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

[schmuck]

---

ako sa Bible. Everything begins from God so whatever written in the Bible are all true and correct. People who wrote it was guided by our Supreme God.

And you know all this because?

[will_way86]

Do you really think that the Aethists have the best scientists in this world? - Logic says "theres no such thing as absolute, no such thing as "best". Thats why scientists doesnt claim or even use the word BEST. Can you give me a link that one of these scientist says "Atheist have the best scientist in this world? no, you cant find any.

But you can only see scientist at work, challenging their own theories and others too. Scientists will never say they are the best. In fact they are too humble to accept if theyre theories are being challenge.

These seven scientist believe in GOD? Can you find a phrase or a sentence that says, "Iam Einstein, and I BELIEVE IN A GOD", ""Iam Galileo, and I BELIEVE IN A GOD"? can you give me a link?
the link that you gave are short biographical information. Give me another link.

While people who believe in GOD, are not humble to accept when theyre FAITH is being scrutinize, challenge, or being investigated.

But, did this Simplicity existed in eternity? Was it always there before 14billion years ago? - if everything starts from simplicity, then simplicity existed in eternity, and NOT GOD because there is NO GOD.

Simplicity has always been there 14 billion years ago. example: simple matter from a surrounding envelope of gas and dust. Thats simplicity.

The gravitational pull of gas and dust thus transforming into matter, and from matter, it transformed into something complicated, like star, sun, and planets. thats complexity.

Now, your confuse mind will say, where did SIMPLE GAS and DUST comes from? and we will answer, as a HUMBLE Science Enthusiast, we havent trace the simpler origin form of Gas and Dust, but we are looking for opportunities to address the issue in the near future, as we gradually evolve from our technology. Now, thats humility.

Now, I bet, you will say, "Thats it you cannot explain, because presto, GOD made the Gas and Dust". With out presenting proof.

You want me to read page 67? how bout you read my posts first? maybe youll realize that there is no GOD.

Can you see your GOD? no right? but you still believe in him. That means your delusional. FAITH is a sugarcoated word to cover up people in denial, and at the brink of insanity.

Again, FAITH and SCIENCE cannot co-exist. Like GOVERNMENT and RELIGION. Like OIL and WATER. Like blood type O+ and AB-, it cannot co exist.

Kung sa Gubat pa, ikaw ang klaro nga talawan. playing safe. if there are 2 camps in war, say; Nazi and Jews. either your a Nazi, or your a Jew. In your case your a Nazi Jew? you gotta be kidding me.

now, ive answered your question. Answer mine: Since you are a self-proclaimed Theist, can you USE Science, conduct experiments, to prove your GOD's existence?

Just an illustration but worth thinking about...
YouTube - if you dont believe in god watch this!

[INRI]

Just an illustration but worth thinking about...
YouTube - if you dont believe in god watch this!

bro don't get offended ha coz this is just my opinion..
I think the video that you showed us is...corny...
I expect lang na the video would show a religious apologist or an Intelligent Design defender..making a good case of the existence of their god. Parehas sa gi post ni bungot ba about ka Lee Strobel.

[orcgod]

here is the evidence through scientific investigation.

The Case For The Creator - Lee Strobel

if you still dont believe, then you are dishonest and badwilled person.

From your beloved Video Link....

"the Cambrian explosion of life was a dramatic episode of geological history. Usually dated about 530 million years ago. The exquisitely preserve Cambrian fossils reveal that the body of plants were virtually every major animal faila appeared."



primero pagani sa video nakog tanaw, tulimbang na ang GINOO ni Mr. Bungot. Let me explain Mr. Bungot...

You believe in GOD right? so its safe to say you believe in the BIBLE, right? your BIBLE says the earth is 10,000 years old.

Your video "evidence" clearly supported that the EXQUISITELY PRESERVE CAMBRIAN FOSSILS were dated 530 million years old. So tulimbang naka.

You see Lee Strobel is so into proving that there is GOD, that He forgot how old the fossils were, and how young his BIBLE EARTH was.

If you still dont believe, better go back to 2nd year high-school and learn BIOLOGY.

[schmuck]

From your beloved Video Link....

"the Cambrian explosion of life was a dramatic episode of geological history. Usually dated about 530 million years ago. The exquisitely preserve Cambrian fossils reveal that the body of plants were virtually every major animal faila appeared."



primero pagani sa video nakog tanaw, tulimbang na ang GINOO ni Mr. Bungot. Let me explain Mr. Bungot...

You believe in GOD right? so its safe to say you believe in the BIBLE, right? your BIBLE says the earth is 10,000 years old.

Your video "evidence" clearly supported that the EXQUISITELY PRESERVE CAMBRIAN FOSSILS were dated 530 million years old. So tulimbang naka.

You see Lee Strobel is so into proving that there is GOD, that He forgot how old the fossils were, and how young his BIBLE EARTH was.

If you still dont believe, better go back to 2nd year high-school and learn BIOLOGY.

Lee Strobel is not a Young Earth Creationist mao na magamit cya og fossils sa iyang arguments. Si bungot wala nag klaro kung unsa cya nga type of creationist. YEC or OEC.

