Kinsa jud imo gituohan kung diin jud tah gikan, ang Bible or Science?

[Jhared]

---

kung maoy imong naabtan sa imong understanding migo, so be it. Atheist diay naka tag iya sa langit nga nakasulti manka sa ingon? hmmm, palaylay pa jud ka bisan motuo jud na sya ug langit ug Ginoo.

lol,, funny man..

[Jhared]

pirme ko kasugat anang god of the gaps argument and i assure you that's not what i'm talking about..
the god of the gaps would be like this.. we don't know who or what caused the first sequence in the series of causes and effects. therefore God did it! hehehe..
my stand is obviously different than that..
the conclusion is based on reality and actuality of creation and not on pure assumption..

mao bitaw ang proof is not the fact that everything hasn't been uprooted yet but the nature of Creation itself..the former would be the philosophical terms of what you call god of the gaps.

judging by the way you structurized your argument awhile back, yes it was a god-of-the-gaps argument, although i knew it was not your intention.. you might think that you have all the proof you need, but in reality all proof you have is your own philosophical deduction on the matter, and that doesn't count for nothing..

by basic math i mean mathematical formulas in their simplest form..
basic addition, subtraction,division and multiplication.
of course dili...
although still rooted from the basics like everything else..an advanced formula
is required to deal with calculus mathematical problems.
otherwise the solution would fail kay dili match ang solution ug ang problem..
so is science in its present form really equipped to deal with the specifics of our origins? No. though i have hopes in Science and humanity but for now, asking for scientific proof that God exists is absurd.

exactly, it is absurd, that's the reason why you cannot blame people for their disbelief, because for one, no scientific proof of his existence has been presented, or will ever be presented.. and you cannot ask proof of their disbelief when in the first place there's no physical data to rebut. for now it remains nothing more but a philosophical question..

if the assumption is based on ignorance then we shouldn't but if it's based on reality. the nature of things..then i don't see a reason why we shouldn't..after all, hypothesis are derived from careful studies of realistic datas..
kaso lang, dili jud ta maka conclude scientifically because God needs to be quantified in a lab para mahimong scientific atong basis..which we both know is rediculous and outright impossible...at least with the current phase or level of knowledge science now possess.

philosophy on the other hand is more broad and is more flexible compared with scientific basis..provided bai! nga philosophical basis is realistic and actual.

example, a painting, the reality of a painting is that it is an artwork therefore made. so by that reality, we can conlude philosophically by the nature of artworks that someone did paint that certain picture.
same thing with nature/creation and the Creator only in a much complicated manner..

as if the science community is actually looking for god, as if their studies are aimed towards answering the question of his existence, none of it really matters, what they are actually trying to derive is the nature of reality, understanding the whole physical laws that governs nature.. if you are for the assumption that towards the dead end there lies a god who created everything, then that's your gist,

so you are saying that your philosophy is based on realistic and actual data? when in fact you said that proof of gods existence is philosophical, even going on to say that asking for scientific proof for it is absurd.. so no, i refuse to believe that.. philosophy is flexible, even admitting subjectivity, hence it's prone to commit erroneous conclusions, you should know that..

like i said previously bai, we should look at the effects rather than the process to see the order of things that i'm talking about..
imagine if ants were to take our size? with creation following natural laws creation ended with however things are today, where each creation takes part in sustaining creation and Life..
we don't know how creation will be in the future since a lot of people are no longer respecting the laws binding nature..

exactly, i just told you the effects of evolution,. that there are species of animals that got f*ckd (for lack of a better word) up so bad by evolution they'd have to eat feces, there are blind animals, there are species that die after they copulate, there are those that kill to survive, etc,. the process is for propagation of species.. only those animals that are well adapted survive.. now is that for order, no, that's for survival..

evolution do not really care about what we do with nature, whether we care about our ecosystem or not, like i said it just goes its own way, it's effect may be independent to it but its process does not,.. like what they like to say in Spain, "Que Sera Sera"..

[upsidedown]

evolution do not really care about what we do with nature, whether we care about our ecosystem or not, like i said it just goes its own way, it's effect may be independent to it but its process does not,.. like what they like to say in Spain, "Que Sera Sera"..

Tell me why you would choose to not punch someone in the Face.

[Jhared]

Tell me why you would choose to not punch someone in the Face.

tell me why would i?...

[upsidedown]

tell me why you are asking that...

you will know why in this discussion. Its a simple question.

- - - Updated - - -

tell me why would i?...

let me break it down for you. Yes or No question.
Would you punch someone in the face for the fun of it?

[Jhared]

you will know why in this discussion. Its a simple question.

- - - Updated - - -



let me break it down for you. Yes or No question.
Would you punch someone in the face for the fun of it?

yes or no question, without giving the other party to explain himself.. a vicious but obvious tool to incriminate him..

ok so ill just play along with your game..

No.. therefore?

[upsidedown]

yes or no question, without giving the other party to explain himself.. a vicious but obvious tool to incriminate him..

ok so ill just play along with your game..

No.. therefore?

No okay good. Now tell me why you wouldn't do it.

[Jhared]

No okay good. Now tell me why you wouldn't do it.

because why would i?..

no sane man would do that, even wild animals don't hurt each other without any reasonr, and to think they have no guiding principles and moral standards to follow whatsoever, only driven by raw instinct, how much more a human capable of reason like me,.

because i would wish to live my life peacefully, therefore i would not hurt anyone if its for no other reason but for the heck of it,. because if id hurt you, you'd hurt me back, there's nothing to gain with that, there's no point..

[upsidedown]

because why would i?..

no sane man would do that, even wild animals don't hurt each other without any reasonr, and to think they have no guiding principles and moral standards to follow whatsoever, only driven by raw instinct, how much more a human capable of reason like me,..

So you are saying, you will not do it because it is Wrong?

[Jhared]

So you are saying, you will not do it because it is Wrong?

no, im saying it, the way i said it..

lol.. now you are hoping this conversation will eventually lead to an argument about Morality,

well ok.. define Wrong..