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

[FAQ]

---

ang tinuod naa sa vatican library archives

[kenites]

I don't think science has found the answer to the question on the origins of life and the universe. I don't think the scientific community will guarantee you that science will one day find out everything there is to know. Even with the advances in our knowledge and theories about the universe and life, scientists will be the first to tell you that they expect those theories to be upstaged or modified or added on by future theories. Just as Galileo demolished Aristotle's earth-centered universe, Newton came in and refined and unified Galileo's and Kepler's theories. Einstein did the same thing to Newton's gravity. In other words, there are no absolute truths in science. It is humble in this regard. Science accepts the fact that the theories that govern our thinking will keep expanding and changing, as new evidence and findings become available in the future. And that's the way it should be. That's the way human knowledge can ever advance.

The Bible is not supposed to be a source of scientific facts. The Vatican will be the first to tell you this. It is supposed to be a guide for morals and spirituality. The late biologist, Steven J. Gould, summed up the relationship between science and religion with the phrase "non-overlapping magisteria". In other words, they deal with different domains.

The problem is when religious fundamentalism holds sway and every word in the Bible is taken as the literal truth. That's how Galileo's heliocentric theory got himself into trouble during the 17th century. The Dominican friars were the first to condemn Galileo's view as heretical. They said something like "How dare this upstart propose such idiotic nonsense? The Bible specifically stated that Joshua ordered the sun to stand still!"

very well said bro

[kenites]

Stephen Jay Gould on elaborating his position by describing his role as a scientist with respect to Non-Overlapping Magisteria:
Religion is too important to too many people for any dismissal or denigration of the comfort still sought by many folks from theology. I may, for example, privately suspect that papal insistence on divine infusion of the soul represents a sop to our fears, a device for maintaining a belief in human superiority within an evolutionary world offering no privileged position to any creature. But I also know that souls represent a subject outside the magisterium of science. My world cannot prove or disprove such a notion, and the concept of souls cannot threaten or impact my domain. Moreover, while I cannot personally accept the Catholic view of souls, I surely honor the metaphorical value of such a concept both for grounding moral discussion and for expressing what we most value about human potentiality: our decency, care, and all the ethical and intellectual struggles that the evolution of consciousness imposed upon us.

[turbomark]

sa bible ko motuo asa ta gikan kay mao man ang tinuod ni sulti... kanang dili motuo sayon ra na patuhuon pero sa saktong panahon kay lisud lalis nga naa pa ta sa kalibutan.

[hitch22]

If science can't explain it, therefore God did it. This form of argument is called a non sequitur (conclusion does not follow from its premises).

There used to be a very good ontolgical argument (similar to the First Cause argument) for the existence of God, formulated by St. Anselm, which goes like this:


- Everything that exists in the universe is contingent (i.e. every object depends on other objects for its existence)
- The universe must also be contingent, because it depends on the existence of everything inside it
- If the universe is contingent, then it must require some kind of necessary being that must exist by its very nature; and this necessary being we call God.


However, the rebuttal to this argument was just as effective. The above argument uses the concept of contingent facts and necessary facts; contingent facts being those that depend on other facts for its truth, and necessary facts being those that are self-explanatory and cannot be false (e.g. you cannot conceive of anything that cannot be subdivided into two pieces). The rebuttal, however, introduces another type of non-contingent fact: brute facts, which are facts that don't depend on other facts to be true, but are NOT self-explanatory. The universe itself can be considered one of these brute facts. There is no explanation for the universe. As far as we know, it is just there. And because we truly do not know any explanations for the universe, it's just as valid to say that the universe is a brute fact and is just there as to say that God is the necessary being who created it.

Another kind of rebuttal (not exactly a refutation) is called the Infinite Regress. Meaning to say, the question of what/who created the universe cannot be answered, because you can always ask the question: what/who created that Being who created the universe?

As far as philosophical arguments on the existence of God goes, I think there are good arguments on both sides. All this really means is that we don't know how the universe began or what happened before the Big Bang. One speculation is just as good as the other. What's wrong with saying "I DON'T KNOW" ? Personally, I feel it's too hasty and too early to jump to an absolute answer, as to the absolute beginning of everything. We may well find a Being once we get to scale this great unknown. But we may also well find more things to find out.

[chad_tukes]

regarding the "dinosaur" issue:

it was on the sixth day when God created the reptiles (including dinosaurs)... "and then" He created Man... so there is a time difference between the creation of dinosaurs and humans... that time difference could equate to millions/billions of years... and before He created humans... the dinosaurs are long gone... He allowed them to be extinct to give way to His greatest creation... "US"... humans...

since the term "day" in the Bible... whether it is in Hebrew or in the English translation... is not the literal 24-hour day...

that may sound too simple that "science-minded" people could ridicule... but that's the only answer to the question... you don't expect the Bible to explain how did the dinosaurs become extinct... how the earth was hit by an asteroid whatsoever... those things aren't significant for them to be included in the Holy Book...

that's the ONLY answer to the question? why settle with "ONLY"? also, how did you know all this? because the Bible tells you so? it's the kind of answer that creationists always throw on the table --- "because the Bible says so" "because i've read it in the Bible" "because that's what the Bible says" ... well guess what, we already know that. the question is where's the evidence?

[WengIA]

^^bai chad di na lang ta mangita sa ebidensya ini kay bisan unsaon nato di jud nato kayang tugkaron ang tanan butang. bisan ang pagporma lang nimong TAO lisod na kaayong tugkaron na why giingon ani pagdesign ang Tao' wala giparehas og manok, baka, unggoy og unsa pa na diha.. mao need jud nato motuo og Ginoo nga naay jud nagbuhat nato...

[FAQ]

gi unsa nato pagkahibaw ginoo nagbuhat nato?

the bible says so.. Haha

[dcoi_wot]

para nko Science ang bible boost up ra nato na ma GOOD ta.

[WengIA]

gi unsa nato pagkahibaw ginoo nagbuhat nato?

the bible says so.. Haha

Ikaw musugot man kaha ka bai FAQ nga si Lucifer nagbuhat sa TAO..hehehe

Og ikaw bai FAQ pangutan-on ka kinsay nagbuhat sa TAO og KALIBUTAN unsa may conviction sa imong huna2 og kasing2? kung unsa man nang naa sa imong huna2 og kasing2 mao nay tuohi..di na ta maglisod2 pa. og ikaw ganahan ka motuo ka nga ang tao gikan sa unggoy payts ra gihapon..
basta ako di jud ko sugot gikan tas unggoy mas maayo ng gikan tas Ginoo binuhat niya.. para special jud.