[redhorse1L]

Hi hitch22, sorry for the late reply. Medyo busy sa work.

Here's my answer:
First of all, let me tell you that I am a staunch Roman Catholic.
A Deist position, as you said, only believes that God is the initiator, but do not intervine with human affairs, which I also rejected.
Although along with Islam, or other religions, we tend to disagree to some truths concerning God, we have, at least, similarities on what we believe:
That beyond a natural world, is a supernatural world, an all-powerful Being that created all things.

You have commented on the scientists' disagreeing religious positions.
The fact is that they still accepted that there is someone Superior could have started/created all things tells us that they don't accept the idea that all things come from nothing, and by chance.

The Church on those days, given their limited knowledge on Science, reacts to those kinds of scientific ideas which she thinks a clear conflict with her teaching. Even other scientists, at first thinks Galileo was crazy by saying that the Earth revolves around the sun.

But as time progress, we can clearly see that the Church is slowly embracing science's new discovery.
That there is no conflict between Science and Religion.
Adam, Eve, and Evolution
Please remember that like science, the understanding concerning God has also developed in time.

As the band Queen says in one of their songs: One Faith, One Hope, One True Religion. =)
Why am I a Catholic?
Here are some of the reasons: AskACatholic.com - Why I am Catholic
But I guess we don't have to dig much considering our topic in this thread.

You see, different/conflicting notions on understanding a subject doesn't mean that a subject does not exist.
-------
Maybe you can also answer my question as what I gave to orcgod:
From a point of Singularity(Simplicity), we have a very dense energy ball.
Did this Simplicity existed in eternity? Was it always there before 14billion years ago?

[narud67]

[quote=orcgod;7573324]

remember this?

"Well to me that is not a problem, He is God, He can be whatever what He want, we cannot comprehend simply because we are just His creation."

so, what your saying is, you dont have a problem what your GOD is. Right? and your GOD, as what the fantasy Bible says, is a MURDERER. oh, thats too harsh, let me sugarcoat it - RIGHTEOUS MURDERER!

So LOGIC tells us, that if you dont have a problem with a murderous GOD, and you believe and worship him, then it is obvious that whatever your GOD do, you support him.

You are clearly blind as your Faith. again LOOK AT THE LINK - and tell me if your GOD is a murderer or not.

Dwindling In Unbelief: God's Top 50 Killings

<--- i won't argue anymore with you orcgod. Hope that God will save you (this is my last reply to you, God bless you atheist wannabe

[redhorse1L]

@orcgod - Cencya na brod.. Labad ulo manage sa server, at the same time, compose answer. hehe

For the seven scientists, you don't need to explicitly read from their writings in order for you to know that they believe in God. You might want to check wikipedia since it is more comprehensive than my link.
Galileo:
Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. The writers of the Scripture wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, and from that vantage point the sun does rise and set.
Newton:
Newton saw God as the master creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.

etc..

Like what I've explained to hitch22, they might have disagreeing religious propositions. But the fact is that they still accepted that there is someone Superior could have started/created all things tells us that they don't accept the idea that all things come from nothing, and by chance.

If everything starts from simplicity, then simplicity existed in eternity, and NOT GOD because there is NO GOD.
- This assumes that the simplicity has an infinite past. The problem with this theory is that an infinite past contradicts itself. An event(like a death of a star), involves a finite series of past events. If the Big Bang occured some 14 billion yrs ago, it should have a series of past events before the explosion occurred. But as you said, that matter and gases had no beginning, why did it not happened 100 billion yrs ago, or yesterday? Since there have been an infinite past before it.
- Simply put, infinity is just an idea on the mind, not something real. Infinity minus infinity is undefined.

Now, your confuse mind will say, where did SIMPLE GAS and DUST comes from? and we will answer, as a HUMBLE Science Enthusiast, we havent trace the simpler origin form of Gas and Dust, but we are looking for opportunities to address the issue in the near future, as we gradually evolve from our technology. Now, thats humility.
- Great! we are really proud on your unending quests for new discoveries. With this, we can appreciate more on how wonderful God's creation is.
- Science is constantly in search for new discoveries finding answers about our world, and NOT to prove the inexistence of God.

Only an aethist thinks that the more we understand Science, the more we are inclined to believe that there is no God. Science does not teach that. You don't read it in the science book, right?

If there are 2 camps in war, say; Nazi and Jews
I would suggest let's be united, and let's have peace.
The Jews don't want war, we are embracing Nazi's ideas.

Like Galileo, let's not take things literally in the Bible.
We need Science for us to understand about the natural world.
We need Religion for us to understand about God.

Apir! Tagay ta redhorse. hehehe

[gdi]

murag kapoy na basa tag-as kayong mga ipang copy-paste. hehe.

[hitch22]

You have commented on the scientists' disagreeing religious positions.
The fact is that they still accepted that there is someone Superior could have started/created all things tells us that they don't accept the idea that all things come from nothing, and by chance.

