the analysis below? How do you react to point’s a-f?
• These are self-defeating statements.
• They use a “truth statement” to prove “truth does not exist”.
• With the statement “there is not truth” we need to ask “Is that true?”
• With the statement “Truth cannot be known” we need to ask “How do you know that is true?”
• If there is no truth, why learn anything at all?
• We demand truth in our marriages, in our banking relationships, when we go to a doctor. Why not demand it when we discuss God?
c) A side note in this course: Evidence cannot convince the unwilling.
• I need to ask “If we showed beyond a reasonable doubt that God existed would you believe?” If no, then it is a problem with “WILL” not “INTELLECT”.
Can you comment where our culture might be today when it comes to wanting to know if there really is a God? What other key issues and questions do people have when it comes to proving God’s existence? Why is this important or is it still important today?
Post by: Frankthetank on Mar 23, 2015 at 06:10 PM
Post by: leomarley on Mar 24, 2015 at 07:47 PM
Eto, sacred scriptures ng mga ibang relihiyon:
5.1 Adidam
5.2 Aetherius Society
5.3 Ásatrú
5.4 Atenism
5.5 Ayyavazhi
5.6 Aztec religion
5.7 Bahá'í Faith
5.8 Bön
5.9 Buddhism
5.10 Cheondoism
5.11 Christianity
5.12 Confucianism
5.13 Discordianism
5.14 Druidism
5.15 Druze
5.16 Ancient Egyptian religion
5.17 Etruscan religion
5.18 Ancient Greece
5.19 Hermeticism
5.20 Hinduism
5.21 Islam
5.22 Jainism
5.23 Judaism
5.24 LaVeyan Satanism
5.25 Mandaeanism
5.26 Manichaeism
5.27 Maya religion
5.28 Meher Baba
5.29 Native American Church
5.30 New Age religions
5.31 Orphism
5.32 Raëlism
5.33 Rastafari movement
5.34 Ravidassia
5.35 Samaritanism
5.36 Science of Mind
5.37 Scientology
5.38 Shinto
5.39 Sikhism
5.40 Spiritism
5.41 Sumerian
5.42 Swedenborgianism
5.43 Taoism
5.44 Tenrikyo
5.45 Thelema
5.46 Unarius Academy of Science
5.47 Unification Church
5.48 Urantianism
5.49 Wicca
5.50 Yârsân
5.51 Yazidi
5.52 Yorùbá
5.53 Zoroastrianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text
Post by: JT on Mar 25, 2015 at 06:12 AM
Proving God without the Bible?
Eto, sacred scriptures ng mga ibang relihiyon:
5.1 Adidam
5.2 Aetherius Society
5.3 Ásatrú
5.4 Atenism
5.5 Ayyavazhi
5.6 Aztec religion
5.7 Bahá'í Faith
5.8 Bön
5.9 Buddhism
5.10 Cheondoism
5.11 Christianity
5.12 Confucianism
5.13 Discordianism
5.14 Druidism
5.15 Druze
5.16 Ancient Egyptian religion
5.17 Etruscan religion
5.18 Ancient Greece
5.19 Hermeticism
5.20 Hinduism
5.21 Islam
5.22 Jainism
5.23 Judaism
5.24 LaVeyan Satanism
5.25 Mandaeanism
5.26 Manichaeism
5.27 Maya religion
5.28 Meher Baba
5.29 Native American Church
5.30 New Age religions
5.31 Orphism
5.32 Raëlism
5.33 Rastafari movement
5.34 Ravidassia
5.35 Samaritanism
5.36 Science of Mind
5.37 Scientology
5.38 Shinto
5.39 Sikhism
5.40 Spiritism
5.41 Sumerian
5.42 Swedenborgianism
5.43 Taoism
5.44 Tenrikyo
5.45 Thelema
5.46 Unarius Academy of Science
5.47 Unification Church
5.48 Urantianism
5.49 Wicca
5.50 Yârsân
5.51 Yazidi
5.52 Yorùbá
5.53 Zoroastrianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text
Actually, this is not about any religion nor its sacred scriptures (including the bible). The focus is getting to know the truth about God without using any of these as reference.
Post by: dpogs on Mar 25, 2015 at 06:18 AM
Post by: leomarley on Mar 25, 2015 at 09:44 AM
Post by: dpogs on Mar 25, 2015 at 09:50 AM
Post by: heisenbergman on Mar 25, 2015 at 09:53 AM
Post by: heisenbergman on Mar 25, 2015 at 10:08 AM
The Foundation – Truth
a) To begin our proof of God, we first must agree on the subject of “TRUTH”.
• We demand truth in just about every aspect of our lives: money, marriages, safety, and health. So why would we not also demand it on matters related to faith?
• Truth is “telling it like it is” or “that which describes an actual state of affairs”.
• If something is true, it is true for all people, at all times, in all places. All truth claims are absolute, narrow and exclusive. All truths exclude their opposites. Even religious truths.
o Truth is discovered, not invented.
o Truth is trans-cultural.
o Truth is unchanging even though our beliefs about truth may change. (e.g. flat earth belief)
o Beliefs cannot change a fact, no matter how sincerely they are held.
o Truth is not affected by the one professing it.
o All truths are absolute truths.
o In short, contrary beliefs are possible but not contrary truths.
o What does our world today says about “Truth”?
b) Our society will often try to say that “truth does not exist” or “truth cannot be known”. Can you comment on the analysis below? How do you react to point’s a-f?
• These are self-defeating statements.
• They use a “truth statement” to prove “truth does not exist”.
• With the statement “there is not truth” we need to ask “Is that true?”
• With the statement “Truth cannot be known” we need to ask “How do you know that is true?”
• If there is no truth, why learn anything at all?
• We demand truth in our marriages, in our banking relationships, when we go to a doctor. Why not demand it when we discuss God?
c) A side note in this course: Evidence cannot convince the unwilling.
• I need to ask “If we showed beyond a reasonable doubt that God existed would you believe?” If no, then it is a problem with “WILL” not “INTELLECT”.
Can you comment where our culture might be today when it comes to wanting to know if there really is a God? What other key issues and questions do people have when it comes to proving God’s existence? Why is this important or is it still important today?
Based on this, I think you're trying to prove god in a scientific fashion. I just don't think that's possible. The only way to prove the existence of God is for that being to actually appear and show that he literally knows everything and can do everything... that he is omniscient, omnipotent & omnipresent.
Can you comment where our culture might be today when it comes to wanting to know if there really is a God?
I think most people are divided between simply either believing or not believing, with both sides not really wanting to know if there really is a God because there's no way to actually know. I think most people would be intrigued by the possibility of empirically proving that there is a God if the possibility presented itself; but as it stands, I think most people are satisfied with their beliefs without wanting to either be proven or disproven.
What other key issues and questions do people have when it comes to proving God’s existence?
Basically just that it cannot be proven or disproven... so people either believe that there is a God because of faith or believe that there is no God because of science.
Why is this important or is it still important today?
I think some people need something to believe in, so if they believe, then it's all good. For those people, it's important. I think the more important things in the world though are those that are tangible: Family, friends, the kindness of strangers, caring for the environment, people with dignity in the government, equality among gender, race and religious beliefs... basically everyone working together to advance the state of humanity in general.
I need to ask “If we showed beyond a reasonable doubt that God existed would you believe?”
Yup, sure. But like I said, the only way to show beyond reasonable doubt that God existed/exists is what I mentioned above.
Post by: heisenbergman on Mar 25, 2015 at 10:22 AM
Kung sa science nga andaming theories na hindi proven (i.e. "Theory of Relativity", "Theory of Evolution", "Cell Theory"), there's nothing stopping anyone from building a similar framework for religious studies.
Post by: JT on Mar 25, 2015 at 11:43 AM
You can call your course "The Theory of God" if you want though :P and try to present all of the possible evidences for God's existence.
Kung sa science nga andaming theories na hindi proven (i.e. "Theory of Relativity", "Theory of Evolution", "Cell Theory"), there's nothing stopping anyone from building a similar framework for religious studies.
Yep that's a good idea. Thanks.
Post by: JT on Mar 25, 2015 at 11:45 AM
So I guess this is specific to the Christian God only?
No, not really. We are formulating a theory that there is a God without using any sacred text.
Post by: leomarley on Mar 25, 2015 at 12:48 PM
Post by: dpogs on Mar 25, 2015 at 01:08 PM
No, not really. We are formulating a theory that there is a God without using any sacred text.
and excluded din ang mga personal experiences, naration at mga sabi sabi?
Post by: heisenbergman on Mar 25, 2015 at 01:35 PM
and excluded din ang mga personal experiences, naration at mga sabi sabi?
...sinabi na ngang "without the Bible" eh...
lol sorry jk, I couldn't help myself :p don't mind me
Post by: barrister on Mar 25, 2015 at 02:01 PM
and excluded din ang mga personal experiences, naration at mga sabi sabi?
Paano namang naging ebidensiya yon? :D
Pero may feeling ako na puro personal experiences, narration at mga sabi-sabi lang nga ang pupuntahan ng thread na ito... :(
Pero tignan natin, baka maganda rin naman.
Post by: majoe on Mar 25, 2015 at 10:28 PM
No, not really. We are formulating a theory that there is a God without using any sacred text.
deistic beliefs subscribe to this.
http://www.deism.com/
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Mar 26, 2015 at 07:58 AM
Post by: Gino on Mar 26, 2015 at 08:26 AM
While one can start thinking about the existence of God from scratch, it can be helpful to consider the various work of many philosophers. It is very interesting. The same conclusions drawn from various courses of philosophical thinking.
Post by: JT on Mar 31, 2015 at 05:22 AM
Our society wants everyone to practice “religious tolerance”.
a. Is Religious intolerance dangerous? We support religious tolerance but we have seen how extremists can take religious intolerance to a level where they feel they have to right to kill others for their beliefs.
b. Religious tolerance no longer means treating people with different beliefs respectfully and with civility. It now means we are supposed to accept every belief as true. In a religious context this is called PLURALISM – the belief that all religions are true.
c. All religions do have much in common in recognizing that we have a problem and that we want to live in “paradise” or in some improved way. But there are many points beyond that where they directly contradict each other.
d. While different religions do have “some similarities” the differences are significant and contradictory. On an individual basis this has profound implications. At each point of difference, one is false and one is true. For example, If Christianity is true then it is dangerous to your eternal destiny not to be a Christian. If Islam is true then it is dangerous not to be a Muslim.
Can you cite some examples of what differences there are in all world religions. How does each system work? Discuss the uniqueness among other religions. Do you know the uniqueness of Christianity?
e. The claim that “you ought not to question someone’s religious beliefs” is itself a religious belief of pluralists. This belief is just as “exclusive” and “intolerant” as any Christian or Muslim belief. Pluralists want everyone to agree with them and to see things the way they see things.
f. Christians are “commanded” to question other religions beliefs. Since Christians have that belief, the pluralists, by their own standards – should accept this Christian belief as well but do they?
g. While we should respect the rights of others to believe what they want, we are foolish and unloving to tacitly accept every religious belief as true. What an immeasurable insult to the finished work of Christ on the cross if we preach all paths to God are the same. Affirming such error might keep them on the road to damnation.
h. Do you agree that the best way to “prove” truth in religious thought is to use philosophy “in the classic sense” where it means finding truth through logic, evidence, and science. (Socratic method)
6. Why do people believe things in the first place?
a. Sociological – parents, friends, society.
b. Psychological – comfort, peace of mind
c. Religious – scripture, pastor, priest, Imam, Church
d. Philosophical – consistency, coherence, completeness (best fit to the
evidence.
7. Do you believe "Truth is not a subjective matter of taste; it is an objective matter of facts".
Please share your thoughts from all the statements given.
Post by: newbie pa rin on Apr 06, 2015 at 02:02 PM
Bible - most translated, most published, most read book of all time. There must be something in it.
Post by: barrister on Apr 06, 2015 at 03:15 PM
I don't know if this counts.
Bible - most translated, most published, most read book of all time. There must be something in it.
I don't think it counts.
Even if the bible is the most translated, most published and most read, it would only indicate that it's the most popular book. It would be illogical to immediately conclude that God exists, based on that alone.
Ordinarily, when we say that a book is widely read, we mean that the book was read in full or nearly in full each time. Yet when it comes to the bible, people read a few sentences and immediately claim that they "read the bible." It would then be impossible to say with any certainty that the bible is indeed the most widely read book. Thus, this claim of being the most widely read would only be speculation.
Millions of people buy bibles, but never actually read them. If somebody buys a bible and a Harry Potter book, which one would he actually read?
If I were to follow your logic, I would say that if the average person is more likely to read Harry Potter than the bible, then there must be something in Harry Potter.
In short, it neither proves nor disproves the existence of God.
Post by: heisenbergman on Apr 06, 2015 at 04:27 PM
I don't know if this counts.
Bible - most translated, most published, most read book of all time. There must be something in it.
I guess that just shows that it was marketed very well :P
Post by: JT on Apr 08, 2015 at 09:46 AM
WEEK THREE – Observing The Rules
8. To find truth, one must be willing to give up subjective preferences in favour of objective facts. Facts are discovered through logic, evidence, and science.
9. To begin our proof of God we need to come to agreement on a few basic principles.
a. Truth exists and we can know truth.
b. The law of non-contradiction (a self-evident law of logic called a first principle – you don’t learn them, you just know them) – In short it means whatever is not true is false.
c. Self-defeating statements such as “truth does not exist” or “we cannot know truth” are easily defeated with the truth statements on which they are based. Is the first statement true? How do they know truth does not exist is true?
d. We use the law of non-contradiction (and other first principles) as tools to discover all other truths.
10. A logical argument is our next tool in “proving God”.
a. A logical argument is comprised of at least two premises that lead to a conclusion.
b. b. If both premises are true, the conclusion naturally follows as true.
c. For example:
i. All humans are mortal.
ii. Mike is a human.
iii. Therefore, Mike is mortal.
d. This works as long as both premises are true.
e. If either premise is false we have the following:
i. All humans are cold blooded reptiles.
ii. Mike is a human.
iii. Therefore, Mike is a cold blooded reptile.
f. We know this not to be true because one of the premises is false.
Post by: tony on Apr 08, 2015 at 09:58 AM
1. will he recognize the Church, i mean all supposedly Christian churches?
2. will he confirm that the Bible His book?
or will He continue to be the revolutionary that he was back then?
specially since the conditions prevailing during his time has not changed much if at all...
Post by: JT on Apr 08, 2015 at 10:18 AM
i wonder if Jesus the Nazarene were to come back today:
1. will he recognize the Church, i mean all supposedly Christian churches?
2. will he confirm that the Bible His book?
or will He continue to be the revolutionary that he was back then?
specially since the conditions prevailing during his time has not changed much if at all...
We should further discuss this on the Religion Thread. But just a quick info, bible says when Jesus comes back He wont be bothered by all these because His second coming is for the judgement of all. And everyone will be judged according the Word that has been spoken.
Post by: tony on Apr 09, 2015 at 11:13 AM
another....why the need to prove GOD?
nothing we mere mortals can ever say or do to prove God...
we either accept or deny....
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 09, 2015 at 03:19 PM
thanks for replying JT...that was more of a rhetorical posting...
another....why the need to prove GOD?
nothing we mere mortals can ever say or do to prove God...
we either accept or deny....
Why am I keen to prepare and teach this course?
Even though many believe in God and believe that the Bible as His inspired word, there are many people who have no knowledge of God or Jesus or many of the other things we Christians hold dear. A person who has never been introduced to the concept of God is similar to when I wake up in a very dark room. When I first woke up, I knew nothing. As I began to “know” things through personal observation I discovered (and came to believe) in the world around me. It was a step by step process.
We Christians are challenged to take the message into all the world. Mark 16:15 “Jesus said to them, ‘Go throughout the whole world and preach the gospel to all mankind. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.’” Paul said we need to meet people where they are 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. and Paul arguing in Acts 17:16-33. We need to be prepared to explain why we believe what we believe – I Peter 3:15.
• I need to ask “If we showed beyond a reasonable doubt that God existed would you believe?” If no, then it is a problem with “WILL” not “INTELLECT”.
Can you comment where our culture might be today when it comes to wanting to know if there really is a God? What other key issues and questions do people have when it comes to proving God’s existence? Why is this important or is it still important today?
Post by: barrister on Apr 09, 2015 at 03:45 PM
another....why the need to prove GOD?
nothing we mere mortals can ever say or do to prove God...
we either accept or deny....
I agree.
You're asking whether it is necessary to prove the existence of God. But I ask whether it is even possible to prove the existence of God.
It's already April and we've not yet seen any proof. The bigger the build-up, the greater the reader's disappointment, if this "proof" turns out to be a dud.
I've heard it many times before. Somebody claims that he can prove the existence of God. Listen to the "proof" and it's not convincing at all.
Just remember that merely "persuading" someone to believe that God exists is not the same as actually "proving" that God exists.
"Persuading" is easy. Over thousands of years, millions have been easily persuaded. But "proving" is quite another matter.
Post by: barrister on Jun 29, 2015 at 12:51 PM
It's already April and we've not yet seen any proof. The bigger the build-up, the greater the reader's disappointment, if this "proof" turns out to be a dud.
I've heard it many times before. Somebody claims that he can prove the existence of God. Listen to the "proof" and it's not convincing at all.
It's already the end of June, and still nothing.
I had a feeling that this thread was going nowhere.
Post by: Ice Storm on Jul 24, 2015 at 01:31 AM
Post by: AppleMan on Jul 24, 2015 at 02:44 AM
Post by: pekspert on Jul 24, 2015 at 08:47 AM
+1 ..nothing we say or do can prove the existence of God. All we can do is accept or deny. Faith lang yan, either you have it or you dont.
nothing we mere mortals can ever say or do to prove God...
we either accept or deny....
Post by: tony on Jul 24, 2015 at 11:00 AM
Post by: dpogs on Jul 24, 2015 at 11:19 AM
Does GOD even need to prove HIS being GOD?
God only requires our faith. Nothing more... Nothing less... :)
Post by: tony on Jul 24, 2015 at 12:18 PM
Post by: pTrader on Jul 31, 2015 at 02:47 PM
Who made the heavens and the earth? and who made a man and a woman ?
simple answer, The Maker or the Creator
Post by: pTrader on Jul 31, 2015 at 07:28 PM
Does GOD even need to prove HIS being GOD?
Good question, as I would to ask also to everyone, Do You really exist?
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:50 PM
Good question, as I would to ask also to everyone, Do You really exist?
Yeah, but does god?
Post by: barrister on Aug 01, 2015 at 11:56 AM
The TS wants to prove that God exists, but without using the bible as evidence.
Bakit? Kasi pag sinabi mong God exists because the bible says so, that's illogical. Ang tawag don sa logic, the fallacy of circular reasoning. Kung hindi ako naniniwala sa bibliya, tapos sasabihin mo bibliya rin ang ebidensiya mo, e di umikot ka lang at wala ka ring napatunayan.
Therefore, papatunayan daw niya, without using the bible as evidence.
I dont believe the existence of God can be proven. It's all a matter of faith.
Yung iba, mahilig mamilit. Kaya daw niyang patunayan na may Diyos.
Iba naman yung sa akin. Inaamin ko na hindi ko kayang patunayan na may Diyos. Kaya kung ayaw mong maniwala, problema mo na yon. :D
Sabi ng TS, kaya raw niyang patunayan. Nasaan na tayo ngayon? E di wala. Sabi ko na nga ba.... :D
Post by: AppleMan on Aug 02, 2015 at 03:42 AM
simple answer, The Maker or the Creator
Who is the maker and the Creator if you know them?
Post by: AppleMan on Aug 02, 2015 at 03:45 AM
Ganito ang intindi ko sa thread na ito:
The TS wants to prove that God exists, but without using the bible as evidence.
Bakit? Kasi pag sinabi mong God exists because the bible says so, that's illogical. Ang tawag don sa logic, the fallacy of circular reasoning. Kung hindi ako naniniwala sa binliya, tapos sasabihin mo bibliya rin ang ebidensiya mo, e di umikot ka lang at wala ka ring napatunayan.
Therefore, papatunayan daw niya, without using the bible as evidence.
I dont believe the existence of God can be proven. It's all a matter of faith.
Yung iba, mahilig mamilit. Kaya daw niyang patunayan na may Diyos.
Iba naman yung sa akin. Inaamin ko na hindi ko kayang patunayan na may Diyos. Kaya kung ayaw mong maniwala, problema mo na yon. :D
Sabi ng TS, kaya raw niyang patunayan. Nasaan na tayo ngayon? E di wala. Sabi ko na nga ba.... :D
Ang patunay na may Dios yung mismong mga creations nya...gaya ng Kalawakan, mga Langit at Lupa...
Kung walang gumawa nyan eh sino kung alam mo?
Post by: Verbl Kint on Aug 02, 2015 at 05:01 AM
God only requires our faith. Nothing more... Nothing less... :)"Requires" talaga ha
Post by: dpogs on Aug 02, 2015 at 06:57 AM
"Requires" talaga ha
Faith cant prove that there is God but faith please Him.
"But without faith it is impossible to please Him." Heb. 11:6
Post by: barrister on Aug 02, 2015 at 08:30 AM
Ang patunay na may Dios yung mismong mga creations nya...gaya ng Kalawakan, mga Langit at Lupa...
Kung walang gumawa nyan eh sino kung alam mo?
Defective ang question mo sir. Your question is based on the premise that there is a creator.
Why automatically presume that there is a creator even before proving that a creator exists? That's illogical.
Instead of asking "who created them?", you should ask "where did they come from?".
Akala mo ganong kadaling patunayan na may Diyos? ;)
Post by: cm8 on Aug 02, 2015 at 08:46 AM
Post by: docelmo on Aug 02, 2015 at 08:59 AM
Yeah, but does god?
Ok Sir, if you truly exist. How do you prove that you exist?
In my line of work, I know that a patient is sick because of the symptoms he or she presents when the patient comes to my clinic. And upon examination I find signs of illness: fever, abnormal heart or lung sounds, pain or tenderness. The next step is to do laboratory tests and procedures to look for the cause of the illness……that in a nutshell is how we prove the existence Bacteria and Viruses and other causes of diseases in man.
In the same manner we see our planet, solar system and the universe, we see living things and we see US! Then there is the all-important discovery of the DNA which is for all intense and purposes are akin to a computer program that needs a programmer! These to me are the “signs and symptoms” that points to a “cause” outside of the universe!
We see all around evidence of a “creator”…..a “creator” named bumblebee posted on this thread, someone made this laptop, someone made pinoydvd.com, someone created music like “the sound of silence” or “Hey Jude”, the Eiffel Tower, etc etc etc………….if all these relatively simple creation NEEDS a creator…..what more a more complex man and the universe!
Proving God exist can’t be done with absolute certainty…..but I believe it is reasonable to accept that a “Higher Being” exists and is responsible for the creation of Man, living things and the universe itself.
Post by: tigkal on Aug 02, 2015 at 09:06 AM
Post by: docelmo on Aug 02, 2015 at 09:37 AM
Eto daw ang proof there is a creator/God. Atoms cannot be created or destroyed. Only transformed.so meron creator of atoms.Sir, Atoms were indeed "created" at the start of the big bang! From that infinitesimal point of energy aii elements were formed.
Post by: barrister on Aug 02, 2015 at 09:40 AM
Post by: tony on Aug 02, 2015 at 09:47 AM
Post by: barrister on Aug 02, 2015 at 10:30 AM
Proving God exist can’t be done with absolute certainty…..but I believe it is reasonable to accept that a “Higher Being” exists and is responsible for the creation of Man, living things and the universe itself.
Agree ako dito.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 02, 2015 at 09:51 PM
Ok Sir, if you truly exist. How do you prove that you exist?
In my line of work, I know that a patient is sick because of the symptoms he or she presents when the patient comes to my clinic. And upon examination I find signs of illness: fever, abnormal heart or lung sounds, pain or tenderness. The next step is to do laboratory tests and procedures to look for the cause of the illness……that in a nutshell is how we prove the existence Bacteria and Viruses and other causes of diseases in man.
In the same manner we see our planet, solar system and the universe, we see living things and we see US! Then there is the all-important discovery of the DNA which is for all intense and purposes are akin to a computer program that needs a programmer! These to me are the “signs and symptoms” that points to a “cause” outside of the universe!
We see all around evidence of a “creator”…..a “creator” named bumblebee posted on this thread, someone made this laptop, someone made pinoydvd.com, someone created music like “the sound of silence” or “Hey Jude”, the Eiffel Tower, etc etc etc………….if all these relatively simple creation NEEDS a creator…..what more a more complex man and the universe!
Proving God exist can’t be done with absolute certainty…..but I believe it is reasonable to accept that a “Higher Being” exists and is responsible for the creation of Man, living things and the universe itself.
For someone who doesn't accept fossils as evidence of evolution, you're quite quick to accept the existence of a higher being :)
Post by: docelmo on Aug 03, 2015 at 12:01 AM
Btw you are correct, I don't accept the fossil record as evidence for evolution. Simply because I believe Darwinian or even Neo Darwinian Evolution is false, second the fossil records shows a very different picture that what evolution has predicted. That of simple to complex from bottom to top!
However the fossil record show: Abrupt appearance of form functional species, great diversity at the start and species stay more or less the same along animal groups.....all these are NOT what you might call evidence of evolution!
Now back to our regular program :)
Post by: AppleMan on Aug 03, 2015 at 03:26 AM
Defective ang question mo sir. Your question is based on the premise that there is a creator.
Why automatically presume that there is a creator even before proving that a creator exists? That's illogical.
Instead of asking "who created them?", you should ask "where did they come from?".
Akala mo ganong kadaling patunayan na may Diyos? ;)
Walang defect dun natural di mag-exist yang mga bagay na yan kung walang lumikha, gaya ng bahay di mag-exist kung walang gumawa..
ok sasakyan ko yang "Where Did They Come From" mo....Saan galing kung Alam mo?
Banat ng mga ATHEIST yang "Where", ayaw nila gamitin yung "Who" pano di sila naniniwala sa Creator.... ;D ;D ;D
Di mo na kailangan mag-isip pa ng napakalalim sa existence ng Creator mismo ikaw na tao nilalang base sa kanyang "WANGIS"
Post by: AppleMan on Aug 03, 2015 at 03:50 AM
The Title of this Thread are the same thought of Atheist proving the Universe came from NOTHING...without any basis and it came from their own imagination....... >:D >:D >:D >:D
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 03, 2015 at 06:04 AM
I was expecting a direct answer sir(bumblebee) on How do you prove you exist, instead we get this non-reply.
Oh, I thought that was a rhetoric, a prelude to your next paragraphs :) How do I know I exist? You do know were having this conversation, don't you? :)
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2015 at 06:28 AM
Oh, I thought that was a rhetoric, a prelude to your next paragraphs :) How do I know I exist? You do know were having this conversation, don't you? :)
Docelmo write the conversation between Bumblebee and Docelmo in a paper... then pass it on to his sons telling them this written conversation is a proof that Bumblebee exist... may maniniwala kaya?
or
someone claims that he's having a conversation with God... is their conversation enough to prove that God exist?
dont worry bumblebee... i believe that you exist.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 03, 2015 at 06:34 AM
Docelmo write the conversation between Bumblebee and Docelmo in a paper... then pass it on to his sons telling them this written conversation is a proof that Bumblebee exist... may maniniwala kaya?
or
someone claims that he's having a conversation with God... is their conversation enough to prove that God exist?
dont worry bumblebee... i believe that you exist.
There's a difference, dpogs. In docelmo's paper, I have my signature on it ;)
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2015 at 06:56 AM
There's a difference, dpogs. In docelmo's paper, I have my signature on it ;)
lol... :):):)
a conversation between you and Docelmo is not enought to prove that you exist... maraming mga tao nagsasabi na they have a real conversation with God...
and the Bible is the very word of God.. not just signed. :):):)
huwag ka ngang mag-alala... hindi mo man maprove kay Docelmo na you exist... pero para sa akin i have faith that you really exist. :)
Post by: Verbl Kint on Aug 03, 2015 at 07:05 AM
Faith cant prove that there is God but faith please Him.Read the title of the thread.
"But without faith it is impossible to please Him." Heb. 11:6
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 03, 2015 at 07:30 AM
lol... :):):)
a conversation between you and Docelmo is not enought to prove that you exist... maraming mga tao nagsasabi na they have a real conversation with God...
and the Bible is the very word of God.. not just signed. :):):)
Like I said, I have my signature in it, so yeah, it proves my existence. I think know where you'd like this conversation to go, but sorry, it's not going there :)
There are also other books, aside from the Bible, that supposed to be from God. How do you know the Bible is THE book?
Quote
huwag ka ngang mag-alala... hindi mo man maprove kay Docelmo na you exist... pero para sa akin i have faith that you really exist. :)
You really needed faith to prove I exist don't you? :) Tsaka, hindi ako nag-aalala, bakit mo ipinipilit? :)
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2015 at 07:52 AM
Read the title of the thread.
kaya nga po... faith cant prove that there is God...
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2015 at 08:00 AM
You really needed faith to prove I exist don't you? :) Tsaka, hindi nag-aalala, bakit mo ipinipilit? :)
nope... i just believe that you exist... no need to prove that... i have faith :):):)
There are also other books, aside from the Bible, that supposed to be from God. How do you know the Bible is THE book?
faith also. the same faith i have believing that you exist. but if i tell others na merong bumblebee na nag exist at ang patunay ay ang signature niya sa conversation na ito.. i really dont know if it is enough to prove that it is really coming from you - "THE Conversation" :):):)
Post by: barrister on Aug 03, 2015 at 08:08 AM
Walang defect dun natural di mag-exist yang mga bagay na yan kung walang lumikha, gaya ng bahay di mag-exist kung walang gumawa..
Sigurado akong tao ang gumawa ng bahay, kasi marami na akong nakitang ginagawang bahay.
Ikaw sir, ilang langit at mundo na ang nakita mong nililikha?
ok sasakyan ko yang "Where Did They Come From" mo....Saan galing kung Alam mo?
Hindi ko alam kung hindi ko babasehan ang bibliya. Dahil sa biblya, alam ko na.
Pero ang usapin dito, wag daw gamitin ang bibliya. Paano na ngayon? :D
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 03, 2015 at 08:09 AM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2015 at 08:13 AM
Malalaman nila yun. Point mo sila sa thread na to and have them click my profile. Kulit!
:) it is just the same sa pagsabi na malalaman nila yan na God exist just read the Bible and read the profile of God in these particular verses.. etc...
so how do you prove that you exist without The Conversation?
so how do we prove that God exist without The Bible?
oh btw... anong bumblebee ba ang tinutukoy natin... baka ibang website (book) ang maclick nila :):):)
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 03, 2015 at 08:14 AM
:) it is just the same sa pagsabi na malalaman nila yan na God exist just read the Bible and read the profile of God in these particular verses.. etc...
Magkaiba nga kasi meron akong signature. Also, kung buhay pa ko, makaka-reply ako sa kanila. Gets?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2015 at 08:23 AM
Magkaiba nga kasi meron akong signature. Also, kung buhay pa ko, makaka-reply ako sa kanila. Gets?
lol... okay... dont worry... i have faith naman na you exist... i believe that it is your signature... i believe that it is your profile... and i believe that this conversation is really coming from Bumblebee...
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 03, 2015 at 08:29 AM
Post by: docelmo on Aug 03, 2015 at 09:17 AM
Oh, I thought that was a rhetoric, a prelude to your next paragraphs :) How do I know I exist? You do know were having this conversation, don't you? :)My point exactly! This is the Law of Causality! Cause and Effect! Everything that has a beginning has a cause!
The words you've written here is the "effect" and you are the "cause". Without you there would be no conversation...which means that it connotes existence of both parties!
Just like we know a carpenter built a house or Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa. Now what is the as you say "Signature" of this Higher Being......Man, living things and the Universe itself! That to me is the Biggest signature there is! To deny that We and the universe has no author or the author does NOT exists....is intellectual dishonesty.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 03, 2015 at 09:50 AM
My point exactly! This is the Law of Causality! Cause and Effect! Everything that has a beginning has a cause!
Layo ha? You proved by existence with what cause?
Quote
The words you've written here is the "effect" and you are the "cause". Without you there would be no conversation...which means that it connotes existence of both parties!
dpogs won't agree with you on this :)
Quote
Just like we know a carpenter built a house or Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa. Now what is the as you say "Signature" of this Higher Being......Man, living things and the Universe itself! That to me is the Biggest signature there is! To deny that We and the universe has no author or the author does NOT exists....is intellectual dishonesty.
The same can be said to aliens. You believe that they exist?
Post by: pTrader on Aug 03, 2015 at 10:21 AM
Who is the maker and the Creator if you know them?
The Creator is the answer itself. No further answer.
Post by: docelmo on Aug 03, 2015 at 06:45 PM
Layo ha? You proved by existence with what cause?
dpogs won't agree with you on this :)
The same can be said to aliens. You believe that they exist?
Huh? You lost me there. I am simply stating that a "cause" must exist or is present first for it to have an "effect". One can"t exist without the other. Isn't that your claim that your word is proof of your existence?.....cause and effect!
That's ok sir Dpogs is simply stating his position from the point of view of faith. He is also correct that the bible is an integral part of the quest in knowing God. And faith plays a big part( but that is not relevant in this thread).
Aliens? Sure! If you believe them to be these higher being. However, if they exist in our own universe then they are governed by the same laws and makeup! And therefore they coludn't be the creator if they themselves exists in the same time and space! The creator should be beyond space and time.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 03, 2015 at 08:15 PM
And can it not be possible that aliens from another universe populated this one? Is it not possible that this universe is meant to lifeless in the first place? And if they have a creator, can it not be totally different from the one we've come to know?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 03, 2015 at 08:26 PM
Atoms can be created/destroyed. That's nuclear fusion/fission.
Yes. Ang energy ata ang cannot be created or destroyed. It just transforms.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 03, 2015 at 08:31 PM
Post by: barrister on Aug 03, 2015 at 08:53 PM
Answer - nobody knows.
A creator made it? That's only one of the possibilities. Why jump to the conclusion that a creator exists as if it were the only possibility?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, said Carl Sagan.
You make an extraordinary claim, you provide the extraordinary evidence.
Post by: docelmo on Aug 03, 2015 at 09:29 PM
Yeah, my word is proof of my existence but thats not cause and effect. I caused my word, not the other way around.Exactly what I said...... Your "existence" is necessary to cause an effect(your word). As I said earlier by this universal law, it is reasonable to accept that a "higher being" exists and is the cause of the universe.
And can it not be possible that aliens from another universe populated this one? Is it not possible that this universe is meant to lifeless in the first place? And if they have a creator, can it not be totally different from the one we've come to know?
If Aliens came from another universe, my question would be is How did that other universe came to be? Another Big bang? Is there a "Universe maker"? What is the nature of this universe-maker?
Sure its possible this universe could be meant to be lifeless......But the fact is we are here! What mechanism, conditions, factors, etc produced life? Did life came by Chance or Directed?
Sure, the creator could take on any form! Our minds cannot possibly fully understand the "mind" of this higher being.
Proving his existence with absolute certainty I believe is beyond our reach. We are left only to reasonably accept the possibility that a higher being exists based on the entirety of our knowledge and experience.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 03, 2015 at 09:50 PM
And regarding that higher being, if he does exist, are you ok if he's not that God from the bible? If yes, then point taken. If not, then you're just trying to fit everything in.
This thread is about proving God without the bible. Some people think they can. Don't rain on their parade.
Post by: barrister on Aug 03, 2015 at 10:35 PM
It is an argument from existence, meaning that if something exists, then something must have caused its existence.
The fallacy of the argument lies in the concept that even if we accept that there must have been a cause (or a "first cause") that led to the existence of someting, it does not necessarily mean that we can be exactly sure about what that cause really was.
The universe exists. Something must have caused its existence.
I agree. A cause exists.
Here's the problem --- what exactly was that cause?
Post by: docelmo on Aug 04, 2015 at 09:02 AM
My point is you are using cause and effect for proof when it isn't necessary.
And regarding that higher being, if he does exist, are you ok if he's not that God from the bible? If yes, then point taken. If not, then you're just trying to fit everything in.
This thread is about proving God without the bible. Some people think they can. Don't rain on their parade.
On the contrary this law is essential in our understanding of the world around us and therefore would also be integral in establishing the existence of the ultimate cause…
He took the form of George Burns and Morgan Freeman right? I'll be really disappointed if He is not the God we know. Seriously, the attributes of this cause could very well describe the God of the bible….so it is reasonable to accept that He Exist!
I am also in agreement that given the evidence (even non-biblical) it is reasonable to accept that a higher being indeed exist…as to the identity…Isipin ko muna sagot ko ki Atty! Hirap kasi...research muna ako!
Post by: AppleMan on Aug 04, 2015 at 10:09 AM
lol... :):):)
a conversation between you and Docelmo is not enought to prove that you exist... maraming mga tao nagsasabi na they have a real conversation with God...
and the Bible is the very word of God.. not just signed. :):):)
huwag ka ngang mag-alala... hindi mo man maprove kay Docelmo na you exist... pero para sa akin i have faith that you really exist. :)
Your existence prove because of your AWARENESS without AWARENESS how do you know that you're EXIST?
Post by: AppleMan on Aug 04, 2015 at 10:17 AM
Quote
You make an extraordinary claim, you provide the extraordinary evidence.
The EXTRAORDINARY evidence, di na tayo lalayo the Earth itself nobody can CREATE the Earth without an EXTRAORDINARY CREATOR...the EXTRAORDINARY CREATOR is what we called GOD... :)
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2015 at 11:45 AM
The EXTRAORDINARY evidence, di na tayo lalayo the Earth itself nobody can CREATE the Earth without an EXTRAORDINARY CREATOR...the EXTRAORDINARY CREATOR is what we called GOD... :)
Ebidensiya yon? :D
That is not extraordinary evidence.
In fact, that is not even evidence at all. That's nothing more than a declaration of faith.
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2015 at 11:49 AM
I am also in agreement that given the evidence (even non-biblical) it is reasonable to accept that a higher being indeed exist…as to the identity…Isipin ko muna sagot ko ki Atty! Hirap kasi...research muna ako!
Ayaw mo kasing maniwala, Doc... Hindi kayang patunayan yan... ;)
Post by: pTrader on Aug 04, 2015 at 01:08 PM
simple lang walang Bible, so saan nag mula yung concept of God?
paki sagot lang po..
salamat.
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2015 at 01:38 PM
Where did you get the concept of God? if God does not exist so there should be no such word as "God"?
simple lang walang Bible, so saan nag mula yung concept of God?
paki sagot lang po..
You mean God exists because the word "God" exists? If we have a concept of God, then God exists?
Following that argument, the following statements must also be true:
1. The word "fairy" exists, therefore fairies exist.
2. Since we have a concept of fairies, then fairies exist.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 04, 2015 at 01:41 PM
You mean God exists because the word "God" exists? If we have a concept of God, then God exists?
Following that argument, then the following statements must also be true:
1. The word "fairy" exists, therefore fairies exist.
2. Since we have a concept of fairies, then fairies exist.
No, where do we get the concept of God?
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2015 at 01:42 PM
No, where do we get the concept of God?
In the same place where we got the concept of fairies.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 04, 2015 at 01:45 PM
The same place where we get the concept of fairies.
where is that place?
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2015 at 01:45 PM
(I can't believe I had to explain that... :D )
Post by: pTrader on Aug 04, 2015 at 01:49 PM
In our imaginations.
(I can't believe I had to explain that... :D )
In your imaginations there is a concept of fairies and God, then where do they came from?
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2015 at 03:26 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 04, 2015 at 03:30 PM
From imagination.
where does your imagination come from?
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2015 at 03:31 PM
(He thinks I don't know how this ends ;) )
Post by: pTrader on Aug 04, 2015 at 03:35 PM
From my mind.
(He thinks I don't know how this ends ;) )
where does your mind come from?
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2015 at 03:44 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 04, 2015 at 03:46 PM
From my brain.
making it short, where does everything from you come from?
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2015 at 03:47 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 04, 2015 at 03:50 PM
From the first humans.
where do the first humans come from?
Post by: Tsnad on Aug 04, 2015 at 03:50 PM
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2015 at 03:51 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 04, 2015 at 04:01 PM
According to scientists' theory, from lower forms of life.
Life existence where does it came from?
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2015 at 04:03 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 04, 2015 at 04:07 PM
Nobody knows. Not even the scientists.
how can you say "Nobody knows" if you have imagination, mind and brain? Scientist also came from the first humans.
