The Roman Catholic Church~ Questions

[noy]

---

Like I said, d mu matter sa akoa kung dli ma disprove ang existence of god. So my position doesn't matter here, but yours does

hmmm..not really, like i said before, i already have sufficient evidence for me to believe that there's God.

A theory starts with philosophical argument, but what is philosophical argument alone?

depende sa philosophical argument. like i said, if it's based on the actuality and reality of things then that is a valid philosophical premise even if it's yet to be proven scientifically..

Just because all legitimate B's are caused by A's does not mean all A's will cause future legitimate B's.

kay ning ingun ba diay ko nga all A's will and should cause legit B's? point is, there's a premise which cannot be dismissed just yet.
nya ikaw imu mang e-insist nga voided na jud..hahahaha

mao akong ge-emphasize ang necessity sa philosophical argument in scientific theories because it appears that you are demeaning philiosophy... murag way utang kabubut-on ang scientific theories LOL

How do you know it's number 2 and not number 1?
That's a big assumption right there. & lack of knowledge of things does make your claim any more plausible. Of course daghan ta wa nahibaw-an, this clearly points out sa katong times nga ang mga tawo wa kaila ug disaster ilaha tawgon ug punishment from god.

isn't it obvious? Science is not equipped to provide the empirical proof to prove God's existence or inexistence. mao nang number 2.

No, I just wanted to see how you would respond to the lack of empirical evidence Now that you admitted it, if pwede ikaw akong e refer kung naa koi kasturya ngare lain nga mu insist nga naay empirical evidence sa god, ako lng ingnun kamo nalai lalis ni noy ana. hehehhe

empirical evidence through scientific method? Wala jud..
but does it mean God does not exist?Of course it doesn't.
so why are you using God's lack of empirical evidence through scientific verification as some sort of proof for His supposed inexistence when we can all agree that it is not equipped to prove God's existence? i don't know about you bai but i find that absurd..

walay Ginoo kay wala tay makita nga empirical evidence. pero mu ackowledge nga di enough ang science to conclude God's existnece/inexistence? hahaha..
anyways, physical evidence is another thing..

If you're right and i'm wrong and god's existence is proven, i will believe in god but not worship it. In other words, my worldview would probably not change
If i'm right and you're wrong, you'd be living a lie, and my worldview would probably not change.

the consequences of my actions are not eternal bai granted that there's no God and no afterlife..tabla ra ta tanan..whether who lived a life of truth or lie, it wouldn't matter anymore..you wouldn't be there to tell me "i told you so!"mahimo ra ta tanang abo sa kahanginan..hehe
i dunno what happens if you're wrong through..

But that is irrelevant.
What is irrelevant is that, you admitted that you can be possibly wrong yet your church keeps recruiting innocent children forced into your religion and teach belief as truth..

admitted that i could be wrong in absolute terms? Yes.
but i am confident that i am right in my beliefs so is my church.therefore preaching our belief about our God is just natural then.
as for the parents, parents are only looking after for what they believe is best for their kids.. and God/religion happens to be one of them.

Wa mai gubot kai wa mn sa ko nmo gipugos in any way.. hehe, ang gubot dha mana sa mamugos.. sa mga mu impose jd sa ilang religious beliefs sa ubang tawo nga d ganahan, and dli lang ni mahitabo unto atheist but also unto people from different religions

then i-address na imung kaligot2x sa mga bigots,fundies ug extremists..
dili tanang religion mamugos bai. just look at the example of our Pope.
naa man ganiy mga Atheist pud nga mamugos. prehas nimu. nyahahahaha! joke.

Lets get real, e compare ang current method to what hitchens proposed:
Teach religion when a child attains the age of reason. That way, dha makita nga wai pugsanay.

i am being realistic, parents teaching their kids about their religion are not enforcing their religious views. again they are rather doing what they believe/think is best for their kids. kung bata pa, we are dependent with the perspectives of our parents.

Do you really think that majority of christians would choose to be christians if they were raised without religion for the first 18 years of their life? Bsan pag mag survey ka pangutana kas mga taw "when did you get to choose your religion?" I'd be surprised if you get positive legit answers Ang bata gibunyagan nahimong kristyano, explain to me daw kung asa ang choice ana

bai, kung unsay panahom,culture nga gikadak.an lagmit mao nay ma adapt sa tao.
maski pa ug dili na nimu istoryahan imung anak about Christianity. kung makita niya nga mu simba ka, magrosaryo ka, manguros ka, apil kag prayer meetings, basa ka ug bible.
when that kid reaches the age of reason.. ang interest ug curiousity ana, naa jud sa imung mga gipang buhat. alangan man sad ug adto sa panahom sa silingan magka interest imung anak, nga diha man na nagtubo nimu. mao nay realidad.

kanang bunyag, pagpadayag na sa pagtuo sa ginikanan sa iyang relihiyon mao iyang gibayaw iyang anak sa Diyos sa iyang relihiyon, sa pagtuo nga ang pagbunyag sa bata maka tagamtam kini ug grasya gikan sa Diyos ug mawala ang sala nga sulondonon..ug ang pagbunyag dili na maoy basehan sa pagka christian sa usa ka tao. ang pagpuyo anang maong relihiyon, depende na na sa anak.. that's where choice comes in.. suma gud, diba binunyagan ka sa isip usa ka katoliko, nya Christian pa diay ka? hehe..

bag-o ra nako giingun nga logical fallacy na, kbw ka ana mismo. hehe
you simply said that more of scientists believe in god than unicorns therefore god must probably exist because scientists are more knowledgable? Ask a logician kung wa bai buslot kana nga statement

wa ko mag ingun nga tungod kay daghang scientist mutuo ug Ginoo unya wala sa unicorn mao di tinuod ang unicorn unya tinuod ang Ginoo..hehehehe
and the mere fact that it is the case, klaro na kaayo nga invalid comparison..
again ang point ra jud is ang validity sa philosophical premise. dapat mag match ang duha nga gi compare.

id like to add that believing in god is not about intelligence, but PROGRAMMING & CONDITIONING just like how some people (who dont believe in ghosts) are still afraid of the dark because of stories and movies.

