Who is the real GOD?

[SioDenz]

That is not the way to understand how one's reasoning is to be appreciated. inorder for you to question the validity of one's claim is to question/scrutinize what one is claiming. how can we have a debate when there is no ground? the bible act as the ground as it is the basis of your claims.

Excuse.

If your a Deep Thinker, you should have presented other evidence that There is No God - Not questioning the words and works of God because its self-defeating.

Or basin wala lang jud kay maayung ebendensya ana imung tinuhu-an

[SioDenz]

When you say LAW, what law? The law we should talk about in this thread is scientific laws. Other than that, I don't know what law you are talking about.

LAWS like Newtons Law is already verified and agreed upon by the entire scientific community - mao nahimung LAW. You cannot say that on your THEORY of evolution, Not yet Proven and Not yet Accepted by the entire scientific community.

As what I remember, they are still looking for the MISSING LINK to prove your so called THEORY of Evolution.

[SioDenz]

Faith Vs Logic
d jd magDaog
respetohay nalang haha

True Faith follows correct Logic
Gods word has Common Sense

Its Not Faith vs Logic, Its one's Belief Vs other's Belief

[THE SKULLS]

Could be, but how did it happen? And why? We know that at that temperature, matter nor force could not exist. But we do know that matter can be made from pure energy (as long as it fits with the famous equation: E = m c^2).

Anyway there's a misconception about the big bang, it is not an explosion but it is the rapid expansion of space and time from singularity. Singularity is described by physicist as regions of space that defies the laws of physics. (I'm not a physicist and I don't know much about singularities). The interesting question is, what existed before the big bang? By definition, nothing existed before the beginning? What causes the singularity to be created in the first place? This facts creates more questions than answers..

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. And can only be transformed into another form of energy.

concise.

mao ra jud ni ang tinuod.

[kajrot1]

i agree to that ^

[THE SKULLS]

True Faith follows correct Logic

what logic does it follows? "Imagine"?
lahi ra sad ang Banda na True Faith ha.
And what faith is true?

Gods word has Common Sense

Man has common sense too.

Its Not Faith vs Logic, Its one's Belief Vs other's Belief

that's why we need to listen to "Imagine" ni John Lennon

[nowpress*]

It's a philosophical question and an unavoidable one even among the brightest freethinking minds. What if Islam was correct about Allah and buddhism about the supreme Buddha? Which God should human society worship? Is there such thing as a universal God? I don't wanna read answers like "There is only ONE God, and that is the God in the BIBLE!". If this is all the answer you can give, then what makes the Christian Bible special among other works of literature such as the Quran? Or better yet, what makes your GOD special?

hello friend this is a tough question to answer for it involves faith and most of us knows that faith is personal. We can't force the hearers to accept the idea of God if the hearers themselves find nothing that agrees with what's in their heart.

for me tho I believe the God that is mentioned in the bible is the true one this may sound arrogant to you and others but this is what my heart tells me but of course with the consent of my mind. These two must come together.

[wenlove24]

equally logical also if we assume that the universe always existed and is not caused. and if we are overwhelmed with how the formation of the universe arranged beautifully and amazingly does not necessitate to have been designed intelligently. it is also safe to assume that the universe act according to cause and effect and the universe is continually moving, acting, forming and deforming according to its properties.

I beg to disagree. It's beyond logical the way everything is in order it's impossible no intelligent being stood behind its creation and sustenance and we're still missing the most pressing question which is, Who or What started all THE acTion?

The recent Nature study popularized in the press regarding the nature of the universe has confirmed some of the original studies involving supernovae type 1. The supernovae results suggested that there was a "springiness" to space, an energy density often referred to as "dark energy" or the "cosmological constant," that causes the universe to expand at a faster rate the more it expands. Often described as an "anti-gravity" force, it doesn't really oppose matter, but only affects matter as it is associated with the fabric of space.
Boomerang
The balloon-borne microwave telescope (called "Boomerang") examined the cosmic background radiation left over from the Big Bang. The angular power spectrum showed a peak value at exactly the value predicted by the inflationary hot Big Bang model dominated by cold dark matter. This model predicts a smaller second peak, which seems to be there, but cannot be fully resolved with the initial measurements. The presence of the second peak would all but seal the reliability of the Big Bang model as the mechanism by which the universe came into existence.
How does this study impact the Christian faith? The Bible says that the universe was created in finite time from that which is not visible. In addition, the Bible describes an expanding universe model. The Bible describes the Creator being personally involved in the design of the universe, so that we would expect to see this kind of design in His creation.
How much fine tuning?
How does this discovery impact atheists? Those who favor naturalism had long sought to find the simplest explanation for the universe, hoping to avoid any evidence for design. A Big Bang model in which there was just enough matter to equal the critical density to account for a flat universe would have provided that. However, for many years, it has been evident that there is less than half of the amount of matter in the universe to account for a flat universe. A cosmological constant would provide an energy density to make up for the missing matter density, but would require an extreme amount of fine tuning. The supernovae studies demonstrated that there was an energy density to the universe (but did not define the size of this energy density), and the recent Boomerang study demonstrated that this energy density is exactly what one would expect to get a flat universe. How finely tuned must this energy density be to get a flat universe? One part in 10120, which is:
1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

Atheists' reactions
What do atheists think about this level of design? Here is a quote from a recent article:

"This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."