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2015 at 05:27 PM
how can you say "Nobody knows" if you have imagination, mind and brain?
I can say "nobody knows" because I'm talking about knowledge. You're talking about imagination. Knowledge is limited by facts; imagination is not limited by facts.
How can I say "nobody knows"? Because nobody knows the answer with certainty. Scientists propose abiogenesis and spontaneous generation, but they admit that they're not certain.
Post by: Tempter on Aug 04, 2015 at 05:33 PM
;D nice topic...
Nice discussion... ;D
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2015 at 05:39 PM
I am disabusing him of his fanciful notion... ;)
Post by: tigkal on Aug 04, 2015 at 07:23 PM
Yes. Ang energy ata ang cannot be created or destroyed. It just transforms.
The energy is the result of the fusion/fission. But the atom is still there. Only split, fused into one, or a combination. But still it exists. Sun produce heat by nuclear fusion. Hydrogen is fused to produce helium, no atoms created, nor destroyed. only fused. If you burn wood, it becomes carbon and carbon dioxide. Again no atoms created or destroyed. Only transformed. I believe this is the signature of a creator.
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2015 at 09:53 PM
It was Dalton who popularized the idea as part of Dalton's Atomic Theory, but that was in the 19th century.
The theory that atoms cannot be created or destroyed is now obsolete. It is true that atoms can neither be created or destroyed in chemical reactions, but we now know that it is not true for nuclear reactions.
Also obsolete in Dalton's theory is the notion that all atoms of a given element are identical in physical and chemical properties. We now know that is not true for different isotopes of an element.
Post by: docelmo on Aug 04, 2015 at 09:57 PM
Hahaha Atty akala ko ba mag kakampi tayo?
Aya mo kasing maniwala, Doc... Hindi kayang patunayan yan... ;)
before I dare try to give some sort of answer to the extremely difficult and tricky question. Allow me restate 3 premises that would be the basis of my point:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
I believe that everyone is in agreement that premise 1 and 2 are accurate; Natural Law, Entropy, Equilibrium, BBT all these supports that the universe at some point began to exist and had a cause.
Next is to determine how the universe existed. This related in process of looking for the answer to the all-important question…what was the cause.There are several theories on the existence of the universe. The universe has always existed…infinite. The universe is a series of universes created and destroyed for eternity or parallel universe exists. Lastly, the universe is finite had a beginning and will have an end….eventually.
Next is to establish that the universe indeed had a beginning (and an eventual end) and is not infinite or continuously created and destroyed for eternity. The second law of thermodynamics and the big bang theory are 2 major evidences that our universe had a beginning. The move towards equilibrium and increasing entropy(2nd law) and an expanding universe(BBT) supports the notion that the universe had a beginning…….what about the other options?
Are the other options of the existence of the universe possible?
These options are refuted by the so-called Kalam Cosmological Argument in a nutshell seeks to prove that actual infinite series of anything is not possible. Hilbert’s Hotel Paradox is the best illustration of this argument. The argument also states that there is no such thing as an actual infinite and draws on the idea that an actual infinite cannot be created by successive addition and that actual infinites cannot be traversed.
We are clearly in the present and the past was traversed! So this means that the past is NOT infinite and follows that the universe is NOT infinite as well! Which now brings us to the question….What was the cause?
This first cause must be….Uncaused. Because as in Kalam’s argument there no actual infinite series of causes. There simply has to be a first cause which has not been caused otherwise it would an infinite question of “who caused the cause”…..which was dismissed already.
Next this first cause had to be eternal, being with no cause then it had no beginning. It must also be outside space and time.
This first cause must also be non-physical since anything physical must have a cause.
This first cause must be powerful and personal since it caused the existence of the universe and its laws and order….only personal being can make choices.
All these could very well be the attributes of the God of Christianity that is not to say we have proven his existence. What we instead have is a prime suspect and possibly presence of at most circumstantial evidences….it’s up to the judge or jury to decide.
O.T. (Oh btw the suspect has already executed a “sworn statement”)
Post by: Verbl Kint on Aug 05, 2015 at 04:13 AM
These days, quantum physics tends to prove otherwise (see Einstein's Theory of Relativity). Time is no longer absolute, but rather derivatives of how matter and energy are in THIS universe.
Our perception of time is very limited, akin to a belief before the Renaissance that the world is flat. We imagine boundaries exist because of our limited understanding of the cosmos. And the concept of God as being at the edge of these boundaries.
But science has since been slowly proving that there are no boundaries. So where would God be?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 05, 2015 at 09:23 AM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 05, 2015 at 10:37 AM
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 05, 2015 at 10:47 AM
"I Am the Alpha and the Omega"
Do you believe that the writers or interpreters at that time have a concept of timelessness?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 05, 2015 at 10:57 AM
Would you believe that during old testament they know already that the earth is round. Trivia lang :-)
Post by: barrister on Aug 05, 2015 at 11:01 AM
Hahaha Atty akala ko ba mag kakampi tayo?
;D Magkakampi nga... Wink-wink lang naman ang discussion na ito... ;)
========================================
Allow me restate 3 premises that would be the basis of my point:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
We can accept that #1 is true on earth. We can even accept that it's true within our solar system. Let's be generous and say it's true within our entire galaxy.
But to say that it's true within the entire universe, that's stretching it. There's no way to observe and verify that on a planet outside the Milky Way galaxy, things can only exist with a cause.
In #2 & 3, you're applying it to the entire universe and beyond --- even before the universe existed. There's no way to observe and verify that the universe did not exist spontaneoulsy without a cause, so you're just speculating. How do we know that the rules inside the existing universe apply to time and space that existed even before the Big Bang?
Therefore, #3 is without proper basis.
But even if we agree that the beginning of the universe had a cause, the problem will be identifying what that cause might be.
The end result --- yes, there was a cause, but we presently don't know what the cause was. We might know someday, but not yet.
This first cause must be….Uncaused. Because as in Kalam’s argument there no actual infinite series of causes. There simply has to be a first cause which has not been caused otherwise it would an infinite question of “who caused the cause”…..which was dismissed already.
Why restrict it to 2 alternatives --- (a) first cause and (b) infinite regress of causes?
Why not allow a third alternative --- "No cause" --- meaning that the universe came about by spontaneous generation?
Next this first cause had to be eternal, being with no cause then it had no beginning. It must also be outside space and time.
This first cause must also be non-physical since anything physical must have a cause.
This first cause must be powerful and personal since it caused the existence of the universe and its laws and order….only personal being can make choices.
Your bias is showing.
We don't know what the cause is, because it's not possible to confirm and verify exactly what that cause was. Yet you prefer to presume that the cause was a supernatural being.
Why? Because you are retrofitting the argument to suit your religious beliefs.
=========================================
The way I see it, the cosmological argument (cause-and-effect) is still not convincing because it requires huge assumptions if it is applied to the beginning of the universe.
Personally, I think the ID (Intelligent Design) proponents are using the best approach.
They don't know the origins of the universe. They're just saying that certain features of the known universe are best explained by an intelligent cause.
Who is the Intelligent Designer? They don't know. Is it God? They don't know. Could it be God? Maybe.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 05, 2015 at 11:12 AM
I believe in the Word of God, i believe the Bible as the inspired Word of God... I believe in. Jesus when He said that.
Would you believe that during old testament they know already that the earth is round. Trivia lang :-)
Narinig ko na ito. Pero gusto kong manggaling sa'yo :)
Post by: dpogs on Aug 05, 2015 at 12:30 PM
Narinig ko na ito. Pero gusto kong manggaling sa'yo :)
I believe nga... :-)
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 05, 2015 at 01:33 PM
I believe nga... :-)
Yung sinasabi mong trivia na bilog ang mundo ayon sa Bible ang ibig kong sabihin.
Post by: RU9 on Aug 05, 2015 at 05:14 PM
I believe in the Word of God, i believe the Bible as the inspired Word of God... I believe in. Jesus when He said that.
Circular reasoning.
Post by: barrister on Aug 05, 2015 at 06:04 PM
Circular reasoning is a process of proving.
But he was not attempting to prove, he was just declaring his beliefs.
Post by: docelmo on Aug 05, 2015 at 10:38 PM
The syllogism above is predicated on the universe having a beginning. Kant had the same problem too way back when, believing that time was absolute.
These days, quantum physics tends to prove otherwise (see Einstein's Theory of Relativity). Time is no longer absolute, but rather derivatives of how matter and energy are in THIS universe.
Our perception of time is very limited, akin to a belief before the Renaissance that the world is flat. We imagine boundaries exist because of our limited understanding of the cosmos. And the concept of God as being at the edge of these boundaries.
But science has since been slowly proving that there are no boundaries. So where would God be?
========================================
Why restrict it to 2 alternatives --- (a) first cause and (b) infinite regress of causes?
Why not allow a third alternative --- "No cause" --- meaning that the universe came about by spontaneous generation?
The question whether this universe is finite or not is an enduring mystery and therefore scientist will continue to speculate, come up with concepts and theories on the subject. Naturally there would be several schools of thought on the matter.
“Time is no longer absolute”…..that is in fact correct! This is an attribute of a Finite universe a beginning time.
Basic science says that all “physical matter” is finite. Since the universe consists of physical matter then it follows that it too is finite.
There used to be a steady state theory which purports an infinite universe. An idea of a cosmological constant which was later on abandoned by Einstein himself with the discovery of the expanding universe by Hubble. But that has supplanted by BBT which proposes a beginning to space and time. The “new” theory that purports that the universe is eternal removes the big bang singularity from the equation and revives the cosmological constant(once described by Einstein as his biggest blunder).This removes now BBT main concept of a singularity and conclude that the universe had no beginning and therefore eternal….
My bad I did indeed failed to specify the third option in my earlier post. I just lumped them together w/ the infinite succession/multiverse group. So now, let’s look at this option……the universe is uncaused and therefore eternal!
Astrophysicist Janna Levin in her book “How the universe got its spots” writes on the absurdity of infinity. She continues: “No infinity has ever been observed in nature. Nor is infinity tolerated in a scientific theory. The universe is expanding, growing and aging. At one point in time everything was in one place. The universe had a beginning, once there was nothing and now there is something. We’re all intrinsically made of the same substance. The fabric of the universe is just a coherent weave from the same threads that make our bodies. How much more absurd it becomes to believe that the universe, space and time could possibly be infinite when all of us are finite.”
The third mathematical component of the Kalam argument also deals with the concept of infinity which says that actual infinites cannot be traversed! This is illustrated by thinking about an infinitely deep well which has a ladder with an actually infinite number of rungs. If you started at the top of the ladder and climbed down some finite number of rungs, you could climb out again one rung at a time. However, suppose you were to climb out of the well, but there were no definite, finite number of rungs above you. In this analogy, the well stands for the past, the rungs on the ladder stand for each and every past event, and the top of the well is the present. If climbing out of the actually infinite well is implausible, then so too is arriving at the present time if the past is actually infinite.
The BBT is also an argument for the universe being finite with the presence of the singularity. However this too is being somehow tweaked to conform to an infinite universe by removing the very concept that led to its inception…
Thus we could say that actual infinity is not possible as illustrated in the example in the kalam argument and it is also not observed in nature. So the universe cannot be uncaused and is therefore not infinite or eternal. What we are left with is the option that the universe was indeed caused….
Post by: Verbl Kint on Aug 05, 2015 at 10:45 PM
Also, your post would be a problem if you conclude an omnipotent God exists, since infinity could not be traversed.
Post by: ninjababez® on Aug 06, 2015 at 05:30 AM
PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE = faith
Post by: barrister on Aug 06, 2015 at 10:37 AM
napakadali naman nito :)
PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE = faith
Faith is not proof.
If I have faith that fairies exist, does it mean I have proven the existence of fairies? No. It only means I believe in fairies, nothing more.
The thread title requires the presentation of proof, not the mere declaration of belief.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 11:13 AM
He thinks it's so easy to prove the existence of God.
I am disabusing him of his fanciful notion... ;)
if this is for me than the Nobody Knows is not acceptable, scientists are there to prove everything based from factual evidence and yet there are certainties to find out.
but if you include the religion called Evolution in science then that is not science anymore.
Evolution is a belief system anyway.
Post by: barrister on Aug 06, 2015 at 11:26 AM
if this is for me than the Nobody Knows is not acceptable, scientists are there to prove everything based from factual evidence and yet there are certainties to find out.
but if you include the religion called Evolution in science then that is not science anymore.
Evolution is a belief system anyway.
Maybe you're not familiar with my other posts. We are actually in agreement:
- I believe in the Judeo-Christian God of the bible, the creator of the universe.
- I believe the bible is the word of God.
- I know (not just believe) that the evolution theory is speculation, not science.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 11:35 AM
Maybe you're not familiar with my other posts. We are actually in agreement:
- I believe in the Judeo-Christian God of the bible, the creator of the universe.
- I believe the bible is the word of God.
- I know (not just believe) that the evolution theory is speculation, not science.
barrister, it is the topic that I am working with and do respect other's beleif. The main thing is to prove without the Bible.
one of the question is, why Filipinos believe in Bathala eh wala namang Bible during that time in the Philippines?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 06, 2015 at 12:48 PM
But since it is written in the Bible, this facr is not accepted as a proof.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 12:52 PM
It is written in the Bible that the creation reveals the existence of God... that there is God and in every man's heart a seed that give them conscoiusmess about God.
But since it is written in the Bible, this facr is not accepted as a proof.
No Bible pleaasssseee....
Post by: dpogs on Aug 06, 2015 at 12:54 PM
Though the Bible have the precise and correct answer for that question.
Post by: barrister on Aug 06, 2015 at 12:57 PM
one of the question is, why Filipinos believe in Bathala eh wala namang Bible during that time in the Philippines?
It is human nature.
To be human is to have an emotional need to search for answers to questions. One of these questions is the origin of heaven and earth, and life.
If man can't find the answer, it is also human nature to invent one to satisfy his emotional need.
Where did heaven and earth come from? God made them. Where did life come from? God made it.
What causes thunder and lightning? An angry god. What causes earthquakes? An angry god.
If man can't find the answer, he points to god. Problem solved.
This is common in different cultures in different times.
The bible has the story of the great flood.
Before the Old Testament was written, there was the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, where Enki tells the hero to build an ark for his family and baby animals so that they will be able to survive the great flood, the flood came, then receded, then the hero sends out a bird to confirm that it's safe to come out of the ark.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:03 PM
That is why i mentioned "that it is not accepted as a proof".
Though the Bible have the precise and correct answer for that question.
Going with what you have said earlier "creation reveals the existence of God":
Pre-Colonial Filipinos not most of them declare that there is Bathala, others Maykapal (creator)..
Romans chapter 1:18 to 25 has been proven long ago before publishing the Bible or the Bible went to the Philippines.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:10 PM
It is human nature.
To be human is to have an emotional need to search for answers to questions. One of these questions is the origin of heaven and earth, and life.
If man can't find the answer, it is also human nature to invent one to satisfy his emotional need.
Where did heaven and earth come from? God made them. Where did life come from? God made it.
What causes thunder and lightning? An angry god. What causes earthquakes? An angry god.
If man can't find the answer, he points to god. Problem solved.
This is common in different cultures in different times.
The bible has the story of the great flood.
Before the Old Testament was written, there was the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, where Enki tells the hero to build an ark for his family and baby animals so that they will be able to survive the great flood, the flood came, then receded, then the hero sends out a bird to confirm that it's safe to come out of the ark.
If I may recall from a documentary I have watched long ago, China had this Noah stories existing before the publishing of the Bible, thus this only testified that the Scriptures is true.
Post by: barrister on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:14 PM
If I may recall from a documentary I have watched long ago, China had this Noah stories existing before the publishing of the Bible, thus this only testified that the Scriptures is true.
That is not proof that the story of Noah's ark is true.
On the contrary, a flood myth older than the story of Noah's ark gives us reasonable ground to believe the opposite ---- That all great flood stories are myths, the Old Testament account being nothing but a plagiarized version of an older myth.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:26 PM
That is not proof that the story of Noah's ark is true.
On the contrary, a flood myth older than the story of Noah's ark gives us reasonable ground to believe the opposite ---- That all great flood stories are myths, the Old Testament account being plagiarized from an older myth.
eh wala pa ngang kasulatan those time eh, nung binigyan tayo ng kasulatan (Holy Scripture) para ma-account yung mga nangyari ayaw naman tayong maniwala having this topic "Proving God Without the Bible".
Kahit, isang milyon ang magsasabing nag-eexist si God o nakita nila personally we will come up with this thread, Proving God without the Bible.
Can anyone prove to us na natayo ang City Hall ng Manila without being created o ang MRT kung inde ito ginagawa?
Lahat ng nakikita mong created things, gadgets at marami pa, may creator.
Creator exist.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:34 PM
Post by: barrister on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:36 PM
Can anyone prove to us na natayo ang City Hall ng Manila without being created o ang MRT kung inde ito ginagawa?
City Hall yon, hindi langit at lupa. MRT yon, hindi planeta.
May ebidesiya na may mga taong gumawa ng City Hall at MRT.
Ano ang ebidensiya na may gumawa ng langit at lupa kundi yung haka-haka mo?
Lahat ng nakikita mong created things, gadgets at marami pa, may creator.
Creator exist.
Gadget yon, hindi langit at lupa.
Yung gadget may brand name na, may nakalagay pang "Made in China." :D
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:38 PM
But how can you prove that it is God of the Bible without using the Bible. The creator might be alien.
eto ang sagot :
It is written in the Bible that the creation reveals the existence of God... that there is God and in every man's heart a seed that give them conscoiusmess about God.
But since it is written in the Bible, this facr is not accepted as a proof.
creation reveals the existence of God
Post by: barrister on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:39 PM
But how can you prove that it is God of the Bible without using the Bible. The creator might be alien.
It can't be done.
That's why you need faith. If it can be proven, then faith would not be necessary.
I did not personally see Rizal executed. Do I need faith to believe that Jose Rizal was shot at Bagumbayan? No, because that is a fact that can be proven.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:41 PM
City Hall yon, hindi langit at lupa. MRT yon, hindi planeta.
May ebidesiya na may mga taong gumawa ng City Hall at MRT.
Ano ang ebidensiya na may gumawa ng langit at lupa kundi yung haka-haka mo?
Gadget yon, hindi langit at lupa.
Yung gadget may brand name na, may nakalagay pang "Made in China." :D
sir, iwas pilosopo answer, simple lang naman, there are created things and yet wala bang creator ng mga bagay na yun?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:42 PM
eto ang sagot :
creation reveals the existence of God
Creation reveals that there is a creator... How can you prove that it is not the alien... How can we prove that the creator is the God of the Bible wothout using the Bible.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:47 PM
Creation reveals that there is a creator... How can you prove that it is not the alien... How can we prove that the creator is the God of the Bible wothout using the Bible.
this is another tipic to discuss :How can you prove that it is not the alien , another thread perhaps.
Post by: barrister on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:49 PM
sir, iwas pilosopo answer, simple lang naman, there are created things and yet wala bang creator ng mga bagay na yun?
Ang mindset mo ang illogical sir.
==================================
Parehong-pareho lang yan ng discussion na ito:
Ang patunay na may Dios yung mismong mga creations nya...gaya ng Kalawakan, mga Langit at Lupa...
Kung walang gumawa nyan eh sino kung alam mo?
Defective ang question mo sir. Your question is based on the premise that there is a creator.
Why automatically presume that there is a creator even before proving that a creator exists? That's illogical.
Instead of asking "who created them?", you should ask "where did they come from?".
Akala mo ganong kadaling patunayan na may Diyos? ;)
Walang defect dun natural di mag-exist yang mga bagay na yan kung walang lumikha, gaya ng bahay di mag-exist kung walang gumawa..
Sigurado akong tao ang gumawa ng bahay, kasi marami na akong nakitang ginagawang bahay.
Ikaw sir, ilang langit at mundo na ang nakita mong nililikha?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:53 PM
this is another tipic to discuss :How can you prove that it is not the alien , another thread perhaps.
You said there is a creator... How cam you prove that the creator is God. Ako naniwala na ang Creator ay God Himself based on the Bible.
Without using the Bible how can we prove that the creator you mentioned is the God of the Bible. Malay natin ang creator pala ay tao rin from the future.
Post by: cyberdraven on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:54 PM
But how can you prove that it is God of the Bible without using the Bible. The creator might be alien.
Sabi ko na nga ba, mauuwi ito sa alien. hehehe
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:57 PM
Creation reveals that there is a creator... How can you prove that it is not the alien... How can we prove that the creator is the God of the Bible wothout using the Bible.
Sa mga verses na ito, inde po sinabeng you must refer or you need the Holy Scripture para ma prove mo na God exist.
Romans 1:18-25English Standard Version (ESV)
God's Wrath on Unrighteousness
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[a] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Kung babasahin mo talaga, in the absence of the Scripture, creation declares that there is God. Ayaw lang nilang kilalanin ang Diyos bilang Diyos. Kaya may topic na Proving God without the Bible.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:58 PM
Sabi ko na nga ba, mauuwi ito sa alien. hehehe
Even Hawking acknowledge that there might be higher form of life intiligent responsible for the evolution... Naalala ko lang may nagpost nito sa creation/evolution thread :-)
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:59 PM
Ang mindset mo ang illogical sir.
==================================
Parehong-pareho lang yan ng discussion na ito:
wala ka bang bagay na ginawa?
Post by: barrister on Aug 06, 2015 at 02:00 PM
Sa mga verses na ito, inde po sinabeng you must refer or you need the Holy Scripture para ma prove mo na God exist.
Romans 1:18-25English Standard Version (ESV)
God's Wrath on Unrighteousness
Ayun!
Sabi ko na nga ba, babalik uli sa bibliya ito pag kinapos ng katuwiran... :D
Post by: dpogs on Aug 06, 2015 at 02:03 PM
Post by: barrister on Aug 06, 2015 at 02:04 PM
Even Hawking acknowledge that there might be higher form of life intiligent responsible for the evolution... Naalala ko lang may nagpost nito sa creation/evolution thread :-)
Ganyan ang mindset ng mga atheist-evolutionists.
They are open to the possibility of intelligent design ... as long as the intelligent designer is not God.
Puwedeng alien? Puwede.
Puwedeng Diyos? Ah hindi, imposible yon... :D
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 02:06 PM
pag may created may creator lang po.. ipinapaliwanag ko lang kahit walang bibliya makikilala pa rin po ng may Diyos at existing.
Ang topic ay ganito:
PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
ano ba yung GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE na sianasabe? Please don't refer sa Bible?
eto bang GOD na ito ay ano, sino, o ano ba talaga yung GOD na ito?
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 02:09 PM
@ptrader: ganito na lang... Paano mo po nalaman na that that creator is the God of the Bible?
out of the topic sir yung sagot, this is a personal question for me...
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 02:12 PM
inde po ako kinapos sa katwiran,
pag may created may creator lang po.. ipinapaliwanag ko lang kahit walang bibliya makikilala pa rin po ng may Diyos at existing.
Ang topic ay ganito:
PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE
ano ba yung GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE na sianasabe? Please don't refer sa Bible?
eto bang GOD na ito ay ano, sino, o ano ba talaga yung GOD na ito?
siguro fair enough na inde natin gagaweng basehan ng definitions yung nasa Bible, kasi without the Bible eh.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 06, 2015 at 02:25 PM
Post by: jerix on Aug 06, 2015 at 02:29 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 06, 2015 at 02:30 PM
Ganyan ang mindset ng mga atheist-evolutionists.
They are open to the possibility of intelligent design ... as long as the intelligent designer is not God.
Puwedeng alien? Puwede.
Puwedeng Diyos? Ah hindi, imposible yon... :D
Tinawag mo kasing God kaya imposible sa kanila. :D Palitan mo yun word na God, magiging acceptable na sa kanila.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 06, 2015 at 02:34 PM
Even Hawking acknowledge that there might be higher form of life intiligent responsible for the evolution... Naalala ko lang may nagpost nito sa creation/evolution thread :-)
Stephen Hawking? IIRC, he said there is no God, since there is nothing before the Big Bang.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 02:39 PM
Stephen Hawking? IIRC, he said there is no God, since there is nothing before the Big Bang.
intangible or tangible things?
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 06, 2015 at 02:41 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 02:42 PM
Stephen Hawking? IIRC, he said there is no God, since there is nothing before the Big Bang.
yung bang idea, knowledge, imagination, nature ay considered things?
yung invisible, masasabing ba nating "nothings"?
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 06, 2015 at 02:46 PM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 06, 2015 at 02:50 PM
Stephen Hawking? IIRC, he said there is no God, since there is nothing before the Big Bang.
Yup but he acknowledhe that there might be, possible, an intilligent designer responsible... And yes he said there is no God.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 03:02 PM
Nothing as in nothing :)
yeah, nothing..
how can nothing do?
Post by: Verbl Kint on Aug 06, 2015 at 03:12 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 03:13 PM
Nauwi rin sa bibliya at "talinhaga" ang mga "pruweba". Sabi na nga ba...
wala ka namang magagawa kasi yung reference ng topic ay Bible.. :)
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 06, 2015 at 03:14 PM
yeah, nothing..
how can nothing do?
May kanta nga na Making Love Out of Nothing di ba? :)
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 03:30 PM
May kanta nga na Making Love Out of Nothing di ba? :)
likewise, making creation out of nothing.. tapos may Air Supply para sa tao para mabuhay... :)
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 06, 2015 at 03:33 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 03:38 PM
^O, see? Pwede di ba? ;D
hahaha... ;)
Post by: barrister on Aug 06, 2015 at 05:38 PM
Yup but he acknowledhe that there might be, possible, an intilligent designer responsible... And yes he said there is no God.
Stepehen Hawking acknowledges Intelligent Design possibility? Hoax yata yon sir.
Richard Dawkins, meron talagang ganon. Pero Hawking, wala akong makitang credible confirmation.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 06, 2015 at 07:38 PM
Stepehen Hawking acknowledges Intelligent Design possibility? Hoax yata yon sir.
Richard Dawkins, meron talagang ganon. Pero Hawking, wala akong makitang credible confirmation.
Ah siguro nga iyon ung nabada kong post dati sa creation/evolution thread.
Post by: ninjababez® on Aug 07, 2015 at 02:11 AM
wala kasi proof kaya base nalang sa faith bro ;D
Faith is not proof.
If I have faith that fairies exist, does it mean I have proven the existence of fairies? No. It only means I believe in fairies, nothing more.
The thread title requires the presentation of proof, not the mere declaration of belief.
Post by: ninjababez® on Aug 07, 2015 at 02:17 AM
Ganyan ang mindset ng mga atheist-evolutionists.pwede rin naman alien god kasi omni ****** sya. ???
They are open to the possibility of intelligent design ... as long as the intelligent designer is not God.
Puwedeng alien? Puwede.
Puwedeng Diyos? Ah hindi, imposible yon... :D
Post by: pTrader on Aug 07, 2015 at 12:47 PM
Post by: rascal101 on Aug 07, 2015 at 03:27 PM
Post by: docelmo on Aug 08, 2015 at 10:51 AM
========================================
We can accept that #1 is true on earth. We can even accept that it's true within our solar system. Let's be generous and say it's true within our entire galaxy.
But to say that it's true within the entire universe, that's stretching it. There's no way to observe and verify that on a planet outside the Milky Way galaxy, things can only exist with a cause.
In #2 & 3, you're applying it to the entire universe and beyond --- even before the universe existed. There's no way to observe and verify that the universe did not exist spontaneoulsy without a cause, so you're just speculating. How do we know that the rules inside the existing universe apply to time and space that existed even before the Big Bang?
Therefore, #3 is without proper basis.
But even if we agree that the beginning of the universe had a cause, the problem will be identifying what that cause might be.
The end result --- yes, there was a cause, but we presently don't know what the cause was. We might know someday, but not yet.
Why restrict it to 2 alternatives --- (a) first cause and (b) infinite regress of causes?
Why not allow a third alternative --- "No cause" --- meaning that the universe came about by spontaneous generation?
Yeah, I agree that there is no way to know or verify if the same laws would apply in other areas of the universe or even at the start of the universe. However there is also no way to know that they wouldn’t apply as well. So for the sake of argument I would assume (for a moment) that the universe will not disobey its laws…..I believe it is safe to assume something started to exists-like man, consciousness, animals, our planet, milky way galaxy and the universe.
This discussion made me look for the other options on the existence of the universe…..I read a very long article on the “uncaused” universe; the math and some concepts were way over my head! But the author did make some arguments on the strong “probability” of an uncaused universe! However, I would say that his conclusion is still suspect because he made mention of several “conditions” that could be present for the big bang to occur uncaused….that to me is a contradiction in itself!
Btw, when you say uncaused universe do mean the universe is eternal or at some point in the distant past it spontaneously existed for no reason?
If the universe is eternal, then this seems contradict the current understanding of cosmology. The BBT has included in its concept a beginning of time and space. Another problem with an eternal universe is the concept of actual infinity….it does not exist in nature! And an infinite past cannot be traversed if the universe is eternal. Also the sun would have used up its energy in the infinite past and in turn we would not be here having this discussion.
If the universe started spontaneously for no reason at some point in the past, therefore it was “still” influenced by the conditions “before” the universe started. So we could say that something already “existed” prior to start of the existence of the universe.
So in which ever model we choose an “uncaused” universe would ask us to assume a lot more than if we choose a caused universe!
Furthermore, if something can really exist out of nothing (spontaneously) or if the universe could be uncaused. Then why is this not observed in nature? Or why doesn’t anything and everything come into being spontaneously? What we do see as we explore our world we see that things just don’t pop into existence uncaused. So we have to ultimately conclude that “things that begin to exist do have causes”……whatever that cause may be…….because we intuitively know that “something cannot come out of nothing”.
My point being, if absolutely nothing existed prior to the Big Bang….no condition, no matter, no energy, laws, no time, no space and No Higher Being- then it seems impossible that anything should begin to exist!
Therefore there is some basis to say the universe when it began to exist had a cause…
Post by: docelmo on Aug 08, 2015 at 11:22 AM
Your bias is showing.
We don't know what the cause is, because it's not possible to confirm and verify exactly what that cause was. Yet you prefer to presume that the cause was a supernatural being.
Why? Because you are retrofitting the argument to suit your religious beliefs.
=========================================
The way I see it, the cosmological argument (cause-and-effect) is still not convincing because it requires huge assumptions if it is applied to the beginning of the universe.
Personally, I think the ID (Intelligent Design) proponents are using the best approach.
They don't know the origins of the universe. They're just saying that certain features of the known universe are best explained by an intelligent cause.
Who is the Intelligent Designer? They don't know. Is it God? They don't know. Could it be God? Maybe.
Bias? well there might be “some” degree of bias.
But here’s the thing, if you are to describe the properties of a “cause” you will have to base it on the properties of its “effect”. A prime suspect’s profile or description will be based on the evidences, witnesses or pattern of the crime he was accused of…In medicine, when a patient comes in with fever, cough, body weakness and weight loss. We come up with what we call “Differential Diagnosis” this is a list of diseases which presents with similar signs/symptoms mentioned above. Further examination/testing/evaluation would then lead to the most probable diagnosis. In each of these instance the cause will be defined the effect….
So in the same manner what we are discussing here are the properties of a Cause (if it exists) when we are presented with the following “Effects”: All of Life, Planets, systems, galaxies, laws, universe, time and space. What could be the properties of this cause that could possibly have this effect? At the very least it must be more complicated than its effect. It must not be bounded by time, and transcends the universe with level of power needed to bring the universe into existence.
Ah, my favorite topic(ID), as we have extensively discussed this on another thread. The only probable reason for what Dawkins say presence “apparent design” in nature is actually the presence of an intelligent designer! The presence of Design in nature and Genetics (DNA) are the two other arguments being used for the presence of a Cause, a Higher being….A Designer!
And as you said: Could that be God…..maybe!
Post by: JT on Sep 02, 2015 at 08:21 AM
I'm putting this into closure today for my final argument of proving God without the bible. Mankind has been lied by the respected scientific community and has controlled everything, replacing the truth by their so called theories.
WE HAVE BEEN LIED BY U.N, NASA,VATICAN and every TOP LEADERS of the world!!! THEY HAVE HIDDEN GOD FROM THE PEOPLE !!!
What would you do if you found out that the earth is not a GLOBE but a VAULTED DOME? NOT A BALL BUT A FLAT EARTH. This alone proves that there is a God. And the truth can be found in the bible. The true earth map looks like this
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/20/3f/5f/203f5f6f0f3697feade72debd6737a28.jpg)
and we live in a world like this
(http://www.testingtheglobe.com/images/HebrewConceptEarth.jpg)
The earth is not spinning and there is a firmament above us which nobody has gone thru yet. All the NASA missions, their videos & pictures, proofs etc were hoaxes and fabricated. All composite pictures and computer graphics only.
NASA has recently launched a rocket for Project Orion, whose main goal is to study or pass thru the VAN ALLEN Belt. Here is the clips in youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51DED8dcNkA (notice their zero gravity looks fake)
Did you get it? Nobody has passed thru the Van Allent belt yet which is only about 3600 miles from Earth. How did apollo mission able to get to the moon? When the astronauts were confronted with this question, the answer is "It is not yet discovered so they don't have the problem."
Need you to see these also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLw9a5t-sUs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2psC96sscfQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqNDXbABWCA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2FTZhyuJy8
So if no man nor satellites able to pass thru Van Allen belt? How did they get to the moon and all the planets in the solar system? It is a major lie, NO BIG BANG, NO EVOLUTION. THERE IS A GOD!
The Apollo 8 missions 1968 (first manned mission), they discovered a firmament exactly what the bible says so the astronaut qouted it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TEEWxqzx3M
Instead of telling the world, they have hidden all these because this is the ultimate proof for God and the bible as the truth. But instead, US has done many military exercises called "High-altitude nuclear test" whose secret goal is to destroy the dome. Obviously failed. Same with NASA, their rockets blown even before reaching the sky.
There is so much proof of flat earth, thanks to the technology now available to common people. Try this also https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoiIt_v1D-6z75LmrdIU2aw
So now I challenge all of you here to search and research about these ... and prove me wrong.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 02, 2015 at 08:34 AM
Post by: dpogs on Sep 02, 2015 at 08:51 AM
Post by: JT on Sep 02, 2015 at 08:54 AM
Question lang bro - if the earth is flat, the sun rises in the east and sets in the West, does it mean we have multiple suns?
No, only one sun and one moon. Check the Rob Skiba youtube link to explain how it works. There are many links explaining this esp in the Flat-Earth movement forum. Bible supports this so I beleive
Post by: JT on Sep 02, 2015 at 08:58 AM
north pole and south pole?
The north pole and south pole orientations completely different being north pole in the middle and the south all around us. The thick ice serves as the boundary. note also that after discovering the firmament, nations has made a treaty making Antartica a very restricted zone. Why? because the foundations of the dome is there.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8skhK2tMpjk
Post by: jhelenz on Sep 02, 2015 at 09:00 AM
Post by: JT on Sep 02, 2015 at 09:16 AM
(https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/fotorcreated31.jpg?quality=80&strip=all)
I think it was made by Disney studio, did u notice the silhouette of Pluto?
(https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xfa1/t51.2885-15/e15/11379863_1472823676362499_1936157063_n.jpg)
Post by: JT on Sep 02, 2015 at 10:02 AM
Refer to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqKTLzUKqDc and the the website is here http://earth.nullschool.net/
Which one makes sense?
Post by: dpogs on Sep 02, 2015 at 10:29 AM
Post by: pTrader on Sep 02, 2015 at 10:55 AM
Post by: JT on Sep 02, 2015 at 11:02 AM
How about picture of the earth from the satellites?
Accdg to NASA, there are about 20,000 satellites in the outer space. But accdg to their recent videos, they admit none of them are beyond the VAN ALLEN radiation belt which include the space station. Therefore these satellites are not beyond the 3,600 miles above earth (so not in outer but still in inner space) making it impossible to take full picture of the earth.
The truth is that all the pictures esp the famouse blue marble are composite rendering only. Here are some clips http://ifers.boards.net/thread/132/proof-nasa-fakes-images-earth.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 02, 2015 at 11:12 AM
Post by: JT on Sep 02, 2015 at 11:26 AM
How about those who circumnavigated the world?
They did circumnavigate the world but they had the mindset it was a globe. Why? influenced by science. They have to agree with the scientist theory otherwise no funding for their voyage nor accepted by the scientific community and will not be recognized in history. But ancient people believe it is flat that is why they are scared of falling out of earth.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Circumnavigation
You see the bible is right, that the love of money is the root of all evil. All these lies made by the scientist are all about having funding for their projects. Even today, all space programs is about getting a huge amount of gov't budget. That's why the lie has to continue.
Post by: majoe on Sep 02, 2015 at 11:39 AM
e naka reference pa rin yan sa bible di ba?
ang daming video at pictures ng mga astronaut sa international space station, daming proof na bilog ang mundo. tapos ipipilit pa ring flat ang earth? :o
Post by: barrister on Sep 02, 2015 at 11:51 AM
Sana nilinaw agad nung umpisa pa lang, para hindi na ako naghintay ng lampas five months since March.
It's already April and we've not yet seen any proof. The bigger the build-up, the greater the reader's disappointment, if this "proof" turns out to be a dud.
I've heard it many times before. Somebody claims that he can prove the existence of God. Listen to the "proof" and it's not convincing at all.
I knew it would turn out to be a dud, I just had no idea it would turn out to be this bizarro.
It's so ludicrous that I thought it was a joke.
Post by: JT on Sep 02, 2015 at 11:58 AM
The earth is flat, therefore God exists. Tindi talaga... :P
Sana nilinaw agad nung umpisa pa lang, para hindi na ako naghintay ng lampas five months since March.
I knew it would turn out to be a dud, I just had no idea it would turn out to be this bizarro.
It's so ludicrous that I thought it was a joke.
Like I said, I got busy in the ministry. But have you even checked the scientific evidences before saying all these?
Post by: JT on Sep 02, 2015 at 12:01 PM
proving God without the bible?
e naka reference pa rin yan sa bible di ba?
ang daming video at pictures ng mga astronaut sa international space station, daming proof na bilog ang mundo. tapos ipipilit pa ring flat ang earth? :o
See most of the videos I used are from NASA itself. They have lots of contradictions with their statements like Apollo astronauts saying they see many stars in the sky, while others says it is complete darkness. Soma NASA scientist says earth is oblate spheriod but their picture clearly shows a perfect globe.
Obviously, pictures and videos can be manipulated.
Post by: barrister on Sep 02, 2015 at 12:04 PM
Like I said, I got busy in the ministry. But have you even checked the scientific evidences before saying all these?
You weren't too busy to write your initial posts. Why didn't you say flat earth during that period?
Your evidence is YouTube?
Explain one "proof" and I'll answer it. Type it out. Don't just post a YouTube link.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 02, 2015 at 12:24 PM
Post by: dpogs on Sep 02, 2015 at 12:25 PM
Post by: barrister on Sep 02, 2015 at 12:40 PM
Siguro ang tinatanong mo sir, in modern times na. Sa panahon ngayon, saan nanggaling ang idea ng flat earth?
Sa mga panatiko sa bibliya na hindi naman marunong umintindi ng bibliya.
Ang interpretation nila, the bible describes a flat earth. Therefore, the truth is that the earth is flat. Scientific findings that the earth is round are conspiracy theories intended to discredit the bible.
No matter what you say, no matter what you prove, they will never believe that the earth is round.
That's what religion does to people.
Post by: JT on Sep 02, 2015 at 12:56 PM
You weren't too busy to write your initial posts. Why didn't you say flat earth during that period?
Your evidence is YouTube?
Explain one "proof" and I'll answer it. Type it out. Don't just post a YouTube link.
Ok, let me share to you how I started looking into this. You see when I was going to New Zealand which is around 11 hrs flight from Singapore. 5,297 miles journey. So the airplane is travelling (5,297/11 hrs) for around 480 miles/hr which is the average speed allowed for airplanes. Speed is being broadcasted during the flight.
Now my issue is, according to scientist the earth is spinning around 1000 miles per hour. If clockwise it is impossible for the airplane to reach NZ at the speed of 480 miles/hr only. And if counter clockwise it will only take a few minutes travel. Unless the earth does not move.
Having said that the earth moves around 1000 miles per hour, that is about 17 miles per minute. So if i go up in the sky, stay there then go down after 1 minute? I should be around 17 miles away from my original spot but is that the case? the only possibility is that the earth doesn't move nor spin.
