The Roman Catholic Church~ Questions

[pakinimo]

---

unsay daghan ba ui nga usa ka tawo raman to akong kaistorya..pastilan..kabantay ko nimo bro, kusog kaayo ka mamahid sa imon g kaugalingon bisan gi tinagsa na pag quote na imong punto pero mokalit lang kag ingon nga ang nag quote na ang wala kasabot, pero kung pangutan-on ka kung asang dapita ang wala masabti, ang imo itubag "wala ka kasabot" ngiga ahh hahaha

daog na lage ka bai.. d nako.. haha.. sa first quote palang kita nako wa jd ka kasabot.. d nalang ko.. mao raman ghapon akong e sulti, wa mai mausab. mag balik2x ra ghapon ko nmo...

[slabs18]

daog na lage ka bai.. d nako.. haha.. sa first quote palang kita nako wa jd ka kasabot.. d nalang ko.. mao raman ghapon akong e sulti, wa mai mausab. mag balik2x ra ghapon ko nmo...

daog nako? naa paman lagi ka? 1st quote palang? atong balikan ha...

Kay kung gamitun nato na imong concept, pwede ra diay ko mag buhat2x ug idea nga d ma disprove, nia mo conclude daun ko nga truth ako idea since wa man na disprove, bsag wa sad nako na prove..

gitubag tika ani..

sakto ka...kung gamiton nako imong reasoning, pwede ra di ie ka magbuhat buhat nga na disprove? karon asa man ang imong proof?

sige kag gamit anang unicorn? hatagan tikag lain example: kato gipakaon ang 5000 ka tawo unsaon man ato pag prove? gusto nimo ipa prove?

ang proof ana is only the statement of the people who was once in there, pero saon man nimo pagpangutana ato nila nga hagbay raman to silang nangamatay? syempre adto kas ilang gipangsuwat, mao na unta ang bible, pero unsaon man pag prove using biblical's event nga dili man nimo dawaton

imoha ranang kaugalingon nga punto ang ako rapud gibalik nimo pagpangutana gi rephrase lang nako...

sigeg balik2x? bitaw kay bisan pag sigehan sad tika ug pangutana wala koy makuhang direkta nga tubag gikan nimo. sige lang kag likoy, lisod sagngon kung maunay kas imong kaugalingon bala no?

[pakinimo]

Surrender nako bai... bugo na lage ko.. hehehehe.. ayaw nlng pag sayang sa imo oras kay d nako mutubag..

[pakinimo]

mao n sya ngano d nako mosukol nmo, mao ni imong response sa akong gi example

[slabs18]

Surrender nako bai... bugo na lage ko.. hehehehe.. ayaw nlng pag sayang sa imo oras kay d nako mutubag..

ahaha dili nadaw motubag unya ning tubag makalingaw jud ka bro, mura kag katong bata ba na nanampong sa iyang dunggan unya moingon "ahh bleeh wala ko kadungog" unya kung pangutan-on kung "nakadungog ka wala? ang tubag "wala"

- - - Updated - - -

mao n sya ngano d nako mosukol nmo, mao ni imong response sa akong gi example

ahaha kalingaw nasad, unsay purpose ani imong screen shot? to stray topics? ako naman na gi repost nya karon nag screenshot2x paka?

[pakinimo]

hehehehehhee

[noy]

kanang counter claim noy mao ranang 'negative', imo lang gi lahi ag word. hehehhehe
.

exactly bai..negation, opposing idea, counter claim etc..STILL a claim nonetheless. same category with my premise..
i claim God exists, you claim there isn't..

balik ta sa science. kung naay discovery, e prove mana sya, mu agi og peer review ang theory etc, nia kung ma prove ma publish and mahimo ug basehan sa tanan study... karon, nag claim ka nia wa nimo naprove. Igo raman ka ma reject ana without any long discussion.. d man ka pwede moingon nga "aw e prove ninyo nga dli tnuod akong claim"... because in the first place, if tnuod giud na, wouldn't it be easier to prove than to disprove?

Did i ever say i haven't found a proof for my claim yet?
God can be proven in philosophical terms but you wanted Scientific proofs utterly dismissing the philosophical ones even if they are based from the order of things as we know it.
now the question is, is Science the right tool to prove or disprove God? i think you already know the answer to this question..
that's why demanding a scientific proof for God's existence doesn't make any sense.

like i said earlier, Theists and Atheists alike are looking at the same data but differ in conclusion.. we see a design you guys don't....who's right in absolute terms? no one really knows..hehe

the problem starts when someone tries to redicule someone else's point of view just because he thinks he's absolutely right when all he actually have is the very thing he demeans.."a point of view". .Let's not go that way..

Kay kung gamitun nato na imong concept, pwede ra diay ko mag buhat2x ug idea nga d ma disprove, nia mo conclude daun ko nga truth ako idea since wa man na disprove, bsag wa sad nako na prove..
Just because the proposition is not proven false does not mean it is true. - from a logical fallacy definition..
Now, wala namo na disprove imong claim. Which you think is, "god does not exist'. but the truth is atheists don't care whether or not ma disprove nila nga 'god does not exist' because:
1. It cannot be disproven
2. Not being able to disprove does not help you prove your claim, in fact it doesnt change anything
.

