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

[redhorse1L]

sige pa sad ta ani?

"Like how planets, moon, twisters or lightnings are formed, there is a scientific explanation for all that. But all these can be traced back to the the Big Bang, the origin of the universe.
So it doesn't necessarily mean that it needs supernatural intervention for a star to be born, or a planet to spin."

You see, If Scientist are still seeing stars being born, it means nobody is creating it, but only space and time, because even right now, at present, there are stars being created.

I thought your GOD already finish making stars, when he whip his magic wand and say "LET THERE BE STARS"?

So nitoo ka Ginoo, at the same time Too sad ka ug BING BANG THEORY? Kung mutoo man gud ka ug GINOO, mutoo sadka ug BIBLIYA?
ikaw maoy ga hallucinate, your confuse mind doesnt know where to stand, either SCIENCE or RELIGION. your fantasy of mixing the two together are signs of Desperation, Hallucination, and Delusion. GOD and BIBLE go along together.

To believe in GOD without BIBLE is confuse, to believe in GOD and SCIENCE is Fantasizing. to believe in GOD, BIBLE and SCIENCE is ready to be transferred in a mental institute.


"Gas, dust, utot, abog, whatever you call them. What I am stressing out that these things cannot exist in eternity, that it has an infinite past"

What your stressing is that your imaginary GOD is the infinite past. If your GOD is the infinite past, asa lagi siya?


"I follow a philosophical argument that also proves logically, it says:
Something cannot come from nothing."

So where do you think Gas and Dust comes from?...your GOD? padung na jud ka mental hospital ani.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Einstein
"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." - Isaac Newton
etc, etc, etc...

No matter how brilliant your mind is, if you cant present proof that a GOD exist, then your DELUSIONAL. This is what they think, not what I think, and not what Richard Dawkins think. It means, its just what they think, and what you think.

And what you think, doesnt help you bring out your GOD's existence.

And what we think, helps people understand clearly how life originates with out HALLUCINATING.

I think we're going in circles already, makalipong baya nang mag-tuyok2x.
Answer lang ko, then concluding statements.

You see, If Scientist are still seeing stars being born, it means nobody is creating it, but only space and time, because even right now, at present, there are stars being created.

I've already answered it. We all know that stars, like other heavenly bodies are still being formed nowadays and there is a scientific explanation for that. But as we traversed back from its past events before it was formed, we only end up to the Big Bang. So it does not necesarilly mean that it needs a supernatural intervention for a star to be born, or a planet to spin.
What am I stressing out that the universe has a starting point, and the particles that made up the universe does not come from nothing, or has an infinite past.

I thought your GOD already finish making stars, when he whip his magic wand and say "LET THERE BE STARS"?

Like I've said on my previous posts, what you read in Genesis was written by a 2000BC prophet, so you cannot demand a scientific narrative from him.

It's like this, you plant a seed on the ground, the seed sprouted, grew tall, and constantly bears fruit. Now, some foolish people might argue: hey! you didn't made the fruit, why give credit to you? Then, you will say, the tree is mine, I planted it. This example might not be exact, but more or less, it's somehow the same.

I'm telling you this again and again, the Bible is NOT a Scientific Book!

To believe in GOD without BIBLE is confuse, to believe in GOD and SCIENCE is Fantasizing. to believe in GOD, BIBLE and SCIENCE is ready to be transferred in a mental institute.
The problem with your belief, is that you equated SCIENCE and AETHISM.
This is already engraved in your mind: "If you believe in Science, then you should NOT believe in God"
Like I said, Science does NOT disprove the existence of God. It does NOT talk about God since its already beyond its scope.

Now, this is your case:
1. You ONLY believe in Science, and you DON'T believe in Religion
2. Science DOES NOT say that God DOES NOT exist
3. Therefore, You say that God DOES NOT exist.
This is clearly a logical fallacy.


What your stressing is that your imaginary GOD is the infinite past. If your GOD is the infinite past, asa lagi siya?
Like I said, I believe, like other great scientists that someone beyond the physical world, beyond space and time, an all-powerful Being could have started all things.
How can you see it when it is beyond the physical world? Not in a form of light or energy?

I follow a philosophical argument that also proves logically, it says:
Something cannot come from nothing.

Here is your statement:
1. The universe, before the Big Bag came from a simple forms of Gas and Dust.
2. This simplicity existed in eternity.