Now please allow me to use a scripture. In Joshua 10:11-13 "And it happened, as they fled before Israel and were on the descent of Beth Horon, that the Lord cast down large hailstones from heaven on them as far as Azekah, and they died. There were more who died from the hailstones than the children of Israel killed with the sword. Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon; And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.” So the sun stood still, And the moon stopped, Till the people had revenge Upon their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day."
So in order for Joshua to stop daytime (as he needs the sunlight during the battle), he commanded the sun and the moon to stop. Notice, he did not commanded the earth to stop and also the sun is moving. Even if the sun and the moon stop while earth still spinning, there should still be nightime right?
Now if the earth does not spin, there goes the globe theory because that is where scientist based their conclusion. No globe, no big bang, no evolution just creation as what the bible says.
Why I support flat-earth, while on the airplane I can see flat horizon. Auto-pilot mode will travel in straight direction only which they do for most long distance flight. So if the earth has curvature as globe, we would have reached higher atmosphere. But actually, it maintains the same distance from the ground. There is so much evidence of flaat earth now that the technology (like go pro) is available.
Biblically, one of Jesus temptations was he sent to a very high place and showed to him all the kingdoms of the world. And at Jesus 2nd coming, all will see Him coming down from the sky. Not possible with the globe.
(http://fast1.onesite.com/community.beliefnet.com/user/udcstb/3983e34ec23b7c1d62ac4fc038591575.jpg)
Many legitimate experiments has been made and posted in youtube so I just use their link.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 02, 2015 at 01:11 PM
Pinakita mo lamg sa amim na ang earth is flat.
Post by: majoe on Sep 02, 2015 at 01:14 PM
See most of the videos I used are from NASA itself. They have lots of contradictions with their statements like Apollo astronauts saying they see many stars in the sky, while others says it is complete darkness. Soma NASA scientist says earth is oblate spheriod but their picture clearly shows a perfect globe.
Obviously, pictures and videos can be manipulated.
ikaw na nagsabi, love of money is the root of all evil. di mo ba naisip na yang mga may channel na yan sa you tube ay may intention lang magkapera kaya gumagawa ng kung anu anong conspiracy theories?
Post by: JT on Sep 02, 2015 at 01:16 PM
Okay. You say earth is flat. Did you prove that there is God?
Pinakita mo lamg sa amim na ang earth is flat.
So you think a flat earth will just be a coincidence of nature?
Post by: JT on Sep 02, 2015 at 01:19 PM
ikaw na nagsabi, love of money is the root of all evil. di mo ba naisip na yang mga may channel na yan sa you tube ay may intention lang magkapera kaya gumagawa ng kung anu anong conspiracy theories?
Hmmm, didn't I use NASA video as main evidence that no one has surpassed Van Allen belt and not from those conspiracy theorist? I wouldn't have known this if they did not made this press release.
Post by: majoe on Sep 02, 2015 at 01:21 PM
Now please allow me to use a scripture. In Joshua 10:11-13 "And it happened, as they fled before Israel and were on the descent of Beth Horon, that the Lord cast down large hailstones from heaven on them as far as Azekah, and they died. There were more who died from the hailstones than the children of Israel killed with the sword. Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon; And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.” So the sun stood still, And the moon stopped, Till the people had revenge Upon their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day."
So in order for Joshua to stop daytime (as he needs the sunlight during the battle), he commanded the sun and the moon to stop. Notice, he did not commanded the earth to stop and also the sun is moving. Even if the sun and the moon stop while earth still spinning, there should still be nightime right?
it could be a case of "polar wander".
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 02, 2015 at 01:25 PM
The curvature of the horizon is easily seen in this photograph, taken from a space shuttle at an altitude of 226 km in 2008.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/A_colorful_view_of_airglow_layers_at_Earth%27s_horizon.jpg/220px-A_colorful_view_of_airglow_layers_at_Earth%27s_horizon.jpg)
Post by: dpogs on Sep 02, 2015 at 01:29 PM
So you think a flat earth will just be a coincidence of nature?
Knowing that the earth is flat, paano napunta sa conclusion na there is God.
Post by: tigkal on Sep 02, 2015 at 01:29 PM
In summary, if you can free yourself of the gravity of earth, you can just float, and see the earth passing by at 1000 miles per hour.
Post by: JT on Sep 02, 2015 at 01:30 PM
The problem with suspending yourself in air is that you are still affected by gravity and air resistance. You still move with Earth. Same goes with flying. You don't get to fly "higher".
The curvature of the horizon is easily seen in this photograph, taken from a space shuttle at an altitude of 226 km in 2008.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/A_colorful_view_of_airglow_layers_at_Earth%27s_horizon.jpg/220px-A_colorful_view_of_airglow_layers_at_Earth%27s_horizon.jpg)
Hmm, so are you saying while in the sky we are moving 1000 miles per hour also? So here in new zealand, why the weather bureau says today wind speed here in Wellington is only 32km/h?
See if you use a type of lens, you can achieve the same curvature in the picture. Simply part of an elaborate deceptions.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 02, 2015 at 01:34 PM
Post by: dpogs on Sep 02, 2015 at 01:35 PM
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 02, 2015 at 01:36 PM
Post by: barrister on Sep 02, 2015 at 01:41 PM
Now my issue is, according to scientist the earth is spinning around 1000 miles per hour. If clockwise it is impossible for the airplane to reach NZ at the speed of 480 miles/hr only. And if counter clockwise it will only take a few minutes travel. Unless the earth does not move.
Having said that the earth moves around 1000 miles per hour, that is about 17 miles per minute. So if i go up in the sky, stay there then go down after 1 minute? I should be around 17 miles away from my original spot but is that the case? the only possibility is that the earth doesn't move nor spin.
The answer is momentum.
The earth rotates at a speed of 1,000 miles per hour. When a person is standing still, he's really moving with the earth's rotation at a speed of 1,000 mph. When he jumps up, he lands at the same place because while in mid-air, he's still moving at a speed of 1,000 mph, and the ground where he lands also moved at the same speed.
When the plane is parked, it isn't really still, it just looks that way because it's also moving at a speed of 1,000 mph with the earth's rotation. Before it took off, it already had an initial momentum. The additional thrust from its engines allowed it to take off from the ground and fly.
When the plane is flying at a speed of 500 mph, its 500 mph speed is in additon to the plane's initial 1,000 mph momentum, which is the same as the 1,000 mph rotation of the earth, which is the same as the 1,000 mph movement of the atmosphere (with varying wind speeds as a result of different atmospheric pressures at different places).
Why I support flat-earth, while on the airplane I can see flat horizon. Auto-pilot mode will travel in straight direction only which they do for most long distance flight. So if the earth has curvature as globe, we would have reached higher atmosphere. But actually, it maintains the same distance from the ground. There is so much evidence of flaat earth now that the technology (like go pro) is available.
Auto pilot does not travel in a straight horizontal path.
Auto pilot travels at constant altitude. The plane has instruments that detect outside air pressure, which indicates altitude.
Setting auto pilot at a specific altitude will maintain the altitude set. Constant altitude will not cause the plane to fly in a horizontally straight path; it will cause the plane to fly in accordance with the curvature of the round earth.
Why you support flat earth? Because your mind was closed by your religious belief.
Post by: JT on Sep 02, 2015 at 01:44 PM
Because it is given that everything on earth moves 1000 mph relative to that point where the 100 mph was measured. It would be silly to say the the wind is 1641 kph when all we are feeling is 32 kph.
Ok so pls enlighten me. If everything is moving 1000 mph, and that includes the atmosphere. In flying, how much speed we need to reach 1000 miles away (1st case going to east and 2nd case going to west) from the point of origin in one hour?
Post by: dpogs on Sep 02, 2015 at 01:47 PM
Can we say also, the earth is globe/sphere shape, therefore God exist.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 02, 2015 at 01:59 PM
Ok so pls enlighten me. If everything is moving 1000 mph, and that includes the atmosphere. In flying, how much speed we need to reach 1000 miles away (1st case going to east and 2nd case going to west) from the point of origin in one hour?
The answer is definitely not 2000 mph going east and 500 mph going west. There's just too many variables that we to need consider.
Post by: tigkal on Sep 02, 2015 at 01:59 PM
Post by: rascal101 on Sep 02, 2015 at 02:04 PM
Ok so pls enlighten me. If everything is moving 1000 mph, and that includes the atmosphere. In flying, how much speed we need to reach 1000 miles away (1st case going to east and 2nd case going to west) from the point of origin in one hour?
If everything is moving at 1000 miles per away then relative to this speed, everything is actually in "standstill". If you want to travel a distance from your current location to a specified location point B with below given:
- distance from origin to point B (D) -> 1000 miles
- required travel time (T) -> 1 hour
Speed (R) = D/T = 1000/1 = 1000 miles/hour (relative to "standstill")
Speed (R1) = 1000 + 1000 = 2000 miles/hour (relative to true standstill)
Post by: dpogs on Sep 02, 2015 at 02:06 PM
The earth is flat therefore there is God? Ganito ba ibig mong iparating?
Post by: rascal101 on Sep 02, 2015 at 02:08 PM
For those civil engineers here, they understand about earth's curvature, because it is compensated during survey works. If the earth is really flat, so we can fall off the edge?
You do not need to be a civil engineer to understand the world is spherical in nature. You can just maintain a northern, southern, western or eastern heading (and travel in a straight line) and keep going. At a point in time at the same point you started.
Post by: lithium_deuteride on Sep 02, 2015 at 02:19 PM
Ok, let me share to you how I started looking into this. You see when I was going to New Zealand which is around 11 hrs flight from Singapore. 5,297 miles journey. So the airplane is travelling (5,297/11 hrs) for around 480 miles/hr which is the average speed allowed for airplanes. Speed is being broadcasted during the flight.
Now my issue is, according to scientist the earth is spinning around 1000 miles per hour. If clockwise it is impossible for the airplane to reach NZ at the speed of 480 miles/hr only. And if counter clockwise it will only take a few minutes travel. Unless the earth does not move.
Having said that the earth moves around 1000 miles per hour, that is about 17 miles per minute. So if i go up in the sky, stay there then go down after 1 minute? I should be around 17 miles away from my original spot but is that the case? the only possibility is that the earth doesn't move nor spin.
The atmosphere spins geo-synchronously with the earth. You assume wrongly that the earth spins while the atmosphere stays put. No doubt you've tracked typhoons over the Pacific. If your "theory" is correct, a typhoon spotted over Micronesia now will be over the Philippines in 4 hours. Doesn't happen that way right? (It will take about 5 days for the typhoon to reach PAR).
Post by: panzimus on Sep 02, 2015 at 02:40 PM
When I was a kid, tumatalon ako sa loob ng van habang nasa express way kami. Thinking na maiiwan ako at didikit sa rear window dahil sa speed of between 80-100kph. But same spot pa din ang binabagsakan ko kung saan ako tumalon. Di ako plumakda sa rear window. Same ng pag may langaw sa sasakyan, bakit di sila naiiwan samantalang naka suspend sila sa ere while flying. Answer? Momentum.
Post by: tigkal on Sep 02, 2015 at 02:45 PM
You do not need to be a civil engineer to understand the world is spherical in nature. You can just maintain a northern, southern, western or eastern heading (and travel in a straight line) and keep going. At a point in time at the same point you started.
I think what JT is driving at is that it is circular but flat, so if you travel from point a to point b, you can still arrive at the start point. Think of it as a ball but laid flat on the floor. That is why if that is the case, then we should have some place where we will fall off the edge.
Post by: bosyo on Sep 02, 2015 at 02:59 PM
(http://i62.tinypic.com/6r3315.png)
Post by: lithium_deuteride on Sep 02, 2015 at 03:05 PM
. Answer? Momentum.
Aka Newton's 1st Law of Motion - a body in motion stays in motion with same speed & direction unless compelled to change speed and/or direction by an outside force.
Post by: rascal101 on Sep 02, 2015 at 03:17 PM
I think what JT is driving at is that it is circular but flat, so if you travel from point a to point b, you can still arrive at the start point. Think of it as a ball but laid flat on the floor. That is why if that is the case, then we should have some place where we will fall off the edge.
Circular but flat? This is impossible. You cannot even visualize this.
A very big circle with very large diameter can be visualized as "flat" provided you limit the amount of distance you travel. This is very similar with a person looking into the earth. Due to the limited vision of the person, it is very difficult to see it is spherical in nature.
Post by: barrister on Sep 02, 2015 at 03:24 PM
I think what JT is driving at is that it is circular but flat, so if you travel from point a to point b, you can still arrive at the start point. Think of it as a ball but laid flat on the floor. That is why if that is the case, then we should have some place where we will fall off the edge.
Travel continuously and return to the starting point, you can only do that if you travel along edge of the flat circle.
Travel from one edge to the opposite edge and you still fall off the opposite edge.
What JT is driving at is his insistence on the truth of his religious belief.
Post by: rascal101 on Sep 02, 2015 at 03:30 PM
Now this is something you don't see everyday. A flat Earth. This is interesting although I can see flaws na agad especially yung pag suspended ka sa air dapat sa ibang lugar na land mo due to pagikot ng Earth.
When I was a kid, tumatalon ako sa loob ng van habang nasa express way kami. Thinking na maiiwan ako at didikit sa rear window dahil sa speed of between 80-100kph. But same spot pa din ang binabagsakan ko kung saan ako tumalon. Di ako plumakda sa rear window. Same ng pag may langaw sa sasakyan, bakit di sila naiiwan samantalang naka suspend sila sa ere while flying. Answer? Momentum.
The earth is rotating at a certain speed. Due to gravitational pull we "become" a part of the earth. As such, we acquire the speed with which the earth rotates.
This is the same thing when you take a vehicle. Take notice if you try to throw an object in the air inside the vehicle, provided you throw it perpendicular to the car or bus, the object will return to the original point where you threw it. The object having "acquired" the vehicles speed will accelerate or decelerate in the axis with which the vehicle is travelling. It will not be suspended in mid-air.
Post by: panzimus on Sep 02, 2015 at 03:34 PM
The earth is rotating at a certain speed. Due to gravitational pull we "become" a part of the earth. As such, we acquire the speed with which the earth rotates.
This is the same thing when you take a vehicle. Take notice if you try to throw an object in the air inside the vehicle, provided you throw it perpendicular to the car or bus, the object will return to the original point where you threw it. The object having "acquired" the vehicles speed will accelerate or decelerate in the axis with which the vehicle is travelling. It will not be suspended in mid-air.
Exactly. I remember my Dad laughing at me trying to jump and stay in the air as long as I can sa loob ng van namin noon thinking na didikit ako sa likod. Ang sinabi niya lang sakin, maiintindihan ko din daw balang araw bakit di mangyayari yung gusto kong gawin. then natutunan ko ang gravity at momentum ng mga bagay bagay, tama nga siya, maiintindihan ko din balang araw. :)
Post by: barrister on Sep 02, 2015 at 03:39 PM
Tapos pag uwi niya, sumakay siya sa estribo ng jeepney, habang umaandar, tumalon siya galing estribo papunta sa kalye.
Para maintindihan niya kung ano ang momentum at inertia... :D
Post by: rascal101 on Sep 02, 2015 at 03:45 PM
Post by: barrister on Sep 02, 2015 at 03:46 PM
Tiyak na bata pa siya alam na niya yon.
Ang naging problema, nang tumanda, may narinig sa relihiyon. Ayun, nagkaloko-loko na... ;)
Post by: lithium_deuteride on Sep 02, 2015 at 03:48 PM
Si sir JT, sana tumalon siya sa loob ng eroplano babang nasa cruising speed yung eroplano.
Tapos pag uwi niya, sumakay siya sa estribo ng jeepney, habang umaandar, tumalon siya galing estribo papunta sa kalye.
Para maintindihan niya kung ano ang momentum at inertia... :D
Momentum nalang Atty. Masakit yung inertia.
Post by: rascal101 on Sep 02, 2015 at 04:01 PM
:D Absent...
Tiyak na bata pa siya alam na niya yon.
Ang naging problema, nang tumanda, may narinig sa relihiyon. Ayun, nagkaloko-loko na... ;)
Ang agham at relihiyon ay hindi naman dapat magka kontra. Ang agham nga ang nagpapatunay na totoo ang Panginoong Jesus at tama ang kanyang mga sinasabi. Kung may kakulangan ang kasalukuyang agham isa lang ibig sabihin noon, may kakulangan pa rin ang pag unawa ng tao.
Post by: Quitacet on Sep 02, 2015 at 04:11 PM
http://www.itsokaytobesmart.com/post/66396781258/answer-bag-moving-through-universe
http://www.itsokaytobesmart.com/post/11069790447/if-the-earths-gravity-pulls-things-toward-the
Post by: mbtorn on Sep 02, 2015 at 04:24 PM
Post by: barrister on Sep 02, 2015 at 04:41 PM
Hilig nyo kasi magpapatol.. >:D >:D >:D >:D
Di ba preacher si sir JT?
Delikado ang ginagawa niya sir. Biro mo, kakapiraso alam sa bibliya, lakas na ng loob mangaral?
========================================
O, kahit "Without the Bible" ang topic, pagbigyan natin ang bible proof niya:
Now please allow me to use a scripture. In Joshua 10:11-13 "And it happened, as they fled before Israel and were on the descent of Beth Horon, that the Lord cast down large hailstones from heaven on them as far as Azekah, and they died. There were more who died from the hailstones than the children of Israel killed with the sword. Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon; And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.” So the sun stood still, And the moon stopped, Till the people had revenge Upon their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day."
So in order for Joshua to stop daytime (as he needs the sunlight during the battle), he commanded the sun and the moon to stop. Notice, he did not commanded the earth to stop and also the sun is moving. Even if the sun and the moon stop while earth still spinning, there should still be nightime right?
If someone today says the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, do we contradict him, saying the sun neither rises or sets, because it's the earth that rotates?
Of course not. It's an expression from the point of view of the observer on earth.
When the PAGASA gives us tomorrow's sunrise and sunset times, is it wrong for them to call it "sunrise" and "sunset" since the sun neither rises nor sets, and it's actually the earth that's rotating on its axis?
Of course not. Meteorologists are using ordinary language from the point of view of the earth-bound observer as reference.
The bible also uses language from the point of view of the earth-bound observer.
When the bible says the sun rises, sets and hurries to the place where it rises, it is using poetic language from the reference point of a human living on earth.
When the bible says the sun stood still, it is speaking from the reference point of an earth-bound human. It is not proof that the earth is flat.
Biblically, one of Jesus temptations was he sent to a very high place and showed to him all the kingdoms of the world.
Luke 4: 5 says:
5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. (KJV)
5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. (NIV)
Why were the kingdoms shown by the devil "in an instant" or "in a moment of time"? Ang bilis naman. Bawal tumingin nang matagal? ;D
Mabilis lang, kasi vision lang yon. Hindi literal, physical, actual kingdoms ang pinakita.
Bakit nasa mataas na bundok? Kasi symbolic progression of temptation from lower to higher power and authority offered to the tempted.
First temptation, in the desert; second, from the highest point of the temple; third, from a very high mountain. (Mt. 4:1-11)
And at Jesus 2nd coming, all will see Him coming down from the sky. Not possible with the globe.
Why would it not be possible with the globe? Because if Christ comes down on a specific part of the globe, the people living on the other side of the globe will not be able to see Him?
There are less than 7 billion people on earth. They all live on a round earth.
If God supernaturally gathers them all in one place so that all can see Christ coming down, how much space would they need to occupy?
If all 6.8 billion people on earth gathered in one place, all of them would fit in Texas, and their population density would be the same as in New York City. At that comfortable population density, they would need only 666,265 square kilometers, which is in fact a bit smaller than the size of Texas.
Therefore, it is possible for all people to simultaneously see Christ coming down from heaven even if the earth is round.
Let's look at the number of all people who have ever been born, estimated at around 108 billion. How much land area is needed to contain 108 billion people?
Manila has a population density of 42,857/sq. km. 108 billion people divided by a density of 42,857/sq.km. will give us a land area of 2.52 million sq.km., which is less than half the size of Brazil.
This means all of the people born on earth since the existence of the human race, if gathered in one place while maintaining the same population density as Manila, will fit in less than half of Brazil.
Post by: majoe on Sep 02, 2015 at 05:03 PM
Di ba preacher si sir JT?
Delikado ang ginagawa niya sir. Biro mo, kakapiraso alam sa bibliya, lakas na ng loob mangaral?
delikado talaga kung preacher nga sya at may maniwala. at mas delikado dahil lalung dadami ang atheist pag ganyan ang ipapangaral nya.
Post by: majoe on Sep 02, 2015 at 05:27 PM
If God supernaturally gathers them all in one place so that all can see Christ coming down, how much space would they need to occupy?
possible pa rin naman kahit walang supernatural na mangyari.
dahil sa paglago ng kaalaman, mabibilis na ang means of transport ng mga tao in the near future.
kahit outer space travel, magiging normal na lang yan.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 02, 2015 at 08:38 PM
Post by: dpogs on Sep 02, 2015 at 08:42 PM
Akala ko kung anong proof ang gagawin without using the Bible, ang proof lang pala na sasabihin is "the earth is flat" therefore there is God.
Post by: majoe on Sep 02, 2015 at 08:51 PM
Nagkalat na ang tv/video, live stream... Sa pagbaba ni Jesus sa 2nd coming niya, aba eh makikita talaga siya mg tao. :-)
yan nga sabi ni brod eli, hehe.
pero possible pa rin namang makita ng lahat kung ang descent ay tatagal ng at least 12 hours habang si Jesus ay nasa clouds paikot sa earth.
Post by: barrister on Sep 02, 2015 at 08:54 PM
The earth is flat then what... Therefore God exist?
Akala ko kung anong proof ang gagawin without using the Bible, ang proof lang pala na sasabihin is "the earth is flat" therefore there is God.
Tama. Even if he proves that the earth is flat, it still would not be proof that God exists.
Ang problema niya, "earth is flat" pa lang nangamote na, e lalong hindi makakarating yan sa "God exists." :D
Post by: barrister on Sep 02, 2015 at 09:08 PM
Nagkalat na ang tv/video, live stream... Sa pagbaba ni Jesus sa 2nd coming niya, aba eh makikita talaga siya mg tao. :-)
Puwede rin.
Pero kahit gawin mong literal na "every eye shall see him" (Rev. 1:7) na actual na nakita at hindi TV broadcast lang, posible pa rin.
Kahit saan mo tignan, hindi pa rin kailangan ng flat earth para matupad ang prophecy.
Post by: rulesmeister on Sep 02, 2015 at 09:59 PM
Post by: barrister on Sep 02, 2015 at 10:38 PM
yan nga sabi ni brod eli, hehe.
pero possible pa rin namang makita ng lahat kung ang descent ay tatagal ng at least 12 hours habang si Jesus ay nasa clouds paikot sa earth.
Hindi puwedeng bumaba si Kristo nang paikot sa mundo sir. Kokontrahin niyan ang Acts 1:9-12 ---
9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
12 Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city.
According to verses 9 and 12, Christ was "taken up" from the Mount of Olives into heaven. He did not encircle the earth as He was ascending, because He was taken up before their very eyes. Hindi nawala sa paningin kasi umikot sa mundo; nawala sa paningin kasi nasa ulap na.
According to verse 11, Christ will "come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."
Therefore, if Christ went up from Mount Olivet, He will return by descending to Mount Olivet. Hindi puwedeng straight going up, but encircling going down.
Post by: rulesmeister on Sep 02, 2015 at 11:32 PM
Sabihin na nga lang naten flat nga ang earth, therefore direct line of sight lahat ng mga mata ng tao if christ came from above (heavens). Eh hindi mo pa rin makikita si christ if nasa malayong lugar ka (nasa new zealand ka) and christ came from the heavens, eh tyempo dun lumitaw sa bandang itaas ng china. Ang liit na nun to a point na wala ka pa ring makikita. (parang nanunuod ka ng open-air concert, ndi mo na halos makikita ung singer if nasa pinakadulo ka; multiply this distance by several million km)... baka naman sabihin mo may telescope naman bawat tao? eh sa sobrang layo nun sobrasobrang laki ng lente ng telescope para mapanood mo.
Sir, kong flat ang earth, eh dapat nakikita mo ung mt everest dyan sa inyo kasi sobrang mataas ung bundok na un at sobrang laki pa?
Circular but flat? This is impossible. You cannot even visualize this.
just imagine a bluray disc w/out the center hole, un ang earth daw
Post by: barrister on Sep 03, 2015 at 12:58 AM
Sabihin na nga lang naten flat nga ang earth, therefore direct line of sight lahat ng mga mata ng tao if christ came from above (heavens). Eh hindi mo pa rin makikita si christ if nasa malayong lugar ka (nasa new zealand ka) and christ came from the heavens, eh tyempo dun lumitaw sa bandang itaas ng china. Ang liit na nun to a point na wala ka pa ring makikita. (parang nanunuod ka ng open-air concert, ndi mo na halos makikita ung singer if nasa pinakadulo ka; multiply this distance by several million km)... baka naman sabihin mo may telescope naman bawat tao? eh sa sobrang layo nun sobrasobrang laki ng lente ng telescope para mapanood mo.
Sir, kong flat ang earth, eh dapat nakikita mo ung mt everest dyan sa inyo kasi sobrang mataas ung bundok na un at sobrang laki pa?
No, hindi ganyan ang argument against a flat earth in relation to the second coming.
Kung flat earth hindi makikita kasi malayo, hindi rin makikita kahit round earth but gathering billions of people in one place, kasi malaking land area pa rin yon, sobrang layo pa rin.
Paanong makikita ng lahat ng bilyong katao kung napakalayo?
Iniisip mo kasi sir para lang singer sa concert ang makikita. Hindi ganon yon.
The people will be looking at something as bright as lightning. Siguradong makikita nila yon. Christ will be visible from east to west like lighting that lights up the sky from one end to the other ---
27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. (Mt. 24:27)
24 For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. (Lk. 17:24)
Post by: bass_nut on Sep 03, 2015 at 01:15 AM
Raised from the Dead by Praying Doctor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmZ5Ox7Uzns
Post by: JT on Sep 03, 2015 at 05:44 AM
Di ba preacher si sir JT?Now this is Bible 101. Bible written by man but inspired by the Holy Spirit. Not from man's perspective (or It's an expression from the point of view of the observer on earth.) but from God as the Holy Spirit is the author. So you think the Holy Spirit made a mistake here? Absent ka ba nung tinuro ito sa Sunday school? If yes, you are welcome in our children's class kasi dapat malaman mo. Delikado kasi yung teacher nagtuturo ng calculus eh di naman alam arithmetic. You are building a 2nd floor without ground floor.
Delikado ang ginagawa niya sir. Biro mo, kakapiraso alam sa bibliya, lakas na ng loob mangaral?
========================================
O, kahit "Without the Bible" ang topic, pagbigyan natin ang bible proof niya:
If someone today says the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, do we contradict him, saying the sun neither rises or sets, because it's the earth that rotates?
Of course not. It's an expression from the point of view of the observer on earth.
When the PAGASA gives us tomorrow's sunrise and sunset times, is it wrong for them to call it "sunrise" and "sunset" since the sun neither rises nor sets, and it's actually the earth that's rotating on its axis?
Of course not. Meteorologists are using ordinary language from the point of view of the earth-bound observer as reference.
The bible also uses language from the point of view of the earth-bound observer.
When the bible says the sun rises, sets and hurries to the place where it rises, it is using poetic language from the reference point of a human living on earth.
When the bible says the sun stood still, it is speaking from the reference point of an earth-bound human. It is not proof that the earth is flat.
Luke 4: 5 says:Ganun? pag sinabing "in a moment of time o instant" eh vision agad, di ba pwede "able to see in one glance or one viewing"? . How to be sure it's a vision? Don't you think we can distinguish if the verse is telling a true event or a metaphor or a parable or a dream or a vision? Personally I'm asking myself whats the point taking Jesus to a very high mountain just to see a vision, eh kahit nasa kubeta ka pwede naman makakita ng vision.
5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. (KJV)
5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. (NIV)
Why were the kingdoms shown by the devil "in an instant" or "in a moment of time"? Ang bilis naman. Bawal tumingin nang matagal? ;D
Mabilis lang, kasi vision lang yon. Hindi literal, physical, actual kingdoms ang pinakita.
Bakit nasa mataas na bundok? Kasi symbolic progression of temptation from lower to higher power and authority offered to the tempted.
First temptation, in the desert; second, from the highest point of the temple; third, from a very high mountain. (Mt. 4:1-11)
Ah, dahil nga sa idea na symbolic progression of temptation from lower to higher power and authority offered to the tempted. Well it seems good idea but its not directly stated sa bible so I take it as just your personal opinion/interpration which most likely you have googled or just saw in youtube.
Why would it not be possible with the globe? Because if Christ comes down on a specific part of the globe, the people living on the other side of the globe will not be able to see Him?First and foremost, gathering all the people and putting them into one US state or wherever is nowhere written. So even supernaturally eh di nya gagawin yun. Ang sabi, Jesus coming in the clouds from the sky, EVERY EYES WILL SEE, every tribes & nations will be shaken.
There are less than 7 billion people on earth. They all live on a round earth.
If God supernaturally gathers them all in one place so that all can see Christ coming down, how much space would they need to occupy?
If all 6.8 billion people on earth gathered in one place, all of them would fit in Texas, and their population density would be the same as in New York City. At that comfortable population density, they would need only 666,265 square kilometers, which is in fact a bit smaller than the size of Texas.
Therefore, it is possible for all people to simultaneously see Christ coming down from heaven even if the earth is round.
Let's look at the number of all people who have ever been born, estimated at around 108 billion. How much land area is needed to contain 108 billion people?
Manila has a population density of 42,857/sq. km. 108 billion people divided by a density of 42,857/sq.km. will give us a land area of 2.52 million sq.km., which is less than half the size of Brazil.
This means all of the people born on earth since the existence of the human race, if gathered in one place while maintaining the same population density as Manila, will fit in less than half of Brazil.
If what your saying is true, aba swerte nyo pala dyan dahil bibigyan kayo ng DIyos ng US Visa at airplane ticket going to Texas to see live yung coming ni Jesus.
Tapos may umepal pa na kahit natural eh pwede daw. Paano kaya, kasi kahit live tv broadcast di naman lahat ng tao sa mundo eh may TV. Ah baka mamimigay ang Diyos ng tv dun sa wala. Sana LED na ....
Look I am not pushing for my religious beliefs nor this flat earth theory that's why I say "What if". I also ask to search and research and prove me wrong. I want to see all views and love to hear everyone's opinion. But I would really appreciate if you will state your point or corrections politely as I assume we are all professionals here .
Post by: dpogs on Sep 03, 2015 at 05:52 AM
now where is the proof that there is God?
Post by: JT on Sep 03, 2015 at 05:53 AM
Yes I am a preacher but a preacher of the gospel. Not for this kind of topic. This is my hobby exploring, researching, stirring up the mind and challenging the norms. So I'm not as closed minded or even religious fanatic as you think. Yes, it is indeed difficult to prove God without the bible (I didn't say I can do this that is why I'm trying to engage all of you hoping somebody here thinks out of the box) but I believe we shouldn't just give up until we explore all avenues.
Well kung mababa tingin nyo sa mga preacher, I am also Senior Business analysts at an Energy company here in NZ. I am a former vice president at Citibank Singapore with a Senior Analyst & Senior Project Manager role (for 14 yrs) for the entire Asia Pacific region managing 17 countries so rest assure I can analyze complexities. I am also from a reputable University graduated BS Mathematics from the College of Science so I know math, science and definitely physics as these are major subjects in my course. So I know momentum, inertia, gravity etc which is by the way also possible in a non-spinning flat earth model.
Now why did i brought up flat earth? I reckon this will elicit more response than the other part of the topic I am looking at. I'm keen to explore scientific proof that, 1st the Earth is not spinning, 2nd and if not spinning it may not be a globe, 3rd there is a dome or firmament above us (i know this is more difficult to prove). Why? because if indeed there a possibility of any 2 of these 3 then there is a designer and creator. No BIG BANG and EVOLUTION, only CREATION as what the bible says.
Don't you find it interesting to challenge the science and history that we grew up with or baka naman gusto nyo na basta maniwala na lang tayo sa sinasabi ng mga (lying) scientist (o ni Barrister)? I'm encouraging everyone to ask questions hoping we bring up even more intellectual views than just those learned in the textbooks.
I started my point with NASA admitting their limitations passing the Van Allen belt. So if they are not able to pass thru beyond 3600 miles above earth (whether man or machine), how the hell they know so much about all the universe and planets they havent really explored(maybe UrAnus they know)? All about the universe are unproven theories.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 03, 2015 at 05:56 AM
Post by: JT on Sep 03, 2015 at 06:01 AM
okay, given that creation is true and earth is flat, what is our proof that it is God the Creator not any alien capable of creating life?
If indeed creation can be scientifically proven as well, whoever He is that created all these we should call Him/Them God.
Post by: JT on Sep 03, 2015 at 06:04 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Principle
Post by: ninjababez® on Sep 03, 2015 at 06:08 AM
There is documentary titled "The Principle" where they interview all the leading scientist of our generations and challenges scientific theories. Its interesting but I'm not able to find a copy.from your link bro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Principle
Quote
Controversy
Claims
Following the release of the film's trailer, narrator Kate Mulgrew said that she was misinformed as to the purpose of the documentary.[9][10] Max Tegmark claims that DeLano "cleverly tricked a whole bunch of us scientists into thinking that they were independent filmmakers doing an ordinary cosmology documentary, without mentioning anything about their hidden agenda."[11] George Ellis has said that "I was interviewed for it but they did not disclose this agenda, which of course is nonsense. I don't think it's worth responding to -- it just gives them publicity. To ignore is the best policy. But for the record, I totally disavow that silly agenda."[11] Michio Kaku said that the film was likely "clever editing" of his statements and bordered on "intellectual dishonesty"[4] and Lawrence Krauss said he had no recollection of being interviewed for the film and would have refused to be in it if he had known more about it.[12][13] Julian Barbour claims he never gave permission to be in the film.[14]
Post by: JT on Sep 03, 2015 at 06:16 AM
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 03, 2015 at 06:31 AM
Don't you find it interesting to challenge the science and history that we grew up with or baka naman gusto nyo na basta maniwala na lang tayo sa sinasabi ng mga (lying) scientist (o ni Barrister)? I'm encouraging everyone to ask questions hoping we bring up even more intellectual views than just those learned in the textbooks.
I'd love to, but if the Math adds up, what's there to challenge?
Post by: dpogs on Sep 03, 2015 at 06:37 AM
If indeed creation can be scientifically proven as well, whoever He is that created all these we should call Him/Them God.
Docelmo already said that, ID - Intelligent Designer. The question is, is it the God? Are you sure it is the God responsible of creation not any other ID and what is your proof that it is the God?
What is your proof that the Creator is the God? because atheists will just assume that it is not the God you're talking about. What is your proof that it is the God?
Post by: ninjababez® on Sep 03, 2015 at 07:27 AM
Yes, there are claims and counter claims that is why it is interesting to see what are the arguments in this documentary.beg to disagree bro, they were dupped by the producers of the documentary.
interesting to watch though, thanks for the share :)
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 03, 2015 at 07:51 AM
okay, given that creation is true and earth is flat, what is our proof that it is God the Creator not any alien capable of creating life?
If indeed creation can be scientifically proven as well, whoever He is that created all these we should call Him/Them God.
What if the God of the ancient people is really a God now reduced to alien form due to the discovery of the cosmos?
Post by: dpogs on Sep 03, 2015 at 08:06 AM
What if the God of the ancient people is really a God now reduced to alien form due to the discovery of the cosmos?
we who believe in God... siyempre we believe it is our God. pero ang mga atheist, di nila tatawagin na God yan mas pipiliin pa nilang tawagin na ID/Alien kesa sa "God". :):):)
We can only assume that there is "a creator or Intilligent Designer" and it is not yet proven na merong ngang "Creator"... only assume... and to say that the assumed "creator" is the God of the Bible... ibang usapan ulit yan.
Post by: rulesmeister on Sep 03, 2015 at 09:24 AM
Sir JT, Yes we need to question science, even reiligious "truths". But something like the roundness of the earth isnt true? If flat ang earth, then there will be no seasons (winter, summer, fall, spring). Wala dapat land areas na permanant ice like antartica, alaska, siberia etc kasi parati exposed sa araw since flat nga? kaya naging tropical ang pilipinas kasi we're located near the equator. Sa sobrang daming barko sa buong mundo dapat may headline na "23 Pinoy Seamen perish because their ship fell the to the edge of the earth"? sa digital age ngaun dapat may kumalat pics sa internet from errant astronauts showing the earth as a bluray disc shape?
Post by: pTrader on Sep 03, 2015 at 09:55 AM
we who believe in God... siyempre we believe it is our God. pero ang mga atheist, di nila tatawagin na God yan mas pipiliin pa nilang tawagin na ID/Alien kesa sa "God". :):):)
We can only assume that there is "a creator or Intilligent Designer" and it is not yet proven na merong ngang "Creator"... only assume... and to say that the assumed "creator" is the God of the Bible... ibang usapan ulit yan.
Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
source: http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?
Post by: JT on Sep 03, 2015 at 10:01 AM
beg to disagree bro, they were dupped by the producers of the documentary.
interesting to watch though, thanks for the share :)
Duped or not, scientist suppose to tell what they know and what they believe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvR7pMqAEso
Besides they signed somes forms and got paid as well so they are fully aware of this.
Post by: JT on Sep 03, 2015 at 10:05 AM
Sir JT, Yes we need to question science, even reiligious "truths". But something like the roundness of the earth isnt true? If flat ang earth, then there will be no seasons (winter, summer, fall, spring). Wala dapat land areas na permanant ice like antartica, alaska, siberia etc kasi parati exposed sa araw since flat nga? kaya naging tropical ang pilipinas kasi we're located near the equator. Sa sobrang daming barko sa buong mundo dapat may headline na "23 Pinoy Seamen perish because their ship fell the to the edge of the earth"? sa digital age ngaun dapat may kumalat pics sa internet from errant astronauts showing the earth as a bluray disc shape?
Apparently, flat earth folks can support 4 seasons as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmEJUQjH-n8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R52_PdZlSq8 (illustrations)
Flat earth claims that Antartica is the border so nobody falls on the edge.
At this age of so many deceptions, we really need to closely scrutinize all the proofs being given by whoever or whatever organizations whether religious o scientific.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 03, 2015 at 10:44 AM
Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
source: http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?
Or atheism is the nonbelief of God.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 03, 2015 at 10:46 AM
Or atheism is the nonbelief of God.
how can someone disbelief GOD who according to them "does not exist"?
Post by: DVD_Freak on Sep 03, 2015 at 11:00 AM
how can someone disbelief GOD who according to them "does not exist"?
Pwede naman disbelief......a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real
Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real
Post by: majoe on Sep 03, 2015 at 11:02 AM
Apparently, flat earth folks can support 4 seasons as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmEJUQjH-n8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R52_PdZlSq8 (illustrations)
Flat earth claims that Antartica is the border so nobody falls on the edge.
At this age of so many deceptions, we really need to closely scrutinize all the proofs being given by whoever or whatever organizations whether religious o scientific.
ang dami ngang deceptions sir. pero ikaw mismo, na validate mo ba? na scrutinize mo ba ang mga proofs sa flat earth? it seems you already subscribed to this belief.
dami kayang naglalabas sa you tube ng kung anu anong hoaxes at conspiracy theories para lang kumita sa ads.
flat earth na nasa loob ng dome ang sun at moon? hirap yata i digest. ang lapit ng araw, pano mo ipapaliwanag ang eclipse, ang pag launch ng sattelite into orbit. binastos nito ang mga scientists na daang taon nag research at nag come up ng accurate at precise calculation. tapos babalik lang sa medieval ages?
Post by: majoe on Sep 03, 2015 at 11:20 AM
Hindi puwedeng bumaba si Kristo nang paikot sa mundo sir. Kokontrahin niyan ang Acts 1:9-12 ---
9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
12 Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city.
According to verses 9 and 12, Christ was "taken up" from the Mount of Olives into heaven. He did not encircle the earth as He was ascending, because He was taken up before their very eyes. Hindi nawala sa paningin kasi umikot sa mundo; nawala sa paningin kasi nasa ulap na.
According to verse 11, Christ will "come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."