sus ikaw pa lang daan bai kay proof na nga sayop na imung gi istorya.
diba gipadako ka nga KAtoliko? unya nganu Atheist man ka karn? usab man lagi ang program? haha

eeeeenk
intelligent design implies intelligent creator
then intelligent creator would imply a more intelligent creator, and so on. Uncaused cause? Support that claim.

prehas sa akong giingon sa una.. we are able to postulate that the first effect of the first spark that ultimately led to the universe as we know it today triggered time and space. mao niy leading theory karun sa origins.

now, in order to create space and time, something has to be outside space and time. for something to be outside space and time, that something has to infinitely Exist. if something infinitely exists, it doesn't have a beginning nor end. therefore without a cause.

wa pay alamag ang mga tao sa una anang mga quarks, atoms , how matter would react with each other.. how space and time started blah blah blah..
naghisgut na sila about a creator who is infinite, alpha and omega, existed before time..etc

If god who is so intelligent and well-designed (perfect even according to theists) is uncaused, why cant you say the same for the universe?

what's wrong with the universe?
can you name a thing today that exists without a purpose?
perfection is perceived in the sense that nature compliment with creation..
not necessarily the perfection we have in mind like kanang maka daog ka ug lotto..Lol

physical proof? No. You simply made a few fallacious assertions and based your conclusion from it, which makes your conclusion 'design is proof' flawed.

so fallacious nang dunay natural law that maintains and sustains creation?

kana pa lang daan bai, kahibulongan na kaayo na nganu dunay natural law nga nagpalibut sa creation. what or who sets them? if they were set randomly how come these laws are very specific to the point that it maintained,developed and sustained creation for 14billion years and counting?
chamba lang na tanan?
sa ato lang experience sa kinabuhi, sa adlaw-adlawng pamuyo.. nakasugat na ka ug balaod nga ningkalit lang ug butho?walay naghimo? balaod nga walay purpose? unsa man daw na nga balaod bai?

ani ra jud na bai, after looking at the reality and actually of things, i perceived a design. you didn't. that should be the end of it for now but if you should insist that there's no design then you ought to prove that there's no design. kay ako wa nako gi insist diha nimu nga sakto ko ug naa juy design. you didn't even see me calling your idea fallacious or flawed.

Unicorn? We have a rhino. How improbable could a unicorn have evolved? Also, the characteristics I mentioned of my unicorn-like creature very much exists today in the bodies & skills of different animals. Nothing I said was magical or sounded impossible. :O

ok, so your unicorn probably existed and evolved into some other specie and is now extinct. what now?
and if you're not talking about a magical unicorn then it makes it all the more an invalid comparison with God who is supposed to be a supernatural being..

Since we have not the slightest evidence (due to lack of tools) of god, why does the church keep claiming like it has tons of evidence? Since the dawn of man claiming the existence of god, NOT ONE has proven it.

haha! balik na pud ta..tungod lagi kay we believe we have proven to ourselves that God exists.. this proof may not be a valid one for you but nonetheless it explains why we preach about God.

that is why our beliefs should be kept to ourselves because these are beliefs, not demonstrable knowledge. and not just beliefs, but instructions that shape one's ideals. And coming from an old-aged book with 'metaphors' that do not indicate whether to be interpreted as such, it is a very dangerous concept

dangerous concept ba uroy..ug wa ko nahimong kristiyano, patay na ko karun. kung buhi man gani tua ko sa psychiatric ward sa sotto...unya dangerous?
yes, christianity does shape one's ideals from a drug addict to sober..from hatred to forgiveness..dangerous?
it is definitely ancient but is the teaching to love others as we love ourselves outdated to make the world a better place to live in?
metaphors? what about 'em? this only becomes a problem when one gets overly fundamental, resorting to bigotry or worse, extremism..

beliefs can either be kept or shared..however the believer decides..
the key is not to suppress beliefs to one's self but for us to be tolerant and respectful with other people's beliefs.

Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality,[1]

A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.

Reality, the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.

source: wiki, meriam webster

synonyms: reality, fact, authenticity, validity

to answer your question, i believe i have everything i need to believe in a God.. experience and perspective. these are the basis of my reality and my truth.
like i said, absolutes can wait.. right now we have our own truth and reality.
even your truth and reality are not absolute.

mingaw ang payag bai... haha..

nakoi pangutana
1. unsaon pag kahibaw if e interpret literally or metaphorically ang usa ka verse?

haay salamat..mas nindut ni nga istorya

whenever a certain biblical narrative can be verified historically(may be through extra-biblical or non-biblical sources) and scientifically, then that narrative should be taken literally.
otherwise, it is open for discussion until further verification can be made.

Early church writings about Biblical narratives, Christian Teachings and even Biblical interpretations are considered extra-biblical. i believe there's no need for further elaboration on what non-biblical sources are.

2. sala bana sa tao kung iya e interpret metaphorically? regardless of his intentions.

kung angay e-interpret metaphorically, di man siguro especially kung mao juy naabut sa iyang huna-huna ug walay dautan nga intention ug murespeto ra siya sa uban nga lahi ug pagsabut..

3. nganu daghan man bible versions?

daghang versions, tungod kay ang ubang version especially kadtong karaan jud kaayo kay lisud sabton tungod kay word for word and translation from latin, greek and hebrew duna pa jud mga word nga walay direct translation to english.. Plus the english language itself has changed over time..meaning laglom kaayo nga mga eningles.
mao naay ubang version nga ang thought maoy gikuha but as much as possible dili mu deviate from the original wordings..
naa puy ubang version nga mas gipa simplify pa jud..like kanang mga youth bible

[pakinimo]

hmmm..not really, like i said before, i already have sufficient evidence for me to believe that there's God.