But as I have stated previously, an infinite beginning is logically impossible.
You can only approach infinity (which you really won't get there), but you CAN'T come from infinity.

You seem to believe on a reason that is logically invalid, I believe in something that is logically valid.

Concluding statements:
Science has never equated itself to Aethism.
The Church is continually working with Science in order to fully grasps God's creation.

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pope Pius XII, declared at the November 22, 1951 opening meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that the Big Bang theory accorded with the Catholic concept of creation ...

Like I've said, we are not competing each other in terms of science, ONLY aethists think so.
In fact, the Vatican has its science academy with members from different cultures and beliefs. That's how the Church gives respect to science.
Pontifical Academy of Sciences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Einstein
"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." - Isaac Newton

[robert_papalid_ece]

@redhorse1L: thanks bro for taking time to defend our beliefs in behalf of everybody... who got tired in arguing with sometimes disrespectful comments... i agree with you bro... and i have also posted before... that believing in a Supreme Being and a Creator... is more "logical" than believing that this universe all started with an "accidental" bang...

i wasn't really planning of posting again in this thread... although i am consistently reading some of the posts... but just want to express my gratitude of making a firm stand on this...

God bless everybody...

[orcgod]

^^tubaga nalang gud na ang pangutana. daginuton pajud nang typo ug grammar para diversion tactics. hehe
nadaut na sa redhorse. hahaha

of course daginuton gyud nato, kay maluoy man ta nimo kung dili natu tagdon imo reply. wahaha.

wahaha, waka kita sako tubag sa imo IDOL? buta sigura ka. basin ikaw maoy ga tagay before ka ni log in diri.

Sumbong ka imo papa redhorse? wahaha, luoy dodong convert uy. Waman kibaw nga ni tubag na diya ko sa iya idol. nako saging diri o, kaon sa.

[orcgod]

@redhorse1L.I think we're going in circles already, makalipong baya nang mag-tuyok2x.
Answer lang ko, then concluding statements.

Aw nalipong na diay ka sa pag rason? sige man gud ka tagay.


You see, If Scientist are still seeing stars being born, it means nobody is creating it, but only space and time, because even right now, at present, there are stars being created.

I've already answered it. We all know that stars, like other heavenly bodies are still being formed nowadays and there is a scientific explanation for that. But as we traversed back from its past events before it was formed, we only end up to the Big Bang. So it does not necesarilly mean that it needs a supernatural intervention for a star to be born, or a planet to spin.
What am I stressing out that the universe has a starting point, and the particles that made up the universe does not come from nothing, or has an infinite past.

There we go "So it does not necesarilly mean that it needs a supernatural intervention for a star to be born". Now why in your delusional mind would you believe that there is GOD?

So your starting point/infinite past is a WHAT? or a WHO?



I thought your GOD already finish making stars, when he whip his magic wand and say "LET THERE BE STARS"?

Like I've said on my previous posts, what you read in Genesis was written by a 2000BC prophet, so you cannot demand a scientific narrative from him.

It's like this, you plant a seed on the ground, the seed sprouted, grew tall, and constantly bears fruit. Now, some foolish people might argue: hey! you didn't made the fruit, why give credit to you? Then, you will say, the tree is mine, I planted it. This example might not be exact, but more or less, it's somehow the same.

I'm telling you this again and again, the Bible is NOT a Scientific Book!


So AGAIN, why would you believe in a GOD and NOT believe in a BIBLE? dont you know that you automatically agreeing in a FANTASY BIBLE when you believe there is GOD?



To believe in GOD without BIBLE is confuse, to believe in GOD and SCIENCE is Fantasizing. to believe in GOD, BIBLE and SCIENCE is ready to be transferred in a mental institute.
The problem with your belief, is that you equated SCIENCE and AETHISM.

Can you find in my statement that I say SCIENCE = ATHEISM, and ATHEISM = SCIENCE?
To let your confuse mind understand, Atheist HAPPENS to believe in Science because its LOGICAL, its TRUE, no IMAGINARY FRIEND, no WATER INTO WINE, no TALKING SNAKE.

You can be an Atheist and not believe in SCIENCE,or Atheist who believes in Science, who cares, wa gyuy maka buot nimo. naa rana nimo. But we never say ATHEIST = SCIENCE.