Therefore, if Christ went up from Mount Olivet, He will return by descending to Mount Olivet. Hindi puwedeng straight going up, but encircling going down.
di naman paikot sa mundo na 360 degrees ang ibig sabihin ko sir, hehe. medyo ni relate ko lang kasi sa sun rising from the east at setting at the west kaya ko nasabing 12 hrs. anyway, never mind the 12hrs timing. pwede naman kasing mas mabilis ang speed ng descent.
yang verses na yan sir ang final descent.
pero yung makikita sya sa buong mundo, ito na yung descent ni Jesus na visible na from east to west. dapat talaga mag travel from east to west kung nasa earth's atmosphere na para makita ng lahat. di naman pwedeng steady lang at hayaang umikot ang mundo kundi babalik tayo sa airplane argument ni sir JT :)
Post by: barrister on Sep 03, 2015 at 11:45 AM
Anyway, sana pagtiyagaan mong i-browse ang reply ko kay sir rulesmeister below, baka sakaling may useful inputs akong naibigay:
=======================================
Sir Barrister, kahit may lightning effect pa na kasing laki ng surface area ng moon, ndi pa rin makikita si christ because of the sheer vastness of the earth's surface area. Yes pwede makikita ung lightning effect pero si christ mismo? unless he'll return as a very huge size man as in kasing laki ng several huge mountains combined so as to cover a very vast area? The only possible way na makikita ng billions of people is to appear in all the lands (as in all places -bicol, jolo, north pole, south pole, us, etc).
Ang problema kasi sir sa ganong interpretation, kokontrahin non ang sinasabi sa bible na ang second coming ay pareho rin ng ascension, meaning Christ will come down from heaven to Mount Olivet.
Round earth or flat earth believers, ganon din ang interpretation nila --- straight down from heaven to Mount Olivet. Walang appearance in all lands before landing on earth.
Kung pupunta Siya bawa't city, pag pumunta sa Manila, at sa Quiapo ang naging puwesto, pag nasa dulo ng Manila ka nakatayo, hindi mo ra rin makita sa layo. E di ganon din ang problema.
Hindi kailangang makita si Kristo mismo na parang nakita natin ang singer sa concert venue.
Kailangan lang na may idea ka ng scenario para magkaroon ng malinaw na comparison vs. isang ordinaryong tao na natanaw mo sa malayo:
24 For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. (Lk. 17:24)
16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. (1 Thess. 4:16)
27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. (Mt. 16:27)
This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. (2 Thess 1:7)
So, ganito ang scenario:
- First, the announcement --- (a) A loud command with the voice of the archangel, and (b) The trumpet call of God. Doon pa lang sa mga tunog na yon, alam na ng lahat na si Kristo yon.
- The sky will light up from east to west with the brightness of lightning. Si Kristo na yon. Hindi mo kailangang makita ang mukha na parang singer sa concert. Sinigaw na ng archangel na si Kristo yon, kasabay ng trumpet call. Mga supernatural na sigaw at trumpet call yon, kaya maririnig yon from east to west.
- Hindi si Kristo lang ang bababa nang walang kasama. When Christ descends, He will be in bright, blazing fire like lightning, accompanied by powerful angels. Makikita rin ng mga tao yon. Ilan yung angels? Hindi sinabi sa bible, but from the scenario of coming in great power and glory, we can assume that it's going to be a multitude of angels.
- The dead who are saved will resurrect. Pag bumangon ang mga patay, lalong sigurado ang lahat na si Kristo yung bumaba.
Therefore, kung ganyan ang scenario ng second coming, hindi kailangang makita mo yung mukha para masabing lahat ng tao makikita ang pagbabalik ni Kristo. Ang masasaksihan nila, ang malakas na sigaw ng arkanghel, tunog ng pakakak ng Diyos, pagbaba ng liwanag ng kidlat, liliwanag ang kalangitan from east to west, kasama ang maraming mga anghel in power and glory.
Ang controversy na lang, paano raw makikita ng mga tao na nasa opposite side of the earth if the earth is a globe. Ang sagot ng mga mga flat-earth, makikita raw, kasi ang mundo ay flat, hindi sphere. Ang sagot ng mga round-earth, iipunin ng Diyos ang lahat ng tao sa isang lugar, kaya walang tao sa opposite side of the globe.
Kabisado ko na kasi ang mga argumento diyan, kaya may idea na ako kung ano ang susunod. Ang susunod na tanong, paanong nagkasya ang lahat ng tao sa isang lugar. Kaya tinuloy ko na ang paliwanag, kasya lahat ng tao sa isang lugar.
Pag bumaba sa Mount Olivet in Jerusalem, may supernatural na sigaw, trumpet, liwanag ng kalangitan, may kasamang maraming anghel. Kita yan ng mga taong inipon sa land area fronting Jerusalem like Jordan, Syria, Iran, Saudi, Yemen, Oman, etc.
Saudi and Iran lang, 2.5 million sq. km. na agad. All people who were ever born since the beginning of the human race (108 billion), kasya diyan with the same population density as Manila.
Post by: lithium_deuteride on Sep 03, 2015 at 12:33 PM
Now why did i brought up flat earth? I reckon this will elicit more response than the other part of the topic I am looking at. I'm keen to explore scientific proof that, 1st the Earth is not spinning, 2nd and if not spinning it may not be a globe, 3rd there is a dome or firmament above us (i know this is more difficult to prove). Why? because if indeed there a possibility of any 2 of these 3 then there is a designer and creator. No BIG BANG and EVOLUTION, only CREATION as what the bible says.
Why do you think that people need to believe "far out" (I'm being polite here :)) theories like the earth doesn't spin, is flat, is domed, etc. to believe that there is a designer? Our world is incredible as it is. Just look at your own body - the design of which is far beyond the capability of mere mortals. That's proof that there is a designer right there.
Post by: JT on Sep 03, 2015 at 12:41 PM
ang dami ngang deceptions sir. pero ikaw mismo, na validate mo ba? na scrutinize mo ba ang mga proofs sa flat earth? it seems you already subscribed to this belief.
dami kayang naglalabas sa you tube ng kung anu anong hoaxes at conspiracy theories para lang kumita sa ads.
flat earth na nasa loob ng dome ang sun at moon? hirap yata i digest. ang lapit ng araw, pano mo ipapaliwanag ang eclipse, ang pag launch ng sattelite into orbit. binastos nito ang mga scientists na daang taon nag research at nag come up ng accurate at precise calculation. tapos babalik lang sa medieval ages?
I completely understand yung mga reactions kasi very controversial sya talaga. Same with me when I first heard about it. So I've read many articles not just youtube. Ancient people believe that earth doesnt spin and it is flat. But we really think we are far more smarter them yet experts still cant fully comprehend how the Great Pyramid of Giza was built.
I never doubted scientist before but if only NASA is able to explain clearly how did they manage to pass thru the very radioactive Van Allen belt and in the upper thermosphere which temperature is about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C (3,632° F) or higher without getting burned. Then I will believe again that the pictures and videos taken from 10,000 miles & above from earth and their theories are legit.
http://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/thermosphere-overview
Otherwise, I'm open to other theories in search for the truth. But one thing for sure, I'm not completely subscribed o sold-out sa flat-earth theory. But it is gaining support that's why many experiments and documentaries are now being produced. I'm still hoping NASA will come up with something that will regain the trust. Otherwise its not just daang taong research but daang taong lies.
Post by: JT on Sep 03, 2015 at 12:42 PM
Why do you think that people need to believe "far out" (I'm being polite here :)) theories like the earth doesn't spin, is flat, is domed, etc. to believe that there is a designer? Our world is incredible as it is. Just look at your own body - the design of which is far beyond the capability of mere mortals. That's proof that there is a designer right there.
No worries, its a good point. Atheist and Agnostics are growing in numbers. Just looking at human's body or the world won't be that convincing to them anymore. Why? Evolution.
Post by: lithium_deuteride on Sep 03, 2015 at 12:57 PM
I started my point with NASA admitting their limitations passing the Van Allen belt. So if they are not able to pass thru beyond 3600 miles above earth (whether man or machine), how the hell they know so much about all the universe and planets they havent really explored(maybe UrAnus they know)? All about the universe are unproven theories.
Care to elaborate? Scientists use radio telescopes and a few optical ones (like Hubble) to explore far beyond our own galaxy, let alone beyond our solar system or much less, the Van Allen Belt. You think the Hubble pictures of far away nebulas are fake? How about pictures of Shoemaker Levy impacting Jupiter? Fake as well?
We've gone through the Van Allen belt plenty of times or do you think the Apollo moon landings are not real? How about the probes to the planets? The Vikings and the Voyagers among many. Haven't you seen pictures of that volcanic eruption in Io? How about the recent comet intercept and the flyby of Pluto? Scientists lying to the gullible world populace would you say?
Post by: dpogs on Sep 03, 2015 at 01:01 PM
@ barrister: second coming follow by battle of armageddon?
Post by: dpogs on Sep 03, 2015 at 01:02 PM
Care to elaborate? Scientists use radio telescopes and a few optical ones (like Hubble) to explore far beyond our own galaxy, let alone beyond our solar system or much less, the Van Allen Belt. You think the Hubble pictures of far away nebulas are fake? How about pictures of Shoemaker Levy impacting Jupiter? Fake as well?
We've gone through the Van Allen belt plenty of times or do you think the Apollo moon landings are not real? How about the probes to the planets? The Vikings and the Voyagers among many. Haven't you seen pictures of that volcanic eruption in Io? How about the recent comet intercept and the flyby of Pluto? Scientists lying to the gullible world population would you say?
Many christian scientist since magellan dare not speak against this hoax? Parang imposible naman na hindi nadiscover ng mga christian scientist noon na flat na ang earth.
Post by: majoe on Sep 03, 2015 at 01:07 PM
@ barrister: second coming follow by battle of armageddon?
medyo na confuse din ako. bubuhayin na ba ang lahat at titipunin? di ba unang bubuhayin ang mga elect at para kay Kristo tapos battle?
Post by: lithium_deuteride on Sep 03, 2015 at 01:09 PM
No worries, its a good point. Atheist and Agnostics are growing in numbers. Just looking at human's body or the world won't be that convincing to them anymore. Why? Evolution.
I bet you a hundred bucks that if you can't convince people that there is a Creator using the human body as an example, you won't convince them one bit by telling them that the earth doesn't spin and that it's in fact flat.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 03, 2015 at 01:16 PM
Post by: barrister on Sep 03, 2015 at 02:06 PM
@ barrister: second coming follow by battle of armageddon?
Yes.
medyo na confuse din ako. bubuhayin na ba ang lahat at titipunin? di ba unang bubuhayin ang mga elect at para kay Kristo tapos battle?
Tama. Hindi lahat mabubuhay.
Dalawang grupo kasi ang resurrection --- first resurrection and second resurrection.
16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. (1 Thess. 4:16)
Kaya nga ang sabi, the dead in Christ will rise first. Bakit "rise first"? Kasi merong "rise second," kasi dalawa ang grupo ng resurrection. First, the dead in Christ, then all the rest.
They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. (Rev. 20:4-5)
Una, first resurrection, then 1,000 years of peace. After the millennium, the rest of the dead come to life --- the second resurrection.
Those who will be part of the first resurrection will not die again (physical death #1; no more death #2).
Those who will be part of the second resurrection will die again (physical death #1; will have death #2). This is called the "second death" in Revelation:
14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20:14-15)
=======================================
Baka magulo yung sinasabi kong 108 billion na all people who were ever born, na ang sabi ko ay kasya lahat sa isang lugar para makita ang second coming.
No, hindi lahat ng patay ay mabubuhay sa first resurrection. Ginamit ko lang ang 108 billion as a conservative estimate, bearing in mind that the population will surely be greater in the future, when the second coming happens.
Kung ngayon na ang second coming, hindi 101 billion ang patay na mabubuhay (108 billion total born, minus 7 billion still alive). Siyempre mas konti doon ang kasama sa first resurrection.
Pero hindi naman ngayon ang second coming. Let's say 2,000 years into the future pa yon. By that time, ano na ang headcount of all people who ever lived? Siyempre mas malaki na sa 108 billion, pero hindi natin alam kung ilan. Ilan doon ang kasama sa first resurrection, ilan ang sa second resurrection? Hindi na naman natin alam kung ilan.
Kaya para maging very conservative ang estimates, lakihan na natin ang allowance. Gawin na nating 108 billon ang kasama sa first resurrection. Sobra-sobrang allowance na yan. Kaya pag nag-estimate ako ng land area na pagkakasyahan ng 108 billion people, sobra-sobra rin ang estimated land area na yon.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 03, 2015 at 02:29 PM
Yes.
Tama. Hindi lahat mabubuhay.
Dalawang grupo kasi ang resurrection --- first resurrection and second resurrection.
16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. (1 Thess. 4:16)
Kaya nga ang sabi, the dead in Christ will rise first. Bakit "rise first"? Kasi merong "rise second," kasi dalawa ang grupo ng resurrection. First, the dead in Christ, then all the rest.
They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. (Rev. 20:4-5)
Una, first resurrection, then 1,000 years of peace. After the millennium, the rest of the dead come to life --- the second resurrection.
Those who will be part of the first resurrection will not die again (physical death #1; no more death #2).
Those who will be part of the second resurrection will die again (physical death #1; will have death #2). This is called the "second death" in Revelation:
14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20:14-15)
=======================================
Baka magulo yung sinasabi kong 108 billion na all people who were ever born, na ang sabi ko ay kasya lahat sa isang lugar para makita ang second coming.
No, hindi lahat ng patay ay mabubuhay sa first resurrection. Ginamit ko lang ang 108 billion as a conservative estimate, bearing in mind that the population will surely be greater in the future, when the second coming happens.
Kung ngayon na ang second coming, hindi 101 billion ang patay na mabubuhay (108 billion total born, minus 7 billion still alive). Siyempre mas konti doon ang kasama sa first resurrection.
Pero hindi naman ngayon ang second coming. Let's say 2,000 years into the future pa yon. By that time, ano na ang headcount of all people who ever lived? Siyempre mas malaki na sa 108 billion, pero hindi natin alam kung ilan. Ilan doon ang kasama sa first resurrection, ilan ang sa second resurrection? Hindi na naman natin alam kung ilan.
Kaya para maging very conservative ang estimates, lakihan na natin ang allowance. Gawin na nating 108 billon ang kasama sa first resurrection. Sobra-sobrang allowance na yan. Kaya pag nag-estimate ako ng land area na pagkakasyahan ng 108 billion people, sobra-sobra rin ang estimated land area na yon.
hmmm... pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, post tribulation, pre-millennial, post millennial ????
Post by: dpogs on Sep 03, 2015 at 02:34 PM
Post by: pTrader on Sep 03, 2015 at 02:41 PM
Possible na makikita ng lahat kasi aabangan ng tao, alam na nila na may bababang alien, kaya full force lahat ng tao sasalubungin si ang alien (Jesus) para makipaglaban, thus battle of armagesdon :-)
Quote
Una, first resurrection, then 1,000 years of peace. After the millennium, the rest of the dead come to life --- the second resurrection.
hmmmmmmm.......
Post by: barrister on Sep 03, 2015 at 04:31 PM
Possible na makikita ng lahat kasi aabangan ng tao, alam na nila na may bababang alien, kaya full force lahat ng tao sasalubungin si ang alien (Jesus) para makipaglaban, thus battle of armagesdon :-)
Ang problema ko lang sa theory na yan, parang kontra sa Matthew 24. Ang sinasabi mo kasi, alam ng lahat ng mga tao na malapit na ang second coming. Pero sa Matthew 24, marami ring tao na hindi nakakaalam, at magugulat na lang.
Sa Revelation, ang scenario, may tribulation, kasabay ng battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil.
Yung mga good, hinihintay ang second coming, para magkaroon ng final battle.
Yung mga evil, kakampi ng mga beasts sa Revelation, puwedeng alam din na malapit na ang second coming. Pero meron pa ring grupo ng mga evil na hindi alam na malapit na pala ang second coming.
37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. (Mt. 24:37-39)
Para matupad yan, dapat marami ring hindi alam na babalik na pala si Kristo. Magugulat na lang sila kasi hindi nila pinansin ang prophecy, tuloy-tuloy pa rin ang kasamaan sa buhay, similar to the time of Noah.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 03, 2015 at 05:06 PM
Possible na makikita ng lahat kasi aabangan ng tao, alam na nila na may bababang alien, kaya full force lahat ng tao sasalubungin si ang alien (Jesus) para makipaglaban, thus battle of armagesdon :-)
Will the battle even happen? Hindi ba alam ni satan na wala sila Laban?
Post by: pTrader on Sep 03, 2015 at 05:28 PM
Ang problema ko lang sa theory na yan, parang kontra sa Matthew 24. Ang sinasabi mo kasi, alam ng lahat ng mga tao na malapit na ang second coming. Pero sa Matthew 24, marami ring tao na hindi nakakaalam, at magugulat na lang.
Sa Revelation, ang scenario, may tribulation, kasabay ng battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil.
Yung mga good, hinihintay ang second coming, para magkaroon ng final battle.
Yung mga evil, kakampi ng mga beasts sa Revelation, puwedeng alam din na malapit na ang second coming. Pero meron pa ring grupo ng mga evil na hindi alam na malapit na pala ang second coming.
37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. (Mt. 24:37-39)
Para matupad yan, dapat marami ring hindi alam na babalik na pala si Kristo. Magugulat na lang sila kasi hindi nila pinansin ang prophecy, tuloy-tuloy pa rin ang kasamaan sa buhay, similar to the time of Noah.
pwedeng umepal muna anong forms ng escatholgy yung pinag-uusapan niyo?
Post by: panzimus on Sep 03, 2015 at 05:57 PM
Post by: barrister on Sep 03, 2015 at 05:59 PM
pwedeng umepal muna anong forms ng escatholgy yung pinag-uusapan niyo?
Hindi ko rin alam kung anong forms yon sir.
Google lang naman ang ginagawa ko. Pag agree ako, I believe it, pag hindi ako agree, I reject it.
Nag google ako ng mga pre/post tribulation/millennial, tinamad na ako, kasi imbis na luminaw, lalong lumabo.
Bigyan mo na lang kami ng short timeline ng major events, sabihin namin kung agree o disagree kami.
Lumayo lang nang konti ang topic, nag-umpisa lang yan sa flat earth, napunta sa second coming, hindi raw puwedeng round earth, kasi ang biblical prophecy, lahat ng tao makikita ang second coming.
Marami lang siguro talagang interesado sa Revelation. Malayo pa ako sa completion, siguro less than 1/2 pa lang ang naintindihan ko. Kailangan mo kasi ng cross reference sa Matthew and Daniel, plus other Old Testament books.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 03, 2015 at 06:43 PM
@ barrister: isa sa sign ng coming of Jesus is the dead in Christ will rise fromr the grave and those who still alive will be caught up to heaven or what we called the rapture eto wala talaga makakaalam kung kelan.
Ang mga naiwan at may alam sa Bible may idea na sila that the coming of christ will be the next. but those unbelievers will not believe and will most probably tag the event as due to alien abduction thus they will prepare. So basically they dont know that it is Jesus Christ, what they know is some kkind of an alien. :-)
Post by: barrister on Sep 03, 2015 at 07:10 PM
Sa issue na yan, malayo na naman ang beliefs natin.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 03, 2015 at 07:26 PM
Im still waiting on how the theory of flat earth will gonna prove that there is God eh samantalang the human body itself speaks of far more superior intilligent designer which i believe is God according to the Bible.
Post by: rulesmeister on Sep 03, 2015 at 09:46 PM
Post by: JT on Sep 04, 2015 at 05:48 AM
Nag google ako ng mga pre/post tribulation/millennial, tinamad na ako, kasi imbis na luminaw, lalong lumabo.
Sir, please try watching this and hope you pass your comments ...
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0f6_epwixV5fGUp87rwkvafcI8gwS9Im
dpogs,
This might interest you.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCED9C361662866BD
Post by: JT on Sep 04, 2015 at 05:49 AM
Kalimutan na naten na flat ang earth, nonsense talaga. based dun sa video, hindi barko gagamitin mo to circumnavigate the earth but rather a snow mobile. Pwede ka nga maglakad sa ice to circumnavigate the world kasi the entire perimeter of the world is surrounded by a continuous ice sheet. Pagnadulas ka sa yelo mahuhulog ka sa dun edge ng earth. Pag nag drill ka ng sobrang lalim like ung gold mine tunnel sa south africa, tatagos sa kabilang side ung tunnel and you could see through the earth (na parang butas sa dvd). Kalokohan...
While it is absurd, it is not completely nonsense. Scientist tried going over the edge but stopped by a wide sheet of ice the size of america, more than 120 feet high and a very harsh weather. They tried drilling but the maximum they can reach is 12,000 feet. And above, the Van Allen belt and Thermosphere. You see there are boundaries that man doesn't have the ability to breach even with the latest technology. Somebody contained us in this environment. I reckon from your reasoning that you are not that smart bulb. Go research instead of just using your intellect which was already pre-programmed.
But while flat-earth maybe the truth, I know it won't be accepted anymore because the whole education system is already under the control of the elite. The indocrination has already been in place long time ago since birth and maybe too late.
Before the end of this year, many significant events are predicted. The great world economic collapse which leads to ONE WORLD CURRENCY and financial market system. And the contact (even possible war) with aliens, the coming of the alien God (matutuwa si dpogs dito) which is the agenda for project bluebeam, Jade Helm, HAARP, Chemtrails, CERN, and Vatican's lucifer telescope paving the way for ONE WORLD RELIGION. All under the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, just believing everything the bible says.
Post by: JT on Sep 04, 2015 at 06:10 AM
I bet you a hundred bucks that if you can't convince people that there is a Creator using the human body as an example, you won't convince them one bit by telling them that the earth doesn't spin and that it's in fact flat.
In pesos ba ito o in USD? Yes, you got a point. And we should always use the gospel and let the Holy Spirit convict the person. However, majority will reject as they require proof. They need to be challenged.
This flat-earth challenge was not meant for those who already believe in the bible. Atheist here in NZ (even around the world) is growing in numbers. Since atheist and some agnostics prefers scientific evidences, we need something to challenge them, to research hoping to see the intricate designs of everything which could not just be a result of evolution but definitely creation.
Have you tried sharing the gospel to an atheist? How did it end up? What are the natural response?
Post by: tony on Sep 04, 2015 at 06:14 AM
and then there was this AKO cult that went to tagaytay to avoid impending doom,
they all went home empty handed and shamed.....
a picture of the earth from space should erase all doubts about the earth being round not flat...
writers of the bible at the time had no facility for seeing the earth from outer space....
their writings are based on what they witnessed at the time, they could not possibly know everything...,
my unsolicited advice, do not take the bible literally...
lots of lessons can be learned from the bible that enriches one's life......
our national hero Jose Rizal read the bible from cover to cover...
yet he wrote two novels attacking the wrongdoings of the RC clergy and paid with his dear life for it...
even the devil himself can memorise and recite the scriptures....
900 people dead/murdered in Guyana was a prefect example....
Post by: dpogs on Sep 04, 2015 at 06:16 AM
In pesos ba ito o in USD? Yes, you got a point. And we should always use the gospel and let the Holy Spirit convict the person. However, majority will reject as they require proof. They need to be challenged.
This flat-earth challenge was not meant for those who already believe in the bible. Atheist here in NZ (even around the world) is growing in numbers. Since atheist and some agnostics prefers scientific evidences, we need something to challenge them, to research hoping to see the intricate designs of everything which could not just be a result of evolution but definitely creation.
Have you tried sharing the gospel to an atheist? How did it end up? What are the natural response?
and your belief Sir is : earth is flat or sphere shape? whatever you believe, is it supported by the Bible or not?
Post by: JT on Sep 04, 2015 at 06:26 AM
and your belief Sir is : earth is flat or sphere shape? whatever you believe, is it supported by the Bible or not?
Honestly, for me it doesn't matter anymore whether the earth is flat or globe. What matters is how to reach out unbelievers.
Bible did not say whether earth is a globe or flat, but possibly a circle. Isaiah 40:22 "It is He who sits above the CIRCLE of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."
Other verses does not directly claims it's flatness nor being a ball.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 04, 2015 at 06:30 AM
Honestly, for me it doesn't matter anymore whether the earth is flat or globe. What matters is how to reach out unbelievers.
Bible did not say whether earth is a globe or flat, but possibly a circle. Isaiah 40:22 "It is He who sits above the CIRCLE of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."
Other verses does not directly claims it's flatness nor being a ball.
okay.
Now, is it possible to prove the existence of God without the Bible?
Post by: JT on Sep 04, 2015 at 06:35 AM
^naku lagi namang ganyan, in 1988 my born again friend showed me an article about 88 reasons why the world will end in 1988, wala namang nangyari, another false prophet unmasked....
and then there was this AKO cult that went to tagaytay to avoid impending doom,
they all went home empty handed and shamed.....
a picture of the earth from space should erase all doubts about the earth being round not flat...
writers of the bible at the time had no facility for seeing the earth from outer space....
their writings are based on what they witnessed at the time, they could not possibly know everything...,
my unsolicited advice, do not take the bible literally...
lots of lessons can be learned from the bible that enriches one's life......
our national hero Jose Rizal read the bible from cover to cover...
yet he wrote two novels attacking the wrongdoings of the RC clergy and paid with his dear life for it...
even the devil himself can memorise and recite the scriptures....
900 people dead/murdered in Guyana was a prefect example....
That's very true kasi alam din naman nung demonyo yung prophecy so it will create deceptions, diversions or even fake it for people to doubt and loose faith the bible.
Like I remember recently, in many places they heard a trumpet so the religious people says Jesus is coming now as the bible says after the trumpet. But obviously, Jesus has not come yet. These events made other believer's loose their belief and unbeliever's to mock their belief.
Remember this, there are FAKE kasi may GENUINE.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 04, 2015 at 06:39 AM
Post by: JT on Sep 04, 2015 at 06:43 AM
okay.
Now, is it possible to prove the existence of God without the Bible?
Like I said, Flat-earth (even if it can be proven as the truth) will not be accepted anymore as the whole world is already under control by the elite.
But I believe, God made a way. He give wisdom to His people on how to provide proof He exist without using the bible. Because that's what verse 20 of Romans 1:18-21 says. There is proof around us, we need to direct them to it.
Romans 1:18-21 God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness
"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened."
Post by: JT on Sep 04, 2015 at 06:46 AM
^Kung alam ng demonyo prophecy, bakit pa nya itutuloy yung laban nya?
You see, he knows he is already defeated. His goal is to bring more souls with him to the lake of fire. Why? because God loves every soul and it grieves God for every soul going to hell.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 04, 2015 at 06:55 AM
Like I said, Flat-earth (even if it can be proven as the truth) will not be accepted anymore as the whole world is already under control by the elite.
But I believe, God made a way. He give wisdom to His people on how to provide proof He exist without using the bible. Because that's what verse 20 of Romans 1:18-21 says. There is proof around us, we need to direct them to it.
Romans 1:18-21 God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness
"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened."
you use the Bible again as reference...
so you just admit that you cant prove the existence of God without the Bible?
Post by: JT on Sep 04, 2015 at 07:01 AM
you use the Bible again as reference...
so you just admit that you cant prove the existence of God without the Bible?
Obviously you are not that smart as you still don't get it. Although I quoted the bible, please check the principle behind of what my point is.
In essence, bible says God has put evidences around us for His existence. So my point is find those evidences and direct unbeliever's (particularly atheist) to those.
Post by: Clondalkin on Sep 04, 2015 at 07:05 AM
Then Russia's airspace became open and commercial thus all flights to Europe were through Siberia na. No need to go up the North Pole and down.
Kung hindi sphere ang mundo, what's the point of flights to the US or Europe going up the North instead na straight along the equator?
Post by: dpogs on Sep 04, 2015 at 07:10 AM
Obviously you are not that smart as you still don't get it. Although I quoted the bible, please check the principle behind of what my point is.
In essence, bible says God has put evidences around us for His existence. So my point is find those evidences and direct unbeliever's (particularly atheist) to those.
again, and how can you direct these evidences to unbelievers/atheist without using the Bible? first of all they dont believe in creation and in God.
also, the idea of creation came from the Bible.
Post by: JT on Sep 04, 2015 at 07:17 AM
Sino inabot nung 70s na in order to fly to Saudi Arabia from Japan, plane goes to Alaska then up around the North Pole and down to Europe then finally down to Saudi?
Then Russia's airspace became open and commercial thus all flights to Europe were through Siberia na. No need to go up the North Pole and down.
Kung hindi sphere ang mundo, what's the point of flights to the US or Europe going up the North instead na straight along the equator?
Actually the flight makes sense in the flat earth map. I just cant find now the right link that explains it.
Post by: JT on Sep 04, 2015 at 07:19 AM
again, and how can you direct these evidences to unbelievers/atheist without using the Bible? first of all they dont believe in creation and in God.
first of all: the idea of creation came from the Bible.
I think it is better to channel all your questions sa amo mo as I won't be entertaining them anymore kasi you really don't get it ... slow. I know Barrister can explain it to you and will filter it out all non sense.
I'd rather be talking to Barrister on your boogle. He is rude sometimes, but he always have a point and a direction.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 04, 2015 at 07:26 AM
I think it is better to channel all your questions sa amo mo as I won't be entertaining them anymore kasi you really don't get it ... slow. I know Barrister can explain it to you and will filter it out all non sense.
I'd rather be talking to Barrister on your boogle. He is rude sometimes, but he always have a point and a direction.
the title of your thread is proving God without the Bible... not proving what is the shape of the earth.
and here you are proving the earth is flat. eh ano ngayon kung flat ang earth or sphere ang earth.
does it prove that there is God? does the shape of earth matters in proving that there is God?
Post by: dpogs on Sep 04, 2015 at 07:42 AM
can you lead/bring unbelievers to Jesus Christ without the Bible?
instead na mag focus to the most important thing in this universe - LIFE, you focus on showing us the shape of the earth - "the earth is flat, therefore God exist" :(:(
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 04, 2015 at 08:10 AM
You see, he knows he is already defeated. His goal is to bring more souls with him to the lake of fire. Why? because God loves every soul and it grieves God for every soul going to hell.
What would he gain by resisting? If he knows he's defeated, what's the battle at armageddon for?
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 04, 2015 at 08:12 AM
instead na mag focus to the most important thing in this universe - LIFE, you focus on showing us the shape of the earth - "the earth is flat, therefore God exist" :(:(
What's the difference? Porke me life, me God na?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 04, 2015 at 08:18 AM
What's the difference? Porke me life, me God na?
Pang evolution vs creation thread na yan. Hehe! Then intelligent design ang bagsak. ;)
Post by: dpogs on Sep 04, 2015 at 08:37 AM
What's the difference? Porke me life, me God na?
see... that is what i mean, without the Bible anything that exists in this universe even life itself is not enough as a proof to the unbeliever... unless they believe it by faith.
Life, complexity of human body and even the shape of the earth are all part of God's creation which is isa sa naging topic sa simula pa lang ng thread na ito... at isa sa pinakamalapit na paliwanag is there is ID/designer, and still not enough to show that it is the God of the Bible. :(:(:(
and then ang ipipresent lang ng thread starter na proof ay ang shape of the earth :(:(:(
why not the whole creation itself... the shape of the earth or LIFE doesnt matter as long as we agreed that there is ID/master designer/creator. now to say that these ID/master designer/creator is God, ibang usapan naman yan.
Pang evolution vs creation thread na yan. Hehe! Then intelligent design ang bagsak. ;)
and shape of the earth is i believe part din ng creation... then ang bagsak nga is intelligent design...
Post by: JT on Sep 04, 2015 at 08:41 AM
What would he gain by resisting? If he knows he's defeated, what's the battle at armageddon for?
Actually, you gave an interesting point that I never thought before. Kasi it is possible that the devil himself is also deceived that he can win.
2 Timothy 3:13 says 13 "But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived."
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 04, 2015 at 08:55 AM
Actually, you gave an interesting point that I never thought before. Kasi it is possible that the devil himself is also deceived that he can win.
2 Timothy 3:13 says 13 "But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived."
Win as in deceive the world or battle God literally?
Post by: JT on Sep 04, 2015 at 08:59 AM
Win as in deceive the world or battle God literally?
Yung Devil ang main deceiver eh so He might have deceived himself also being confident that he had a chance of winning against God even though it is written na sa bible ang kanyang defeat. Sabi nga nung verse DECEIVING and being DECEIVED".
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 04, 2015 at 09:13 AM
He came from God, so he should know he stand no chance.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 04, 2015 at 09:47 AM
Now can we prove GOD without the Bible?
Katulad nga ng #7 post ko dito unang una palang:
the whole universe (creation) speaks that there is God Almighty Creator :)which is of course nakuha ko ang idea sa Bible and i think this is not a valid argument...
at saka kung iqoute natin ang sinabi ni Bumblebee as reference:
What's the difference? Porke me life, me God na?
what is the difference? porket my creation, me God na?
what is the difference? porket flat ang earth, may God na?
what is the difference?? porket sphere ang earth, may God na?
Also, to show that evolution is false doesnt mean that God exist (or creation is true).
and to qoute sir JT:
It is a major lie, NO BIG BANG, NO EVOLUTION. THERE IS A GOD!
porket NO EVOLUTION, there is God na?
porket NO BIGBANG, there is God na?
*updated
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 04, 2015 at 09:49 AM
Post by: barrister on Sep 04, 2015 at 10:11 AM
Yung Devil ang main deceiver eh so He might have deceived himself also being confident that he had a chance of winning against God even though it is written na sa bible ang kanyang defeat.
That's not right. Satan knows he will be defeated.
Satan's defeat is written in the bible. Therefore, we know that he will be defeated.
But does Satan believe the prophecy is true? Yes, Satan believes the prophecy of his defeat is true ---
12 Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short. (Rev. 12:12)
It is not the same as an ordinary person who does not wage war because he knows he will be defeated. In that case, he doesn't wage war and goes home in peace.
In Satan's case, he will suffer the death penalty even if he doesn't wage war. He won't be allowed to go home to heaven and live in peace; he will still be burned even if he doesn't wage war.
Pareho rin pala, e di wage war na lang.
What does he have to gain? At least yung mga pupunta ng langit in the end, nahirapan muna bago pumunta ng langit. And at least, marami rin ang mga tangang maniniwala sa kanya na madadamay sa impiyerno. :D
Post by: lithium_deuteride on Sep 04, 2015 at 10:13 AM
In pesos ba ito o in USD? Yes, you got a point. And we should always use the gospel and let the Holy Spirit convict the person. However, majority will reject as they require proof. They need to be challenged.
This flat-earth challenge was not meant for those who already believe in the bible. Atheist here in NZ (even around the world) is growing in numbers. Since atheist and some agnostics prefers scientific evidences, we need something to challenge them, to research hoping to see the intricate designs of everything which could not just be a result of evolution but definitely creation.
Have you tried sharing the gospel to an atheist? How did it end up? What are the natural response?
I get that to pique somebody's curiosity, you pose him a mind challenge. There may be certain people to whom your flat earth challenge would be a curiosity. But for people who need scientific evidence, like atheists as you say, I'm afraid you will only pique their curiosity at you, not your challenge. Not everyday that they will meet someone who argues that the earth is flat. I suggest a different challenge to avoid ridicule.
Post by: JT on Sep 04, 2015 at 11:16 AM
That's not right. Satan knows he will be defeated.
Satan's defeat is written in the bible. Therefore, we know that he will be defeated.
But does Satan believe the prophecy is true? Yes, Satan believes the prophecy of his defeat is true ---
12 Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short. (Rev. 12:12)
It is not the same as an ordinary person who does not wage war because he knows he will be defeated. In that case, he doesn't wage war and goes home in peace.
In Satan's case, he will suffer the death penalty even if he doesn't wage war. He won't be allowed to go home to heaven and live in peace; he will still be burned even if he doesn't wage war.
Pareho rin pala, e di wage war na lang.
What does he have to gain? At least yung mga pupunta ng langit in the end, nahirapan muna bago pumunta ng langit. And at least, marami rin ang mga tangang maniniwala sa kanya na madadamay sa impiyerno. :D
I could'nt agree more. Totally support this.
But I was just trying to decipher what's on Satan mind regarding the war as per the question. As a deciever, would he tell his minions about the defeat? He must have lied convincingly they would win where He himself got deceived and become blinded by it.
Possibly similar to Satan getting Jesus to be crucified thinking it will be their victory but ended as their defeat.
1 Corinthians 2:7-8 says "7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 04, 2015 at 11:23 AM
Post by: JT on Sep 04, 2015 at 11:29 AM
How can he be blinded? He knows everything that has been written. If something is written, it will happen. Nothing's stopping it. (I know this is sounding like free will vs predestination but it is what is is.)
That's exactly what Deception does. Its like lying on something, keeps on repeating it convincing people then in the end you also consider it as a truth even when you know the real truth.
Maybe some scientific theories started this way also .... hmmmm.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 04, 2015 at 11:36 AM
Post by: dpogs on Sep 04, 2015 at 11:37 AM
Bible verse interpretation: meron na rng thread para dito
God and satan: merom ng religion thread para dito
This thread is about proving God without Bible pero sa nababasa ko puro Bible verse na laman ng thread. :-(
Where is the proof?
Sabi nga ni Barrister, iba ang persuasion sa proving.
Creation (sama na natin ang shape ng earth) ay umabot lamang sa idea na may intilligent designer. To call this assumed ID as God is plain and simple pure faith.
Post by: majoe on Sep 04, 2015 at 11:54 AM
^Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. You're saying Satan has become delusional. If God is a forgiving, loving God, tinulungan na sana nya si Satan. Kaso, hindi e. Talagang hihintayin pa nya yung armageddon para makipag-battle.
wala ka ng magagawa sa isang nilalang na ma pride. that's free will.
Post by: JT on Sep 04, 2015 at 11:55 AM
^Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. You're saying Satan has become delusional. If God is a forgiving, loving God, tinulungan na sana nya si Satan. Kaso, hindi e. Talagang hihintayin pa nya yung armageddon para makipag-battle.
I think same with some christians, they know the penalty of sins, they know God hates sin as it is written but would ignore, disobey or commit it anyway.
Do you know these qoutes?
"Some liars are so expert they deceive themselves."
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
"The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a pass that he cannot distinguish the truth within him."
John 8:44 says "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and DOES NOT STAND IN THE TRUTH, because there is NO TRUTH IN HIM. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it."
And yes, Pride is a big factor also.
Post by: lithium_deuteride on Sep 04, 2015 at 12:21 PM
That's exactly what Deception does. Its like lying on something, keeps on repeating it convincing people then in the end you also consider it as a truth even when you know the real truth.
Maybe some scientific theories started this way also .... hmmmm.
Nope. The scientific community doesn't adopt Goebbels-style propaganda to pass off new discoveries and theories as truth. Before WWII and to a lesser degree afterwards, scientists published new discoveries or theories on international science journals and during conferences for the scrutiny and consideration of the world's scientific community. To a large extent, there are no borders for science breakthroughs, especially world changing ones (That's how Nobel prizes are selected and awarded). Real breakthroughs will stand the test of time while BS will be exposed immediately.
Post by: barrister on Sep 04, 2015 at 12:35 PM
But I was just trying to decipher what's on Satan mind regarding the war as per the question. As a deciever, would he tell his minions about the defeat? He must have lied convincingly they would win where He himself got deceived and become blinded by it.
Satan knows he won't win. Rev. 12:12 says so.
Possibly similar to Satan getting Jesus to be crucified thinking it will be their victory but ended as their defeat.
That's not only wrong, that's the opposite.
Jesus' primary mission on earth was to die on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. No death of the Lamb, no forgiveness of sins.
22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. ...27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many (Heb. 9:22, 27 & 28)
Satan did not get Jesus crucified. In fact, Satan did not want Jesus crucified because Satan did not want Jesus to fulfill His mission.
21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” (Mt. 16:21-23)
Jesus' mission --- to die on the cross. But Peter, who did not yet fully understand, wanted to prevent Him from accomplishing His mission.
Ano tawag ni Hesus kay Pedro? E di Satanas. :D
Bakit? Kasi, "You are a stumbling block to me."
Post by: JT on Sep 04, 2015 at 12:45 PM
Satan knows he won't win. Rev. 12:12 says so.
That's not only wrong, that's the opposite.
Jesus' primary mission on earth was to die on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. No death of the Lamb, no forgiveness of sins.
22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. ...27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many (Heb. 9:22, 27 & 28)
Satan did not get Jesus crucified. In fact, Satan did not want Jesus crucified because Satan did not want Jesus to fulfill His mission.