That's ok if you keep it to yourself. But telling it as truth is a different story

depende sa philosophical argument. like i said, if it's based on the actuality and reality of things

I dont see where actuality and reality is in your philosophical argument, let's say design. You usse the earth and everything in it as 'creation', now earth is real and actual, but the assertion that the earth is creation is not. The assertion that design implies intelligence behind it may be true, but yet that premise asserts beforehand that the creation is a design. There is no actual/real foundation of the argument.

then that is a valid philosophical premise even if it's yet to be proven scientifically..

even if it were valid, it would not be enough to establish truth/fact... even conspiracy theories have empirical evidence yet they are not taken as actuality or factual because there's just not enough. Let alone the the sole philosophical argument that has no direct empirical evidence supporting it.

kay ning ingun ba diay ko nga all A's will and should cause legit B's? point is, there's a premise which cannot be dismissed just yet.
nya ikaw imu mang e-insist nga voided na jud..hahahaha

mao akong ge-emphasize ang necessity sa philosophical argument in scientific theories because it appears that you are demeaning philiosophy... murag way utang kabubut-on ang scientific theories LOL

Kung mahimo nang scientific theory ang imong philosophical argument dha na cguro natu ma consider as very probable

isn't it obvious? Science is not equipped to provide the empirical proof to prove God's existence or inexistence. mao nang number 2.

sakto, ang number1 unta diay is 'there has been no empirical evidence of god since the dawn of time', which is synonymous

empirical evidence through scientific method? Wala jud..
but does it mean God does not exist?Of course it doesn't.
so why are you using God's lack of empirical evidence through scientific verification as some sort of proof for His supposed inexistence when we can all agree that it is not equipped to prove God's existence? i don't know about you bai but i find that absurd..

I never argued that god does not exist, i will repeat again that my goal is not to disprove god's existence.
However, the lack of empirical evidence suggests that your claim is not even worth examining. Kung sa korte pa, case dismissed due to lack of evidence. Bsag unsa pana kanindot imong argument kung wa kai ebidensya d jud na tagdon.

walay Ginoo kay wala tay makita nga empirical evidence.

The claim that god exists cannot be established as truth/fact due to lack of empirical evidence. mao na ako giingon, wa ko ningon nga wai ginoo kay d na sya ma disprove..haha

pero mu ackowledge nga di enough ang science to conclude God's existnece/inexistence? hahaha..
anyways, physical evidence is another thing..

Physical evidence is the main thing, in the field of everything other than sole philosophy itself. In court, in research, nothing can pass through without empirical evidence.

the consequences of my actions are not eternal bai granted that there's no God and no afterlife..tabla ra ta tanan..whether who lived a life of truth or lie, it wouldn't matter anymore..you wouldn't be there to tell me "i told you so!"mahimo ra ta tanang abo sa kahanginan..hehe
i dunno what happens if you're wrong through..

Is this implication that you fear the consequence of atheism?
If god is real, i will go to hell for eternal damnation. But from an innocent point of view (from a completely different culture), it is actually laughable. Just like the 72 virgins in islam. lastly, a threat isn't really an argument. What we should face now are the REAL consequences that happen in your earthly life.

admitted that i could be wrong in absolute terms? Yes.
but i am confident that i am right in my beliefs so is my church.therefore preaching our belief about our God is just natural then.
as for the parents, parents are only looking after for what they believe is best for their kids.. and God/religion happens to be one of them.

I dont see how asking people about homosexuality and they answer "because it is in the bible", 'the best for their kids.'
Teaching children to do that is an intellectual insult to human capability, training them to not use their thinking to make an argument but instead 'because bible' ' because god'

then i-address na imung kaligot2x sa mga bigots,fundies ug extremists..
dili tanang religion mamugos bai. just look at the example of our Pope.
naa man ganiy mga Atheist pud nga mamugos. prehas nimu. nyahahahaha! joke.

bang..lol
I admire the pope except for the fact that he said science and religion require each other, which is an ignorant assertion. He isn't in the position to assert and prove this, and i am sure any atheist debater would easily destroy his assertion. But because he is the pope, all christians are glorified and say 'see, even the pope agrees'

Wa ko ka encounter ug atheist na nanginvite, in person, to discuss og mga kristiano to discuss the lack of evidence for god, just like how christians invite me to their church to have time with jesus. basin ikaw noy naka meet naka share sad

i am being realistic, parents teaching their kids about their religion are not enforcing their religious views. again they are rather doing what they believe/think is best for their kids. kung bata pa, we are dependent with the perspectives of our parents.

Of course it doesn't look enforcing because the kid agrees without question.
But e simulate daw sa imong mind, unsay mahitabo kung imong bata d mutuo ug ginoo? What would you do? If ma kristiano akong anak because of fair choice given both sides of the argument, I would be fine with that. But if ikaw imong anak ma atheist ok raka?

bai, kung unsay panahom,culture nga gikadak.an lagmit mao nay ma adapt sa tao.
maski pa ug dili na nimu istoryahan imung anak about Christianity. kung makita niya nga mu simba ka, magrosaryo ka, manguros ka, apil kag prayer meetings, basa ka ug bible.

aw lisod pod, kung ikaw ra iya makit-an perme, nia cge simba, wai lain nag influence niya. haha. Unless kahibaw sad sya sa side sa atheism. Butang nato iyang makit-an sa community is 50-50 atheist-christians, ang ma kristiano ana 50-50 rasad. Mura ranag, kung unsai religion sa imong ginikanan, mao na imoa. Gamay ra kaau cases nga lahi ug tinuohan ang anak.

when that kid reaches the age of reason.. ang interest ug curiousity ana, naa jud sa imung mga gipang buhat. alangan man sad ug adto sa panahom sa silingan magka interest imung anak, nga diha man na nagtubo nimu. mao nay realidad.

Pwede man cguro nmo matudluan ug moral without talking about religion? Unless nagtuo ka nga there is no morality without religion.

kanang bunyag, pagpadayag na sa pagtuo sa ginikanan sa iyang relihiyon mao iyang gibayaw iyang anak sa Diyos sa iyang relihiyon, sa pagtuo nga ang pagbunyag sa bata maka tagamtam kini ug grasya gikan sa Diyos ug mawala ang sala nga sulondonon..ug ang pagbunyag dili na maoy basehan sa pagka christian sa usa ka tao. ang pagpuyo anang maong relihiyon, depende na na sa anak.. that's where choice comes in.. suma gud, diba binunyagan ka sa isip usa ka katoliko, nya Christian pa diay ka? hehe..