This is already engraved in your mind: "If you believe in Science, then you should NOT believe in God"
Like I said, Science does NOT disprove the existence of God. It does NOT talk about God since its already beyond its scope.

LIKE I SAID, Science dont have to DISPROVE something that does not EXIST in the first place. It only talks about everything about SCIENCE. Did anybody say SCIENCE talks about GOD? nobody.

Even us Atheist "WHO HAPPENS TO BELIEVE IN SCIENCE" and not "EQUALS to SCIENCE" dont need to disprove something that doesnt exist. We are here to WAKE YOU UP to REALITY.

Now, this is your case:
1. You ONLY believe in Science, and you DON'T believe in Religion
2. Science DOES NOT say that God DOES NOT exist
3. Therefore, You say that God DOES NOT exist.
This is clearly a logical fallacy.

Who says that "SCIENCE says GOD does not exist?" Science never mentioned anything about GOD, Science only mention about SCIENCE.

Iam an ATHEIST. a GOD does not exist. SCIENCE is not ATHEISM, your confuse, and Atheism is not SCIENCE, we just HAPPEN to BELIEVE in SCIENCE. now you get my LOGIC?


What your stressing is that your imaginary GOD is the infinite past. If your GOD is the infinite past, asa lagi siya?
Like I said, I believe, like other great scientists that someone beyond the physical world, beyond space and time, an all-powerful Being could have started all things.
How can you see it when it is beyond the physical world? Not in a form of light or energy?

Then your a candidate to mental hospital.

I follow a philosophical argument that also proves logically, it says:
Something cannot come from nothing.

True. And the "SOMETHINGNESS" of SOMETHING is not GOD nor it comes from a GOD. Now thats LOGIC.

Here is your statement:
1. The universe, before the Big Bag came from a simple forms of Gas and Dust.
2. This simplicity existed in eternity.

But as I have stated previously, an infinite beginning is logically impossible.
You can only approach infinity (which you really won't get there), but you CAN'T come from infinity.

Do you believe that SPACE is INFINITE? if so, why? if not, why?

You seem to believe on a reason that is logically invalid, I believe in something that is logically valid.

I think its the other way around. People who believe in GOD are ILLOGICAL. why? because your GOD is IMAGINARY, NOT REAL. Got it?

Concluding statements:
Science has never equated itself to Aethism. - Who says SCIENCE is equal to ATHEISM? i think your the one saying it.

The Church is continually working with Science in order to fully grasps God's creation.

The CHURCH is continually stealing peoples money, and evading the government in paying TAX. and Continually having GAY priests in the VATICAN.Which will be my next thread, watch out for it.



Like I've said, we are not competing each other in terms of science, ONLY aethists think so.
In fact, the Vatican has its science academy with members from different cultures and beliefs. That's how the Church gives respect to science.

and who says we are competing about SCIENCE? Im only waking you up from your Fantasy Dream of your GOD.

The VATICAN has BIASED Science Academy. Church doesnt RESPECT Science, if Church respects Science, then CHURCH couldve agreed that the EARTH is BILLIONS of years, but no.

[orcgod]

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested [a] from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

After the other animals

Genesis 1:25-27
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind ... And God said, Let us make man ... So God created man in his own image.


Before the other animals

Genesis 2:18-19
And the Lord God said it is not good that man should be alone; I will make a help-meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.


EXPLAIN!

[pinamay69]

science! hehe

[cobraKing]

Before the other animals

Genesis 2:18-19
And the Lord God said it is not good that man should be alone; I will make a help-meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.



gi unsa man paghimo ang dinosours ani??

gi kaon sa dinosour c adam an eve?

[hitch22]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Einstein

Regarding that oft-repeated quote from Einstein on religion and science, it's a common mistake for religionists to simply quote Einstein without showing the whole context upon which those words were uttered. I think it's high time to show what Einstein's position is on religion and God. READ EVERYTHING and judge for yourselves.

That exact quote came out in the newspapers on September 11, 1940 (Wednesday). Here's how that article reads in The Milwaukee Journal (click here to read the article):

"Give Up Personal God for Reason - Einstein"

New York, N.Y. -Albert Einstein urged abandonment of the "concept of a personal God" in a paper addressed here Tuesday to a conference of 500 leaders in science, philosophy and religion- Jewish, Protestant and Catholic. This body had assembled for the momentous task, as they expressed it, of unifying the thought of democracy. To them, the famous unifier of time and space expounded his own atheism, which has been little known publicly and never before so emphatically stated.

