Scientific Proof of God

[ketllac]

---

This will educate us part...

YouTube - ‪0. Is Intelligent Design Viable?: Introduction‬‏

sorry blocked ang youtube dire.

I know what ID is but rejecting that idea and accepting other hypothesis is not an attitude of a scientist. Kay wala pa may gyuy irrefutable evidence nga wala ang ID then its safe to say nga part ni sa ato search...

For me ang pinaka idea ani is your searching for the truth. Now kung ma diskobrehan nga walay Ginoo based sa imong study and irrefutable evidence then fine kay at least ang truth maoy importante.

[ketllac]

observe langbro unsay nahitabo sa atong kalibutan karon kung wla pay evil/satan/lucifer nga nag influence sa mga minds sa mga occultist!

YouTube - ‪The New Age Movement - The Lie of the Serpent - 1‬‏
YouTube - ‪Part 1 Alberto Rivera (Ex Jesuit Priest)‬‏
YouTube - ‪The VATICAN Exposed- Catholic Priest...flv‬‏
YouTube - ‪Catholic Church Exposed part 1‬‏

sorry blocke ang youtube dire..

dili man gani nimo ma prove sa bible nga si Lucifer mao ang satan how much more i connect nimo ng lucifer sa imo nakita sa youtube.

hahahaha. Nituo ka ni alberto Rivera nga considered as fraud...

Tuo diay kag bakak ug ilad wordofgod.?

part ba na sa inyo teaching nga dili mo examine sa source?
I don't think so kay matod pasa mga sola scripturist nga test the spirit if its from God or not di ba?

[AntitaniC]

observe langbro unsay nahitabo sa atong kalibutan karon kung wla pay evil/satan/lucifer nga nag influence sa mga minds sa mga occultist!

YouTube - ‪The New Age Movement - The Lie of the Serpent - 1‬‏
YouTube - ‪Part 1 Alberto Rivera (Ex Jesuit Priest)‬‏
YouTube - ‪The VATICAN Exposed- Catholic Priest...flv‬‏
YouTube - ‪Catholic Church Exposed part 1‬‏

hey... hows your end of the world going?.............. engk... failed.... credibility down to zero.....

[ulyrich]

wrong and never ever been existing the term "scientific proof of god"

[b1 huck]

unsa kadto? pagkasajang ba ani d man ko kalantaw sa youtube... pagkadimas ba ani.. hurhurhur...

[kit_cebu]

mas bati patu imong discriminating thread about maids uy.....

wtf is wrong aning bayhana sa mga maids?

https://www.istorya.net/forums/genera...og-helper.html

https://www.istorya.net/forums/genera...cya-na-bf.html

nakagamit uroy ni siya sa internet sa balay sa iyang amo.....

[THE KID]

susihon ni nako sa haws.........

[pinoy_09]

@pinoy_09

sorry blocked ang youtube dire.




pareha ra sad nga sa theoretical physics di ba?





di ba part sa scientific method pag Identify sa problem and formulate hypothesis.. ngano ang ID problem man pero ang ubang theory acceptable kaayo labi na sa mga atheists nga in the first place part man na sa problem kung gamiton nato ang scientific method? kay lami paminawon? nya kung naa ka knowledge sa theoretical physics ug attitude sa atheists membro ka intellectuals?

Laktod pag ka istorya ang ID still part sa hypothesis di ba.

basin sayop ko Please educate me on this....

I agree that it's a problem and will continue to be a problem. The hypothesis of the existence and non-existence of an Intelligent Design are equally probable, meaning there are only two options here --- either he EXIST or he DOESN'T. And of course I'm in the position to admit that I don't entirely eliminate the idea that ID might exist, but again it presents a bigger question to the argument --- who created the creator?

[ketllac]

I agree that it's a problem and will continue to be a problem. The hypothesis of the existence and non-existence of an Intelligent Design are equally probable, meaning there are only two options here --- either he EXIST or he DOESN'T. And of course I'm in the position to admit that I don't entirely eliminate the idea that ID might exist, but again it presents a bigger question to the argument --- who created the creator?

For me it depends on the scientist that formulates the hypothesis. The problem when it comes to the the question "who created the creator" has the same weight of problem when it comes to the theory about close/infinite loop universe in physics considering that science also concern about the relationship between an event (cause) and a second event (effect). In this case its safe to say that ID doesn't violate the rule especially when it comes to the principle about causality. Again why there's a double standard?

As I have noticed the moment you said that you don't totally eliminate the idea about ID makes me think that you are not an atheist. I believe you are an agnostic. aren't you?

[pinoy_09]

For me it depends on the scientist that formulates the hypothesis. The problem when it comes to the the question "who created the creator" has the same weight of problem when it comes to the theory about close/infinite loop universe in physics considering that science also concern about the relationship between an event (cause) and a second event (effect). In this case its safe to say that ID doesn't violate the rule especially when it comes to the principle about causality. Again why there's a double standard?

The double standard is created by the same people who atheists criticize. The confusion arises when one starts questioning God. To the Christian mind, when one argues against the presence of a supernatural, it automatically denotes a hard stance that God cannot possibly exist. On the contrary, the atheist stance is more of there is no substantial evidence to support that a God exist.

Therefore to us the evidence that a God might exist still remains within the realms of science. And as such, I would disagree with your statement that the ID theory holds the same weight as with other scientific theory. Why? Because there's a very fine line between what's reality (as what the evidence presents) to what's fantasy (as what's written in the Bible).

As I have noticed the moment you said that you don't totally eliminate the idea about ID makes me think that you are not an atheist. I believe you are an agnostic. aren't you?

Agnostic Atheist.