Choice? Gi influence ang child og christianity for the first,at least 10, years of your life when the child was innocent and knew nothing, uninfluenced about atheism, scientific stuff that contradict god, and everything that is contrary. I dont see the choice in that. Actually, in my child years I never really sincerely believe in god. Pag high school ra katong nanguyab ko nia nagpakaluoy nako
Kung pede palang erason akong religion, pero magproblema ta ig trabaho ana piti ta kay demonyo ang panan-aw sa mga HR

Sa imong pagkasturya, mura kag nag exam, nia ang choices A ug B, but imong gi discuss is all about A. Unsaon mn tawn pagkahbw kung unsai opposing argument sa B kung wa gi discuss ang B.

wa ko mag ingun nga tungod kay daghang scientist mutuo ug Ginoo unya wala sa unicorn mao di tinuod ang unicorn unya tinuod ang Ginoo..hehehehe
and the mere fact that it is the case, klaro na kaayo nga invalid comparison..

Kung wa ka nag ingon nga 'therefore god must probably exist', unsa diay imong giingon? hehehe

again ang point ra jud is ang validity sa philosophical premise. dapat mag match ang duha nga gi compare.

I was not talking about philosophical but physical.

sus ikaw pa lang daan bai kay proof na nga sayop na imung gi istorya.
diba gipadako ka nga KAtoliko? unya nganu Atheist man ka karn? usab man lagi ang program? haha

Mausab giud na sya bai, but gamay ra cases ana. Ikaw pila kabuok imong nailhan nga lahi og relihiyon sa ilaang ginikanan? nia e compare kng pila kabuok ang pareha sa ilang ginikanan. D ka kaingon nga both ISLAM ug CHRISTIANITY sakto, naa jud nai sayop nila. But ngano daghan man gihapon muslim nga anak sa muslim nga ginikanan?

prehas sa akong giingon sa una.. we are able to postulate that the first effect of the first spark that ultimately led to the universe as we know it today triggered time and space. mao niy leading theory karun sa origins.

now, in order to create space and time, something has to be outside space and time. for something to be outside space and time, that something has to infinitely Exist. if something infinitely exists, it doesn't have a beginning nor end. therefore without a cause.

Flaw:
creation requires space and time
why are you using a 'creation' concept outside space and time? there is only in space-time that we can observe creation.
You are yet to prove that before space and time, the same process of creation should occur. There is no proof of that, let alone that LOGIC itself is based on space-time. You cannot argue before and beyond space-time using what we can comprehend inside it, which is creation.
In other words, using creation between an existing (space-time) and non-existent (outside spacetime) to prove an argument inside spacetime is just invalid because it is beyond human comprehension. We do not have knowledge before that first spark, even its laws and logic may be different, or even non-existent.

wa pay alamag ang mga tao sa una anang mga quarks, atoms , how matter would react with each other.. how space and time started blah blah blah..
naghisgut na sila about a creator who is infinite, alpha and omega, existed before time..etc

exactly, wa silay alamag what is actual that is why they resort to god. hehe

what's wrong with the universe?
can you name a thing today that exists without a purpose?

What do you mean a purpose? Like how trees provide us oxygen? Mao na syay evolution. hehehe, kung dli na sya mo provide ug oxygen for us to convert to CO2 for them to receive and vice versa. Are you calling this a divine purpose?

perfection is perceived in the sense that nature compliment with creation..
not necessarily the perfection we have in mind like kanang maka daog ka ug lotto..Lol

Evolution then is perfection, the ability to change to cope with change. If di mag compliment mangamatay, mao na mu evolve. those who fail to mutate a useful trait die out.

so fallacious nang dunay natural law that maintains and sustains creation?

kana pa lang daan bai, kahibulongan na kaayo na nganu dunay natural law nga nagpalibut sa creation. what or who sets them? if they were set randomly how come these laws are very specific to the point that it maintained,developed and sustained creation for 14billion years and counting?
chamba lang na tanan?
sa ato lang experience sa kinabuhi, sa adlaw-adlawng pamuyo.. nakasugat na ka ug balaod nga ningkalit lang ug butho?walay naghimo? balaod nga walay purpose? unsa man daw na nga balaod bai?

Lahi manang sturyaha ng balaod sa adlaw2x kay pwd ramana nato d buhaton. But d ka maka defy sa laws of nature kay mao na ang effect sa gravity and all that. Kung mangutana ka nako asa na gkan wa ko kabalo. Mao nai prblema ninyo, kay kung wa mo kabalo ginoo dau inyong tubag. hehe, dawat sad mo panagsa nga nai mga butang d nato mahibaw-an

ani ra jud na bai, after looking at the reality and actually of things, i perceived a design. you didn't.

Sorry to break it to you bai, but whether you see it or not, your opinion does not affect the current truth/fact that there is not enough evidence for god.

that should be the end of it for now but if you should insist that there's no design then you ought to prove that there's no design. kay ako wa nako gi insist diha nimu nga sakto ko ug naa juy design. you didn't even see me calling your idea fallacious or flawed.

Im not saying there is no design, im sayng you cannot prove there is a design. Im not here to prove a negative.

ok, so your unicorn probably existed and evolved into some other specie and is now extinct. what now?
and if you're not talking about a magical unicorn then it makes it all the more an invalid comparison with God who is supposed to be a supernatural being..

How is that invalid? Nobody believes n a unicorn yet what i was talking about was not magical and very possible to have existed. Yet you believe in a god whose traits are unproven

haha! balik na pud ta..tungod lagi kay we believe we have proven to ourselves that God exists.. this proof may not be a valid one for you but nonetheless it explains why we preach about God.

ok r unta kung inyo preachan kana mga naa nai buot, dli ng mga bata kay mutuo mn daun kung unsai madunggan.

dangerous concept ba uroy..ug wa ko nahimong kristiyano, patay na ko karun. kung buhi man gani tua ko sa psychiatric ward sa sotto...unya dangerous?
yes, christianity does shape one's ideals from a drug addict to sober..from hatred to forgiveness..dangerous?
it is definitely ancient but is the teaching to love others as we love ourselves outdated to make the world a better place to live in?
metaphors? what about 'em? this only becomes a problem when one gets overly fundamental, resorting to bigotry or worse, extremism..