Atheists see a conflict because this level of design is something that one would not expect by chance from a universe that began through a purely naturalistic mechanism. "Common wisdom" is common only to those who must exclude a supernatural explanation for the creation of the universe.
Yet another study confirms the polarization of the cosmic microwave background radiation, left over from the Big Bang. The standard inflationary model predicted that the background radiation should be polarized when it interacted with matter, nearly 14 billion years ago. John Carlstrom, the S. Chandrasekhar Distinguished Service Professor in Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago, announced the discovery and made the following admission:

"Polarization is predicted. It's been detected and it's in line with theoretical predictions. We're stuck with this preposterous universe."

Naturalism fails the test

In another article entitled, "Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant" researchers from Stanford and MIT examined some of the "problems" associated with a cosmological constant. In their paper, they stated that the implications of a cosmological constant "lead to very deep paradoxes, which seem to require major revisions of our usual assumptions." They admit that "there is no universally accepted explanation of how the universe got into such a special state" and that their study, "Far from providing a solution to the problem, we will be led to a disturbing crisis." They also admit, "Some unknown agent initially started the inflation high up on its potential, and the rest is history."
In examining problems with the cosmological constant, the authors are concerned that ultimate fate of the universe is complete entropy with all the matter and energy distributed over maximally expanded spacetime. They cite the ability of the universe to undergo "Poincare recurrences" as a possible "solution" to one of the "problems." There is a certain theoretical possibility that after the universe is maximally expanded that it would come back together again into one point. Think of it like this. Let's say you are in a room with air molecules randomly moving around in the room. There is a certain probability that the random motion of the molecules could cause all of them to travel to one corner of the room, leaving you in a complete vacuum. Obviously, this would not be a good thing to happen, but it is possible, with an interval on the order of once every 1060 years. Since we only live 102 years in a universe that has been around for only 1010 years, it is practically impossible. So, what is the time it would take for a fully expanded universe to come back into a single point? The authors calculate the value as e10120 years, which they comment "seems like an absurdly big time between interesting events, which, by comparison, last for a very short time." Recent evidence suggests that even this estimate is very optimistic. Some scientists believe that the universe will be permanently destroyed within 22 billion years, with no possibility of reassembly. Robert Caldwell of Dartmouth College says that the dark energy of the universe is increasing at a rate that will rip the universe apart and even the atoms themselves.
However, it is the nature of inflation and the temperature of the universe that deeply concerns these cosmologists. This is what they have to say about the nature of our current universe, among all other possible universes:

"In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely."

Appealing to possible alternative ways that the universe might have evolved do not make fine tuning untenable. In fact, the vast majority of possible universes would contain no matter at all - just energy! Here is what Dyson says about the probability that our universe would be the way it is:

"The vast majority of the space consists of states which are macroscopically "dead de Sitter;" that is, nearly empty de Sitter containing only some thermal radiation. A tiny subset of the states are anthropically acceptable, meaning that they contain complex structures such as stars and galaxies, and a very small subset of those are macroscopically indistinguishable from our universe (labeled MIFOU in the figure). Inflationary initial conditions occupy an even smaller fraction of the space. Trajectories which pass through the inflationary patch will almost always lead immediately to the MIFOU region, "mixing" into it in a "porous," phase-space-area-preserving manner. The vast majority of the points in the MIFOU region did not come from inflation, but rather from unstable trajectories originating in the dead region. Finally, any trajectory in the dead region will remain there almost all of the time, but will occasionally enter the anthropically acceptable region, and very much more rarely the MIFOU region, and almost never the inflationary region. Therefore, livable universes are almost always created by fluctuations into the "miraculous" states discussed above."

Therefore, the nature of the universe reveals that a purely naturalistic cause for the universe is extremely unlikely and, therefore, illogical. One cannot say that a miraculous naturalistic event is a scientific explanation. Miracles are only possible when an immensely powerful Being intervenes to cause them. The Bible says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and that He created the universe. When a model doesn't work, scientists must be willing to give up their model for a model that fits the facts better. In this case, the supernatural design model fits the data much better than the naturalistic random chance model.