Name me one scientific theory or scientific law that suggests divine intervention as part of its equations or explanations. You couldn't find one. Scientific theories/laws have to abide by the principle of Ockham's razor, which states "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily".

Consider for example the following two theories aimed at describing the motion of the planets around the sun:

1) The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance.

2) The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance. This force is generated by the will of some powerful aliens.

Since the force between the planets and the sun determines the motion of the former and both theories posit the same type of force, the predicted motion of the planets will be identical for both theories. The second theory, however, has additional baggage (the will of the aliens) which is unnecessary for the description of the system. OCKHAM'S RAZOR CUTS OUT THIS UNNECESSARY PART.

* above example and explanation on Ockham's razor can be read here.

It's the same example I brought up before about the 18th century French astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace. When he was asked by Napoleon about the role of God in his discourse on the secular variations of the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter (since he noticed God missing in them), here's how the conversation went:

Napoleon: "Comment, vous faites tout le système du monde, vous donnez les lois de toute la création et dans tout votre livre vous ne parlez pas une seule fois de l'existence de Dieu !"
Translation: "How can this be! You made the system of the world, you explain the laws of all creation, but in all your book you speak not once of the existence of God!"

Laplace: "[Sire,] je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse."
Translation: "I did not need to make such an assumption."

Get my point? Every scientific theory that had been derived from the observable nature and the universe did not require the assumption of divine intervention or any supernatural dimension.

* I'll tell you the how that Einstein story went later.

The Church on those days, given their limited knowledge on Science, reacts to those kinds of scientific ideas which she thinks a clear conflict with her teaching. Even other scientists, at first thinks Galileo was crazy by saying that the Earth revolves around the sun.

The Church on those days, given their limited knowledge on Science, reacts to those kinds of scientific ideas which she thinks a clear conflict with her teaching. Even other scientists, at first thinks Galileo was crazy by saying that the Earth revolves around the sun.

I'VE BEEN STRESSING THIS POINT BEFORE, ALTHOUGH I FORGOT THE TERM WHEN I FIRST ARGUED ABOUT IT. They were not called scientists in those days. They were NATURAL PHILOSOPHERS. Before the development of modern science, people who dabbled in the study of nature and the universe were called NATURAL PHILOSOPHERS. Click here to read more about Natural Philosophy.

AND, in those days, the Church held the power and the money. And natural philosophy had to conform to Scriptural doctrines...at the risk of getting burned at the stake. "Science" was "science" only in so far as it did not deviate from Scriptures. Obviously, you can't call that SCIENCE but more like THEOLOGY. EVERY PRINCIPLE THEY FORMULATED ABOUT NATURE HAD TO CONFORM WITH SCRIPTURE! One had to take primacy over the other. THAT'S NOT SCIENCE. That's why it's called natural philosophy...and worse, it operated under the persecuting hands of the medieval church!

First of all, let me tell you that I am a staunch Roman Catholic.
...we have, at least, similarities on what we believe:That beyond a natural world, is a supernatural world, an all-powerful Being that created all things.

I cannot disprove that. But all I can say is that you still have a whole lot of work ahead of you to get from a FIRST CAUSE to a THEISTIC God that answers prayers, lays down the laws about which meat to avoid (i.e. pork) and what not to wear when having S-E-X (i.e. condoms), sends a son to earth to straighten things out, promises land to a chosen tribe, raises people from the dead, turns water into wine and so forth...YOU KNOW THE KINDS OF THINGS.

But as time progress, we can clearly see that the Church is slowly embracing science's new discovery. That there is no conflict between Science and Religion.

I surely hope that the embrace of science by religion can be speeded up. That there is no conflict....IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE BIGGEST UNDERSTATEMENT I'VE EVER HEARD. The fact of the matter sounds more like...almost every advancement in science had been thwarted by religion or had to be fought at the teeth of religious opposition. And that struggle continues to this day. IMAGINE AT ONE TIME THEY CONDEMNED THE SMALLPOX VACCINE (click here to read about it). NO CONFLICT BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE?? If that was the case, tell me where to sign up....hehe

Lastly, as I promised, about Einstein. In 1940 Einstein wrote a famous paper justifying his statement "I do not believe in a personal God." The following were the reactions from the religious:

From the Roman Catholic Bishop of Kansas City:

'It is sad to see a man, who comes from the race of the Old Testament and its teaching, deny the great tradition of that race.'

Other Catholic clergymen chimed in:

'There is no other God but a personal God ... Einstein does not know what he is talking about. He is all wrong. Some men think that because they have achieved a high degree of learning in some field, they are qualified to express opinions in all.'

From an American Roman Catholic lawyer, working on behalf of an ecumenical coalition:

We deeply regret that you made your statement ... in which you ridicule the idea of a personal God. In the past ten years nothing has been so calculated to make people think that Hitler had some reason to expel the Jews from Germany as your statement. Conceding your right to free speech, I still say that your statement constitutes you as one of the greatest sources of discord in America.

From a New York rabbi:

'Einstein is unquestionably a great scientist, but his religious views are diametrically opposed to Judaism.'