No no, im not saying nga it will directly lead to a negative, but that that kind of concept is dangerous. Huna hunaa, remove everything from your knowledge of christianity and simulate in your mind, the concept of teaching what someone believes to be true yet clearly unproven and cannot be proven, to other innocent children. Mura ranag teaching about homosexuality, tan awa ng mga gipang tudluan ana wai tubag nga tarong, mang oppress pa. Nia karon e blame dayun nimo ang nag buhat dli ang religion, nga klaro kaau gisuwat sa bibliya nga patyon ang bayot. nia muingn daun ka nga, taken out of context, pero gitudlo sa sa uban, nga kung naa kay problema abli lang ug random page sa bible nia matunong ka ato, bang paksit. haha, nia e blame nasad nimo ang nag sulti atong pakli lang ug page sa bible, nia i'm sure at some point in your life ning agree ka ana nga tinudluan.

beliefs can either be kept or shared..however the believer decides..
the key is not to suppress beliefs to one's self but for us to be tolerant and respectful with other people's beliefs.

a muslim believes he is right and a christian believes he is right. They cant be both right. Naa jd nai something in their beliefs nga contradictory, and dont tell me nga lahi lang sila pero sakto gihapon sila kay kbw ka nga naa jd nai sayop either ninyo duha. Which means naay teaching from either side nga sayop and may potentially lead to bad action or tragedy in the future, now how do we determine that if BOTH sides do not have proof?

to answer your question, i believe i have everything i need to believe in a God.. experience and perspective. these are the basis of my reality and my truth.
like i said, absolutes can wait.. right now we have our own truth and reality.
even your truth and reality are not absolute.

my truth does not matter. What we are arguing is your religion's ability to provide evidence for truth

haay salamat..mas nindut ni nga istorya

whenever a certain biblical narrative can be verified historically(may be through extra-biblical or non-biblical sources) and scientifically, then that narrative should be taken literally.
otherwise, it is open for discussion until further verification can be made.

Early church writings about Biblical narratives, Christian Teachings and even Biblical interpretations are considered extra-biblical. i believe there's no need for further elaboration on what non-biblical sources are.

1. Who is authorize to verify? What gives him authority?
2. How do we know which is to be discussed for verification before it can be taken seriously as an advice to future action? IF this particular verse has not happened in history

kung angay e-interpret metaphorically, di man siguro especially kung mao juy naabut sa iyang huna-huna ug walay dautan nga intention ug murespeto ra siya sa uban nga lahi ug pagsabut..

Wa ta kbw, nahadlok lng sya, nia murag immediate encounter nga kinahanglan sya makahibaw unsai buhaton

daghang versions, tungod kay ang ubang version especially kadtong karaan jud kaayo kay lisud sabton tungod kay word for word and translation from latin, greek and hebrew duna pa jud mga word nga walay direct translation to english.. Plus the english language itself has changed over time..meaning laglom kaayo nga mga eningles.
mao naay ubang version nga ang thought maoy gikuha but as much as possible dili mu deviate from the original wordings..
naa puy ubang version nga mas gipa simplify pa jud..like kanang mga youth bible

Murag kanang sturyaha, kibaw jud guro ka nga naa jud ni words nga malahi na, imagine kanus-a kuno nigawas ang bible, nia unsa ng tuega ron. ang pag evolve sa culture nag evolve sad sa language. dako2 jd cguro pagka translate, bsag ang current versions karun naay variations nga maka cause ug misinterpretation

[noy]

That's ok if you keep it to yourself. But telling it as truth is a different story

why? last time i checked this is free country, i'm still free to share whatever it is i believe to be true.
diba ingun ka your GOAL is to show that theistic position does not have sufficient evidence to be considered true. see post #9506
aren't you doing the same thing? sharing what you think is true? ok ra if ikaw pero kami dili?Intolerance amigo...be careful. looks like you're turning in to the dark side of the force.. LOL

I dont see where actuality and reality is in your philosophical argument, let's say design. You usse the earth and everything in it as 'creation', now earth is real and actual, but the assertion that the earth is creation is not. The assertion that design implies intelligence behind it may be true, but yet that premise asserts beforehand that the creation is a design. There is no actual/real foundation of the argument.

the actuality and reality that i used as a basis are:
*the reality of motion - nothing can be a mover of its own.
*the reality of cause and effect - nothing can also be the cause of its own existence .
*the reality of necessity - points out to the contingent nature of creation.
the existence of anything that exist today is caused by something else.
given that nothing can be a mover of its own nor cause itself to exist.
this points out to the necessity of a prime mover and first cause.
*the reality of purpose, in the sense that everything in creation have their corresponding roles and parts in sustaining creation

even if it were valid, it would not be enough to establish truth/fact... even conspiracy theories have empirical evidence yet they are not taken as actuality or factual because there's just not enough. Let alone the the sole philosophical argument that has no direct empirical evidence supporting it.

Scientific empirical evidence? No. empirical basis is another thing.
Scientific empirical evidence is something that has gone through a scientific method/experiment. empirical basis on the other hand is what we have from which we drew our philosophical analysis and conclusion.
the empirical basis are the reality and actuality of things i just stated above.

Kung mahimo nang scientific theory ang imong philosophical argument dha na cguro natu ma consider as very probable

diba we both agreed that science cannot prove/disprove God's existence?
so what's the point?
knowing that Science hasn't reach,explored, explained the entirety of creation and nature, is it really logical to conclude that anything not verified scientifically is not probable?

sakto, ang number1 unta diay is 'there has been no empirical evidence of god since the dawn of time', which is synonymous

akong giingun bai, the lack of empirical evidence only points out to 2 things.
1. it's not really there.
2. we just lack the resources.
--of course it is number 2. knowing that our resources(science) is yet to explore everything there is about creation how much more its first cause?. THEREFORE, we cannot conclude in absolutes whether God does or does not exist. unya karun number one na nuon? God is not really there. is it logical to conclude in absolutes with limited sources?
"It's not really there or number 1" is a conclusion while "no empirical evidence" is the status. synonymous?