[nowpress*]

I don't wanna read answers like "There is only ONE God, and that is the God in the BIBLE!". If this is all the answer you can give, then what makes the Christian Bible special among other works of literature such as the Quran? Or better yet, what makes your GOD special?

=============

it is the only book that contains books and letters written by different authors at different time and yet there's unity and consistency in revealing the will of God.

[wenlove24]

Well, you can't really compare a simple problem like creating a computer to creating a whole universe. If you start the argument of Intelligent Design, you can't just leave it behind on a dead end with infinite possibilities. You have to start questioning the origin of the creator, otherwise you're creating a bigger problem to the problem. Intelligent Design is also a way to put a gap in scientific knowledge. Why automatically insert God to questions science cannot answer?

I believe you're missing the whole point about the comparison thing. If you're seeking for answers on the origin of the Creator, pls. refer to my reply here entitled "Who Created God". ( i think it was an answer to bearish ).
I think you might not "tl;dr" this.....

Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory?

What is Intelligent Design (ID)?

In essence, ID is a statistical study in which the product is unlikely to occur by naturalistic process alone. For many things, especially in the arena of biology, it is difficult or impossible at this time to generate any kind of statistical model to even do the test. However, this will not always be the case. The biological model for ID will stand or fall on the basis of genetics. There is a certain statistical probability for Permanent structural alterations in DNA, consisting of either substitutions, insertions or deletions of nucleotide bases.mutations, which is absolutely known. There are also known genetic The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequences that differ from one another. Evolution claims that all life is descended from previous life, and the fossil record gives us the approximate time at which species appeared. Statistical calculations can be made on the basis of divergence. Complete genomic The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequencesare just beginning to be completed. There will always be some unknowns or uncertainties, so the level of ID will have to be pretty good to be accepted by the general scientific community.
Is Intelligent Design (ID) a valid scientific theory?


ID theory has been criticized on the following basis:

1. No model has been presented
2. Since there is no model, there are no predictions from the theory
3. No refinement of the theory is possible

In an attempt to be all-inclusive, most ID proponents have failed to

1. define the Intelligent Designer
2. reject young-earth creationism

A nebulous theory can never be tested. The Designer must be proposed or there will be no model to test. Most of the potential Designers are described in religious works that contain statements about the natural world that can be tested against the record of the natural world. For this reason, it is necessary to identify the Designer. Because of the failure to reject the poor "science" of young earth creationism, ID has been labeled as a repackaging of scientific creationism. Deceptive or unsupported "science" cannot be allowed to be part of ID or the entire concept will be discredited.

The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.

1. Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
2. Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
3. Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
4. SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?

ID is already used in many areas of science. In archeology, we know that stones don't naturally occur in square shapes piled on top of each other. They show signs of intelligent design (although the designer is not supernatural). A recent example is an underwater rock formation off the coast of Cuba. According to the discoverers, the formation consist of smooth, geometrically shaped, granite-like rocks that are laid out in structures resembling pyramids, roads and other structures at more than 2,000 feet in a 7-3/4 mile-square area. How does it exhibit intelligent design? Natural formations of rocks do not have geometric shapes arranged in recognizable structures.
Likewise, rocks do not naturally have pointed ends with patterns of chips along the sides. This pattern is extremely unlikely through natural processes, so we say that it exhibits intelligent design. In the science of forensics, scientists examine patterns of trauma, for example, to determine if it has a natural or intelligent cause. ID is already used in many areas of science.
Probably the best example is the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). Radio waves can be produced by a variety of natural and "intelligent" processes. Naturally-produced radio waves exhibit patterns of changes in wavelength that are due to random or periodic variation over time. There is no pattern that would indicate any kind of intelligence designed the signal. However, over short periods of time, the pattern could occur by chance with the probability inversely related to the length of time that the signal demonstrates a pattern. Therefore, by examining the signal statistically, scientists can determine if its cause is intelligent or natural. Thus far, intelligent design theory has eliminated (falsified) all extraterrestrial examples of radio waves monitored as being the product of intelligent design.
Characteristics of a successful ID model


A reasonable ID model must possess all of the following characteristics:

1. The intelligent Designer is identified
2. The model is detailed
3. The model can be refined
4. The model is testable and falsifiable
5. The model can make predictions