21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” (Mt. 16:21-23)
Jesus' mission --- to die on the cross. But Peter, who did not yet fully understand, wanted to prevent Him from accomplishing His mission.
Ano tawag ni Hesus kay Pedro? E di Satanas. :D
Bakit? Kasi, "You are a stumbling block to me."
Yes that's a good point. But how do we reconcile it with Luke 22:1-6 The Plot to Kill Jesus
"22 Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called Passover. 2 And the chief priests and th scribes sought how they might kill Him, for they feared the people. 3 THEN SATAN ENTERED JUDAS, surnamed Iscariot, who was numbered among the twelve. 4 So he went his way and conferred with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him to them. 5 And they were glad, and agreed to give him money. 6 So he promised and sought opportunity to betray Him to them in the absence of the multitude."
Post by: barrister on Sep 04, 2015 at 01:07 PM
When Satan entered Judas, the plot to kill Jesus was already set by the Jewish leaders beforehand, and they were determined to carry it out.
There's no stopping the plot now, no matter what Satan does.
If the course of events can no longer be changed, then anything Satan does afterwards will be an act of facilitating the inevitable, not an act that causes the course of events to be produced.
Judas was the treasurer of the apostles. Judas loved money, and he was already stealing from the funds in his charge even before Satan entered him:
6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. (John 12:6)
Therefore, Judas did not immediately turn bad only when he sold Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. He was already bad even before the incident when Satan entered him. The guy was so greedy, he just wanted more money... :D
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 04, 2015 at 01:32 PM
wala ka ng magagawa sa isang nilalang na ma pride. that's free will.
If God knows Satan is never gonna change, to the point he foresaw the battle at armageddon, why doesn't he strike him down already? Why subject people to evil when he can already end it? Is it because he has other plans and Satan is proving quite useful?
Post by: majoe on Sep 04, 2015 at 01:39 PM
How can he be blinded? He knows everything that has been written. If something is written, it will happen. Nothing's stopping it. (I know this is sounding like free will vs predestination but it is what is is.)
i don't think he was blinded. it's just that he really loves his kingdom so much. this is what he wanted from the beginning and he is prepared to battle it out just to keep it. remember also that he is the king of this world.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 04, 2015 at 01:55 PM
Post by: majoe on Sep 04, 2015 at 02:06 PM
If God knows Satan is never gonna change, to the point he foresaw the battle at armageddon, why doesn't he strike him down already? Why subject people to evil when he can already end it? Is it because he has other plans and Satan is proving quite useful?
God created everything out of love including satan and his angels.
So mahal nya talaga si satan. Binigyan pa ng mataas na position. Pero ma pride talaga si satan, nagselos at gusto rin ng sariling kingdom. Ayun, nag revolt. Ngayon, papatayin na lang ba agad ng Diyos si satan samantalang binigyan ng ito ng buhay at free will at minahal din? Hindi ganyan ang Diyos kasi God is love and just.
Yung plan, nagawa lang yan after the fall of man dahil sa pang dedeceive ni satan.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 04, 2015 at 02:10 PM
Post by: DVD_Freak on Sep 04, 2015 at 02:12 PM
Oo nga, mahal ni God si Satan. Pero alam din nya na naghahasik ito ng lagim sa iba pang tao. Why keep him kung alam naman nya na hindi na talaga ito magbabago?
I'm curious what's your own belief or stand on this? Instead of following up an answer with further questions, why not post your own interpretation on this.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 04, 2015 at 02:17 PM
This thread is dedicated on proving God without Bible.
And hanggang ngayon, wala pa rin nakakapag prove.
Post by: majoe on Sep 04, 2015 at 02:19 PM
^Satan knows evil will tear "his kingdom" apart. If he loves this kingdom, he should be taking good care of it, right?
^ satan chose to be evil kasi. na cursed pa after ng madeceive nya si eve. kaya ayan, kalaban na talaga sya ng Diyos. pero very considerate pa rin sa kanya dahil binigyan pa sya ng timeline. ^
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 04, 2015 at 02:20 PM
Post by: majoe on Sep 04, 2015 at 02:22 PM
I'm curious what's your own belief or stand on this? Instead of following up an answer with further questions, why not post your own interpretation on this.
gusto nya yata kasi palabasin na scripted lang ang lahat ;D
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 04, 2015 at 02:26 PM
gusto nya yata kasi palabasin na scripted lang ang lahat ;D
Nope, I believe in free will e.
Post by: panzimus on Sep 04, 2015 at 02:31 PM
Oo nga, mahal ni God si Satan. Pero alam din nya na naghahasik ito ng lagim sa iba pang tao. Why keep him kung alam naman nya na hindi na talaga ito magbabago?
We are being tested here on Earth if fofollow ba natin si God or not. We always have a choice. Si Satan yung nasa other end ng choice. If God will destroy Satan agad, sino ang mangtutukso sa atin na wag piliin si God?
Post by: majoe on Sep 04, 2015 at 02:32 PM
The timeline is useless kasi God knows hindi na sya magbabago, as evidenced by the Book of Revelation.
alam na nga na di magbabago. ang timeline na yun ay para rin malaman kung sino ang sa Diyos o kay Kristo at kung sino naman makakasama pa ni satan sa punishment.
Post by: majoe on Sep 04, 2015 at 02:39 PM
We are being tested here on Earth if fofollow ba natin si God or not. We always have a choice. Si Satan yung nasa other end ng choice. If God will destroy Satan agad, sino ang mangtutukso sa atin na wag piliin si God?
ang problema kasi pag sinabing we are being tested eh kasama pala sa plan ng Diyos na maging masama si satan para may tagasubok.
Post by: panzimus on Sep 04, 2015 at 02:58 PM
ang problema kasi pag sinabing we are being tested eh kasama pala sa plan ng Diyos na maging masama si satan para may tagasubok.
Yan ang ireresearch ko pa sir if kasama na talaga sa plan na maging masama si Satan. Good point sir.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 04, 2015 at 03:07 PM
We are being tested here on Earth if fofollow ba natin si God or not. We always have a choice. Si Satan yung nasa other end ng choice. If God will destroy Satan agad, sino ang mangtutukso sa atin na wag piliin si God?
Yun nga, bakit kailangang i-test? Does it not bother you? Take for example, Job. Mabuting tao naman. Put to the test. Aba e, pano kung hindi nya kinaya? Puntang impyerno? Tapos yung ibang hindi naman nabigyan ng kasing tinding test, pupunta ng langit?
Post by: majoe on Sep 04, 2015 at 03:12 PM
Yun nga, bakit kailangang i-test? Does it not bother you? Take for example, Job. Mabuting tao naman. Put to the test. Aba e, pano kung hindi nya kinaya? Puntang impyerno? Tapos yung ibang hindi naman nabigyan ng kasing tinding test, pupunta ng langit?
tingin ko wala namang problema sa mga ganyang story kung ang plan ay maka compile ng scriptures na magiging guide sa pagtuturo at pagpapalaganap ng salita ng Diyos.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 04, 2015 at 03:16 PM
Post by: majoe on Sep 04, 2015 at 03:18 PM
The timeline is useless kasi God knows hindi na sya magbabago, as evidenced by the Book of Revelation.
di rin pala useless ang timeline nya. for almost 6,000 years, nakaka deceive sya ng maraming tao.
naghari pa sa babylon at sa magiging bagong babylon. ma eenjoy nya pa yun. napaka luxurious kaya ng bagong kingdom nya na babylon.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 04, 2015 at 03:20 PM
di rin pala useless ang timeline nya. for almost 6,000 years, nakaka deceive sya ng maraming tao.
naghari pa sa babylon at sa magiging bagong babylon. ma eenjoy nya pa yun. napaka luxurious kaya ng bagong kingdom nya na babylon.
Wouldn't it be easier if he just asked God for forgiveness?
Post by: Quitacet on Sep 04, 2015 at 03:23 PM
tingin ko wala namang problema sa mga ganyang story kung ang plan ay maka compile ng scriptures na magiging guide sa pagtuturo at pagpapalaganap ng salita ng Diyos.
story meaning hindi talaga nangyari?
Post by: majoe on Sep 04, 2015 at 03:26 PM
^Buti sana kung story lang e. Pano kung totoo nga yung nagyari kay Job? We have a story at his expense?
tutuo namang nangyari yan, hehe. kilalang kilala lang talaga ng Diyos si Job. ang reward naman kasi ni Job ay sa susunod na buhay^
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 04, 2015 at 03:32 PM
Post by: majoe on Sep 04, 2015 at 03:34 PM
Wouldn't it be easier if he just asked God for forgiveness?
bumabalik balik lang yata tayo eh ;D
i relate mo lang sa real life situation, makukuha mo na eh. meron talagang taong masama at nagpapakasama. nasasarapan eh, hehe.
pati nakasulat naman sa bible, tumitigas ang puso ng tao sa kasamaan lalu na pag paulit ulit ginagawa.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 04, 2015 at 03:38 PM
bumabalik balik lang yata tayo eh ;D
i relate mo lang sa real life situation, makukuha mo na eh. meron talagang taong masama at nagpapakasama. nasasarapan eh, hehe.
pati nakasulat naman sa bible, tumitigas ang puso ng tao sa kasamaan lalu na pag paulit ulit ginagawa.
Yun nga, hindi na magbabago di ba? So strike him down already ng hindi na makadamay pa.
Post by: majoe on Sep 04, 2015 at 03:42 PM
Yun nga, hindi na magbabago di ba? So strike him down already ng hindi na makadamay pa.
ulit lang, hehe.
panalo Gilas, wohoo ! :D
Post by: barrister on Sep 04, 2015 at 03:59 PM
di rin pala useless ang timeline nya. for almost 6,000 years, nakaka deceive sya ng maraming tao.
6,000 years lang?
YEC (Young Earth Creationist) ka pala sir, ha... ;)
Post by: majoe on Sep 04, 2015 at 04:00 PM
Yun nga, hindi na magbabago di ba? So strike him down already ng hindi na makadamay pa.
sige na, mag speculate na lang tayo ;)
we don't really know what's between Jesus and Satan in God's kingdom. I think very special talaga si satan dun, sya nga ang may pinakamataas na rank sa mga angels. siguro katiwala rin sya dun.
tapos nung nandito sila lupa, nakita mo naman kung panu tuksuhin ni satan si Jesus, parang very casual lang. so, siguro na may something in between them kaya di agad magawang patayin na lang si satan.
Post by: majoe on Sep 04, 2015 at 04:02 PM
6,000 years lang?
YEC (Young Earth Creationist) ka pala sir, ha... ;)
nope. 6,000 years from creation of adam yan.
4.5 billion years naman ang age ng earth ;)
Post by: luis on Sep 04, 2015 at 04:15 PM
nope. 6,000 years from creation of adam yan.
4.5 billion years naman ang age ng earth ;)
ang laki pala ng knowledge or info gap natin in terms of chronological events leading to today. ;D
Post by: barrister on Sep 04, 2015 at 04:21 PM
nope. 6,000 years from creation of adam yan.
4.5 billion years naman ang age ng earth ;)
I see. Thanks for the clarification.
That's an unusual belief. These days, they call that "Young Humanity, Old Earth."
Ang advocate niyan, si John Piper (Calvinist-Baptist), founder of Desiring God Media Ministries and desiringgod.org.
Post by: Quitacet on Sep 04, 2015 at 04:38 PM
I see. Thanks for the clarification.
That's an unusual belief. These days, they call that "Young Humanity, Old Earth."
Ang advocate niyan, si John Piper (Calvinist-Baptist), founder of Desiring God Media Ministries and desiringgod.org.
If I am not mistaken parang ganyan din kay Bro. Eli.
Post by: barrister on Sep 04, 2015 at 04:41 PM
Nanonood ako lagi noon, nung hindi pa siya sikat. Si Brod Eli, naniniwala sa carbon dating for fossils, kasama ang human fossils.
Post by: Quitacet on Sep 04, 2015 at 04:44 PM
Hindi yata sir.
Nanonood ako lagi noon, nung hindi pa siya sikat. Si Brod Eli, naniniwala sa carbon dating for fossils, kasama ang human fossils.
ahhh. I heard him kasi saying na the 6 days as mentioned in Genesis could be millions of years
Post by: majoe on Sep 04, 2015 at 04:47 PM
I see. Thanks for the clarification.
That's an unusual belief. These days, they call that "Young Humanity, Old Earth."
Ang advocate niyan, si John Piper (Calvinist-Baptist), founder of Desiring God Media Ministries and desiringgod.org.
i don't think it's an unusual belief naman. like i said in other thread, the creation account is scientific and it supports the old age earth.
catholic pa rin naman ako at di ako aware sa teaching nila.
Post by: barrister on Sep 04, 2015 at 04:53 PM
Personal belief na lang siguro. Wala kasing doctrine ang Catholic tungkol diyan.
Unusual na belief yan sir. Bakit unusual?
Pag sinabi mong wala pang 6,000 years ang humanity, you will have to reject radiocarbon dating results.
But you accept the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years old.
Therefore, you accept carbon dating for the earth, yet reject carbon dating results for human fossils. Unusual, di ba?
Post by: barrister on Sep 04, 2015 at 04:54 PM
ahhh. I heard him kasi saying na the 6 days as mentioned in Genesis could be millions of years
Ah, narinig ko rin yon.
Parang ang sabi niya, 4th day lang ginawa ang sun and moon, so 4th day lang nagkaroon ng 24-hour day.
Therefore, days 1 to 3, hindi 24-hour days. Hindi natin alam ang durations, pero puwedeng years, thousands of years, millions of years, etc.
From the creation of Adam until today, wala siyang sinasabing less than 6,000 years. Pero madalas siyang mag-discuss ng fossils, naniniwala siya na tama ang radiocarbon dating.
Post by: Quitacet on Sep 04, 2015 at 04:56 PM
Catholic ka pala sir.
Personal belief na lang siguro. Wala kasing doctrine ang Catholic tungkol diyan.
Unusual na belief yan sir. Bakit unusual?
Pag sinabi mong wala pang 6,000 years ang humanity, you will have to reject radiocarbon dating results.
But you accept the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years old.
Therefore, you accept carbon dating for the earth, yet reject carbon dating results for human fossils. Unusual, di ba?
probably sa genealogy nya nacompute ang 6000 years from adam
Post by: Quitacet on Sep 04, 2015 at 04:59 PM
Ah, narinig ko rin yon.
Parang ang sabi niya, 4th day lang ginawa ang sun and moon, so 4th day lang nagkaroon ng 24-hour day.
Therefore, days 1 to 3, hindi 24-hour days. Hindi natin alam ang durations, pero puwedeng years, thousands of years, millions of years, etc.
From the creation of Adam until today, wala siyang sinasabing less than 6,000 years. Pero madalas siyang mag-discuss ng fossils, naniniwala siya na tama ang radiocarbon dating.
tama, sir. ganyan nga nabasa ko. prior to creation of sun and moon, not 24-hour day ang paliwanag nya sa prior days.
even sa dinosaurs, millions of years ang pagitan nila according to him, creation-wise
Post by: barrister on Sep 04, 2015 at 05:04 PM
probably sa genealogy nya nacompute ang 6000 years from adam
It's impossible to compute the age of the human race using bible genealogies.
Yung mga YEC, mahilig gumamit ng genealogies.
Pero hindi puwedeng tumama yon, kasi ang genealogies sa bible ay kulang-kulang.
For example, puwedeng sabihin, A begat G. Pero yun pala, malayong grandchild lang si G. Ang tunay na family tree, A-B-C-D-E-F-G, pero sasabihin sa bible, G is the son of A.
May ibang verses na basis yan, kaya pinipilit ang 6,000 years nila.
Post by: Quitacet on Sep 04, 2015 at 05:06 PM
It's impossible to compute the age of the human race using bible genealogies.
Yung mga YEC, mahilig gumamit ng genealogies.
Pero hindi puwedeng tumama yon, kasi ang genealogies sa bible ay kulang-kulang.
For example, puwedeng sabihin, A begat G. Pero yun pala, malayong grandchild lang si G. Ang tunay na family tree, A-B-C-D-E-F-G, pero sasabihin sa bible, G is the son of A.
May ibang verses na basis yan, kaya pinipilit ang 6,000 years nila.
baka
chronogenealogy: http://creation.com/6000-years
Post by: barrister on Sep 04, 2015 at 05:13 PM
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_genealogies.html (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_genealogies.html)
Ang tanong mo dapat, bakit ba pinipilit nila yang 6,000 years na yan? Doon lilinaw yan. :)
Post by: Quitacet on Sep 04, 2015 at 05:17 PM
Mali iyan sir. ;)
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_genealogies.html (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_genealogies.html)
Ang tanong mo dapat, bakit ba pinipilit nila yang 6,000 years na yan? Doon lilinaw yan. :)
wait na lang si majoe, atty, for her basis. interesting din.
kaso nawalan ako ng gana magpopost kahit dun sa INC thread.
parang naguilty ako na kung anu-ano pinaguusapan natin dito tapos sa ibang bansa ganito nangyayari: https://www.facebook.com/lamis.ys/posts/382422661966793
Post by: barrister on Sep 04, 2015 at 05:30 PM
kaso nawalan ako ng gana magpopost kahit dun sa INC thread.
Sayang lang oras mo doon sir.
Ewan ko ba doon sa iba, obvious naman sa title na para sa INC members yon, doon pa umaatake ng INC. >:(
Bumabanat din ako sa INC, pero hindi naman sa thread na yon.
Post by: majoe on Sep 04, 2015 at 05:37 PM
Catholic ka pala sir.
Personal belief na lang siguro. Wala kasing doctrine ang Catholic tungkol diyan.
Unusual na belief yan sir. Bakit unusual?
Pag sinabi mong wala pang 6,000 years ang humanity, you will have to reject radiocarbon dating results.
But you accept the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years old.
Therefore, you accept carbon dating for the earth, yet reject carbon dating results for human fossils. Unusual, di ba?
yes, nagkaroon ako ng personal belief mula ng nagbasa basa ako ng bible kasama syempre ang knowledge sa science ;) pero it does not affect naman ang pagiging catholic ko dahil tingin ko open minded na ngayon ang catholic church pagdating sa doctrines.
ang stand ko kasi pagdating sa carbon dating ng living things ay accurate lang sya up to 4000-5000 years and that is after the great flood. before kasi ng flood, iba ang condition ng earth. di natin masasabi na ang radiocarbon content sa atmospehre noon ay pareho pa rin after ng flood. nag iba talaga ang atmosphere natin. kaya kung mapapansin nyo sa bible, daang taon ang life span ng mga tao noon pero after ng flood, 120 years below na lang. and i believe, it has something to do with the radiocarbon content we are taking.
kaya kung gusto nyo mabuhay ng mahaba, bawasan ang radiocarbon intake, hehe. ;D
Post by: majoe on Sep 04, 2015 at 05:51 PM
It's impossible to compute the age of the human race using bible genealogies.
Yung mga YEC, mahilig gumamit ng genealogies.
Pero hindi puwedeng tumama yon, kasi ang genealogies sa bible ay kulang-kulang.
For example, puwedeng sabihin, A begat G. Pero yun pala, malayong grandchild lang si G. Ang tunay na family tree, A-B-C-D-E-F-G, pero sasabihin sa bible, G is the son of A.
May ibang verses na basis yan, kaya pinipilit ang 6,000 years nila.
i just refer to jewish calendar which i believed to be more accurate. based din yun sa geneologies.
pati lugar at race nila mismo yung nasa bible kaya they know better ;)
actually, it's 5,775 years na from creation of adam.
Post by: majoe on Sep 04, 2015 at 05:59 PM
Therefore, you accept carbon dating for the earth, yet reject carbon dating results for human fossils. Unusual, di ba?
btw sir, di ginagamit ang carbon dating sa pag determine ng age ng earth. sa living things lang applicable (fossils).
Post by: barrister on Sep 04, 2015 at 06:52 PM
Mas malinaw na sa akin. So, for non-living things, ok sa iyo ang radiometric dating, but for animals and plants, you don't believe carbon dating is accurate.
Unusual pa rin :D
AFAIK, those who don't believe in carbon dating for humans, animals and plants also don't believe in radiometric dating for non-living things. Magka-partner kasi yon. Usually you believe both, or disbelieve both. Unusual yung belief in one but not the other.
Well anyway, kanya-kanya tayo ng belief.
Post by: majoe on Sep 04, 2015 at 07:04 PM
Tama ka sir. Radiometric pala for non-living things. Hindi ko rin masyadong alam yan, sa google ko lang nakukuha.
Mas malinaw na sa akin. So, for non-living things, ok sa iyo ang radiometric dating, but for animals and plants, you don't believe in carbon dating is accurate.
Unusual pa rin :D
AFAIK, those who don't believe in carbon dating for humans, animals and plants also don't believe in radiometric dating for non-living things. Magka-partner kasi yon. Usually you believe both, or disbelieve both. Unusual yung belief in one but not the other.
Well anyway, kanya-kanya tayo ng belief.
i believe both. may condition nga lang sa carbon dating. accurate lang ito pag ang result ay less than 5000 years ang nakuha . pag sobrang taas na, questionable na.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 04, 2015 at 07:05 PM
Post by: barrister on Sep 04, 2015 at 07:07 PM
Hindi na kaya OT tayong lahat? Haha!
Sa akin ok lang pag medyo malamig na ang thread.
Kasi pag malamig na, it's either allow some OT, or watch the thread die.
Post by: majoe on Sep 04, 2015 at 07:11 PM
Sa akin ok lang pag medyo malamig na ang thread.
Kasi pag malamig na, it's either allow some OT, or watch the thread die.
ok, my take sa topic na ito...
....
...
..
.
;D
Post by: majoe on Sep 04, 2015 at 07:13 PM
Ah, narinig ko rin yon.
Parang ang sabi niya, 4th day lang ginawa ang sun and moon, so 4th day lang nagkaroon ng 24-hour day.
Therefore, days 1 to 3, hindi 24-hour days. Hindi natin alam ang durations, pero puwedeng years, thousands of years, millions of years, etc.
ganyan ba kay brod eli?
ang paniniwala ko kasi, 1st day ang sun, 4th day ang moon/visible stars.
ang 1 day sa creation is equivalent to 742million years. based on my calculation.
Post by: Quitacet on Sep 04, 2015 at 07:17 PM
ganyan ba kay brod eli?
ang paniniwala ko kasi, 1st day ang sun, 4th day ang moon/visible stars.
ang 1 day sa creation is equivalent to 742million years. based on my calculation.
sa fourth day po kasi ito:
"God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."
Post by: barrister on Sep 04, 2015 at 07:33 PM
ganyan ba kay brod eli?
ang paniniwala ko kasi, 1st day ang sun, 4th day ang moon/visible stars.
ang 1 day sa creation is equivalent to 742million years. based on my calculation.
Yon ang naaalala ko kay Brod Eli. Baka mali, hintay tayo ng member niya na magpaliwanag.
In the meantime, tignan natin ang Genesis:
First day:
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. (Gen. 1:3-5)
Fourth day:
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. (Gen. 1:16-19)
On the 4th day, God made two great lights. The greater light to govern the day. That's the sun, of course.
Kung meron nang sun sa 1st day, dapat moon na lang ang ginawa sa 4th day. Bakit sa 4th day, gumawa pa uli ng sun?
Walang sun sa 1st day. Ano yung light sa 1st day kung hindi sun?
E di light na hindi sun... :D
That's the only reasonable explanation. On the first day, God created a temporary light that will exist until He creates the sun. When God created the sun on the fourth day, the temporary light ceased to exist.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 04, 2015 at 09:51 PM
ganyan ba kay brod eli?
ang paniniwala ko kasi, 1st day ang sun, 4th day ang moon/visible stars.
ang 1 day sa creation is equivalent to 742million years. based on my calculation.
Curious, how did you get 742 million?
Post by: barrister on Sep 04, 2015 at 11:15 PM
Before the end of this year, many significant events are predicted. The great world economic collapse which leads to ONE WORLD CURRENCY and financial market system. And the contact (even possible war) with aliens, the coming of the alien God (matutuwa si dpogs dito) which is the agenda for project bluebeam, Jade Helm, HAARP, Chemtrails, CERN, and Vatican's lucifer telescope paving the way for ONE WORLD RELIGION. All under the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, just believing everything the bible says.
Ngayon ko lang nakita ito.
"Before the end of this year," ha.
Ipaalala n'yo sa akin, mga kapatid --- babalikan ko ang post na ito sa Jan. 1, 2016! ;)
Post by: rulesmeister on Sep 05, 2015 at 12:15 AM
I'm putting this into closure today for my final argument of proving God without the bible. Mankind has been lied by the respected scientific community and has controlled everything, replacing the truth by their so called theories.When you posted that you're "putting into closure" or simply put it, your "final argument", you were really convinced of your "scientific truth" of a flat earth. And this scientific "truth" somehow leads up to proving god's existence without even using a single verse from the bible.
WE HAVE BEEN LIED BY U.N, NASA,VATICAN and every TOP LEADERS of the world!!! THEY HAVE HIDDEN GOD FROM THE PEOPLE !!!
What would you do if you found out that the earth is not a GLOBE but a VAULTED DOME? NOT A BALL BUT A FLAT EARTH. This alone proves that there is a God. And the truth can be found in the bible.
1st statement pa lang of a flat earth ndi mo nga ma-establish as a scientifically-sound theory, let alone conclude based on your flat earth theory of god's existence.
Im no smart bulb, I guess you are. Now try using your car's GPS (works via muliple sattelite triangulaton based on a ROUND-EARTH principle). If it works accurately, then flat earth theory is merely a myth. If your car doesnt have GPS, then use your smart phone. In a flat earth, GPS might still work, but youre off by several hundreds of kilometers or even thousands of kilometers.
(http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i367/rulesmeister/GPS_zpsxbuswjjo.png)
Lets say NASA is lying & photoshopped pictures of round earth coming from them. Now, have you ever wondered INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION photos of earth are faked as well (International meaning not owned by US or NASA)?
Japanese unmanned spacecraft KONOTORI 5 docking at ISS, picture taken by a japanese astronaut Kimiya Yui. (hindi taga NASA).
(http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i367/rulesmeister/konotori%205%20from%20kimiya%20yui_zpsrx8epqvn.png)
Karen Nyberg, immediately tweeting via internet photo of Haiyan (Yolanda) the moment ISS passed over the super-typhoon.
(http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i367/rulesmeister/yolanda_zpskyq3n5ff.png)
Is the political opponent of US - the Russians involved in this elaborate hoax too? photo of Russian MIR before it pluges back to earth (remember Russia and US were of opposing viewpoint, wouldn't it be Russia's advantage to expose the hoax of their opponent?)
(http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i367/rulesmeister/Mir_zpsvlqze67j.png)
Or photo of Austrian daredevil Felix Baumgartner during his world record jump from space (hes' no astronaut, he's an adrenaline junkie.)
(http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i367/rulesmeister/felix%20b_zpsy9sk1mou.png)
Ang dami nating pinagdaanan para magaging edukado: sometimes we're bullied, minsan walang pamasahe at naglalakad nalang pauwi, minsan walang baon, walang papel, minsan ndi pinapansin ng crush, walang pambayad sa tuition etc. Yet after all these decades we finally became Engrs, lawyers, doctors, seamen, bankers, businessmen etc. Then out of a sudden, while watching a 3-minute youtube video, we finally became convinced of some craziness and throw out our reasoning, our logic, our education just to prove something?
Post by: ninjababez® on Sep 05, 2015 at 02:44 PM
Ang dami nating pinagdaanan para magaging edukado: sometimes we're bullied, minsan walang pamasahe at naglalakad nalang pauwi, minsan walang baon, walang papel, minsan ndi pinapansin ng crush, walang pambayad sa tuition etc. Yet after all these decades we finally became Engrs, lawyers, doctors, seamen, bankers, businessmen etc. Then out of a sudden, while watching a 3-minute youtube video, we finally became convinced of some craziness and throw out our reasoning, our logic, our education just to prove something?yan ang nagagawa ng faith bro :)
Post by: barrister on Sep 05, 2015 at 03:58 PM
The better way to approach this is by way of probability logic. Intelligent design theory points us to the possibility or probability of the existence of an intelligent designer.
However, this merely shows the possibility/probability of the existence of an intelligent designer. It still does not prove the existence of God.
http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/ (http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/)
Post by: dpogs on Sep 05, 2015 at 06:22 PM
I believe God exists, but I don't believe it's possible to prove God exists. Therefore, my belief is based on faith, not evidence.
The better way to approach this is by way of probability logic. Intelligent design theory points us to the possibility or probability of the existence of an intelligent designer.
However, this merely shows the possibility/probability of the existence of an intelligent designer. It still does not prove the existence of God.
http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/ (http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/)
The TS just shows us the proof: by showing to us that the earth is flat.
What would you do if you found out that the earth is not a GLOBE but a VAULTED DOME? NOT A BALL BUT A FLAT EARTH. This alone proves that there is a God. And the truth can be found in the bible.
It is a major lie, NO BIG BANG, NO EVOLUTION. THERE IS A GOD!
but then again, in reference to the Bible :(:(:(
Post by: JT on Sep 07, 2015 at 06:20 AM
Good day to everyone.
I am inspired to prepare a course entitled "Proving God Without The Bible". Got an idea a very old outline and I would like to update it. But I need your help to comment or discuss regarding every outline that will be posting weekly starting today.
So here it goes...
Ok first and foremost, I apologize for the confusion made by this thread. Like I said, started when I got an old outline regarding this topic. I got curious with it and hope to update or add relevant data through brainstorming using this forum. I never said I'd be proving or I am able to prove but I do hope there are smart people here to help out and we be able to come up with something.
Of course, part of the outline is the intelligent design. It seems a good argument but being refuted by science by their theories and so-called evidences. Which leads me to research further and found these 3 controversial subject,
1). Earth does not spin
2). Earth is flat
3). Earth has a firmament (layer/dome/vault) in the sky
In any research or brainstorming, we need to think out of the box and set aside any presets in order to discover something new. So I'd like to encourage you to look into this compiled arguments vs the current theories with an open mind:
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html
I think it is worth looking into this as there are accusations of NASA's hoaxes. There are also growing support on this. Recently, it has been brought up in the NZ parliament.
I hope you read the article before reverting back comments.
Post by: JT on Sep 07, 2015 at 06:31 AM
I believe God exists, but I don't believe it's possible to prove God exists. Therefore, my belief in the existence of God is based on faith, not evidence.
The better way to approach this is by way of probability logic. Intelligent design theory points us to the possibility or probability of the existence of an intelligent designer.
However, this merely shows the possibility/probability of the existence of an intelligent designer. It still does not prove the existence of God.
http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/ (http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/)
But if it can't be proven without the bible then we got an excuse.
Romans 1:20 "20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE"
And this is what I hope this thread would achieve, trying to eliminate that excuse. I'm not giving up on these people who do not believe.
Post by: JT on Sep 07, 2015 at 10:50 AM
Very easy.
When Satan entered Judas, the plot to kill Jesus was already set by the Jewish leaders beforehand, and they were determined to carry it out.
There's no stopping the plot now, no matter what Satan does.
If the course of events can no longer be changed, then anything Satan does afterwards will be an act of facilitating the inevitable, not an act that causes the course of events to be produced.
Judas was the treasurer of the apostles. Judas loved money, and he was already stealing from the funds in his charge even before Satan entered him:
6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. (John 12:6)
Therefore, Judas did not immediately turn bad only when he sold Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. He was already bad even before the incident when Satan entered him. The guy was so greedy, he just wanted more money... :D
This is very unlikely sir. Went thru these passages, Matthew 26:1-5; Mark 14:1-2; Luke 22:1-3 and John 11:45-57 and it seems Pharisees doesnt have a way to arrest Jesus especially in public. Then Satan to made a way by using Judas so that they can arrest Jesus privately. And I think it's not Judas plan from the very beginning, then he would have plan the betrayal ahead and also have not thrown away the money if completely motivated by greed. So there is much stronger influence that made him betray and that I believe when Satan entered him.
Hindi na kaya OT tayong lahat? Haha!
Not completely OT. Out of the conversations here, many thoughts came up to me. For example, on why Satan will wage war are even knowing it will end as defeat.
Here are my thoughts on this:
Lucifer (later becomes Satan) was created as very wise and very beautiful being says Ezekiel 28:11-12 "11 Moreover the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 12 “Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “You were the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty."
But then in v15&17, that wisdom & perfection got corrupted by iniquity and pride. Ezekiel 28:15 "15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, Till iniquity was found in you." Ezekiel 28:17 "17 “Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty;You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I cast you to the ground,I laid you before kings,That they might gaze at you."
So when Lucifer becomes Satan, He may still be an intelligent being but no longer wise. We know there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom. Satan knows the prophecy but makes unwise decisions and foolish actions.
The truth is, you may have memorize and know all the verses in the bible yet you can still be outwit by someone who knows little or with just few verses but with the wisdom of God.
For a long time, we have been looking at convincing unbeliever's with the Intelligent Design or Designer. And it has not been very effective. Why did I say that? Atheist are growing in numbers. For those who evangelize, how many atheist you are able to lead to believe Jesus? I only got 2 out of many.
I had to travel to Auckland last Friday and came back last night only so I only manage to post today and think this through. I got some new thoughts on this just now. Its going to be the difference between Intelligent Design vs Wisdom of the Design ... but I'm still working on it.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 07, 2015 at 11:00 AM
If atheist doesnt believe in God even though they know the possibility that there is Creator behind the creation, then they got no excuse.
We dont need to prove God's existence. The Creation took care of that already. Its up to us/them whether to believe it or not.
Kahit maipakita mo pa kung ano ang hugis ng mundo, kung umiikot ba ang mundo, if they dont believe in God maghahanap lang ulit sila ng ibang reason to deny God.
Kaya nga kailangan natin ng BIble, kasi kahit andyan na ang creation people will never recognize the Creator/God. Kaya nga may mga anito/anita/animal god kasi nakikita nila sa creation that there is a powerful God behind all things.
Romans 1:20-25 KJV
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
God reveals Himself through His creation and the Bible, if they cant believe God through His creaton and through the Bible, then the best thing you can do is pray that God touched their heart and lead them to salvation.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 07, 2015 at 11:03 AM
God reveals Himself through His creation and the Bible, if they cant believe God through His creaton and through the Bible, then the best thing you can do is pray that God touched their heart and lead them to salvation.
Parang kinawawa mo naman ang atheists/people belonging to non-Christian religions.
Post by: DVD_Freak on Sep 07, 2015 at 11:11 AM
Parang kinawawa mo naman ang atheists/people belong to non-Christian religions.
Hindi ganun ang pagintindi ko. Praying that God touch their hearts and lead them to salvation ay hindi naman pang aapi. It's the same kind of prayer you give to people you care about who have strayed or lost their way. Papano mo nasabing kinakawawa sila?
Post by: dpogs on Sep 07, 2015 at 11:25 AM
Ok first and foremost, I apologize for the confusion made by this thread. Like I said, started when I got an old outline regarding this topic. I got curious with it and hope to update or add relevant data through brainstorming using this forum. I never said I'd be proving or I am able to prove but I do hope there are smart people here to help out and we be able to come up with something.
You should change the thread title if you're not proving God without the Bible or if you think you can't prove God without the Bible. The creation took care of that already.
Bakit di mo gawing thread title ang "How to introduce God without the Bible"
Post by: barrister on Sep 07, 2015 at 11:44 AM
But if it can't be proven without the bible then we got an excuse.
Romans 1:20 "20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE"
Romans 1:20 is not saying that the things we see in nature are evidence for God's existence:
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20)
This verse is not talking about the evidence for the existence of God. It is talking about understanding God's invisible qualities.
In this verse, the existence of God is a given. The existence of God is already known by the people who are "without excuse."
What have they clearly seen by way of understanding? God's invisible qualities. Not God's existence, which they already believe beforehand. How did they understand God's invisible qualities? They understood that from what has been made by God.
Why say, "from what has been made"? Why not say, "from what we see in nature, which may have been made or may have spontaneously existed"? Because they already believe there is a maker and the maker is God. It's not a question of whether a creator exists; that is already the given premise for those people.
Those people, who already believe God exists, and already believe that God made everything, also clearly understood that God has eternal power and divine nature.
That is why the next verses start with the premise that those people already knew God:
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. (Rom. 1:21-23)
Why are they without excuse?
Because those people who already believe God exists, and already believe God made everything, who also already clearly understood that God has eternal power and divine nature, neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to Him; instead, they exchanged the glory of God for images.
They are without excuse for not believing in the existence of God? No, pakahulugan lang ng pastor mo yon. They are without excuse for exchanging the glory of God for images.
=========================================
Hebrews 11:6 says:
6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
The verse requires that we should have faith for two things: (a) To believe God exists; and (b) To believe God rewards those who earnestly seek Him.
If it were possible to prove God exists by way of evidence, then faith would not be required. Yet the verse says we need faith to believe in the existence of God.
Therefore, it is not possible to prove the existence of God by way of evidence, because if it were possible to do so, then we would not need faith to believe in God's existence.
That is why Hebrews 11:3 says:
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
By faith we understand.
What do we understand by faith? That the universe was formed at God's command.
Does it say "by evidence we prove"? No, it says "by faith we understand."
Why would you need faith if that can be proven? That is not correct. You need faith because it cannot be proven.
That is why Hebrews 11:1 says:
1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
Faith is assurance about what we do not see. That includes assurance in what we cannot prove. For example:
Do we know that Jose Rizal existed? Yes. How do you know if you did not see or witness the events that happened before you were born? Because they can be proven by evidence. Do you need faith to believe that Jose Rizal existed? No, all you need is evidence.
The bible says we need faith to believe God exists. Why do we need faith? Because God's existence cannot be proved.
Post by: rulesmeister on Sep 07, 2015 at 12:47 PM
Post by: sirhc on Sep 07, 2015 at 01:09 PM
Just to chime in, the speed at which the earth spins is nothing to the speed our whole solar system, whole galaxy even, is hurtling through the universe.
(http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/tumblr_mj0vvcqnZx1qdlh1io1_400.gif)
Ano na lang kaya mangyayari satin if Newton's Laws of Motion were not in effect?
(I missed it by that much ;D)
Post by: pTrader on Sep 07, 2015 at 01:22 PM
Romans 1:20 is not saying that the things we see in nature are evidence for God's existence:
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20)
This verse is not talking about the evidence for the existence of God. It is talking about understanding God's invisible qualities.
In this verse, the existence of God is a given. The existence of God is already known by the people who are "without excuse."
What have they clearly seen by way of understanding? God's invisible qualities. Not God's existence, which they already believe beforehand. How did they understand God's invisible qualities? They understood that from what has been made by God.
Why say, "from what has been made"? Why not say, "from what we see in nature, which may have been made or may have spontaneously existed"? Because they already believe there is a maker and the maker is God. It's not a question of whether a creator exists; that is already the given premise for those people.
Those people, who already believe God exists, and already believe that God made everything, also clearly understood that God has eternal power and divine nature.
That is why the next verses start with the premise that those people already knew God:
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. (Rom. 1:21-23)
Why are they without excuse?
Because those people who already believe God exists, and already believe God made everything, who also already clearly understood that God has eternal power and divine nature, neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to Him; instead, they exchanged the glory of God for images.
They are without excuse for not believing in the existence of God? No, pakahulugan lang ng pastor mo yon. They are without excuse for exchanging the glory of God for images.
=========================================
Hebrews 11:6 says:
6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
The verse requires that we should have faith for two things: (a) To believe God exists; and (b) To believe God rewards those who earnestly seek Him.
If it were possible to prove God exists by way of evidence, then faith would not be required. Yet the verse says we need faith to believe in the existence of God.
Therefore, it is not possible to prove the existence of God by way of evidence, because if it were possible to do so, then we would not need faith to believe in God's existence.
That is why Hebrews 11:3 says:
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
By faith we understand.
What do we understand by faith? That the universe was formed at God's command.
Does it say "by evidence we prove"? No, it says "by faith we understand."
Why would you need faith if that can be proven? That is not correct. You need faith because it cannot be proven.
That is why Hebrews 11:1 says:
1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
Faith is assurance about what we do not see. That includes assurance in what we cannot prove. For example:
Do we know that Jose Rizal existed? Yes. How do you know if you did not see or witness the events that happened before you were born? Because they can be proven by evidence. Do you need faith to believe that Jose Rizal existed? No, all you need is evidence.
The bible says we need faith to believe God exists. Why do we need faith? Because God's existence cannot be proved.
Prang may kulang sa Heb 11 explanation mo.. paki revisit at paki basa uli yung post mo sir..