I never argued that god does not exist, i will repeat again that my goal is not to disprove god's existence.
However, the lack of empirical evidence suggests that your claim is not even worth examining. Kung sa korte pa, case dismissed due to lack of evidence. Bsag unsa pana kanindot imong argument kung wa kai ebidensya d jud na tagdon.

kapila man nako balikon sa imu bai nga duna lagiy ebidensya..hehehe
di lang ka mudawat nga ebidensya na..
ang problema kung pangutan-on ka nganu dili man na ebidensya, ang imung tubag kay dili man na scientifically verified..which points out to another problem, the basis you are using(science) to consider the proof presented as legit is not even equipped nor eligible to be used as a measuring stick again because of the Fact Science is stil far from completion..

The claim that god exists cannot be established as truth/fact due to lack of empirical evidence. mao na ako giingon, wa ko ningon nga wai ginoo kay d na sya ma disprove..haha
Physical evidence is the main thing, in the field of everything other than sole philosophy itself. In court, in research, nothing can pass through without empirical evidence.

ang problema lagi, sige ka ug insist nga the evidence has to be scientifically verified and at the same mu acknowledge pud ka nga science is still incomplete..kakita ka sa contradiction bai?

Is this implication that you fear the consequence of atheism?
If god is real, i will go to hell for eternal damnation. But from an innocent point of view (from a completely different culture), it is actually laughable. Just like the 72 virgins in islam. lastly, a threat isn't really an argument. What we should face now are the REAL consequences that happen in your earthly life.

this is not a threat, this is our(Christians) reality that i'm talking about
you yourself said that even if it will be proven that God exists you'd still NOT worship Him. in our theology, that is ground for termination..LOL
fear of Hell has never been and never will be a reason why i chose to believe and worship God.

I dont see how asking people about homosexuality and they answer "because it is in the bible", 'the best for their kids.'
Teaching children to do that is an intellectual insult to human capability, training them to not use their thinking to make an argument but instead 'because bible' ' because god'

murag layo ra man imung tubag bai..Lol
anyways, giving answers to their children's question is not something that is dogmatic or something that the church teaches and unsa may problema kung muingon ang tao nga homosexuality is wrong because it's in the bible or because it is an abomination to God, mao man ang iyang pagtuo..magbuot diay ka ug unsay tuhoan sa tao?
personally, aside from my belief that homosexuality is a sin, i believe that it goes against the natural law so mao dili insakto..

bang..lol
I admire the pope except for the fact that he said science and religion require each other, which is an ignorant assertion. He isn't in the position to assert and prove this, and i am sure any atheist debater would easily destroy his assertion. But because he is the pope, all christians are glorified and say 'see, even the pope agrees''

hmmm..why do you have to destroy his assertion when he did not insist that you or any other atheist should accept his assertion? another sign of intolerance amigo..and because of the fact that he did not insist his point of view diha nimu then he is under no obligation to prove anything to you..
Ignorant? under your terms of course. he could say the same thing to you in his terms.
under whose term then can we absolutely conclude who is right or wrong?
point is, do we really have to destroy one another's perspective?

Wa ko ka encounter ug atheist na nanginvite, in person, to discuss og mga kristiano to discuss the lack of evidence for god, just like how christians invite me to their church to have time with jesus. basin ikaw noy naka meet naka share sad

natural, because that's the nature of religion, to preach what we believe is true..what's unnatural is to see atheists who supposedly do not care about anything relating to these type of discussions frequenting in these forums.
debating, challenging our views yada yada yada..
naa koy kaila nga atheist nga gusto niya dawaton nako iyang perspective? naa bai..ikaw.. LOL

Of course it doesn't look enforcing because the kid agrees without question.
But e simulate daw sa imong mind, unsay mahitabo kung imong bata d mutuo ug ginoo? What would you do? If ma kristiano akong anak because of fair choice given both sides of the argument, I would be fine with that. But if ikaw imong anak ma atheist ok raka?

murag wa ka kabasa sa akong gitubag nimu bai, akong balikon ha..ang pagistorya lage sa ginikanan sa iyang anak bahin sa ilang relihiyon.. gibuhat na tungod kay mao ilang huna-huna nga maka-ayo..just like teaching our kids about ethics because we know maayo na...so kay christian man ang parents, natural they would also think that Christian spirituality is essential to be taught.
mao gi tudlo ang religious view ngadto sa mga anak..not because the parents wanted to enforce their beliefs to their kids.simple
i have siblings who are either atheist and agnostic..i'm fine with it..i entrust them to the mercy of my God..i know their atheism is of pure conscience...

aw lisod pod, kung ikaw ra iya makit-an perme, nia cge simba, wai lain nag influence niya. haha. Unless kahibaw sad sya sa side sa atheism. Butang nato iyang makit-an sa community is 50-50 atheist-christians, ang ma kristiano ana 50-50 rasad. Mura ranag, kung unsai religion sa imong ginikanan, mao na imoa. Gamay ra kaau cases nga lahi ug tinuohan ang anak.

ingun ba diay ko nga ako ra akong makit-an sa akong anak? ang reality bai is ang focus and curiousity sa bata, diha jud na naka ponterya sa panimalay.
mao regardless if the kid does or doesn't get religious instruction from parents..
sa iyang makita sa iyang ginikanan nga religious...ang point of interest adto jud na sa religious views sa iyang parents .simple ra jud kaayo bai..
nganu pakasad-on man nimu ang ginikanan by doing what parents should do?

Pwede man cguro nmo matudluan ug moral without talking about religion? Unless nagtuo ka nga there is no morality without religion.

kalayo na ba nimu bai, ingun ba diay ko nga a person would not know morality without religion?

Choice? Gi influence ang child og christianity for the first,at least 10, years of your life when the child was innocent and knew nothing, uninfluenced about atheism, scientific stuff that contradict god, and everything that is contrary. I dont see the choice in that.

mao bitaw ingun ko ang "kanang bunyag, PAGPADAYAG na sa pagtuo sa ginikanan sa iyang relihiyon. act of faith na sa parents again because that is what they believe to be the right thing to do..which is bunyagan ilang anak...unsa may problema ana? again, when the kid reaches the age of reason, unya the kid makes up her/his mind to embrace a different point of view.. FREE man siya mupili...unya walay CHOICE? akong balikon, diba gibunyagan ka isip katoliko, pero karun atheist ka..unya walay choice?

unsay dili expose ang bata sa science, unsa diay gitudlo sa imung science clasee pag elemtary nimu bahin sa origin of the universe.. ang naa sa Genesis? diba big bang ang gitudlo?
Science is taught at school but not atheism because Atheism is not synonymous with Science..
unsaon pag sabut and scientific view and religious view on creation, naa ra na sa tao..again duna na puy choice..

