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

[kenites]

---

Is there any need for a first cause?

by Nathaniel Branden:
Question: Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?
Answer: There are two basic fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that, if the universe required a casual explanation, the positing of a "god" would provide it. To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who then created god? Was there a still earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress - the very dilemma that the positing of a "god" was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally - then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?
It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But recognition of this fact should lead one to reappraise the validity of the initial question, not to attempt to answer it by stepping outside the universe into some gratuitously invented supernatural dimension.
This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a casual explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. Causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuupose causality. There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual chains. Existence -not "god" - is the First Cause.
Just as the concept of a causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole - so the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.
The man who asks: "Where did existence come from?" or "What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that existence exists. This is the mentality of a savage or mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to nonexistence.
Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing. If you are tempted to ask: "What's outside the universe?" - recognize that you are asking; "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of "something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just another kind of "something" - it is nothing. Existence exists; you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists: There is nowhere else to go.

[Peenut]

Ka behind na nako.. backread nya ko

[hitch22]

Once again, thanks and great post, kenites! I've got another nugget saved on my folder.

I just want to make a very small point about design. It's very easy to dismiss natural processes as capable of producing anything that resemble design. But think about the snowflake. Here's some pictures of the various snowflakes with intricate symmetries:



One would be tempted to think...that must have some designer behind it. But you would of course know that it's formed by natural processes. It simply involves the behavior of water molecules and some principles in physics. However, the explanation of how a snowflake accomplishes its symmetry is quite complex. Check this out: Symmetry of Snowflakes.

Somebody once said "Design must be inferred before a designer can be proven." The logic is valid. But that does not exclude natural processes from the activity of design.

[remz399]

evolution myt be a false belief for me. if theirs any evolution. . y is it nga wla nani karon.? hmm. for me it doesn't really exist.

and thought lng nga until now wla jpon ni na push thru sa Science its because for me wla jud ni ning exist. hihihhi. .


to all pro science. I think its time to Shift na to Pro Bible. .


.hahahaha. .

[jezardavao]

if you really know how science works in the bible, makingon jud mo nga science and the bible doesn't contrary each other.

study science and study the bible at the same time for you to decide kung asa inyo angay tuohan o dili .

[Peenut]

A persons faith is another persons bloody-minded, pig-headed refusal to accept the obvious.

[remz399]

maybe bro the conflict of the both Science and Bible is in tittled na jud.

I mean given the fact that both of this to has their own version .

lain2x jud tag mga gi tuohan. bt one thing is for xur for me lng ha. .

Bible maybe the closest to it. .

[chad_tukes]

evolution myt be a false belief for me. if theirs any evolution. . y is it nga wla nani karon.? hmm. for me it doesn't really exist.

you as well as the rest of us, are undergoing evolution right at this moment. evolution is not something you can see; it is a gradual process. visit this thread for more information:

https://www.istorya.net/forums/scienc...-evolving.html

[hitch22]

evolution myt be a false belief for me. if theirs any evolution. . y is it nga wla nani karon.? hmm. for me it doesn't really exist.

are you sure wala na ang process of evolution? bai, why do you think that your doctor would stress that you should complete a whole course of antibiotics when treating bacterial infection...even when you start feeling well after a day or two? That's because those harmful bacteria, due to their abilities for rapid multiplication, are very capable of mutating and evolving to resist the very drug that's killing them. That's evolution through natural selection happening in real time. Just think, in recent times, of the H1N1 outbreak. Those were bacteria originally adapted to the genetic environment of pigs. How was it able to transfer successfully to humans? Again, evolution through random mutation and natural selection...happening in real time. One might answer "Well, evolution may be true at the cellular level but not at the macro level." Well, what do you think our bodies are made of? Aren't we made up of cells (hair cells, skin cells, etc.)?

Evolution in bigger, more complex creatures happen more slowly...I think, this has largely to do with the rate of multiplication. We don't multiply like bacteria. Think about hundreds of thousands of years just to see changes in specific features like longer necks or bigger beaks or darker colors or some abnormalities like small limb buds in aquatic creatures. But when you put tiny, incremental changes over millions of years (coupled with natural selection brought about by geological changes on the earth's surface and the climate change)...you get major-sized speciation, like dinosaurs to birds or fish to reptiles. Our brains do not intuitively think in terms of millions of years. That huge time scale, I think, is what most of us would need to adjust to first, in order to grasp the concept of evolution of bigger, more complex creatures. Macro evolution, particularly a complete species change, is one that you can't perhaps witness in real-time or demonstrate in a lab. We can only see evidence of it through its after-effects like the fossil record. In fact, when you see the whole record arranged chronologically, in branching fashion, you'll see it precisely confirms the Theory's predictions (or shall we say retro-diction).

With our current state of understanding and technology in genetic science, we now have the ability to sequence the genomes of every living creature. I've mentioned about the evidence that's revealed in our genomes, where vestigial genes show a history of our common ancestry with even the primitive organisms like the fungi. The DNA in our cells contains the precise history of our species, it proves that we are related to every other living thing on the planet, the closer the animal the more similar the DNA is, like the great apes and us. When you combine this technology (genome sequencing) with the fossil records serving as a map, you can see the puzzle of our origins making more sense...more importantly, you can see the brilliance and precision of Darwin's theory...despite its simplicity.

Speciation has occurred in the past and is still happening today. From time to time, we do get news of new species of lizards or frogs or plants found in rain forests of Indonesia or the Amazon, which were not there before. Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution explains this phenomena.

Get over it!

[kenites]

It is not to offend anybody ha but this is just my opinion..
I think if you really closed your mind to the wonders of science then bisan iladlad pa nimo evidence dili jud na makit-an..
People tend to resort to a Supreme Being than to check science since it's easier to reason out that everything was made and created by just a stroke of a magic wand...
Their best argument is "because the Bible said so" which lead me to another question..

How much do you really know about the Bible? coz I think ato nahibaw-an is based lang sa Sunday Mass..
I am not saying that expert pud ko ani but I know that the Bible is full of contradiction..
The Genesis creation story alone if you take a carefull scrutiny imo makita nga duha kabouk ang version..
I dunno ha, like what I've said I'm not a Bible expert..basin matubag ni sa mga expert..

tnx