He was moved, he revealed, by his belief that "the main source of the present day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in his concept of a personal God."

"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events," Einstein continued, "the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him, neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events.

'Always One Refuge'

"To be sure, the doctrine of a personal god interfering with natural events could never be refuted in the real sense by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal.

"In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal god, that is give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors, they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the good, the true and the beautiful in humanity itself. That is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task.

"Whoever has undergone the intense experience of successful advances in the domain of scientific thought is moved by profound reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence. By way of the understanding, he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hope and desires and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religion in the highest sense of the word."

'Can't Justify Reasoning'

In contrast to his reverence for reason, Einstein declared:

"Nobody certainly will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just and omnibeneficent personal god is able to accord man solace, help and guidance; also by virtue of its simplicity, the concept is inaccessible to the most undeveloped mind.

"But, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also his work. How, then, is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty being?"

And here's how that article (on the same date) reads in the St. Petersburg Times newspaper (click here to read the archive...if clicking on the link doesn't take you straight to the article, jump to page 9, double-click on the right side of the miniature page and then scroll down to the highlighted article):

NEW YORK - (AP) - Prof. Albert Einstein advised religious teachers yesterday to "give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests."

In a paper presented at the Conference of Science, Philosophy and Religion, at the Jewish Theological seminary of America, the German refugee scientist declared that "a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Einstein said, however, that he was required to qualify his conclusion with reference to the concept of God.

"During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual revolution," he wrote, "human fantasy created gods in man's image who, by operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at the present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods."

Einstein asserted that nobody would deny that "the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just and omnibeneficient personal God is able to accord man solace, help and guidance," but added that "there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history."

If God were omnipotent, Einstein argued, then "every occurence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work."

""How is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an Almighty being?" he asked. "In giving out punishment and rewards, He would, to a certain extent, be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?"

"The main sources of present day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science," Einstein continued, "lies in this concept of a personal God."

"The doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science," he said, "for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot."

It's worth repeating that line again. The main sources of present day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in this concept of a personal God. Think about that. History is replete with case after case of conflicts between religion and science. John William Draper, a Christian Methodist, even wrote a book, specifically on this aspect of history: History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (click here to read that book).

SO WHAT DID EINSTEIN BELIEVED IN?

In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein:

I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

Ah, so was he a pantheist like Spinoza? Think again

In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated:

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.

Einstein also stated:

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

In a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a conventional god:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

At first, I was more inclined to believe that Einstein was probably a Deist or a Pantheist, because he certainly didn't believe in a personal God. Now, however, having read the full context of those quotes, it looks to me that Einstein's an agnostic.

[hitch22]

"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." - Isaac Newton

Here's another one that needs clarification. I assume that redhorse1L is either Catholic/Protestant. I've already pointed out Isaac's Newton's antitrinitarian view (i.e. he rejects the doctrine of the Trinity). Actually, not only does Newton not believe in the Trinity, he regarded Trinitarianism as a sin of idolatry. Are you going to conscript Newton to your camp?

* Just as a short digression. As great a physicist Isaac Newton was, however, he was nonetheless not exempt from believing in kooky stuffs. For one, he actually believed in alchemy and spent nights locked up in his room trying to transmute lead into gold.

I think redhorse1L responded with something like "Who cares. As long as the guy believes in a deity." WHO CARES? That's why I have to press the question: Which God? And if it's the Judaeo-Christian God, which version? Judaism, Catholicism, Lutheran, Calvinism, Anglicanism, Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostalism, Mormonism, Eastern Orthodox, etc....and every one of them accusing each other as antichrists and heretics.

What does it say to have all these hundreds of religions, with all their beautiful stories, myths, visions of the after-life, and promises of salvation? THE OBVIOUS POINT IS JUST STARING EVERYONE IN THE FACE: AS FAR AS THE SUPERNATURAL DIMENSION IS CONCERNED, NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT IT. WHAT'S WRONG WITH SAYING "I DON'T KNOW"?

[kizzy_met21]

I am more convinced with science rather than that of religion...I was brought up as a roman catholic but through the years I have learned that even the bible contradicts itself and a lot of things don't make sense...mas mu tuo ko sa diversity sa kinabuhi rather than just believe that we came from clay and was ripped out of mans rib...