How does the biblical ID model score on the above characteristics? The intelligent Designer is identified as the Creator God of the Bible. The biblical model of creation is detailed in that the major creation events are listed in a temporal sequence. Dozens of creation passages make specific claims about the nature of the world. The model can be refined by putting together all the biblical creation passages into a coherent, detailed model. Many skeptics claim that ID models cannot be tested, but then go on to state that the biblical descriptions of nature are incorrect. You can't have it both ways! A biblically-based ID model is eminently testable and falsifiable. Contrary to the claims of opponents, the biblical model does make predictions. For example, it claims that all men are descended from one man, Noah, whereas women come from up to 4 different blood lines (see Genesis 6). One would predict from this claim that males would have lower genetic variability on their y-chromosomes, compared to the Of or referring to the mitochondria, the organelles that generate energy for the cell.mitochondrial DNA ( Genetic material found in mitochondria, the organelles that generate energy for the cell.mtDNA), which is passed on exclusively through women. Published scientific studies confirm this biblical prediction, since the last common ancestor dates for the y-chromosome tend to be less than that for Genetic material found in mitochondria, the organelles that generate energy for the cell.mtDNA.
Characteristics of Christian supernaturalism
Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism
Characteristic--- eternal multiverse -- single transcendent beginning
Cosmology -- infinite space time foam--finite duration
Time-----------infinite space time foam---finite duration
Laws of Physics--breakdown at 10-43 sec.----fixed
Fine Tuning----explained by infinite # universes--extreme fine tuning is designed
Probability---only likely events will occur--creation involved miracles that could not occur by chance

The table above gives some of the characteristics of Christian supernaturalism compared to naturalism. Contrary to atheistic assertions, the Christian ID model does not claim that the universe is perfect. The idea that a perfect God would not create a universe less than "perfect" is logically flawed. The biblical model states that the universe is "flawed" - for the purpose of allowing humans the choice to love or reject God. The model also states that this imperfect universe will be replaced by a perfect universe once its purpose has been fulfilled. Those humans who chose to love God will be perfected by their own permission into sinless, loving creatures. Why didn't God create this perfect universe in the first place? Forcing creatures to be perfect would abrogate their free will and prevent them expressing true love, since they would have no choice. Humans who want to spend eternity with God chose now to give up their ability to sin or be unloving in the future new universe, where no such choices will exist.
Predictions of the Christian ID model compared to naturalism
Because of the nature of the laws of physics, it seems likely that none of the characteristics in the above table can be absolutely known. However, there are a number of predictions that each theory makes, which can be tested by further study of the universe and life on the earth.
What are some specific predictions made by the two models?

Predictions of Naturalism vs. Christian ID
Characteristic ------Anti-Supernatural vs. Christian ID
1. Single transcendent beginning
(Anti-S)will be refuted
(Christian ID) evidence will increase
2. Fine tuning
(Anti-S) "design" will be shown to be an artifact, due to incomplete knowledge
(Christian ID)more examples of extreme fine tuning will be found, indicating true design
3. Uniqueness of earth--
(Anti-S)many rocky planets with oceans and continents will be found
(Christian ID) earth-like planets will be found to be rare or non-existent
4. Existence of life in the universe
(Anti-S)-life will be found to be abundant in our galaxy, since it is simply the properties of chemistry and physics
(Christian ID) extraterrestrial life will be rare or non-existent and advanced life will be found only on earth
5. Prebiotic chemistry
(Anti-S)a naturalistic scenario for the origin of all biochemical pathways and replicative molecules will be found
(Christian ID) the universe was designed to support living systems, but their creation required ID by God
6. Origin of Life
(Anti-S) Life emerged late, during ideal environmental conditions. Life began as simple systems (pre-bacteria)
(Christian ID) Life emerged early under adverse conditions. Life has always been complex
7. New designs in nature
(Anti-S)Complex new designs would be rare and develop slowly whereas simple transitions would be common
(Christian ID) No restriction on designs with the possibility that new designs would be created "overnight"
8. Mass extinction events
(Anti-S) Slow recovery
(Christian ID) No restrictions on "recovery" period as new species are created.

What is the scorecard so far? Science tells us that:

1.There is no evidence for more than one universe or more than one creation event.
2.Examples of fine tuning continue to increase. Some parameters designed to within a part in 10120.
3.Rocky planets matching the general characteristics of planet earth have been few. Most planets found are large gas giants orbiting very close to their stars.
4.No other life found. SETI has been completely unsuccessful.
5.It is impossible to chemically produce many basic molecules required for origin of any living system.
6.Naturalistic synthesis of either biochemical nor replicative pathways have not been described. In fact, many scientists think that they could not have arisen by any naturalistic means.
7.Contrary to the expectations of evolutionary theory, the fossil record is replete with complex transitions and new designs whereas simple transitions (intermediates) are rare. Evolutionary theory would expect the opposite to be true and to be reflected in the fossil record.
8.Evolution predicts slow recovery following extinctions and that those recoveries will be filled by the species surviving the extinction event. However, the fossil record indicates rapid recovery with completely different designs and species appearing within a period of tens of thousands of years or less.