Actually, in my child years I never really sincerely believe in god. Pag high school ra katong nanguyab ko nia nagpakaluoy nako

tiaw mu na..gipadako ka nga katoliko pero wa man jud diay gani ka mutuo ug Ginoo..that is a proof that despite of your parent's religious instruction...you are still FREE to CHOOSE what to believe.

Kung pede palang erason akong religion, pero magproblema ta ig trabaho ana piti ta kay demonyo ang panan-aw sa mga HR

sa pila ka tuig nakong trinabahoay bai wa jud ko kasugat nga na issue ang religion concerning employment..ambut ug asa ka gikan ana..Lol

Sa imong pagkasturya, mura kag nag exam, nia ang choices A ug B, but imong gi discuss is all about A. Unsaon mn tawn pagkahbw kung unsai opposing argument sa B kung wa gi discuss ang B.

you're not being realistic here..
ang issue diri is na badtrip ka kay tudloan sa mga christian parents ug christianity ilang mga anak..what do you expect? Christian man sila! that's the norm bai..kapila na nako gibalik2x...because that is what these christian parents think to be the right thing to do..
if for the parents, atheism is not really good for their children then nganu tudloan man nila ana? mao ni ang realidad. dili kay wa tagae ug choice and whatnots..

if you think religion is no good for your children, would you still give them religious instruction?of course no.. di siguro ka magbuot if later in life mu embrace sila ug religion..
and if ever you'll get the chance to talk about religion..of course it's gonna be how you see religion which is negative na, then it would appear that you are conditioning your kids with your religious views but you're not. you are simply explaining your views, what you think is right.. simple..prehas ra pud na sa mga christain parents.. i hope klaro na ta ani.

Kung wa ka nag ingon nga 'therefore god must probably exist', unsa diay imong giingon? hehehe

murag lisud jud kag sabut bai dah..or basin banga lang pud ko mu explain..

a scientist, known to be very keen in methodical research and investigation. great thinkers and knowledgeable in the fields of science etc. in other words credible and reliable source of info.
no scientist believes in the existence of a unicorn but many believe in the existence of God. what does that tell you?

Mausab giud na sya bai, but gamay ra cases ana. Ikaw pila kabuok imong nailhan nga lahi og relihiyon sa ilaang ginikanan? nia e compare kng pila kabuok ang pareha sa ilang ginikanan. D ka kaingon nga both ISLAM ug CHRISTIANITY sakto, naa jud nai sayop nila. But ngano daghan man gihapon muslim nga anak sa muslim nga ginikanan?

ang point bai, is sayop imung giingun nga "believing in god is not about intelligence, but PROGRAMMING & CONDITIONING" .

Flaw:
creation requires space and time
why are you using a 'creation' concept outside space and time? there is only in space-time that we can observe creation.
You are yet to prove that before space and time, the same process of creation should occur. There is no proof of that, let alone that LOGIC itself is based on space-time. You cannot argue before and beyond space-time using what we can comprehend inside it, which is creation.
In other words, using creation between an existing (space-time) and non-existent (outside spacetime) to prove an argument inside spacetime is just invalid because it is beyond human comprehension. We do not have knowledge before that first spark, even its laws and logic may be different, or even non-existent.

murag wa nimu ma gets akong powent bai..Lol
mao ni pinaka famous nga theory concerning origins..there was a spark in the beginning..
and that spark triggered SPACE and TIME..mao ni ang non-biblical source of the idea of an uncaused and infinite creator.

so in order to create time, one has to be outside time.sakto?
unsa may tawag nimu anang something that is not bound by time? Infinite. sakto?
kung infinite it means walay sinugdan kay wala may time...wala puy kahumanan cause kay again walay time..

exactly, wa silay alamag what is actual that is why they resort to god. hehe

wa bitaw pero mucompliment ra ilang giingun about a creator who is outside time.
how doped is that? Lol

What do you mean a purpose? Like how trees provide us oxygen? Mao na syay evolution. hehehe, kung dli na sya mo provide ug oxygen for us to convert to CO2 for them to receive and vice versa. Are you calling this a divine purpose?

purpose, as in kapuslanan..hehehe..can you name anything under the creation umbrella that is without a purpose? example: ok-ok, maski pa ug piste na sila sa ato but they play a big part in decomposition so di pwede ang ok-ok...so can you name one?

Evolution then is perfection, the ability to change to cope with change. If di mag compliment mangamatay, mao na mu evolve. those who fail to mutate a useful trait die out.

evolution is still dependent to the laws of nature. the laws then are the perfection..
one attribute of perfection is specific.
now, how is it that there are specific laws governing nature given that everything should be random?

Lahi manang sturyaha ng balaod sa adlaw2x kay pwd ramana nato d buhaton. But d ka maka defy sa laws of nature kay mao na ang effect sa gravity and all that.

di na maoy akong pasabut bai..ang punto nako is ang relationship between Law and Purpose.
so mao nangutana ko nimu if naa na ba kay balaod nga nakit-an aside sa natural laws nga ningtunga lang ug kalit, walay nagbuhat.. unya walay purpose? unsa man na nga balaod bai?