Post by: barrister on Sep 07, 2015 at 01:34 PM
Depende sa taong kausap ko. Kahit anong linaw ng explanation ko, laging may kulang yan para sa kanila.
Inaasahan ko na yon sir. Tuwing may ipapaliwanag ako sa bible, laging may nagagalit... :D
OK lang yon, kanya-kanya tayo ng paniniwala.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 07, 2015 at 01:35 PM
Depende sa taong kausap ko. Kahit anong linaw ng explanation ko, laging may kulang yan para sa kanila.
Inaasahan ko na yon sir. Tuwing may ipapaliwanag ako sa bible, laging may nagagalit... :D
OK lang yon, kanya-kanya tayo ng paniniwala.
di pa sanay sa iyo si sir ptrader :)
Post by: barrister on Sep 07, 2015 at 01:41 PM
Dapat mabasa niya yung old posts ko. Sabi ko, bakit ko pa ipipilit yung akin, hindi ka naman maniniwala. Ganon din sa akin, bakit mo pa ipipilit yung sa yo, alam mo rin na hindi ako maniniwala sa yo... ;)
It works both ways. One of us has to be wrong.
But we honestly believed we were right. Puro pagod nga ang inabot natin kakaintindi ng ng bible, pero in good fatih, mali pala ang intindi nang hindi naman sinasadya. Sisisihin ba tayo ng Diyos? I don't think so.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 07, 2015 at 01:59 PM
Depende sa taong kausap ko. Kahit anong linaw ng explanation ko, laging may kulang yan para sa kanila.
Inaasahan ko na yon sir. Tuwing may ipapaliwanag ako sa bible, laging may nagagalit... :D
OK lang yon, kanya-kanya tayo ng paniniwala.
masama bang ipareview uli sa iyo yung post mo?
Post by: barrister on Dec 03, 2015 at 06:00 PM
Before the end of this year, many significant events are predicted. The great world economic collapse which leads to ONE WORLD CURRENCY and financial market system. And the contact (even possible war) with aliens, the coming of the alien God (matutuwa si dpogs dito) which is the agenda for project bluebeam, Jade Helm, HAARP, Chemtrails, CERN, and Vatican's lucifer telescope paving the way for ONE WORLD RELIGION. All under the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, just believing everything the bible says.
Ngayon ko lang nakita ito.
"Before the end of this year," ha.
Ipaalala n'yo sa akin, mga kapatid --- babalikan ko ang post na ito sa Jan. 1, 2016! ;)
Before the end of this year.
Hindi ko pa nakakalimutan ito.... 8)
Post by: rulesmeister on Dec 04, 2015 at 05:57 AM
Post by: dpogs on Dec 04, 2015 at 06:32 AM
Quote from: JT
All under the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
Post by: pTrader on Dec 07, 2015 at 10:44 AM
Post by: JT on Dec 08, 2015 at 03:40 AM
Quote from: JT on Sep 04, 2015 at 05:49 AM
Before the end of this year, many significant events are predicted. The great world economic collapse which leads to ONE WORLD CURRENCY and financial market system. And the contact (even possible war) with aliens, the coming of the alien God which is the agenda for project bluebeam, Jade Helm, HAARP, Chemtrails, CERN, and Vatican's lucifer telescope paving the way for ONE WORLD RELIGION. All under the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, just believing everything the bible says.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: barrister on Sep 04, 2015 at 11:15 PM
Ngayon ko lang nakita ito.
"Before the end of this year," ha.
Ipaalala n'yo sa akin, mga kapatid --- babalikan ko ang post na ito sa Jan. 1, 2016! ;)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the end of this year.
Hindi ko pa nakakalimutan ito.... 8)
Ah its good that you still remember because I'm also about to ask if you had done some research or still clueless of whats going on around the world. Or probably you are not really keen in knowing, just waiting for my words to blow up in my face.
Anyway, check my statement again kapatid as I did not say I predicted it. But I can see how things are being positioned in its place. if this is your real intention then I'm surprised as I expect you to be good at "statements". If you cannot rightly divide my words, how can you even rightly divide the law and the Words in the bible.
Post by: oweidah on Dec 08, 2015 at 06:09 AM
One thins is for sure... maybe not this year but soon...
timeframe naman pls
Post by: rulesmeister on Dec 08, 2015 at 07:39 AM
Malabo mangyayari 'to, nil possibility. Ang mangyayari forced to practice 1 religion lahat ng mga tao sa sanlibutan.. pagdating sa religion, you're free to practice whatever religion you think is right/correct (INC, RC, Islam, Mormon etc) or you may choose not to practice any religion at all. Mas lalong dadami terrorists kong 1 religion nalang at no choice ka na e-practice kong anong religion gusto mo.
"ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT"
Malabo din, Hindi papayag si Mar nyan, tatakbo pa cya pagkapangulo. :-)
Post by: dpogs on Dec 08, 2015 at 07:47 AM
"ONE WORLD RELIGION".
Malabo mangyayari 'to, nil possibility. Ang mangyayari forced to practice 1 religion lahat ng mga tao sa sanlibutan.. pagdating sa religion, you're free to practice whatever religion you think is right/correct (INC, RC, Islam, Mormon etc) or you may choose not to practice any religion at all. Mas lalong dadami terrorists kong 1 religion nalang at no choice ka na e-practice kong anong religion gusto mo.
"ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT"
Malabo din, Hindi papayag si Mar nyan, tatakbo pa cya pagkapangulo. :-)
By faith, we believe these will happen, since these are prophecies mentioned in the Bible.
1. 7+/- years when anti-Christ will rule the world (one religion, one governemt, one anti-Christ Leader)
2. 1000 years when Christ will rule the earth (one faith/religion, one government, One Righteous Leader)
Post by: JT on Dec 10, 2015 at 03:54 AM
timeframe naman pls
Actually no one can really determine the time but can only see the signs. There are signs in every generations and I believe Satan has raised up an anti-christ in every era. However, Satan is not able to unleash its fury as there is a restrainer.
2 Thessalonians 2:1-10 The Great Apostasy
"Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is ALREADY AT WORK; only He who now RESTRAINS will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved."
This is one of the personal reasons why I believe in the rapture of the church and it is before tribulations. As the bible clearly says the Holy Spirit abides/lives in every true believers (we are the temple of the living God). Once the Holy Spirit(the restrainer) was removed by God here on earth, that includes every believers as he also promised, I will never leave you nor forsake you.
Post by: dpogs on Dec 10, 2015 at 03:59 AM
Post by: tony on Dec 10, 2015 at 06:19 AM
well what year is today na? so pwede mong mabasa ang bibliya at mairecite ito, pero sa huli mangmang ka pa rin.....
Post by: dpogs on Dec 10, 2015 at 06:35 AM
in 1988 a co-worder who was a born again christian handed mo an article entitled, "88 reasons why it will happen in 1988" he talks about rapture and the end of the world....
well what year is today na? so pwede mong mabasa ang bibliya at mairecite ito, pero sa huli mangmang ka pa rin.....
yup, mangmang ang magbibigay ng date kung kalian ang coming of Christ (or end of world) :)
pero mas mangmang ang hindi naghahanda sa second coming of Christ.
Post by: tony on Dec 10, 2015 at 06:38 AM
Post by: ♡ lvcdg23™ ✌ on Dec 10, 2015 at 07:09 AM
Post by: tony on Dec 10, 2015 at 07:18 AM
Post by: barrister on Jan 01, 2016 at 10:55 AM
Before the end of this year, many significant events are predicted. The great world economic collapse which leads to ONE WORLD CURRENCY and financial market system. And the contact (even possible war) with aliens, the coming of the alien God (matutuwa si dpogs dito) which is the agenda for project bluebeam, Jade Helm, HAARP, Chemtrails, CERN, and Vatican's lucifer telescope paving the way for ONE WORLD RELIGION. All under the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, just believing everything the bible says.
Before the end of "this year" (2015) daw - the great world economic collapse, one world currency, contact with aliens, one world religion, one world government.
Nasa bible daw yon, ha. Baka naman hindi lang marunong umintindi ng bible... :D
Paano ba yan, 2016 na.
Happy New Year!
Post by: JT on Jan 02, 2016 at 06:21 AM
Before the end of "this year" (2015) daw - the great world economic collapse, one world currency, contact with aliens, one world religion, one world government.
Nasa bible daw yon, ha. Baka naman hindi lang marunong umintindi ng bible... :D
Paano ba yan, 2016 na.
Happy New Year!
So are you implying that these blood moon preachers (eg John Hagee, Jonathan Cahn, etc) does not understand the bible? Who knows then, you??? Do you really think you are better than them or from everyone here in pinoydvd?
Yes, they made a mistake of putting dates on the prophecies (or even adding personal interpretations or assumptions) but doesnt make them a lesser person in the kingdom of God for I'm sure they have led more people to Jesus Christ than all of us here. And as it is written, these prophecies in the bible although they may tarry it will come to pass.
You claim to believe in the bible. you claim to understand and had been giving impression that you know it very well. Now, could you tell us what you are doing to build up His church? How do you fulfil the great commission? Or do you even know as a follower of Jesus that you need to do things?
I think I have to remind you again I did not prophecy these things. Now this is my prophecy, that 2016 will not be a happy year for you ... this you should remember.
Post by: tony on Jan 02, 2016 at 07:50 AM
Quote
Now this is my prophecy, that 2016 will not be a happy year for you ... this you should remember.
we criticize, but we do not pray for sad things.....unchristian.... :'(
so what happened to Christ's "turn the other cheek"?
Post by: RU9 on Jan 02, 2016 at 12:42 PM
Post by: JT on Jan 02, 2016 at 02:28 PM
we criticize, but we do not pray for sad things.....unchristian.... :'(
so what happened to Christ's "turn the other cheek"?
This is not about turning the other cheek. Has nobody even taught you what that passage means? You need to understand the difference between praying for bad things(that is cursing) and what is a prophetic word.
What is needed here is repentance from arrogance and pride.
One thing I really don't like is when a person mocking and ridiculing church leaders(of whatever religion they may be). Haven't you all read the scriptures when God says "Do not touch my anointed ones, and give my prophets no harm".
Post by: tony on Jan 02, 2016 at 04:43 PM
Post by: abbey on Jan 02, 2016 at 06:46 PM
So are you implying that these blood moon preachers (eg John Hagee, Jonathan Cahn, etc) does not understand the bible? Who knows then, you??? Do you really think you are better than them or from everyone here in pinoydvd?
Yes, they made a mistake of putting dates on the prophecies (or even adding personal interpretations or assumptions) but doesnt make them a lesser person in the kingdom of God for I'm sure they have led more people to Jesus Christ than all of us here. And as it is written, these prophecies in the bible although they may tarry it will come to pass.
You claim to believe in the bible. you claim to understand and had been giving impression that you know it very well. Now, could you tell us what you are doing to build up His church? How do you fulfil the great commission? Or do you even know as a follower of Jesus that you need to do things?
I think I have to remind you again I did not prophecy these things. Now this is my prophecy, that 2016 will not be a happy year for you ... this you should remember.
Deuteronomy 18:22
Pagka ang isang propeta ay nagsasalita sa pangalan ng Panginoon, kung ang bagay na sinasabi ay hindi sumunod ni mangyari, ay hindi sinalita ng Panginoon ang bagay na yaon: ang propetang yaon ay nagsalita ng kahambugan, huwag mong katatakutan siya.
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 04, 2016 at 06:39 AM
One thing I really don't like is when a person mocking and ridiculing church leaders(of whatever religion they may be). Haven't you all read the scriptures when God says "Do not touch my anointed ones, and give my prophets no harm".
Were they anointed? How do we know if they're not false prophets?
Post by: tony on Jan 04, 2016 at 07:07 AM
Post by: abbey on Jan 04, 2016 at 04:20 PM
16Ang lahat ng mga kasulatan na kinasihan ng Dios ay mapapakinabangan din naman sa pagtuturo, sa pagsansala, sa pagsaway, sa ikatututo na nasa katuwiran:
2 TIMOTEO 3:17
17Upang ang tao ng Dios ay maging sakdal, tinuruang lubos sa lahat ng mga gawang mabuti.
Post by: abbey on Jan 04, 2016 at 04:34 PM
bible readers take the words of the bible as if they were letters of the law...their own laws, that others have to follow....
and also taking out of context. :(
Post by: tony on Jan 04, 2016 at 04:52 PM
why do some bible readers still come back to the old testament? are they Jews?
Post by: dpogs on Jan 04, 2016 at 05:07 PM
all the prophecies in the old testament has been realised with our messiah Jesus Christ....
why do some bible readers still come back to the old testament? are they Jews?
Because Old Testamens speaks about Jesus.
Because the main message of Old Testament is Jesus.
Post by: tony on Jan 04, 2016 at 05:13 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jan 04, 2016 at 08:23 PM
but the Jews are still waiting for their messiah....
That's why they are not believers of JC.
Post by: JT on Jan 08, 2016 at 09:32 AM
mercy and compassion, think of it always....
If this is the case, Jesus himself was very unchristian. Jesus was indeed merciful and compassion to the sick, weary, helpless and humble but to the prideful and arrogant like the pharisees(the lawyers of that generation), He called them "brood of vipers"(eg in Matthew 23:32-34) and compared to whitewashed tomb in Matthew 23:27. Jesus is always rebuking and condemning them.
Why is that? Remember God's principle in Proverbs 3:34 "Surely He scorns the scornful, But gives grace to the humble." and in James 4:6 "... Therefore He says: God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.”.
So am I being harsh and unchristian at all? I am just following Psalm 40:4 "Blessed is that man who makes the Lord his trust, AND DOES NOT RESPECT THE PROUD, nor such as turn aside to lies."
Is my prophecy harsh? It is no brainer. Bible says many things on what is about to happen to prideful, slanderer and arrogant person.
Proverbs 16:18 says "Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall."
Psalm 101:5 says "Whoever secretly slanders his neighbor, Him I will destroy; The one who has a haughty look and a proud heart, Him I will not endure."
Isaiah 13:11 says “I will punish the world for its evil, And the wicked for their iniquity; I will halt the arrogance of the proud, And will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible."
and many more ...
Post by: JT on Jan 08, 2016 at 09:34 AM
Deuteronomy 18:22
Pagka ang isang propeta ay nagsasalita sa pangalan ng Panginoon, kung ang bagay na sinasabi ay hindi sumunod ni mangyari, ay hindi sinalita ng Panginoon ang bagay na yaon: ang propetang yaon ay nagsalita ng kahambugan, huwag mong katatakutan siya.
Probably the most common verse the devil is using to easily discredit God's anointed.
This passage refers to the false prophecy not the false prophet. The whole context is about that great prophet(like Moses) God will raise up whom all of His prophecies will come true and that is Jesus Christ alone (see acts 3:22-26). If this is the basis for false prophet, all God's anointed fails. Even the person who taught you this is also a false one since all(apart from Jesus) made a wrong proclamation at a certain point especially in their early ministries.
And why fail? Bible says, 1 Corinthians 13:9 says "For we know in part and we prophesy in part." There is a tendency to add personal experience or assumptions to it in which the propesy fails (eg dates,anti-christ names, etc).
How to know a false prophet then? Matthew 7:15-20 says you Will know them by Their fruits.
"15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them."
Post by: tony on Jan 08, 2016 at 11:58 AM
If this is the case, Jesus himself was very unchristian. Jesus was indeed merciful and compassion to the sick, weary, helpless and humble but to the prideful and arrogant like the pharisees(the lawyers of that generation), He called them "brood of vipers"(eg in Matthew 23:32-34) and compared to whitewashed tomb in Matthew 23:27. Jesus is always rebuking and condemning them.
Why is that? Remember God's principle in Proverbs 3:34 "Surely He scorns the scornful, But gives grace to the humble." and in James 4:6 "... Therefore He says: God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.”.
So am I being harsh and unchristian at all? I am just following Psalm 40:4 "Blessed is that man who makes the Lord his trust, AND DOES NOT RESPECT THE PROUD, nor such as turn aside to lies."
Is my prophecy harsh? It is no brainer. Bible says many things on what is about to happen to prideful, slanderer and arrogant person.
Proverbs 16:18 says "Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall."
Psalm 101:5 says "Whoever secretly slanders his neighbor, Him I will destroy; The one who has a haughty look and a proud heart, Him I will not endure."
Isaiah 13:11 says “I will punish the world for its evil, And the wicked for their iniquity; I will halt the arrogance of the proud, And will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible."
and many more ...
this is what i call cherry picking by bible readers......
they use the words written in the bible to win arguments...
that is why they miss the forest for the trees...
what took you so long to respond?
if you do not recognise that Jesus had to die on the cross
because of his love of humanity, your knowledge of the bible is useless.....
Post by: dpogs on Jan 08, 2016 at 03:29 PM
We must see first the wrath of God and His judgement before we can recognize His mercy and sacrifice to us.
Post by: tony on Jan 08, 2016 at 04:12 PM
If we cant see the wrath of God towards sins and cant ecognize that Jesus is a righteous God who will punish sinners and transgressor, then our knowledge about Jesus is useless.
We must see first the wrath of God and His judgement before we can recognize His mercy and sacrifice to us.
the wrath of God has been shown humanity...what more do we need to see?
Post by: dpogs on Jan 08, 2016 at 04:31 PM
the wrath of God has been shown humanity...what more do we need to see?
The wrath of God and judgement to our personal sins.
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 08, 2016 at 04:35 PM
Paano na kung hindi ka nakapagkumpisal sa mga nagawa mong kasalanan o nakahingi man lang ng paumanhin sa iyong mga dasal? Paano na iyung "mercy"?
Post by: tony on Jan 08, 2016 at 04:38 PM
The wrath of God and judgement to our personal sins.
the mortal sins we inherited have been forgiven with Jesus's death on the cross...
what personal sins?
we confess our sins to God and ask forgiveness and vow never to repeat them...
that done and we are good as new.....
are we talking the same God? cause my God is a loving God, does not threaten his children....
but loves them constantly.....
Post by: tigkal on Jan 08, 2016 at 04:48 PM
That's why they are not believers of JC.
Kaya if and when the Jews are believers of JC, that will be the signal that the end is near. Kasi originally salvation was for Jews only. E kung mag judgment daw na, majority of the Jews ay hindi kasali.
Post by: dpogs on Jan 08, 2016 at 04:48 PM
Worry first your own salvation before you worry other's, how can a blind lead another blind?
Post by: tony on Jan 08, 2016 at 04:50 PM
Post by: dpogs on Jan 08, 2016 at 04:52 PM
Kaya if and when the Jews are believers of JC, that will be the signal that the end is near. Kasi originally salvation was for Jews only. E kung mag judgment daw na, majority of the Jews ay hindi kasali.
This I agree. Jesus will destroy His enemies satan and antichrist for the fulfillment of the propjecu, para sa restoration ng natiom of Jews.
Post by: dpogs on Jan 08, 2016 at 05:02 PM
the mortal sins we inherited have been forgiven with Jesus's death on the cross...
what personal sins?
we confess our sins to God and ask forgiveness and vow never to repeat them...
that done and we are good as new.....
are we talking the same God? cause my God is a loving God, does not threaten his children....
but loves them constantly.....
If we dont realize the degree of penalty of our sins and recognize God as righteous God able to punish those who sins against Him, confession and asking for forgiveness is useless and we cant be His children.
A person will never seeks a doctor hanggat hindi nya narerecognize na may sakit siya. If he realize na may sakit siya but never believing nor accepting that the doctor is the onlu one tjat can heal him completely, ang paginom inom niya ng gamot ay walang silbi.
The God of the Bible saves those who believe on Him and punish those who commit sins. GOD is not only merciful but HE is also a righteous Judge, punishing ang giving judgement to those who committed sins.
Post by: pTrader on Jan 08, 2016 at 05:18 PM
If we dont realize the degree of penalty of our sins and recognize God as righteous God able to punish those who sins against Him, confession and asking for forgiveness is useless and we cant be His children.
A person will never seeks a doctor hanggat hindi nya narerecognize na may sakit siya. If he realize na may sakit siya but never believing nor accepting that the doctor is the onlu one tjat can heal him completely, ang paginom inom niya ng gamot ay walang silbi.
The God of the Bible saves those who believe on Him and punish those who commit sins. GOD is not only merciful but HE is also a righteous Judge, punishing ang giving judgement to those who committed sins.
Correction:
The God of the Bible saves those who believe on Him and punish those who do not believe.
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 08, 2016 at 05:40 PM
If we dont realize the degree of penalty of our sins and recognize God as righteous God able to punish those who sins against Him, confession and asking for forgiveness is useless and we cant be His children.
A person will never seeks a doctor hanggat hindi nya narerecognize na may sakit siya. If he realize na may sakit siya but never believing nor accepting that the doctor is the onlu one tjat can heal him completely, ang paginom inom niya ng gamot ay walang silbi.
The God of the Bible saves those who believe on Him and punish those who commit sins. GOD is not only merciful but HE is also a righteous Judge, punishing ang giving judgement to those who committed sins.
I don't believe we need to realize the degree of penalty. We just need to realize that we have sinned. This realization and the realization that we need to make amends by confessing our sins and vow not repeat is the most important.
Post by: tony on Jan 08, 2016 at 07:20 PM
Post by: JT on Jan 08, 2016 at 07:26 PM
this is what i call cherry picking by bible readers......
they use the words written in the bible to win arguments...
that is why they miss the forest for the trees...
what took you so long to respond?
Oh I'm sorry, I've been travelling and I have a life outside of this pinoydvd forum so there are times I cannot reply immediately.
Sounds nice but if you can't support that with the scriptures then we really can't reason out together and come up with the common understanding.
if you do not recognise that Jesus had to die on the cross
because of his love of humanity, your knowledge of the bible is useless.....
Err, can you elaborate your point further? How does this relate to my post?
Tell me, just because Jesus died for humanity everyone is already save? Everyone automatically a child of God so it is already ok to ignore other scriptures that talks about hell, or judgement or consequence of sin or wrath of God or pursuing righteousness and holiness?
the mortal sins we inherited have been forgiven with Jesus's death on the cross...
what personal sins?
we confess our sins to God and ask forgiveness and vow never to repeat them...
that done and we are good as new.....
are we talking the same God? cause my God is a loving God, does not threaten his children....
but loves them constantly.....
Only the mortal sins has been forgiven on the cross? Whose doctrine is this?
Just curious, are you really able to do this "vow never to repeat them" part? And you say only then you become good as new, so honestly how many times did you become good as new? I've never seen this in the bible, could you qoute your basis on this?
Indeed we are not talking about the same God because the God you know is half-truth. Bible refers to God both as King and Father. As a Father yes I agree with your understanding, He is loving and forgiving. But God is also a King, a righteous and just King that will execute fair judgement to all and disobedience has its consequences.
Post by: abbey on Jan 08, 2016 at 07:35 PM
Probably the most common verse the devil is using to easily discredit God's anointed.
This passage refers to the false prophecy not the false prophet. The whole context is about that great prophet(like Moses) God will raise up whom all of His prophecies will come true and that is Jesus Christ alone (see acts 3:22-26). If this is the basis for false prophet, all God's anointed fails. Even the person who taught you this is also a false one since all(apart from Jesus) made a wrong proclamation at a certain point especially in their early ministries.
And why fail? Bible says, 1 Corinthians 13:9 says "For we know in part and we prophesy in part." There is a tendency to add personal experience or assumptions to it in which the propesy fails (eg dates,anti-christ names, etc).
How to know a false prophet then? Matthew 7:15-20 says you Will know them by Their fruits.
"15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them."
"Now this is my prophecy, that 2016 will not be a happy year for you ... this you should remember."
Is this the kind of fruit you are talking about?
True Christians taught to love their enemies.
Post by: tony on Jan 08, 2016 at 07:50 PM
Quote
Indeed we are not talking about the same God because the God you know is half-truth.
really, who are you to judge?
Post by: tony on Jan 08, 2016 at 07:51 PM
Quote
True Christians taught to love their enemies.
true christians will turn the other cheek....
Post by: abbey on Jan 08, 2016 at 07:58 PM
"ONE WORLD RELIGION".
Malabo mangyayari 'to, nil possibility. Ang mangyayari forced to practice 1 religion lahat ng mga tao sa sanlibutan.. pagdating sa religion, you're free to practice whatever religion you think is right/correct (INC, RC, Islam, Mormon etc) or you may choose not to practice any religion at all. Mas lalong dadami terrorists kong 1 religion nalang at no choice ka na e-practice kong anong religion gusto mo.
"ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT"
Malabo din, Hindi papayag si Mar nyan, tatakbo pa cya pagkapangulo. :-)
Isa lang naman talaga ang relihiyon na itinuturo ng Dios at ito ay ang Igliesia ng Dios.
Dahil ayaw sumunod ng tao sa Dios..gumawa sya ng sarili nyang relihiyon.
Pag balik ni Cristo sya na ang maghahari un parang malabo mangyari un na ang manyayari.. ;D ;D
Post by: rulesmeister on Jan 08, 2016 at 08:49 PM
Post by: JT on Jan 08, 2016 at 09:24 PM
"Now this is my prophecy, that 2016 will not be a happy year for you ... this you should remember."
Is this the kind of fruit you are talking about?
True Christians taught to love their enemies.
A prophecy foretells of things to come. Not as cursing but a warning. Like I qouted, the bible is clear where a prideful person is heading. Repentance and humility is the key in averting it.
I've never considered Barrister as an enemy. More like an iron sharpening another iron so there will be frictions. But I need to rebuke pride, arrogance and slandering for his sake.
Proverbs 13:18 says "Poverty and shame will come to him who disdains correction, But he who regards a rebuke will be honored."
Proverbs 28:23 says "He who rebukes a man will find more favor afterward Than he who flatters with the tongue."
Am I really unchristian like? Then tell me how about these scriptures ...
1 Corinthians 5:1-5 "1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 DELIVER SUCH A ONE TO SATAN for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
or in
1 Timothy 1:18-20 "18 This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 19 having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, 20 of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, WHOM I DELIVERED TO SATAN that they may learn not to blaspheme."
So both Jesus and Paul also are very unchristian now ???
Post by: JT on Jan 08, 2016 at 09:24 PM
Isa lang naman talaga ang relihiyon na itinuturo ng Dios at ito ay ang Igliesia ng Dios.
Dahil ayaw sumunod ng tao sa Dios..gumawa sya ng sarili nyang relihiyon.
May I ask kung ano ang pangalan ng iglesia na ito? Is it really man who created religion or the devil did it?
Pag balik ni Cristo sya na ang maghahari un parang malabo mangyari un na ang manyayari.. ;D ;D
Ang labo yata nito.
Post by: JT on Jan 08, 2016 at 09:25 PM
really, who are you to judge?
Why ask when it is by your word when you said, "their God is the threatening god......my God is the god of love..."
true christians will turn the other cheek....
Are you referring to Matthew 5:39 "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."?
And you interpret this as pacifism?
Post by: JT on Jan 08, 2016 at 09:25 PM
^again, based on bible ung belief na yan.. I thought this thread is proving god WITHOUT the bible? Kaya nga everything I posted in this thread doesn't refer to any verse (or concept) found in the bible
Yep noted. completely diverted out of the subject. Sorry about that.
Post by: abbey on Jan 08, 2016 at 10:47 PM
^again, based on bible ung belief na yan.. I thought this thread is proving god WITHOUT the bible? Kaya nga everything I posted in this thread doesn't refer to any verse (or concept) found in the bible
So lets use science to prove God existence ,the DNA of Man and the vast universe existence.. the only sensible conclusion of this whole matter is God..
Post by: dpogs on Jan 09, 2016 at 04:48 AM
So lets use science to prove God existence ,the DNA of Man and the vast universe existence.. the only sensible conclusion of this whole matter is God..
Or an alien... In terms of science...
Post by: oweidah on Jan 09, 2016 at 05:33 AM
Post by: sardaukar on Feb 28, 2016 at 11:23 AM
What would you do if you found out that the earth is not a GLOBE but a VAULTED DOME? NOT A BALL BUT A FLAT EARTH. This alone proves that there is a God. And the truth can be found in the bible. The true earth map looks like this
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/20/3f/5f/203f5f6f0f3697feade72debd6737a28.jpg)
and we live in a world like this
(http://www.testingtheglobe.com/images/HebrewConceptEarth.jpg)
The earth is not spinning and there is a firmament above us which nobody has gone thru yet. All the NASA missions, their videos & pictures, proofs etc were hoaxes and fabricated. All composite pictures and computer graphics only.
There is so much proof of flat earth, thanks to the technology now available to common people. Try this also https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoiIt_v1D-6z75LmrdIU2aw
So now I challenge all of you here to search and research about these ... and prove me wrong.
Post by: tony on Feb 28, 2016 at 11:25 AM
Post by: JT on Feb 28, 2016 at 05:37 PM
I know this is an old topic but I just had to ask, how can it be day time in 1 part of the world and night time in another on a flat earth?
Video illustrations were shown here:
Day and Night
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiOhsKAR6OY
4 Seasons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R52_PdZlSq8
And some supporting theories ...
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html
Post by: sardaukar on Feb 28, 2016 at 11:08 PM
Post by: rulesmeister on Feb 29, 2016 at 07:15 AM
Kumuha ka ng globo na may stand pati flashlight, patayin ang ilaw sa kwarto. Turn on the flashlight, at ~2ft away point the flashlight at Japan, then slowly turn the globe towards the direction of China, then India, then Europe. Notice that the opposite side ay madilim? At hindi lahat ng lugar parehas naiilawan?
For flat earth naman, Kumuha ka ng papel na world map, guntingin mo hugis bilog ung sides. Patayain ilaw sa kwarto. Turn on the flashlight point the flashlight at Japan at ~2ft away. Notice that all the world sabay may liwanag >:D >:D >:D Thats because light travels at 300,000,000 meters per sec kaya instantaneous lumiliwanag buong mundo.
Besides hindi ka ba nag wonder man lang bakit ung ibang celestial bodies na malapit sa earth like the moon, sun at mars ay bilog tapos earth lang ang naiba?
Hindi naman rocket science ung theory, simpleng materyales lang pwde mo e-prove kong tama o mali. ;)
Post by: tigkal on Feb 29, 2016 at 10:24 AM
Post by: barrister on Feb 29, 2016 at 02:51 PM
Hindi naman rocket science ung theory, simpleng materyales lang pwde mo e-prove kong tama o mali. ;)
Hindi naman scientific proof ang basehan niya. Relihiyon ang basehan niyan, kaya kahit ano sabihin mo, hindi maniniwala yan.
Sa tagal na umiikot ang space station may naniniwala pa rin pala the earth is flat.
Fake daw ang space station. Fake daw ang space travel. Fake daw ang pictures of the earth from space.
Kahit ano pakita mo, hindi maniniwala yan.
Video representation of a flat earth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiOhsKAR6OY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiOhsKAR6OY)
Where is the south pole?
Sabi nila, the south pole does not exist. The center of the world is what we call the "north pole."
Antarctica is the outer boundary of the earth. It's impossible to go beyond the boundary.
Tindi talaga... :D :P
Post by: JT on Feb 29, 2016 at 05:20 PM
Simpleng elementary school science experiment lang...
Kumuha ka ng globo na may stand pati flashlight, patayin ang ilaw sa kwarto. Turn on the flashlight, at ~2ft away point the flashlight at Japan, then slowly turn the globe towards the direction of China, then India, then Europe. Notice that the opposite side ay madilim? At hindi lahat ng lugar parehas naiilawan?
Is it really just elementary? How to explain countries with 6 months of day and 6 months of night in your model? Given that earth spins 24 hrs and revolve around the sun in 365 days. Even if earth is titled, common sense tells me it shouldn't be for 6 months with day (or night).
Or how about in an eclipse. How can a huge sun gets completely covered by a small moon. And vice versa. Flat Earth folks clain Sun and Moon are of the same size. And not that far from earth thus you can see from the model in youtube I posted earlier.
Check this video also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f76XT7nbARQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpuOmsYtSGE
Post by: JT on Feb 29, 2016 at 05:24 PM
Sa tagal na umiikot ang space station may naniniwala pa rin pala the earth is flat.
Have you even checked the distance of space station? Its not even in outer space. It is still within earth's atmosphere (inner space). NASA and Wiki says "The ISS maintains an orbit with an altitude of between 330 and 435 km"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station
Post by: JT on Feb 29, 2016 at 05:31 PM
Fake daw ang space station. Fake daw ang space travel. Fake daw ang pictures of the earth from space.
No one says space station is fake. But it is clear, its not in outer space.
Fake Space travel? No. The question is how far did man really reached in space. If only there is a feasible explanation of how NASA able to overcome van allen belt and thermosphere with a mere tinfoil protection.
Fake daw ang pictures of the earth from space? Not completely but it has been edited. Get a so called genuine photo, use photoshop and reverse the color and you see inconsistecies with some shades which should not be the case for genuine ones.
But I wanted to be clear that I'm not advocating flat-earth. It's just that there are inconsistencies with science that needs further explanations.
Post by: JT on Feb 29, 2016 at 05:50 PM
If the sun is always up in the sky how does it seem to rise and set over the horizon? Won't it suddenly just appear up in the sky when it passes overhead?
Some explanations here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XugZ9wGnk9M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYoYQAD3SCM
Post by: majoe on Feb 29, 2016 at 09:13 PM
...
Kahit ano pakita mo, hindi maniniwala yan.
Video representation of a flat earth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiOhsKAR6OY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiOhsKAR6OY)
Where is the south pole?
Sabi nila, the south pole does not exist. The center of the world is what we call the "north pole."
Antarctica is the outer boundary of the earth. It's impossible to go beyond the boundary.
Tindi talaga... :D :P
hanggang ngayon di pa rin pala matanggap ang katotohanan :(
Post by: majoe on Feb 29, 2016 at 09:27 PM
But I wanted to be clear that I'm not advocating flat-earth. It's just that there are inconsistencies with science that needs further explanations.
wala namang inconsistencies. yung mga links na pinakita mo, entertainment lang yan para makakuha ng maraming viewers. alam nila yan. tatawa tawa lang yan pag may nagogoyo sila.
Post by: rulesmeister on Feb 29, 2016 at 09:28 PM
hanggang ngayon di pa rin pala matanggap ang katotohanan :(
Actually lahat ng mga rebuttal nya against the round-Earth fact (i.e. several months no daylight at Northern Hemisphere & eclipse) kaya ko e-explain in simple sentences, but there's no point in explaining since convinced na talaga ung tao. Let's just respect his belief na flat. And we'll hold to our truth na round. Simple as that.
Post by: sardaukar on Feb 29, 2016 at 10:08 PM
Some explanations here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XugZ9wGnk9M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYoYQAD3SCM
The video didn't really address my question about why the sun appears to rise and set over the horizon if it's always overhead.
Also, the video is claiming that for you to see the sun (or to experience day time) you have to be within 4200 miles of the sun. Pretty much the distance of the north pole to the equator (according to the video) so I used that circle here.
The problem is, at that distance, parts of the world that should still be day time cannot be illuminated by the sun. For instance it should still be day time in western Africa but it's outside of the circle.
Also, places that are supposed to be in the same time zone will see the sun sooner if they are closer to the north pole while those farther away from the north pole (but in the same time zone) will still be in darkness (because they will be different distances from the sun).
(http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q117/sardaukar13/sun_zpsodsqdpor.jpg)
Post by: JT on Mar 01, 2016 at 03:05 AM
wala namang inconsistencies. yung mga links na pinakita mo, entertainment lang yan para makakuha ng maraming viewers. alam nila yan. tatawa tawa lang yan pag may nagogoyo sila.
Its not what these people are posting, its what NASA is posting. For example itong latest videos ng moon from space. More like a cookie from sesame street.
(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/epicearthmoonstill.png)
Watch the video here and what do you notice?
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/from-a-million-miles-away-nasa-camera-shows-moon-crossing-face-of-earth
Post by: JT on Mar 01, 2016 at 03:06 AM
The video didn't really address my question about why the sun appears to rise and set over the horizon if it's always overhead.
Yah I got to find the right link. It was explained in some sites.
Post by: JT on Mar 01, 2016 at 03:14 AM
wala namang inconsistencies. yung mga links na pinakita mo, entertainment lang yan para makakuha ng maraming viewers. alam nila yan. tatawa tawa lang yan pag may nagogoyo sila.
Or how about Neil Armstrong's spacesuit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdTv8L2_G7Y
Post by: JT on Mar 01, 2016 at 03:20 AM
Actually lahat ng mga rebuttal nya against the round-Earth fact (i.e. several months no daylight at Northern Hemisphere & eclipse) kaya ko e-explain in simple sentences, but there's no point in explaining since convinced na talaga ung tao. Let's just respect his belief na flat. And we'll hold to our truth na round. Simple as that.
Why don't you try explaining the 6 months of day or night in your simple sentence? I didn't say I'm already convince with flat earth, why you keep on insisting that?
But I am not convinced with all of NASA's claims so must continue to seek the truth. Hindi yung tanggap lang ng tanggap kung ano anuman and sabihin ng mga scientist.
Ah kasi yan nga natutunan mo sa elementary and just stayed with that for life.
Post by: rulesmeister on Mar 01, 2016 at 09:14 AM
Hindi mo nga kaya e-explain kong bakit sa flat earth model, iilawan mo ung Japan eh buong mundo sabay lumiliwanag?
I would suggest you go to a planetarium, mas maganda ata ung facilities nila dyan sa New Zealand compared dito sa Pinas.
I would also suggest sa discovery channel science o National geoghraphic ka manood when it comes to science. Ung Youtube pangkatuwaan lang generally un.
Post by: tigkal on Mar 01, 2016 at 10:15 AM
Post by: JT on Dec 12, 2016 at 09:00 AM
Before the end of "this year" (2015) daw - the great world economic collapse, one world currency, contact with aliens, one world religion, one world government.
Nasa bible daw yon, ha. Baka naman hindi lang marunong umintindi ng bible... :D
Paano ba yan, 2016 na.
Happy New Year!
So are you implying that these blood moon preachers (eg John Hagee, Jonathan Cahn, etc) does not understand the bible? Who knows then, you??? Do you really think you are better than them or from everyone here in pinoydvd?
Yes, they made a mistake of putting dates on the prophecies (or even adding personal interpretations or assumptions) but doesnt make them a lesser person in the kingdom of God for I'm sure they have led more people to Jesus Christ than all of us here. And as it is written, these prophecies in the bible although they may tarry it will come to pass.
You claim to believe in the bible. you claim to understand and had been giving impression that you know it very well. Now, could you tell us what you are doing to build up His church? How do you fulfil the great commission? Or do you even know as a follower of Jesus that you need to do things?
I think I have to remind you again I did not prophecy these things. Now this is my prophecy, that 2016 will not be a happy year for you ... this you should remember.
It's almost end of 2016. Kumusta na kaya si panyerong Barrister. Haven't seen any new post from him since September.
I hope he is still ok and can give update especially on this one.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 18, 2018 at 01:20 AM
Ang most na nabasa ko about God's presence is about creation and creator. If there is creation, then there must be a creator (God).
Post by: tony on May 18, 2018 at 06:20 AM
Post by: tigkal on May 18, 2018 at 07:25 PM
Post by: RU9 on May 19, 2018 at 12:47 AM
A creator of man can be proven. God as creator of all things in our galaxy and beyond cannot.
Interesting... Is the creator of man a metaphysical being? How can it be proven?
Post by: tigkal on May 19, 2018 at 03:30 AM
Interesting... Is the creator of man a metaphysical being? How can it be proven?We now have cloning technology. In nature, man has no purpose. All others have. So man was made/inserted into this world. We are too smart to become prey and too weak to become predator.
Post by: dpogs on May 19, 2018 at 04:18 AM
We now have cloning technology....
Cloning technology doesnt proved anything nor explain about creation or God.
Scientist in scotland successfully cloned a sheep from an adult somatic cell but that doesnt mean that they are the creator of that cloned sheep. :)
... In nature, man has no purpose. All others have. So man was made/inserted into this world. We are too smart to become prey and too weak to become predator.
In nature, man is to rule over the earth. That is their original purpose. We are not prey nor predator but ruler of this world.
Post by: tigkal on May 19, 2018 at 04:57 AM
Post by: dpogs on May 19, 2018 at 05:31 AM
A horse and a donkey mating will produce a mule or ass. Mules cant reproduce by themselves. You need to clone a mule so it can reproduce. And you will be the creator of a reproducing mule. That is the theory of man's creation. Woman cloned from man in order to reproduce by themselves. As to man to rule the world, we are failing so not designed to be. We do not have a place in nature's food chain. Therefore we are created with limitation. Our intelligence is capped to 10 percent max. Not fully unleashed. As to why we need to ask our creator if we meet them in the future.