Kung mangutana ka nako asa na gkan wa ko kabalo. Mao nai prblema ninyo, kay kung wa mo kabalo ginoo dau inyong tubag. hehe, dawat sad mo panagsa nga nai mga butang d nato mahibaw-an

ingun ba diay mi nga kahibaw nami tanan? LOL

Sorry to break it to you bai, but whether you see it or not, your opinion does not affect the current truth/fact that there is not enough evidence for god.

for you lage..wala..pero nganu imu mang ipamugos sa ako nga wla koy dapat makit-an nga naa man jud koy nakit-an? Lol

Im not saying there is no design, im sayng you cannot prove there is a design. Im not here to prove a negative.

nah kay na prove na lage nako sa akong self nga dunay design..kung wa ka kita aw..wa nakoy labut ana..hehehe

How is that invalid? Nobody believes n a unicorn yet what i was talking about was not magical and very possible to have existed. Yet you believe in a god whose traits are unproven

exactly my point, nobody believes in a unicorn..LOL
given na na nga mythical ang unicorn pero ang Ginoo dili..

ok r unta kung inyo preachan kana mga naa nai buot, dli ng mga bata kay mutuo mn daun kung unsai madunggan.

natural ra lage nang mu preach mi, regardless if bata or tiguwang..because that's what we believe is true and preaching is a norm in religion.

No no, im not saying nga it will directly lead to a negative, but that that kind of concept is dangerous. Huna hunaa, remove everything from your knowledge of christianity and simulate in your mind, the concept of teaching what someone believes to be true yet clearly unproven and cannot be proven, to other innocent children..

wa man nay kaso intawn oi..as if kung maghisgut ug religion ang ginikanan ngadto sa ilang mga anak murag gi groom na ang bata to be a suicide bomber...sus balik na pud ta, mao gani gi teach because it is believed to be True..

Mura ranag teaching about homosexuality, tan awa ng mga gipang tudluan ana wai tubag nga tarong, mang oppress pa. Nia karon e blame dayun nimo ang nag buhat dli ang religion, nga klaro kaau gisuwat sa bibliya nga patyon ang bayot.

patyon ang bayot? LOL na unsa naman ka oi? ok bai, i think you need a crash course about the relationship of OT laws and the new and their fulfilment through Christ in NT.
palihug ko ug basa ani nga link:
Why We Are Not Bound by Everything in the Old Law | Catholic Answers

nia muingn daun ka nga, taken out of context, pero gitudlo sa sa uban, nga kung naa kay problema abli lang ug random page sa bible nia matunong ka ato, bang paksit. haha, nia e blame nasad nimo ang nag sulti atong pakli lang ug page sa bible, nia i'm sure at some point in your life ning agree ka ana nga tinudluan.

that is rather a testimony instead of teaching bai..
wa tay doktrina bahin anang pakli2x LOL

a muslim believes he is right and a christian believes he is right. They cant be both right. Naa jd nai something in their beliefs nga contradictory, and dont tell me nga lahi lang sila pero sakto gihapon sila kay kbw ka nga naa jd nai sayop either ninyo duha. Which means naay teaching from either side nga sayop and may potentially lead to bad action or tragedy in the future, now how do we determine that if BOTH sides do not have proof?

both sides have their own view of Truth.. ang tubag ana imung gikabalak-an bai kay Tolerance..
again, look at the examples of our Pope.. hehehe

my truth does not matter. What we are arguing is your religion's ability to provide evidence for truth

the Truth is, if you don't believe in my Truth then it shouldn't matter to you either.

1. Who is authorize to verify?

for Catholics, that would be the Magisterium.

What gives him authority?

it would be the correct pronoun.
anyways, Apostolic succession.

2. How do we know which is to be discussed for verification before it can be taken seriously as an advice to future action? IF this particular verse has not happened in history

through the catechism of the catholic church and catholic encyclopedia.

Wa ta kbw, nahadlok lng sya, nia murag immediate encounter nga kinahanglan sya makahibaw unsai buhaton

pwede man siya muingon nga let me research on it..LOL
you know, to make sure that his/her interpretation is inline witht the CAtholic theology.
naa may mga areas sa bible nga open for biblical interpretation..so..

Murag kanang sturyaha, kibaw jud guro ka nga naa jud ni words nga malahi na, imagine kanus-a kuno nigawas ang bible, nia unsa ng tuega ron. ang pag evolve sa culture nag evolve sad sa language. dako2 jd cguro pagka translate, bsag ang current versions karun naay variations nga maka cause ug misinterpretation

mao kung mag bible study, mas maayo nga daghan nga version ang tun-an di lang kay usa ra..kung mahimo naa jud tong bible nga translate directly from the vulgate.

[Lamusika]

Dli na tungod sa pangwarta mga katawhan, ang pagpakamatay ky dakong sala ug naay gisunod nga balaod ang simbahan ana ky it's a process. since it's a big sin mn dli basta2 ang simbahan. Sawsama rana sa pagpangumpisal , if abortion ang sin dili ka adto sa pari mangumpisal sa other level na.

[slabs17]

mangutana ko bi para motunhay ni nga thread.

unsay purpose anang kaw nga isuot sa mga obispo? mura lagi nag korona?

ug kanang sa santo papa nga kaw para asa man na?

[SioDenz]

Dli na tungod sa pangwarta mga katawhan, ang pagpakamatay ky dakong sala ug naay gisunod nga balaod ang simbahan ana ky it's a process. since it's a big sin mn dli basta2 ang simbahan. Sawsama rana sa pagpangumpisal , if abortion ang sin dili ka adto sa pari mangumpisal sa other level na.

Process? so nag buot buot ra diay ang simbahan kay wa man na sa Bibliya... Wa ni ingun si Kristo di misahan ang nagpakamatay... para nimu, kinsa atung sundun Simbahan o Bibliya

[noy]

mangutana ko bi para motunhay ni nga thread.

unsay purpose anang kaw nga isuot sa mga obispo? mura lagi nag korona?

ug kanang sa santo papa nga kaw para asa man na?

it's called miter slabs, history has it that religious leaders should wear it.. this goes back to the time of the jews..
purpose? perhaps for distinction between regular priests from bishops.

[noy]

Process? so nag buot buot ra diay ang simbahan kay wa man na sa Bibliya... Wa ni ingun si Kristo di misahan ang nagpakamatay... para nimu, kinsa atung sundun Simbahan o Bibliya

sio, misahan gihapun ang naghikog.

[slabs17]

it's called miter slabs, history has it that religious leaders should wear it.. this goes back to the time of the jews..
purpose? perhaps for distinction between regular priests from bishops.

Aw okies abi nko nag aron ingnon silang opao...

[noy]

Aw okies abi nko nag aron ingnon silang opao...

basin pud.. LOL

next question na siguro ta.