Its reproduction not creation. Breeding within the same or close related species doesnt explain creation. Sstill doesnt explain who created the mule :) if you successfuly cloned human that doesnt explain creation or prove the creator of human.
Creator of the reproducing mule by cloning a mule? Human now is the creator of cloned mule. Seryoso ka? I believe the mosr appropriate technical term is "breeder" not a "creator". :) :) :)
Tegarding naman sa human as ruler of all animals. Parang si du30 lang yan. He ia the ruler of the Philippinea but failed miserably. Though failing but still the ruler of Philippines. Human failing to take care of this world doesnt mean human are not designed. Well in Biblical terms human are appointed to takecdominion over all animals :) fail or not humans are rulers. :)
Post by: dpogs on May 19, 2018 at 06:35 AM
... That is the theory of man's creation. Woman cloned from man in order to reproduce by themselves.
Theory of creation is very difderent from reproduction or breeding. Theory of creation resr on the idea of creating something new out from nothing within a very short period of time. Creator create man in a single day from dust.
We do not have a place in nature's food chain..
Scientifically speaking we do have part in nature's food chain.
Post by: bumblebee on May 22, 2018 at 03:55 PM
Post by: t-bone on May 22, 2018 at 05:02 PM
We do not have a place in nature's food chain.
Wait till the hungry Worms feast on your carcass when you die :D
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 22, 2018 at 06:14 PM
I think you should all agree on defining god first. Is he/she matter? Energy? Idea? What? If not, then you just can't.
Niced point. Siguro for me, God is the creator of all living and non-living things that has no beginning or end.
Post by: bumblebee on May 22, 2018 at 06:52 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 22, 2018 at 08:47 PM
Aside from those, what is he "made" of? If he's not composed of anything from this universe, then there's no way to prove him.Can you give to me the composition of love?
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: bumblebee on May 22, 2018 at 08:50 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 23, 2018 at 10:14 PM
^Pheromones, electric signals?
Hehe! Actually what i'm trying to point out is, not all things can be quantified or be physically existent in order to prove that it exists. Like gravity...
Post by: bumblebee on May 23, 2018 at 10:35 PM
Going back, if god is a part if this universe, yes, he may be proven without the bible.
Post by: tony on May 24, 2018 at 08:37 AM
even our ancients believed in Bathala....the Mayans and the Egytians, the Arabs and the Indians and Hindus...
we all do not have to reinvent God each time...
Post by: dpogs on May 24, 2018 at 11:21 AM
I can't say i agree but let's leave it at that.
Going back, if god is a part if this universe, yes, he may be proven without the bible.
God is not part of this system or universe. If He is then He is not God. He is not affected by time, matter and space. The creation itself proves that there is God. Its up to us whether to believe it or not. :)
https://youtu.be/w6AHcv19NIc
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 26, 2018 at 08:38 PM
I can't say i agree but let's leave it at that.
Going back, if god is a part if this universe, yes, he may be proven without the bible.
To rephrase what Dpogs said, and to clarify my description of God, He is the creator of the universe. So what Dpogs means is as a Creator, God is distinct from the universe.
Analogy:
Dpogs is distinct from the universe meaning he may not be part of the universe though Dpogs is in the universe.
Post by: bumblebee on May 26, 2018 at 08:51 PM
Post by: tigkal on May 26, 2018 at 09:24 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 26, 2018 at 09:36 PM
That is fine. Like i said, if that's God's definition, then he can't be proven.
It actually can sir. Everything around us is a creation. There must be a higher being that made everything.
There is a netflix series titled explained. About dna splicing. Technology is now available to create a being in our likeness or liking. Maybe replicating the creation of man.
Like what Dpogs said, there's a difference between creation and reproduction. Creation is making something out of nothing. Reproduction is making something out of something. The example you gave is making a human from DNA splicing and feeding it with enough nutrients in order for it to grow. That's reproducing. The creation i am describing is making something out of nothing. Your example used DNA. They cannot make humans without the proper DNA, nutrients, equipments etc.
Post by: bumblebee on May 26, 2018 at 09:43 PM
It actually can sir. Everything around us is a creation. There must be a higher being that made everything.
Beg to differ as that's not a proof. It's just something we believe or want to believe.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 26, 2018 at 09:45 PM
Beg to differ as that's not a proof. It's just something we believe or want to believe.
Fair enough. So if I may ask, what is your belief about the existence of everything?
Post by: bumblebee on May 26, 2018 at 09:54 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 26, 2018 at 11:30 PM
Short answer, there's a god. He triggered the big bang.
And who made the big bang?
Post by: bumblebee on May 26, 2018 at 11:52 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 27, 2018 at 12:32 AM
I believe God made, triggered, snapped, etc, the big bang. Sorry if it wasn't clear.
Agreed!
Post by: bumblebee on May 27, 2018 at 08:42 AM
Agreed!
Edited my post a bit.
Post by: tigkal on May 27, 2018 at 10:41 AM
Short answer, there's a god. He triggered the big bang.There are other galaxies other than ours. Different God who made the others? Or only one? 4.5b to make a universe is too long. What is logical is that the universe creation is based on science and by random events. Man created by design.
Post by: dpogs on May 27, 2018 at 10:58 AM
There are other galaxies other than ours. Different God who made the others? Or only one? 4.5b to make a universe is too long. What is logical is that the universe creation is based on science and by random events. Man created by design.
?
Meron pa bang ibang bigbang? :) di ba bigbang theory doon na galing lahat ng galaxies including ours.
Post by: bumblebee on May 27, 2018 at 12:04 PM
There are other galaxies other than ours. Different God who made the others? Or only one? 4.5b to make a universe is too long. What is logical is that the universe creation is based on science and by random events. Man created by design.
There is only one big bang and it didn't take 4.5b years to create the universe. I don't understand the rest of your post.
Post by: tigkal on May 27, 2018 at 04:57 PM
There is only one big bang and it didn't take 4.5b years to create the universe. I don't understand the rest of your post.So creation took six days only? Science estimates 4.5b years ago the big bang. If you mean universe is all galaxies discovered and to be discovered with only one creator, hard to prove. Only by faith you can believe it. By science cannot as of this moment.
Post by: tigkal on May 27, 2018 at 05:05 PM
?Only one big bang. But other galaxies were created million years after big bang.
Meron pa bang ibang bigbang? :) di ba bigbang theory doon na galing lahat ng galaxies including ours.
Post by: bumblebee on May 27, 2018 at 05:16 PM
We are 13.8b years from the big bang. Baka earth tinutukoy mo with the 4.5b years.
Post by: dpogs on May 27, 2018 at 10:16 PM
Only one big bang. But other galaxies were created million years after big bang.
Hmmm i think bumblebee means only 1 God since theres only 1 bigbang. :)
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 27, 2018 at 11:56 PM
There is only one big bang and it didn't take 4.5b years to create the universe. I don't understand the rest of your post.Welcome to the club.
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: docelmo on May 28, 2018 at 06:32 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 28, 2018 at 01:19 PM
Man created by design.
Sir 2 questions.
1. I don't get your stance regarding the existence of God. I get confusing detaila from your statements.
2. What do you mean "man created by design"?
Post by: tigkal on May 29, 2018 at 02:00 PM
As to the God who created the universe, that is a bit far fetched because new galaxies are born by the year. And if you read the bible, it seems that the creation process have been completed. This is creation by random events, not design.
There is an episode in Netflix Bill Nye saves the world about evolution for better understanding.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 29, 2018 at 07:32 PM
There are two creations, the universe and Man. I believe 1. someone made man because he is created by design. There is a missing link in the evolutionary process. Therefore there is 2. intervention. There are 5 major races in the world. Confirmed by DNA. Our DNA has a Master DNA, which allows mutation to some extent but there are limits as to what it can mutate into. The Master DNA see to it that it will not mutate beyond what is allowed. That is why we do not see persons with two heads, 4 arms, legs, etc.. Humans mutate into these condition but it will be stopped by the Master DNA. Hence we see some freaks born into the world but it will stop there. European races tend to have some thick skull and Asian races have thin skulls. That is the mutation due to environment and allowed by the Master DNA.
As to the God who created the universe, that is a bit far fetched because4. new galaxies are born by the year. And if you read the bible, it seems that the creation process have been completed. This is creation by 5. random events, not design.
There is an episode in Netflix Bill Nye saves the world about evolution for better understanding.
1. Who do you believe is that someone?
2. What, how or who intervened?
3. I don't understand master DNA? Could you further explain it? How does "master DNA" limit mutation?
4. I don't know of any galaxies born each year. Discovered, yes. Born meaning out of nothing, I don't think so.
5. Do you know how many possibilities or chances are there to create that "random event"?
Post by: docelmo on May 29, 2018 at 08:25 PM
That is fine. Like i said, if that's God's definition, then he can't be proven.
We can prove that the creator exists by the very existences or evidence of his creation.
In the same manner we can prove that somebody built or created say, a car, a watch, a house, an amplifier. All of which are by the way a lot more simpler than creating life, man, earth or the universe. All these most certainly can't create themselves or exist by chance. It takes a lot more faith to believe in chance than to believe in the existence of God.
Post by: bumblebee on May 29, 2018 at 09:16 PM
We can prove that the creator exists by the very existences or evidence of his creation.
In the same manner we can prove that somebody built or created say, a car, a watch, a house, an amplifier. All of which are by the way a lot more simpler than creating life, man, earth or the universe. All these most certainly can't create themselves or exist by chance. It takes a lot more faith to believe in chance than to believe in the existence of God.
Again, that's not proof. It's just something you believe in, which is fine.
Curious, you said creator. Can it not be creators? Who created the creator?
Post by: vonTrappRap on May 29, 2018 at 09:38 PM
There's no way to prove god. Either you believe there is a god because of personal reasons (i.e. - faith), or you don't. But proof is out of the question. What it all comes down to, really, is that admitting that you don't know the answer to a question is better than trying to attribute it to supernatural means.
Saying that everything around us is creation is inaccurate, because that reasoning starts with the assumption that there is a creator, thus labelling things all around us the creator's creation. So with that line of thinking, one already starts at the point that they are supposed to prove rather than arriving at it. Furthermore, I don't believe in a creator because using the term "creator" implies intent and I don't have any reason to think that there was any intent in how the universe started and how it evolved.
The big bang is a "singularity". Meaning it's physically impossible to understand what state anything was in before it occurred. There are some educated guesses, but they're completely unproveable, and always will be.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 29, 2018 at 11:07 PM
Strange thread.
There's no way to prove god. Either you believe there is a god because of personal reasons (i.e. - faith), or you don't. But proof is out of the question. What it all comes down to, really, is that admitting that you don't know the answer to a question is better than trying to attribute it to supernatural means.
Saying that everything around us is creation is inaccurate, because that reasoning starts with the assumption that there is a creator, thus labelling things all around us the creator's creation. So with that line of thinking, one already starts at the point that they are supposed to prove rather than arriving at it. Furthermore, I don't believe in a creator because using the term "creator" implies intent and I don't have any reason to think that there was any intent in how the universe started and how it evolved.
The big bang is a "singularity". Meaning it's physically impossible to understand what state anything was in before it occurred. There are some educated guesses, but they're completely unproveable, and always will be.
I see nothing wrong with the assumption of creation - creator relationship. Unless you believe that there is no creator?
So does it mean that you believe that the Big Bang appeared out of nothing?
Post by: docelmo on May 29, 2018 at 11:13 PM
say I have a red car in my driveway. Now explain to me how this came in into existence? Did it's engine, gears and parts create itself? By Chance? Or by it's creator?
Now, let's take the universe as whole. The universe is govern by laws and fundamental constants that if you change just one factor then the universe would not exist at all. Did all these factors just came in existence by chance?
Everything around us started to exist in the distant past, thus it implies that everything "all matter" was caused to exist by something other than itself. If you don't like to call that "creation" that's fine.
Lastly, it is not by faith or belief that I know both sir bumblebee or Sir Fontaine exists. The proof of their existence are the presence of their comments in this forum. They created coherent sentences that can be understood. Isn't it a good enough Proof of existence? Now, compare that to the author of the laws of nature and DNA....still not proof of His existence? What kind of proof are you looking for anyway?
Saying that it is only by belief in the existence of God or Creator is inaccurate. The laws of nature and the universe are facts and not a product of belief. The presence of information in the DNA is is based on fact and not belief...these facts in nature can only come from a powerful intelligent mind beyond space and time.
We may not know the entire reason or intent, but allow me just once to bring in the Bible and see what He has to say about it:
Romans 1:20
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
I think that's very clear....
There is only one Creator and by definition is not created.
Post by: docelmo on May 29, 2018 at 11:23 PM
I see nothing wrong with the assumption of creation - creator relationship. Unless you believe that there is no creator?….and may I say compared to the Mind of the Creator.....We and I mean Everyone are all Retards!
So does it mean that you believe that the Big Bang appeared out of nothing?
Post by: vonTrappRap on May 30, 2018 at 12:14 AM
I see nothing wrong with the assumption of creation - creator relationship. Unless you believe that there is no creator?
What proof (or at least theories rooted in sound logic) do we have that such a relationship exists? After all, this thread revolves around the discussion of proof and proving things. All we have is... this - everything that we can observe. It's just there. There's is nothing inherent in its mere existence that shows the presence of a creator which created it.
I don't believe in a creator, because like I said, the term "creator" implies intent. I don't believe in things coming to be because of a creator that had the intention of creating it. I believe that things just happened. At a certain point, for reasons beyond our comprehension, the universe developed into this hot, dense state and then the big bang happened.
So does it mean that you believe that the Big Bang appeared out of nothing?
I don't believe in anything with regards to what happened before the big bang. What I believe is that whatever it was, it's beyond the realm of current human comprehension. We are too restricted with certain concepts: That everything has a beginning and everything has an end... That time flows in a straight line... That something cannot come from absolute nothingness... And it's difficult for the vast majority of us to think beyond that. I believe that the answer lies in thinking beyond that. But for now, we don't know. No one knows. And like I previously mentioned, admitting that is better than trying to attribute it to supernatural being.
Post by: vonTrappRap on May 30, 2018 at 01:18 AM
Now, let's take the universe as whole. The universe is govern by laws and fundamental constants that if you change just one factor then the universe would not exist at all. Did all these factors just came in existence by chance?
We don't know.
Everything around us started to exist in the distant past, thus it implies that everything "all matter" was caused to exist by something other than itself. If you don't like to call that "creation" that's fine.
There were probably a sequence of events that led up to the big bang, and the current conception of the big bang model assumes the pre-existence of energy, time, and space. But even the Big Bang model does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe because there is no current logic that will sufficiently support it.
However, to transfer the entire academic discourse - the philosophical, scientific, and metaphysical inquiry - regarding the origins of the universe to the existence of a supernatural creator with the intent to create is pure folly if without the backing of some semblance of reason. If our argument is that there must have been a creator because we are surrounded by creation that originated from a time before the big bang... then that is simply faith... that is not proof.
We know how trees grow. We know how living things reproduce. We know the cycle of the seasons. We know so many things about the world and the universe grounded on hard science and irrefutable data. And in all of these scientific discoveries, there is no proof of a god or supernatural creator. But just because we have not yet uncovered the ultimate origin of the universe, do we have a license to claim that as proof of a god? No, I think not.
Lastly, it is not by faith or belief that I know both sir bumblebee or Sir Fontaine exists. The proof of their existence are the presence of their comments in this forum. They created coherent sentences that can be understood. Isn't it a good enough Proof of existence? Now, compare that to the author of the laws of nature and DNA....still not proof of His existence? What kind of proof are you looking for anyway?
You are making the logical assumption that we exist as creators of these comments because of the rules that you yourself know to be true due to first-hand observable, repeatable experience: You know that you exist. You know that you are typing words on a device and transmitting them with the intent to communicate over the internet under a certain alias. Thus, when you see other aliases posting other comments, you are making the logical assumption that similar beings exist who are creating these messages.
However, that's not proof. Closer to actual proof would be if you were right here where I am, seeing me type this message, and clicking "Post" while logged in under the alias "fontaine" - that is a much better argument for proof. Because otherwise, do you really know that I exist despite your very logical, reasonable assumption? Do you think I am a person? How do you know that I am not a piece of software or bot? What if bumblebee and fontaine are in fact the same piece of artificial intelligence posting as difference aliases and not separate, distinct, living, breathing persons? Even if you say that I still "exist" in that case, is it still the same state of existence that you initially thought to be? If such a state of existence is already so tenuous for such a basic example as people posting on an internet forum, then how much more tenuous could the existence of a supernatural creator for the origin of the universe be?
Ultimately, my point is that you do not know for certain the entire extent of the laws of the universe to make a similar logical assumption about its origins and attribute it to a god/creator, and it's most certainly not proof.
Saying that it is only by belief in the existence of God or Creator is inaccurate. The laws of nature and the universe are facts and not a product of belief. The presence of information in the DNA is is based on fact and not belief...these facts in nature can only come from a powerful intelligent mind beyond space and time.The laws of nature and the universe are facts - yes.
The presence of information in DNA exists - yes.
These facts in nature can only come from a powerful intelligent mind beyond space and time - no.
The first two have proof to back them up. That last part is belief/faith. That last part tries to answer the question: How is it that the laws of nature and the universe behave according to principles that can be described by logical formulas? It is only because we have no answers for it in solid, experimental/observation-based science that people tend to default to faith-based answers, but those faith-based answers do not have proof to back them up.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 30, 2018 at 04:09 AM
1. What proof (or at least theories rooted in sound logic) do we have that such a relationship exists? After all, this thread revolves around the discussion of proof and proving things. All we have is... this - everything that we can observe. It's just there. There's is nothing inherent in its mere existence that shows the presence of a creator which created it.
I don't believe in a creator, because like I said, the term "creator" implies intent. I don't believe in things coming to be because of a creator that had the intention of creating it. I believe that things just happened. At a certain point, for reasons beyond our comprehension, the universe developed into this hot, dense state and then the big bang happened.
I don't believe in anything with regards to what happened before the big bang. What I believe is that whatever it was, it's beyond the realm of current human comprehension. We are too restricted with certain concepts: That everything has a beginning and everything has an end... That time flows in a straight line... That something cannot come from absolute nothingness... And it's difficult for the vast majority of us to think beyond that. I believe that the answer lies in thinking beyond that. But for now, we don't know. No one knows. And like I previously mentioned, 3. admitting that is better than trying to attribute it to supernatural being.
1. Could you cite an example of a thing that, as you said is not made without intent? That everything is just happening? As an example, you don't have an intent of posting in this topic but it just happened without your knowledge?
2. Isn't it true that something cannot come out of nothingness?
3. How can admitting that you do not know better than trying to attribute it to a supernatural being? Hypothetically if I'm wrong and you're right, the belief in a supernatural being (God) what is there to loose? However if I am right and you are wrong, the consequences would be devastating in the end.
Post by: nerveblocker on May 30, 2018 at 05:46 AM
Post by: bumblebee on May 30, 2018 at 05:53 AM
Also, why the need to prove our beliefs? May duda ba tayo?
Post by: vonTrappRap on May 30, 2018 at 08:47 AM
1. Could you cite an example of a thing that, as you said is not made without intent? That everything is just happening? As an example, you don't have an intent of posting in this topic but it just happened without your knowledge?
When a boulder rolls down the side of a hill during an earthquake and leaves an indentation in the soil before it crashes into the plains below, then it rains and a puddle forms in the indentation left by boulder... who "created" that puddle? Whose intention was it for that puddle to form?
2. Isn't it true that something cannot come out of nothingness?
We don't know that, because we don't know what absolute nothingness is. It's just a concept and not something that anyone has ever observed or experienced. We know that something can come from something because we experience it every day. The concept of "something" is observable and we make educated predictions based on their properties every day. But the concept of "nothing" - the absence of all space, time, matter - is something that we don't know anything about, so no one can factually say or prove that something can or cannot come out of nothingness.
3. How can admitting that you do not know better than trying to attribute it to a supernatural being?
Because attributing something we do not understand to the supernatural is not grounded in the pursuit of truth. There is nothing factual about it. Admitting that we do not know opens up avenues for the search for truth and knowledge, but attributing what we don't know to the existence of a supernatural being only gives people a license to attribute everything not understandable in a similar manner and lets them live their lives based on a set of values not rooted in anything true or observable.
Hypothetically if I'm wrong and you're right, the belief in a supernatural being (God) what is there to loose? However if I am right and you are wrong, the consequences would be devastating in the end.
The consequences of people believing in a one true god through the ages have already been devastating: The crusades, terrorism, religious wars, discrimination, etc. So much hate has already been spread in the world because of the belief in a god. Parents mutilate their children's bodies without consent (i.e. - circumcision) in the name of religious tradition. Families have falling outs because of religious disputes. So there is a lot of real consequences rooted in the belief of a god.
Post by: dpogs on May 30, 2018 at 09:51 AM
When a boulder rolls down the side of a hill during an earthquake and leaves an indentation in the soil before it crashes into the plains below, then it rains and a puddle forms in the indentation left by boulder... who "created" that puddle? Whose intention was it for that puddle to form?
Maybe the gravity or other force or combination of boulder rain and graivty.... Who knows... Parang kotse sino ba gumawa ng kotse ang designer ang production crew o ang robor...What we only knows is that something or someone created that puddle or that car. The puddle/car didnt just pop out from nothing.
Post by: bumblebee on May 30, 2018 at 10:00 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 30, 2018 at 01:31 PM
1. When a boulder rolls down the side of a hill during an earthquake and leaves an indentation in the soil before it crashes into the plains below, then it rains and a puddle forms in the indentation left by boulder... who "created" that puddle? Whose intention was it for that puddle to form?
2. We don't know that, because we don't know what absolute nothingness is. It's just a concept and not something that anyone has ever observed or experienced. We know that something can come from something because we experience it every day. The concept of "something" is observable and we make educated predictions based on their properties every day. But the concept of "nothing" - the absence of all space, time, matter - is something that we don't know anything about, so no one can factually say or prove that something can or cannot come out of nothingness.
3. Because attributing something we do not understand to the supernatural is not grounded in the pursuit of truth. There is nothing factual about it. Admitting that we do not know opens up avenues for the search for truth and knowledge, but attributing what we don't know to the existence of a supernatural being only gives people a license to attribute everything not understandable in a similar manner and lets them live their lives based on a set of values not rooted in anything true or observable.
4. The consequences of people believing in a one true god through the ages have already been devastating: The crusades, terrorism, religious wars, discrimination, etc. So much hate has already been spread in the world because of the belief in a god. Parents mutilate their children's bodies without consent (i.e. - circumcision) in the name of religious tradition. Families have falling outs because of religious disputes. So there is a lot of real consequences rooted in the belief of a god.
1. Your example is not "made without intent" but an event.
2. Yes it's not something or someone has experienced, hence as you said educated predictions. However by saying that something came out of nothing is also an educated prediction.
3. Attributing something to a supernatural is also a pursuit of truth because there is an objective. Truth is not bound by material things. Non visible things are also bounded by truth. It doesn't stop people from searching avenues of knowledge.
4. Even in the non-belief of one true God can also devastating. Said events like family disputes, hatred and discrimination is also present with or without belief. Not having a belief doesn't make us perfect also and neither does belief. Yes there are definitely wars caused by religion. However only 6.98% of wars are attributed to religion. Majority of which is non religion based on the encyclopedia of Wars. Circumcision? It has been proven to be medically beneficial to children because it lessens the risk of urinary track infection. Just because it's a religious tradition doesn't make it wrong. Personal question sir, you may choose not to answer it. Are you circumcised? If yes, did you regret being circumcised? The consequences you cited are not rooted to the belief in one God.
Post by: tigkal on May 30, 2018 at 02:06 PM
Man's finite mind cannot fully explain the infinite existence of God. If man cannot fully comprehend God, faith comes in. It is just a personal choice if one should believe or not.This is similar to those Tards, whether yellow or duts, It is a belief, and sometimes no amount of proof or information is enough to sway their faith. When you deal with faith, no reason is needed. It is either you believe or believe more.
When it comes to religion, faith is okay, but when it comes to politics, faith in a leader is not okay according to the other side and the feeling is mutual.
I have read that for those with faith, even with data and information, they will never change their faith. I tried a question for believers a scenario, that some aliens would appear and perform all miracles mentioned in the bible, including creation of man, and would they still believe in God as before? Answers vary from it will never happen and still stand with their beliefs. That is faith.
Post by: vonTrappRap on May 30, 2018 at 02:37 PM
1. Your example is not "made without intent" but an event.
My original statement was that there is nothing inherent in the existence of things that proves the presence of a "creator." You made me cite an example of something that was brought into existence without intent and I gave you one. If you want to call its coming into existence "an event" that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that puddles exist and there are many other things that exist due to the randomness of the universe, beyond any intention of anything or anyone to create.
Everything we can observe is brought into existence in one way or another. Some because they were made and some because they just happened.
2. Yes it's not something or someone has experienced, hence as you said educated predictions. However by saying that something came out of nothing is also an educated prediction.
You can call it a reasonable guess - sure. We can debate how educated the guess is and go around metaphysical ideas surrounding what exactly absolute nothingness is. But ultimately, the point is that saying "something cannot come out of nothing" is not a truth, and our inability to grasp the concept of "the absence of all space, time, and matter" just goes back to what I originally asserted that we are too restricted by certain concepts to fully grasp what could have preceded the big bang.
3. Attributing something to a supernatural is also a pursuit of truth because there is an objective. Truth is not bound by material things. Non visible things are also bounded by truth. It doesn't stop people from searching avenues of knowledge.
Truth, knowledge, facts - these require observable proof. There is nothing that you can observe that offers scientific proof in the existence of a god, therefore attributing what we cannot understand to the existence of a god is not grounded in the truth. It is grounded in faith. What is grounded in truth is stating that we all simply do not know what preceded the creation of the universe.
4. Even in the non-belief of one true God can also devastating. Said events like family disputes, hatred and discrimination is also present with or without belief. Not having a belief doesn't make us perfect also and neither does belief.
I have no interest in the non-belief of one true god either. Besides, your statement was what was there to lose in the belief of a god - and I gave you examples of many things that humanity has already lost in people's belief of a god. Anyone is free to believe what they want to believe. I would rather that they didn't affect other people with their beliefs, but they are free to have whatever faith or belief they choose, regardless. Parlaying this discussion into a discourse about faith-based belief instead of provable science is beside the point, imo.
Yes there are definitely wars caused by religion. However only 6.98% of wars are attributed to religion.
Which still renders the answer to the question "What is there to lose?" as "A lot."
Circumcision? It has been proven to be medically beneficial to children because it lessens the risk of urinary track infection. Just because it's a religious tradition doesn't make it wrong.
It's not wrong because it is religious tradition. There are a lot of religious traditions that are not wrong. But It's wrong nontheless because no one should force you to mutilate your own body in such a radical, irreparable manner without your consent or any significant medical need.
Here is a more eloquently written, heavily referenced, and detailed rebuttal of the UTI claim than I could provide on my own. (http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/#n53)
To sum up:
- There are methodological issues with the studies done by Wiswell, including potential for selection bias and improper tratment of intact infants. Retrospective chart reviews are problematic because circumcision is not always recorded, and so some of the UTIs could have come from boys who were circucmised but not recorded as such. Further, breastfeeding may be a confounder.
- It is possible that the surgical antiseptic used during the circumcision is responsible for the observed difference.
- Girls have higher rates of UTI than intact boys, yet are afforded no special concern.
- You'd need to circumcise about fifty infants to prevent one UTI, which can usually be cleared by antibiotics.
So if people want to have their children permanently mutilated because it can provide a small chance of preventing an infection that can often be cleared up by antibiotics, there is legally nothing stopping them from doing so. But there are ethical and sexual reasons why men should keep their foreskin unless they make an informed decision to do otherwise as an adult.
Personal question sir, you may choose not to answer it. Are you circumcised? If yes, did you regret being circumcised? The consequences you cited are not rooted to the belief in one God.
While I'm circumcised and have a properly functioning penis/reproductive system, I'm strongly anti-circumcision primarily for the ethical reasons stated above. I am circumcised purely because of social convention and no other reason. I don't regret being circumcised, but I would have wished to have made the decision myself at the appropriate age because it is my body.
The consequences you cited are not rooted to the belief in one God.
Circumcision is primarily a religious practice. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_male_circumcision)
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 30, 2018 at 08:33 PM
My original statement was that there is nothing inherent in the existence of things that proves the presence of a "creator." You made me cite an example of something that was brought into existence without intent and I gave you one. If you want to call its coming into existence "an event" that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that puddles exist and 1. there are many other things that exist due to the randomness of the universe, beyond any intention of anything or anyone to create.
Everything we can observe is brought into existence in one way or another. Some because they were made and some because they just happened.
You can call it a reasonable guess - sure. We can debate how educated the guess is and go around metaphysical ideas surrounding what exactly absolute nothingness is. But ultimately, the point is that saying 2. "something cannot come out of nothing" is not a truth, and our inability to grasp the concept of "the absence of all space, time, and matter" just goes back to what 3. I originally asserted that we are too restricted by certain concepts to fully grasp what could have preceded the big bang.
4. Truth, knowledge, facts - these require observable proof. There is nothing that you can observe that offers scientific proof in the existence of a god, therefore attributing what we cannot understand to the existence of a god is not grounded in the truth. It is grounded in faith. What is grounded in truth is stating that we all simply do not know what preceded the creation of the universe.
I have no interest in the non-belief of one true god either. Besides, your statement was what was there to lose in the belief of a god - and I gave you examples of many things that humanity has already lost in people's belief of a god. Anyone is free to believe what they want to believe. I would rather that they didn't affect other people with their beliefs, but they are free to have whatever faith or belief they choose, regardless. 5. Parlaying this discussion into a discourse about faith-based belief instead of provable science is beside the point, imo.
6. Which still renders the answer to the question "What is there to lose?" as "A lot."
It's not wrong because it is religious tradition. There are a lot of religious traditions that are not wrong. But It's wrong nontheless because 7. no one should force you to mutilate your own body in such a radical, irreparable manner without your consent or any significant medical need.
8. Here is a more eloquently written, heavily referenced, and detailed rebuttal of the UTI claim than I could provide on my own. (http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/#n53)
To sum up:
- There are methodological issues with the studies done by Wiswell, including potential for selection bias and improper tratment of intact infants. Retrospective chart reviews are problematic because circumcision is not always recorded, and so some of the UTIs could have come from boys who were circucmised but not recorded as such. Further, breastfeeding may be a confounder.
- It is possible that the surgical antiseptic used during the circumcision is responsible for the observed difference.
- Girls have higher rates of UTI than intact boys, yet are afforded no special concern.
- You'd need to circumcise about fifty infants to prevent one UTI, which can usually be cleared by antibiotics.
8. So if people want to have their children permanently mutilated because it can provide a small chance of preventing an infection that can often be cleared up by antibiotics, there is legally nothing stopping them from doing so. But there are ethical and sexual reasons why men should keep their foreskin unless they make an informed decision to do otherwise as an adult.
While I'm circumcised and have a properly functioning penis/reproductive system, I'm strongly anti-circumcision primarily for the ethical reasons stated above. I am circumcised purely because of social convention and no other reason. I don't regret being circumcised, but I would have wished to have made the decision myself at the appropriate age because it is my body.
Circumcision is primarily a religious practice. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_male_circumcision)
1. With regards to randomness, are you aware of the millions of possibilities that in order for the "randomness" of the existence of the universe to occur just to put everything into existence?
2. Medjo nalito ako dito. Correct me here. If "something cannot come out of nothing" is not a truth, then "something can come out of nothing" is the truth?
3. I do not see any restrictions by certain concepts that would prevent us from studying the big bang, that is, if the big bang is truth. What are those concepts?
4. There are so many things in life that are not observable but are definite truths. Love, hatred, sin, morality, intentions to name a few.
5. Did you know that not believing in a God who created everything takes a tremendous faith? Faith is not limited to a belief in a God. Faith also applies to non-belief in a God.
6. Bringing up an example that you gave specifically wars, by mathematics, deducting 6.98% of wars caused by religion in general, leaves us with 93.02% wars that is not caused by religion. Isn't that a lot more?
7. By consent you felt you were robbed by your parents of the required consent despite their love for you, knowing that it would be good for you? Is it because there is no trust involved (which again, is not observable but a truth)? If ever they would ask you that time, do you think you are capable of answering back? And would you also want your parents to ask you if they could provide food and nutrients for you to keep you alive? No pun intended sir. Just to site an analogy. With love also comes responsibility for life. I would interpret it as parents trying their very best to provide for the needs of their child because of love. I on the other hand was circumcised during my grade school days. And sir, during the "healing" time, I envy your case because you got circumcised during birth. This doesn't mean I should blame them or for not having me circumcised at birth or perhaps tell them that they did not fulfill their responsibility to me.
8. As they say, an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. Hehe! Anti-biotics are not really good for our bodies. That article was a 1999 reading. Here is a 2012 article:
Benefits of infant circumcision outweighs the risk. (https://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health/circumcision-policy/index.html)
Quote
"Scientific research shows clearer health benefits to the procedure than had previously been demonstrated. According to a systematic and critical review of the scientific literature, the health benefits of circumcision include lower risks of acquiring HIV, genital herpes, human papilloma virus and syphilis. Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over a lifetime; reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners, and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life," the group said.
Post by: vonTrappRap on May 31, 2018 at 12:48 AM
1. With regards to randomness, are you aware of the millions of possibilities that in order for the "randomness" of the existence of the universe to occur just to put everything into existence?Sure. Millions - probably even billions (maybe even many factors greater than that) - of possibilities... yes. And in the billions of years that the universe has existed, in all of its trillions of planetary systems across the vast immeasurable expanse of space, this randomness that exists in the universe may have very well contributed to creating this place in this time where we humans exist and live in the way that we do in our infinitesimally small corner of the universe as we do now.
2. Medjo nalito ako dito. Correct me here. If "something cannot come out of nothing" is not a truth, then "something can come out of nothing" is the truth?No, that's not truth either because like I said, no one can grasp the concept of absolute nothing. That's why, like what I've been saying all along: We don't know.
We don't know if something can come out of nothing. We also don't know if something cannot come out of nothing. They're not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are very closely paired because if you don't know one due to your inability to grasp the concept of "nothing," then you cannot also know the other.
3. I do not see any restrictions by certain concepts that would prevent us from studying the big bang, that is, if the big bang is truth. What are those concepts?The brightest minds that study quantum mechanics and theoretical physics cannot even wrap their heads around what preceded the big bang. The model we have for our universe - from the big bang to now - are full of theories built on extrapolation and educated guesses based on the laws that we have observed in the known universe... and none of these laws can account for what preceded the big bang. We have theories based on science, but we have no proof.
Our minds are conditioned to think that everything has a beginning and everything has an end... That time flows chronologically forwards... That something cannot come from absolute nothingness... And it's difficult for the vast majority of us to think beyond that. I think that the answer to what came before the big bang lies in thinking beyond that.
Like in the theory of "the big bounce," (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce) physicists have considered the possibility that our universe may have been the result of a previous universe - governed by possibly different physical laws (i.e. maybe in that universe time moved backwards for example) - that contracted until it reached a point of extreme heat and density that it exploded (or "bounced") back into the ever-expanding universe that we know now.
4. There are so many things in life that are not observable but are definite truths. Love, hatred, sin, morality, intentions to name a few.Those aren't definite truths. The problem is that those are not "things." They are concepts not contained within the realm of hard science, but rather in cultural science. Their manifestation is observable through broad societal patterns, but they cannot be contained within formulas and cannot be measured. Some claim that they can be measured by chemical compounds (i.e. - dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, endorphins, etc), but the argument for this is tenuous at best.
But still we believe that love exists since we can observe the manifestation of the societal concept of "love" in our family and friends.
The existence of a god creator on the other hand does not have any observational basis that it can be based on.
5. Did you know that not believing in a God who created everything takes a tremendous faith? Faith is not limited to a belief in a God. Faith also applies to non-belief in a God.
Definitely. That's why atheists cannot prove the non-existence of a god and theists cannot prove the existence of a god. This is why that discussion is contained purely within the realm of faith and it's personally not a discussion I'm interested in.
6. Bringing up an example that you gave specifically wars, by mathematics, deducting 6.98% of wars caused by religion in general, leaves us with 93.02% wars that is not caused by religion. Isn't that a lot more?
Yes, but the 93.02% of wars not caused by religion has no relevance to your question of "What is there to lose (in believing in a god)?" precisely by the definition that they are not caused by religion. It's neither a pro nor a con for religion, so it's irrelevant. Which still leaves us with 6.98% of wars... which still translates to millions - maybe even billions - of lives lost since people were able to wage war on each other... which seems like a pretty big loss brought about by the belief of something supernatural, unprovable, and unobservable.
Quote
7. By consent you felt you were robbed by your parents of the required consent despite their love for you, knowing that it would be good for you? Is it because there is no trust involved (which again, is not observable but a truth)? If ever they would ask you that time, do you think you are capable of answering back? And would you also want your parents to ask you if they could provide food and nutrients for you to keep you alive?
8. As they say, an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. Hehe! Anti-biotics are not really good for our bodies. That article was a 1999 reading. Here is a 2012 article:
I have no problems with having being circumcised at a young age. I don't feel violated or robbed of anything. But that doesn't mean others feel the same way. And I still feel that society should move towards making circumcision a choice that a person should make himself when he comes of age since its his body on the line and the medical merits vs the risks of circumcision are largely debatable and inconclusive.
Though to be perfectly honest, we can largely forgo the topic of circumcision as "something to lose" with regards to belief in the existence of a god since arguments for it on either side can can go on for ages yet the issue is very nitpicky in the greater scheme of things.
Larger atrocities brought about by the belief in the existence of a god are other things I mentioned such as the crusades, jihads, terrorism, religious wars, and discrimination. Those are much bigger and broader issues that singling out the issue about circumcision seems like such a minor quibble.
So I maintain that there is definitely a lot to lose with the continuing belief of people that there is a god as evidenced by those atrocities.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jun 01, 2018 at 07:51 PM
Sure. Millions - probably even billions (maybe even many factors greater than that) - of possibilities... yes. And in the billions of years that the universe has existed, in all of its trillions of planetary systems across the vast immeasurable expanse of space, this randomness that exists in the universe may have very well contributed to creating this place in this time where we humans exist and live in the way that we do in our infinitesimally small corner of the universe as we do now.
No, that's not truth either because like I said, no one can grasp the concept of absolute nothing. That's why, like what I've been saying all along: We don't know.
We don't know if something can come out of nothing. We also don't know if something cannot come out of nothing. They're not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are very closely paired because if you don't know one due to your inability to grasp the concept of "nothing," then you cannot also know the other.
The brightest minds that study quantum mechanics and theoretical physics cannot even wrap their heads around what preceded the big bang. The model we have for our universe - from the big bang to now - are full of theories built on extrapolation and educated guesses based on the laws that we have observed in the known universe... and none of these laws can account for what preceded the big bang. We have theories based on science, but we have no proof.
Our minds are conditioned to think that everything has a beginning and everything has an end... That time flows chronologically forwards... That something cannot come from absolute nothingness... And it's difficult for the vast majority of us to think beyond that. I think that the answer to what came before the big bang lies in thinking beyond that.
Like in the theory of "the big bounce," (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce) physicists have considered the possibility that our universe may have been the result of a previous universe - governed by possibly different physical laws (i.e. maybe in that universe time moved backwards for example) - that contracted until it reached a point of extreme heat and density that it exploded (or "bounced") back into the ever-expanding universe that we know now.
1. Those aren't definite truths. The problem is that those are not "things." They are concepts not contained within the realm of hard science, but rather in cultural science. Their manifestation is observable through broad societal patterns, but they cannot be contained within formulas and cannot be measured. Some claim that they can be measured by chemical compounds (i.e. - dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, endorphins, etc), but the argument for this is tenuous at best.
But still we believe that love exists since we can observe the manifestation of the societal concept of "love" in our family and friends.
The existence of a god creator on the other hand does not have any observational basis that it can be based on.
2. Definitely. That's why atheists cannot prove the non-existence of a god and theists cannot prove the existence of a god. This is why that discussion is contained purely within the realm of faith and it's personally not a discussion I'm interested in.
3. Yes, but the 93.02% of wars not caused by religion has no relevance to your question of "What is there to lose (in believing in a god)?" precisely by the definition that they are not caused by religion.
It's neither a pro nor a con for religion, so it's irrelevant. Which still leaves us with 6.98% of wars... 4. which still translates to millions - maybe even billions - of lives lost since people were able to wage war on each other... which seems like a pretty big loss brought about by the belief of something supernatural, unprovable, and unobservable.
I have no problems with having being circumcised at a young age. I don't feel violated or robbed of anything. But that doesn't mean others feel the same way.
5. And I still feel that society should move towards making circumcision a choice that a person should make himself when he comes of age since its his body on the line and the medical merits vs the risks of circumcision are largely debatable and inconclusive.
6. Though to be perfectly honest, we can largely forgo the topic of circumcision as "something to lose" with regards to belief in the existence of a god since arguments for it on either side can can go on for ages yet the issue is very nitpicky in the greater scheme of things.
7. Larger atrocities brought about by the belief in the existence of a god are other things I mentioned such as the crusades, jihads, terrorism, religious wars, and discrimination. Those are much bigger and broader issues that singling out the issue about circumcision seems like such a minor quibble.
So I maintain that there is definitely a lot to lose with the continuing belief of people that there is a god as evidenced by those atrocities.
If you "do not know" idea means you do not have the knowledge of how things existed, then how can you "know" that God did not create everything? "Do not know" means no knowledge of said topic. Then you say "I know God did not create everything". Again contradicting statements.
"I do not know where everything started to exist" = No knowledge of topic.
"I know God did not create everything" = Knowledge about the topic.
Then it should be "I do not know if God created everything".
You cannot claim to have no knowledge and also provide a definite claim that you have knowledge that God did not create everything.
1. By claiming that it is not a definite truth, love etc, that would mean it is not a truth. I know for sure that it is true because it is universal. However you also stated that it exists. How can you argue that love exists but claim that it is not a truth. Again, conflicting ideas.
2. That would be a subjective point of view. You claim that it is by faith that God exist and does not exist. My claim is that it is by logical truth. I am not dwelling on faith as proof.
3. There is a connection sir. You blame religion as a cause of war. I proved to you that religion is not the cause of majority of war hence my claim that there is a lot to lose without religion, or belief in God, which consist of that 92%.
4. This is discrimination sir. You blame religion as a cause of war. Yes millions or billions of lives have been lost. However with religion as a cause of war, millions still perish. Our past wars was perhaps inevitable and there will be collateral damage. But the fact that war is inevitable, with only a small factor from religion is a significant number. You aims your sights on a "pretty big loss" in the war caused by religion but it seems the war not caused by religion is pretty okay with you because it is not caused by religion. There lies the problem of discrimination.
Now maybe to end this topic of war as your example, my stand is that war is caused by the imperfection of man to resolve certain problems.
5. I can agree with you on that. But in my case, I wanted to be circumcised at birth but wasn't given the chance to tell my parents during my baby days. Hehe! However yeah. If it would be a law then I guess it's fine with me.
6. Yes sir. I agree with you. As of now, it will still be up to our parents to decide for us.
7. Again, you singled out religion as a cause of that small percentage of war. The larger atrocity is that war cause by no belief. I cannot dispute with you when you say that there is a lot to lose because that would be your subjective point of view. Numbers prove otherwise.
Parang ganito yan:
Wars caused by religion = 7%
Wars caused by greed = 93%
You should be focusing your attention on the 93%. But by choosing to focus your attention on the 7%, that's illogical and have definitely showed the discrimination against people who believe that there is a God.
You do not believe in a God however you show discrimination to those who believe in a God. If I may state my opinion, there will still be discrimination with or without God. And so the same goes with wars.
Post by: bumblebee on Jun 01, 2018 at 08:22 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jun 01, 2018 at 11:15 PM
Can we cite wars that weren't caused or have nothing to do with religion?
Korean & Vietnam war with US?
Post by: vonTrappRap on Jun 01, 2018 at 11:28 PM
If you "do not know" idea means you do not have the knowledge of how things existed, then how can you "know" that God did not create everything? "Do not know" means no knowledge of said topic. Then you say "I know God did not create everything". Again contradicting statements.
"I do not know where everything started to exist" = No knowledge of topic.
"I know God did not create everything" = Knowledge about the topic.
Then it should be "I do not know if God created everything".
You cannot claim to have no knowledge and also provide a definite claim that you have knowledge that God did not create everything.
I never said that I know that the universe was not created by a god. These were my statements regarding that:
- There's no way to prove god.
- I don't believe in a creator.
- There's is nothing inherent in the mere existence of the universe that shows the presence of a creator which created it.
- If our argument is that there must have been a creator because we are surrounded by creation that originated from a time before the big bang... then that is simply faith... that is not proof.
- in all of these scientific discoveries, there is no proof of a god or supernatural creator. But just because we have not yet uncovered the ultimate origin of the universe, do we have a license to claim that as proof of a god? No, I think not.
- Ultimately, my point is that you do not know for certain the entire extent of the laws of the universe to make a similar logical assumption about its origins and attribute it to a god/creator, and it's most certainly not proof.
- attributing something we do not understand to the supernatural is not grounded in the pursuit of truth. There is nothing factual about it.
1. By claiming that it is not a definite truth, love etc, that would mean it is not a truth. I know for sure that it is true because it is universal. However you also stated that it exists. How can you argue that love exists but claim that it is not a truth. Again, conflicting ideas.
I am not arguing that love exists. My statement was that we believe that love exists. And we believe that love exists due to the combination of a cultural concept of "love" that has been passed on for generations + our own personal experiences that validates that concept. So on a personal level, we can validate the claim that love exists. But it is not a universal truth. You cannot project this truth on to the rest of the billions of people around the planet because you have no knowledge of all of their cultural and personal experiences. If someone else says that they don't believe love exists, then that's okay. I can't argue to them that love exists because I have no scientific proof that love exists.
2. That would be a subjective point of view. You claim that it is by faith that God exist and does not exist. My claim is that it is by logical truth. I am not dwelling on faith as proof.
Just like love, there is no scientific logic that can prove that god exists either. And you have not presented me any scientific logic that god exists also. The only argument that anyone has presented was that "there is creation, therefore there is a creator" - but again, there is nothing grounded in science that can support this claim, especially considering that there are observable instances of the randomness that exists in the universe that causes things to exist. So there is simply no proof that a god exists. Nothing can prove that it is true.
You can claim to believe it as a personal truth though. In which case it would be faith.
3. There is a connection sir. You blame religion as a cause of war. I proved to you that religion is not the cause of majority of war hence my claim that there is a lot to lose without religion, or belief in God, which consist of that 92%.
7. Again, you singled out religion as a cause of that small percentage of war. The larger atrocity is that war cause by no belief. I cannot dispute with you when you say that there is a lot to lose because that would be your subjective point of view. Numbers prove otherwise.
Parang ganito yan:
Wars caused by religion = 7%
Wars caused by greed = 93%
You should be focusing your attention on the 93%. But by choosing to focus your attention on the 7%, that's illogical and have definitely showed the discrimination against people who believe that there is a God.
You do not believe in a God however you show discrimination to those who believe in a God. If I may state my opinion, there will still be discrimination with or without God. And so the same goes with wars.
4. This is discrimination sir. You blame religion as a cause of war. Yes millions or billions of lives have been lost. However with religion as a cause of war, millions still perish. Our past wars was perhaps inevitable and there will be collateral damage. But the fact that war is inevitable, with only a small factor from religion is a significant number. You aims your sights on a "pretty big loss" in the war caused by religion but it seems the war not caused by religion is pretty okay with you because it is not caused by religion. There lies the problem of discrimination.
The underlying logic here is flawed. This is what you are saying:
"The belief in a god is the cause for 7% of wars, therefore the non-belief in god is the cause for 93% of wars."
That is like saying:
"Smoking causes a small percentage of infertility, therefore not smoking causes the larger incidences of infertility."
And of course we know that is a logical fallacy because the presence or absence of smoking is not the sole factor in the incidences of infertility. There are also other factors that cause infertility that are unrelated to smoking. In the same way, the presence or absence of religion is not the sole factor in the incidences of war. 7% of wars are caused by religion while the other 93% are caused by other factors and not by the absence of religion.
Ultimately, war is never okay. Whether it is caused by religion or not, war is never okay. But making a positive case for religion because "it only accounts for 6.98% of wars" is also not okay precisely because war is never okay. Even if religion only accounted for 1% of wars, then that is still a negative argument for religion just like the remaining 99% of causes are a negative for their respective reasons. The entire 100% of reasons for war are a negative for their respective causes. I am not focusing only on religious wars because I am discriminating against religion but because that is the focus of our discussion. We are talking about the belief in a god (your original question was "What is there to lose in believing in a god?"), so only the percentage of wars caused by religion has relevance in our discussion.
Post by: vonTrappRap on Jun 01, 2018 at 11:42 PM
But the existence or non-existence of a god is in the realm of faith, not science. So in that respect, there is no way to prove that a god exists. There is no logical argument based on facts and observable data that will suffice for anyone to reasonably arrive at the conclusion that a god exists.
If you believe in a god because your faith dictates it, that's fine. If you believe in the opposite, that's fine as well. If you choose not to believe in either because it is not scientifically provable, that's fine as well.
Post by: ninjababez® on Jun 02, 2018 at 12:21 AM
Korean & Vietnam war with US?
Can we cite wars that weren't caused or have nothing to do with religion?madami naman din kasi ginagawang excuse ang religion
counted parin ba yun? O_o
Post by: docelmo on Jun 02, 2018 at 12:48 AM
Just to be clear: I have nothing against faith and religion. I am not an atheist. I accept that there is a possibility that a god exists and there is also a possibility that a god doesn't exist.
But the existence or non-existence of a god is in the realm of faith, not science. So in that respect, there is no way to prove that a god exists. There is no logical argument based on facts and observable data that will suffice for anyone to reasonably arrive at the conclusion that a god exists.
If you believe in a god because your faith dictates it, that's fine. If you believe in the opposite, that's fine as well. If you choose not to believe in either because it is not scientifically provable, that's fine as well.
Science has 3 main branches: Natural, Social and Formal. Logic and philosophy are part of formal sciences. Fields like metaphysics, ontology and epistemology area included in Philosophy of Science. What we are trying prove or disprove in not physical, not an object or phenomenon. Therefore, a combination of evidences found in all fields are needed to have a complete picture. Natural Science describes nature, while the formal sciences gives its implications and meaning.
Thus the evidence we could find in all these areas will point to the probability of God's existence or everything a product of chance or something else. So believing that "something else" exist and it caused the universe to exist is not just faith but a reasonable conclusion based on all the facts gathered in all fields of study.
And on our common sense undestanding of "existence".
If you see a house in middle of a field, what do you think is the most possible conclusion on how this house came to exist? Did the house built itself? did it happen by chance? Of did something else caused the house to exist. This "Something Else" rather than nothing made the floor plans, got the materials and built the house. The same holds true for the universe. Our existence are governed by laws, rules, order, systems, matter, space and time. Where there is rules. information or instruction....there is the Mind that caused it.
Post by: bumblebee on Jun 02, 2018 at 06:02 AM
Korean & Vietnam war with US?
Thank you. Any more? Because 93% is really a big number.
Post by: RU9 on Jun 02, 2018 at 09:04 AM
Fact Check: Religious Wars: Only 123 of 1763?
Post by: docelmo on Jun 02, 2018 at 09:52 AM
We don't know.
What is known now with regards to these "fine-tuning" factors:
Excerpts from a WSJ article by Eric Metaxas:
"The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.
Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?
Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”
Post by: bumblebee on Jun 02, 2018 at 12:32 PM
http://davidmschell.com/religious-wars-only-123-of-1763/
Fact Check: Religious Wars: Only 123 of 1763?
Hardly factual. Maganda sana kung nay actual list.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jun 03, 2018 at 07:46 PM
Hardly factual. Maganda sana kung nay actual list.
War in Iraq 2
War in Afghanistan
African wars in the Congo (DRC)
Genocide in Rwanda
War in Iraq 1
Iraq/Iran war
All those civil wars in Latin America in the 70s and 80s
Civil war / genocide in Cambodia
China-Vietnam war
USA/France-Vietnam war
Korean war
Chinese civil war(s)
World War 2
Japanese invasion of China
Russian revolution (and related wars)
World War 1
Scramble for Africa
Franco-Prussian war
Crimean war
Taiping rebellion (Chinese civil war — although the main protagonist had crazy religious visions)
US Civil War
War of 1812 (and all the US wars of that time)
Opium wars
Napoleonic wars
Wars of the French revolution
Prussia’s wars of expansion (Silesia, etc. — Friedrich the Great)
Ottomans’ wars of expansion
Aztecs’ wars of expansion
Wars of the Roses
Ghenghis Khan’s invasions (and those of his descendants)
100-year war
Viking ‘raids’
An Lushan ‘Rebellion’
Nomadic tribes’ wars against Rome, China, Central Asia
Post by: bumblebee on Jun 03, 2018 at 08:29 PM
Star wars na lang kulang ;D
Post by: docelmo on Jun 03, 2018 at 11:08 PM
Thank you.Sir Bumblebee
Star wars na lang kulang ;D
Hindi na yata kasama ito….kasi it's in a galaxy far far away. Besides that war was made moot by the events in that terrible Last Jedi!
Very comprehensive list Sir Nelson!
Post by: dpogs on Jun 03, 2018 at 11:33 PM
Post by: docelmo on Jun 03, 2018 at 11:34 PM
Sir,
You are making the logical assumption that we exist as creators of these comments because of the rules that you yourself know to be true due to first-hand observable, repeatable experience: You know that you exist. You know that you are typing words on a device and transmitting them with the intent to communicate over the internet under a certain alias. Thus, when you see other aliases posting other comments, you are making the logical assumption that similar beings exist who are creating these messages.
However, that's not proof. Closer to actual proof would be if you were right here where I am, seeing me type this message, and clicking "Post" while logged in under the alias "fontaine" - that is a much better argument for proof. Because otherwise, do you really know that I exist despite your very logical, reasonable assumption? Do you think I am a person? How do you know that I am not a piece of software or bot? What if bumblebee and fontaine are in fact the same piece of artificial intelligence posting as difference aliases and not separate, distinct, living, breathing persons? Even if you say that I still "exist" in that case, is it still the same state of existence that you initially thought to be? If such a state of existence is already so tenuous for such a basic example as people posting on an internet forum, then how much more tenuous could the existence of a supernatural creator for the origin of the universe be?
Bottom line is this....
…..A message/post exists. this post begun to exist, it is coherent and understandable.
…..Everything that starts to exist has a cause.
…..therefore the post had a cause.
The nature of the cause is immaterial. Whether its a person, an AI, a bot, separate or distinct. It doesn't really matter. Because the post...cannot exist or create itself. Thus it has to have an agent for it to exist.
Granted it may not be an ultimate "proof" but the evidence to the existence of the cause is unavoidable!
If a simple post demands a "poster", what more the existence of the universe...the more that it demands a creator.
Post by: docelmo on Jun 04, 2018 at 08:18 AM
There were probably a sequence of events that led up to the big bang, and the current conception of the big bang model assumes the pre-existence of energy, time, and space. But even the Big Bang model does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe because there is no current logic that will sufficiently support it.
However, to transfer the entire academic discourse - the philosophical, scientific, and metaphysical inquiry - regarding the origins of the universe to the existence of a supernatural creator with the intent to create is pure folly if without the backing of some semblance of reason. If our argument is that there must have been a creator because we are surrounded by creation that originated from a time before the big bang... then that is simply faith... that is not proof.
We know how trees grow. We know how living things reproduce. We know the cycle of the seasons. We know so many things about the world and the universe grounded on hard science and irrefutable data. And in all of these scientific discoveries, there is no proof of a god or supernatural creator. But just because we have not yet uncovered the ultimate origin of the universe, do we have a license to claim that as proof of a god? No, I think not.
The laws of nature and the universe are facts - yes.
The presence of information in DNA exists - yes.
These facts in nature can only come from a powerful intelligent mind beyond space and time - no.
The first two have proof to back them up. That last part is belief/faith. That last part tries to answer the question: How is it that the laws of nature and the universe behave according to principles that can be described by logical formulas? It is only because we have no answers for it in solid, experimental/observation-based science that people tend to default to faith-based answers, but those faith-based answers do not have proof to back them up.
In order to find evidence for this concept, we need to get insights or knowledge from various field of study such as, science, physics, philosophy and logic. If the discussion and search for evidence is confined only to natural sciences, then we are limiting ourselves to the search for ultimate truth. Because we know that natural science deals with the physical world. However, what we are trying to prove or disprove is NOT physical, not an object or phenomenon in the world. Furthermore, science is an empirical and inductive discipline (I deal w/ this daily in my practice of medicine). As such science or natural science, may not have considered all possible data that would be relevant in say the explanation of the birth of the universe. Science is however open to new discoveries which could change its conclusion if need be.
Much ado about…Nothing.
There is an expression: “From nothing, only nothing comes”…this expression becomes even more meaningful when we talk about the beginning of the universe. In the BBT the point at which the universe begun to exist is also the point where time begun to exist. In physics, nothing physical can exist prior to the beginning point simply because there is no “time prior to that point”. Then this follows, that the universe did not exist prior to the beginning point. Because there was nothing there in the first place. When we say “nothing” it means nothing….no dimension, no properties, no energy etc. etc. Therefore, if nothing can’t do anything, then it cannot create something for that matter. Thus, we could say that the universe cannot create itself because when it was nothing….it can only do NOTHING! Finally, if the universe cannot create itself, then “something else” had to make the universe into something. This “something else” would have to be transcendent and beyond space-time. This force is generally termed “a Creator”.
Is there really an absolute beginning of space-time in whatever model our universe is situated? The so called BVG Theorem say so…
This theorem postulated by Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth (hence the name) to formulate a demonstration of a beginning of expanding universes….is a kind of Space-Time Geometry Proof.
"We made no assumptions about the material content of the universe. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible.”
This was also apparently applied to string multiverses and oscillating universe models…in all cases the conclusion was there is an absolute beginning in all models.
This evidence from physics due to “space-time geometry proofs” indicates the probability of a beginning of our universe. In as much as a beginning indicates a point at which our universe came into existence, and prior to that point that the universe was nothing, then it is probable that the universe and any hypothetical multiverse in which our universe might be situated was created by a transcendent power outside of physical space and time.
That’s for the Universe, now for the DNA.
DNA in our cells is very similar to an intricate computer program.
In the same way, DNA is made up of four chemicals, abbreviated as letters A, T, G, and C. Much like the ones and zeros, these letters are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. The order in which they are arranged instructs the cell's actions.
What bogles the mind is that within the tiny space in every cell in your body, this code is three billion letters long!!! Repeat 3 Billion Letters Long!!!
To grasp the amount of DNA information in one cell, "a live reading of that code at a rate of three letters per second would take thirty-one years, even if reading continued day and night."
Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."5
Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this. "There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."6
Dr. Antony Flew (an atheist) questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?
Are these 3 scientists part of those “people” you characterized below:
“It is only because we have no answers for it in solid, experimental/observation-based science that people tend to default to faith-based answers, but those faith-based answers do not have proof to back them up.”
You are limiting the search to only what you call “solid, experiment/observation-based science” …and that’s where the problem lies. Because you need other fields of study to interpret and give to meaning to those experiments/observations…
Post by: bumblebee on Jun 04, 2018 at 08:24 AM
Granted it may not be an ultimate "proof" but the evidence to the existence of the cause is unavoidable!
So are you open to the idea of evolution? Because it may not be proven yet, but the evidence is unavoidable.
Post by: docelmo on Jun 04, 2018 at 09:48 AM
So are you open to the idea of evolution? Because it may not be proven yet, but the evidence is unavoidable.No, because evolution has no cause, while the evidence shows for existence of this universe points to a cause outside space and time.
Post by: bumblebee on Jun 04, 2018 at 10:02 AM
No, because evolution has no cause, while the evidence shows for existence of this universe points to a cause outside space and time.
What? Evolution doesn't have a cause? Care to elaborate? As to the cause outside space and time, how did you get there? How can you say there's cause pre-time and space when all laws of physics came into the picture only after the Big Bang? And why is your creator a god, not something else, like an alien or whatever?
Post by: vonTrappRap on Jun 04, 2018 at 10:08 AM
Science has 3 main branches: Natural, Social and Formal. Logic and philosophy are part of formal sciences. Fields like metaphysics, ontology and epistemology area included in Philosophy of Science. What we are trying prove or disprove in not physical, not an object or phenomenon. Therefore, a combination of evidences found in all fields are needed to have a complete picture. Natural Science describes nature, while the formal sciences gives its implications and meaning.
Suggesting that something is "evidence" of a god creator is fine. That can still be in line with faith. Proof (like in the topic of this thread) is conclusive, evidence is not.
Thus the evidence we could find in all these areas will point to the probability of God's existence or everything a product of chance or something else. So believing that "something else" exist and it caused the universe to exist is not just faith but a reasonable conclusion based on all the facts gathered in all fields of study.
You can make the assertion that your conclusion is reasonable. It will come down your subjective definition of what is reasonable and what is not. Basically it will boil down to the existence of a god creator being - at best - a theory. And just to pre-empt (or maybe actually kickstart) a discussion on how religious theories and scientific theories are different...
The difference lies in the following: Scientific practices - observation and experiment; the development of falsifiable hypotheses; the relentless questioning of established views - have proven uniquely powerful in revealing the surprising, underlying structure of the world we live in, including subatomic particles, the role of germs in the spread of disease, and the neural basis of mental life. Religion has no equivalent record of discovering hidden truths.
So even though there are beliefs in science that are based on inconclusive evidence and there are beliefs in religion that are based on inconclusive evidence, there is a critical difference: The beliefs based on science are far more rational, because the methods of science are demonstrably superior at getting at truths about the natural world.
And on our common sense undestanding of "existence".
If you see a house in middle of a field, what do you think is the most possible conclusion on how this house came to exist? Did the house built itself? did it happen by chance? Of did something else caused the house to exist. This "Something Else" rather than nothing made the floor plans, got the materials and built the house. The same holds true for the universe. Our existence are governed by laws, rules, order, systems, matter, space and time. Where there is rules. information or instruction....there is the Mind that caused it.
The universe is not purely governed by order. The universe contains both chaos and randomness as well as rules and order.
On the microscopic level, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay - we only have the probability of decay in a given time, but there are no rules for us to determine it.
On a larger scale, the second law of thermodynamics states the the level of entropy (a measure of uncertainty or randomness) within a system - such as the universe - can only increase, which means that chaos is and will always be present in the universe.
Post by: vonTrappRap on Jun 04, 2018 at 10:46 AM
What is known now with regards to these "fine-tuning" factors:
Excerpts from a WSJ article by Eric Metaxas:
"The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces - gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the 'strong' and 'weak' nuclear forces - were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction - by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 - then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.
Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all 'just happened' defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?
Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term 'big bang,' said that his atheism was 'greatly shaken' at these developments. He later wrote that 'a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.'
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that 'the appearance of design is overwhelming' and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said 'the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.'
If people use this argument as proof of a god creator, consider this: Even if it's highly improbable that the universe as we know it came into existence through random processes, it's even more improbable that a being capable of creating the universe exists and decided to do so for whatever reason. That creator is, by definition, several orders of magnitude more complex than anything it would have created (if not then he wouldn't have been able to create this highly complex universe in the first place), so, using the logic of the argument against randomness, that being's existence is significantly less probable that the existence of our universe.
Post by: docelmo on Jun 04, 2018 at 10:56 AM
What? Evolution doesn't have a cause? Care to elaborate? As to the cause outside space and time, how did you get there? How can you say there's cause pre-time and space when all laws of physics came into the picture only after the Big Bang? And why is your creator a god, not something else, like an alien or whatever?As in our discussion in another thread, evolution is defined as random or chance development. As in the implication of the BVG Theorem, it postulate of an absolute beginning to the universe. This implies a cause outside of time and space. This cause should be timeless, intelligent, powerful..... given these properties what would fit this description?
Post by: vonTrappRap on Jun 04, 2018 at 11:00 AM
Sir,
Bottom line is this....
..A message/post exists. this post begun to exist, it is coherent and understandable.
..Everything that starts to exist has a cause.
..therefore the post had a cause.
The nature of the cause is immaterial. Whether its a person, an AI, a bot, separate or distinct. It doesn't really matter. Because the post...cannot exist or create itself. Thus it has to have an agent for it to exist.
Granted it may not be an ultimate "proof" but the evidence to the existence of the cause is unavoidable!
If a simple post demands a "poster", what more the existence of the universe...the more that it demands a creator.
How does the evidence of cause necesitate a creator? There has to be an agent for something to exist, but that doesn't mean that a creator is involved. When a boulder rolls down the side of a hill during an earthquake and leaves an indentation in the soil before it crashes into the plains below, then it rains and a puddle forms in the indentation left by boulder... who/what is the creator of that puddle? There were definitely agents that caused that puddle to exist, but I can't see how a creator is involved in the existence of that puddle.
Also, the nature of the cause is most certainly not immaterial because that's precisely the point of the entire "science vs religion" debate: Did the universe exist from a god creator or from something scientific?
Post by: bumblebee on Jun 04, 2018 at 11:15 AM
As in our discussion in another thread, evolution is defined as random or chance development. As in the implication of the BVG Theorem, it postulate of an absolute beginning to the universe.
Can that not be the Big Bang?
Quote
This implies a cause outside of time and space.
No, it doesn't imply that. The implication is just something that "fits" our beliefs.
Quote
This cause should be timeless, intelligent, powerful..... given these properties what would fit this description?
Should? Again, that's speculation at best.
Post by: vonTrappRap on Jun 04, 2018 at 11:26 AM
In order to find evidence for this concept, we need to get insights or knowledge from various field of study such as, science, physics, philosophy and logic. If the discussion and search for evidence is confined only to natural sciences, then we are limiting ourselves to the search for ultimate truth. Because we know that natural science deals with the physical world. However, what we are trying to prove or disprove is NOT physical, not an object or phenomenon in the world. Furthermore, science is an empirical and inductive discipline (I deal w/ this daily in my practice of medicine). As such science or natural science, may not have considered all possible data that would be relevant in say the explanation of the birth of the universe. Science is however open to new discoveries which could change its conclusion if need be.
Much ado about…Nothing.
There is an expression: “From nothing, only nothing comes”…this expression becomes even more meaningful when we talk about the beginning of the universe. In the BBT the point at which the universe begun to exist is also the point where time begun to exist. In physics, nothing physical can exist prior to the beginning point simply because there is no “time prior to that point”. Then this follows, that the universe did not exist prior to the beginning point. Because there was nothing there in the first place. When we say “nothing” it means nothing….no dimension, no properties, no energy etc. etc. Therefore, if nothing can’t do anything, then it cannot create something for that matter. Thus, we could say that the universe cannot create itself because when it was nothing….it can only do NOTHING! Finally, if the universe cannot create itself, then “something else” had to make the universe into something. This “something else” would have to be transcendent and beyond space-time. This force is generally termed “a Creator”.
Is there really an absolute beginning of space-time in whatever model our universe is situated? The so called BVG Theorem say so…
This theorem postulated by Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth (hence the name) to formulate a demonstration of a beginning of expanding universes….is a kind of Space-Time Geometry Proof.
"We made no assumptions about the material content of the universe. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible.”
This was also apparently applied to string multiverses and oscillating universe models…in all cases the conclusion was there is an absolute beginning in all models.
This evidence from physics due to “space-time geometry proofs” indicates the probability of a beginning of our universe. In as much as a beginning indicates a point at which our universe came into existence, and prior to that point that the universe was nothing, then it is probable that the universe and any hypothetical multiverse in which our universe might be situated was created by a transcendent power outside of physical space and time.
That’s for the Universe, now for the DNA.
DNA in our cells is very similar to an intricate computer program.
In the same way, DNA is made up of four chemicals, abbreviated as letters A, T, G, and C. Much like the ones and zeros, these letters are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. The order in which they are arranged instructs the cell's actions.
What bogles the mind is that within the tiny space in every cell in your body, this code is three billion letters long!!! Repeat 3 Billion Letters Long!!!
To grasp the amount of DNA information in one cell, "a live reading of that code at a rate of three letters per second would take thirty-one years, even if reading continued day and night."
Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."5
Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this. "There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."6
Dr. Antony Flew (an atheist) questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?
Are these 3 scientists part of those “people” you characterized below:
“It is only because we have no answers for it in solid, experimental/observation-based science that people tend to default to faith-based answers, but those faith-based answers do not have proof to back them up.”
You are limiting the search to only what you call “solid, experiment/observation-based science” …and that’s where the problem lies. Because you need other fields of study to interpret and give to meaning to those experiments/observations…
Are those scientists attributing what we don't know about the universe to the supernatural? It doesn't seem like it. They're not saying that because we can't explain things that are incredibly complex, then that constitutes proof of a god creator. They are simply saying that we don't know and are acknowledging the possibility that a god creator exists... which is exactly what I am saying as well.
I have no problems with any of this, although it doesn't really change what I'm saying, which is that: There's no way to prove god; and, we don't know how the universe started. Maybe there will be a way to prove the existence of a god creator in the future. Maybe there will also be a way to prove the Big Bang Theory in the future. But right now, considering the wealth of knowledge that we currenty have in the human race - considering our current foundations for what constitutes factual truth within the realm of objective reality - there's no way to prove the existence of a god creator.
Post by: docelmo on Jun 04, 2018 at 11:29 AM
Suggesting that something is "evidence" of a god creator is fine. That can still be in line with faith. Proof (like in the topic of this thread) is conclusive, evidence is not.Belief in God or is existence of God is faith sure. But so is the belief that our existence is simply the result of chance. Like it or not.
Post by: vonTrappRap on Jun 04, 2018 at 11:42 AM
Belief in God or is existence of God is faith sure. But so is the belief that our existence is simply the result of chance. Like it or not.
Definitely. If you have trust or confidence in something that cannot currently be proven with any factual truths within the realm of objective reality... then that is faith.
I agreed similarly with one of Nelson's posts:
5. Did you know that not believing in a God who created everything takes a tremendous faith? Faith is not limited to a belief in a God. Faith also applies to non-belief in a God.
Definitely. That's why atheists cannot prove the non-existence of a god and theists cannot prove the existence of a god. This is why that discussion is contained purely within the realm of faith and it's personally not a discussion I'm interested in.
Post by: docelmo on Jun 04, 2018 at 11:50 AM
Can that not be the Big Bang?
No, it doesn't imply that. The implication is just something that "fits" our beliefs.
Should? Again, that's speculation at best.
Can that not be the Big Bang?you mean the big bang is the cause? Can the universe create itself?
No, it doesn't imply that. The implication is just something that "fits" our beliefs.
Should? Again, that's speculation at best.
If this is the case, then the universe has to "exist" prior to its existence!
That to me is a contradiction in itself.
Was it caused by "nothing"...this is even more implausible.
The most plausible to me is it was caused by "something else" other than itself and outside itself. Therefore not bounded by space and time.
Post by: vonTrappRap on Jun 04, 2018 at 11:57 AM
As in our discussion in another thread, evolution is defined as random or chance development.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a2
MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.
CORRECTION: Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations — features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about random mutation, visit our article on DNA and mutations.
^ Just posted this to clarify. Where's the other thread that you're referring to, doc? This might be a better topic to continue there instead of here.
Post by: bumblebee on Jun 04, 2018 at 12:20 PM
you mean the big bang is the cause? Can the universe create itself?
If this is the case, then the universe has to "exist" prior to its existence!
That to me is a contradiction in itself.
Was it caused by "nothing"...this is even more implausible.
The most plausible to me is it was caused by "something else" other than itself and outside itself. Therefore not bounded by space and time.
You asked about the beginning, not the cause, hence my answer. But I think you missed something about science that you assume it is doing, and that is science trying to explain anything pre-beginning. It simply can't at the moment.
Post by: docelmo on Jun 04, 2018 at 12:43 PM
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a2Sir Fontaine,
MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.
CORRECTION: Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations — features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about random mutation, visit our article on DNA and mutations.
^ Just posted this to clarify. Where's the other thread that you're referring to, doc? This might be a better topic to continue there instead of here.
It's the in creation/evolution thread,
Yes, small changes or variations do occur. However, these are mere adaptation it's still the same species...so called micro-evolution. But Macro-evolution has not been observed. Mutation almost always results in loss of information and breakdown. If you say selection is not random, what is the mechanism for this?
Post by: docelmo on Jun 04, 2018 at 01:11 PM
You asked about the beginning, not the cause, hence my answer. But I think you missed something about science that you assume it is doing, and that is science trying to explain anything pre-beginning. It simply can't at the moment.Yes, I also agree that the big bang IS the beginning of the know universe. Yes again, the bvg theorem does not go as far as to identify what caused the universe to begin to exist. At this point we go to other areas of discovery such as: the high improbability of a low entropy universe to exist and the high improbability of the cosmological constants.....
the probability For this two highly improbable discoveries to occur is non existant...and yet here we are.
Post by: tigkal on Jun 04, 2018 at 01:37 PM
Post by: bumblebee on Jun 04, 2018 at 02:46 PM
Yes, I also agree that the big bang IS the beginning of the know universe. Yes again, the bvg theorem does not go as far as to identify what caused the universe to begin to exist. At this point we go to other areas of discovery such as: the high improbability of a low entropy universe to exist and the high improbability of the cosmological constants.....
the probability For this two highly improbable discoveries to occur is non existant...and yet here we are.
I think that's already OT. But good to know we agreed on the Big Bang thing.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jun 04, 2018 at 06:58 PM
What? Evolution doesn't have a cause? Care to elaborate? As to the cause outside space and time, how did you get there? How can you say there's cause pre-time and space when all laws of physics came into the picture only after the Big Bang? And why is your creator a god, not something else, like an alien or whatever?
There are artifacts that show the evolution of man. But pansinin niyo, Paisa isa lang ang mga nakukuha nila. Kailangan kapag 1 sa isang stage ng evolution, kahit paano, dapat by the thousands dapat ang mga nakukuhang bones that are similar. Alam naman antin na based on studies, it will take hundreds of before man evolves. Given the number of generation, dapat nakapag-multiply na ang isang stage ng evolution. It is also baffling me.
Post by: bumblebee on Jun 04, 2018 at 08:01 PM
Post by: docelmo on Jun 05, 2018 at 01:42 PM
If people use this argument as proof of a god creator, consider this: Even if it's highly improbable that the universe as we know it came into existence through random processes, it's even more improbable that a being capable of creating the universe exists and decided to do so for whatever reason. That creator is, by definition, several orders of magnitude more complex than anything it would have created (if not then he wouldn't have been able to create this highly complex universe in the first place), so, using the logic of the argument against randomness, that being's existence is significantly less probable that the existence of our universe.Correct, it is Highly Improbable that the universe existed through random processes. In fact. the calculation of this extreme improbability of the universe existing by a random event approximates 1 chance in 10 to the power of 1030!!!
And yet inspite of this exteme improbability.....the Universe Exists!!!! And we are talking about its existence!!!
Thus, your conclusion that its even more "improbable for God to exist" is erroneous since that "extremely improbable universe" already exists!
Well, that is exactly the definition of God: Timeless, Powerful, Infinitely Intelligent, Complex. Even though as you say His existence is less probable than the universe. The existence of "randon chance" as the cause to create the universe.....is EVEN LESS PROBABLE.
Post by: docelmo on Jun 05, 2018 at 03:57 PM
Suggesting that something is "evidence" of a god creator is fine. That can still be in line with faith. Proof (like in the topic of this thread) is conclusive, evidence is not.
You can make the assertion that your conclusion is reasonable. It will come down your subjective definition of what is reasonable and what is not. Basically it will boil down to the existence of a god creator being - at best - a theory. And just to pre-empt (or maybe actually kickstart) a discussion on how religious theories and scientific theories are different...
The difference lies in the following: Scientific practices - observation and experiment; the development of falsifiable hypotheses; the relentless questioning of established views - have proven uniquely powerful in revealing the surprising, underlying structure of the world we live in, including subatomic particles, the role of germs in the spread of disease, and the neural basis of mental life. Religion has no equivalent record of discovering hidden truths.
So even though there are beliefs in science that are based on inconclusive evidence and there are beliefs in religion that are based on inconclusive evidence, there is a critical difference: The beliefs based on science are far more rational, because the methods of science are demonstrably superior at getting at truths about the natural world.
The universe is not purely governed by order. The universe contains both chaos and randomness as well as rules and order.
On the microscopic level, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay - we only have the probability of decay in a given time, but there are no rules for us to determine it.
On a larger scale, the second law of thermodynamics states the the level of entropy (a measure of uncertainty or randomness) within a system - such as the universe - can only increase, which means that chaos is and will always be present in the universe.
What can science really prove and can't prove or put it in another term, what can it do and not do.
It can't prove the non-existence of something. Because by nature it deals with imperical and inductive methods. Using these tools science comes out with generalized conclusions. Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can't find.
As in my practice, we come up a final diagnosis after you take the patient's history, physical examination and laboratory findings.....science in this case only covers the "lab results". Thus without the other two aspects the lab results is inadequate for me to diagnose the patient. In fact, in some instances we don't need the lab results in coming w/ a diagnosis. The lab result (i.e. science) is only 25% and history and p.e. is 75%.
Science is therefore neither superior nor the only authority on the search for the truth. Because, it cannot prove that something like God doesn't exist. Another false assumption, is the notion that since science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. Because science is not the only method available to learn things about the world.
But it is an essential tool it gives us true, or approximately true, information about the world, and it uses a technique that seems to be reliable, by and large. However, it is not the only means of giving us true information about the world; its methodology limits it significantly.
The law of entropy, does not conflict with an "ordered world". Because science has already shown the various laws governing it including entropy.
In fact, this second law further proves that the universe had a beginning and it is "winding down". Having a beginning demands having a force that caused it to exist. Add to that the cosmological constants, the improbability of it occuring by random chance and the presense of life on this planet which also has so many factors to allow that life to even exist......what does that leave us?
A Universe that came from nothing by random chance? The evidence doesn't seem to say so...
Post by: docelmo on Jun 06, 2018 at 08:28 PM
How does the evidence of cause necesitate a creator? There has to be an agent for something to exist, but that doesn't mean that a creator is involved. When a boulder rolls down the side of a hill during an earthquake and leaves an indentation in the soil before it crashes into the plains below, then it rains and a puddle forms in the indentation left by boulder... who/what is the creator of that puddle? There were definitely agents that caused that puddle to exist, but I can't see how a creator is involved in the existence of that puddle.It's the law of causation. The nature of the "creator" or cause would depend on its effect. That's why I said the cause was immaterial when we talk about "cause" in general. Cause means "something that brings about an effect". Thus the cause could be anything...even the boulder.
Also, the nature of the cause is most certainly not immaterial because that's precisely the point of the entire "science vs religion" debate: Did the universe exist from a god creator or from something scientific?
Let's take the book "Origin of the Species" this book exists because we know about and have read it.
The beginning of the book's "space-time" starts with the first line of the book. And ends with the last line. But the "cause" of the book cannot be found on the first page or first line of the book. Thus the cause is outside the book, outside "space-time".
When the author Charles Darwin started forming his ideas of evolution based on his observations at the Galapagos. These abstract ideas were formed in the mind of the author or cause. It is independent of the existence of the book itself. Was a creator (cause) necessary for something to exist? The answer is a resounding...YES!
I may not agree with his theory, but there's ample evidence that Darwin existed because of the existence of his book.
Why should it be "science vs religion or faith" when these two should instead be 2 sides of the same coin.
Man is not merely a collection of material or physical components but also compose of non-material or non-physical aspects as well.
Universe is not just physical matter but also non-physical "natural laws".
In fact, both are basically in agreement with one crucial thing:
Religion: Genesis 1....In the "beginning" God created the heaven and the earth.
Science: BBT, BVG Theorem
Both has declared there was a "beginning"!
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jun 06, 2018 at 11:58 PM
Bakit thousands? Hindi naman tayo sure kung ganun sila karami or namatay sila na intact ang skeleton. Pwedeng prey sila at nagkalat ang mga buto. Pwede ring konti lang talaga sila.
Yeah it's possible. Pero yun hindi sila dumami is hindi din possible. I've read somewhere that para ma-maintain ang isang lahi, dapat daw at least there would be 2.3 na anak or descendants on an average per pair. Kung ilalagay natin siya sa at least 3 anak, starting at 20 pairs, imagine mo ang dami nila after 100 generation.
Post by: bumblebee on Jun 07, 2018 at 06:58 AM