That's not my concept bai.. ambut lnag ug asa ka kuha ana..Lol

Kung muingon kog kita kog unicorn-like animal, unsaon man nmo pag disprove noy? and this unicorn is moving very fast, and has the ability of a chameleon to camouflage and is amphibian.. Since this is a physical being assumed, the only way to disprove that there isn't a unicorn on earth is to explore every corner all at once, which is impossible.

i'm afraid your example bai is not making any sense at all.

God and your unicorn like animal are just not under the same category.. God can be proven philosophically with the nature of creation as the basis while your unicorn is just plain nonesense..hehehehe...or basin naay unicorn sa langit? Lol

tell me, can you name a scientist today who believes in unicorns? 'cause i can name quite a lot who believes in God. i bet that alone settles the score between God and unicorns.. hehehe

kapuy man ning istoryaha bai kay balik2x ug way kahumanan..Lol
any questions about Catholic Church practices?

[pakinimo]

Lets keep it short

My goal ever since:
To show you (not that atheism is the correct position but)
that the theistic position does not have sufficient evidence to be considered true.

exactly bai..negation, opposing idea, counter claim etc..STILL a claim nonetheless. same category with my premise..
i claim God exists, you claim there isn't..

Did i ever say i haven't found a proof for my claim yet?
God can be proven in philosophical terms but you wanted Scientific proofs utterly dismissing the philosophical ones even if they are based from the order of things as we know it.
now the question is, is Science the right tool to prove or disprove God? i think you already know the answer to this question..
that's why demanding a scientific proof for God's existence doesn't make any sense.

like i said earlier, Theists and Atheists alike are looking at the same data but differ in conclusion.. we see a design you guys don't....

I understand your response as this:
1. You dont have empirical, demonstrable, scientific evidence and you admit it
2. You have philosophical evidence (i gues one of them is design?)

Let me ask you this, in what field in any kind of study in the world where philosophical arguments without empirical scientific proof are considered evidence to establish a truth claim?

Let me ask you this, in what
who's right in absolute terms? no one really knows..hehe

are you saying there is a possibility that you are wrong about the existence of god?

the problem starts when someone tries to redicule someone else's point of view just because he thinks he's absolutely right when all he actually have is the very thing he demeans.."a point of view". .Let's not go that way..

no no, the problems starts when someone wants another to believe his beliefs.
we dont really care what you believe as long as you dont keep recruiting people (mostly children, who have little to no ability to reason)

That's not my concept bai.. ambut lnag ug asa ka kuha ana..Lol

aw di diay hehehe

i'm afraid your example bai is not making any sense at all.

God and your unicorn like animal are just not under the same category.. God can be proven philosophically with the nature of creation as the basis while your unicorn is just plain nonesense..hehehehe...or basin naay unicorn sa langit? Lol

Yes it does make sense in the context of physical evidence. We have yet to find evidence for this unicorn but thankfully for god we dont have to since there is none, according to you

&;
E clarify daw nganong nonsense ang unicorn example? through argument bsan pag magbuhat2x kog chiwiwi e clarify daw nganu nonsense sya in the context of physical evidence

tell me, can you name a scientist today who believes in unicorns? 'cause i can name quite a lot who believes in God. i bet that alone settles the score between God and unicorns.. hehehe

True. but are you trying to use this as a support to your claim? because if you are, this isnt reall an argument.
You know it yourself that it is a logical fallacy, as in your response that because there are more people who believe in god than in unicorns
Now, i assume this is going to lead to you saying 'therefore god is more probable than unicorns', im just assuming, but am I wrong of my assumption?

kapuy man ning istoryaha bai kay balik2x ug way kahumanan..Lol

wala jud, pero at least naa tai na accomplish

1. There is no scientific evidence for god
2. "who's right in absolute terms? no one really knows..hehe" If sakto akong interpretation ani imong response, you are saying that we don't know the real answer to god's existence

based on 1&2, do you have enough to establish your claim as truth?

[noy]

Lets keep it short
My goal ever since:
To show you (not that atheism is the correct position but)
that the theistic position does not have sufficient evidence to be considered true.

neither does the Atheistic postion. Lol

Let me ask you this, in what field in any kind of study in the world where philosophical arguments without empirical scientific proof are considered evidence to establish a truth claim?

There's none. Lol because that's the beauty of philosophy..it goes beyond what is tangible. but know this, a theory ony becomes scientific when it has been tested through scientific methods but before then it all started as something philosophical.
as long as the philosophical basis are rooted from reality and actuality of things then that philosophical stand point can be considered as valid.

The Lack of empirical evidence only points out to two things..
1. It's not really there.
2. we just lack the resources.

in God's case, it is number 2. why? because we are way tooooo far from knowing everything there is about creation. wa paman gani nato nahurot ug tuki atong kaugalingon nga utok, atong lawas..the entire universe pa kaha?

question for you, do you honestly think that Science as we know it today is enough to Prove whether God does or does not exist?
If Yes, why?
If no, then why the heck are you asking me to prove God's existence using Science? Lol

are you saying there is a possibility that you are wrong about the existence of god?

of course but what if i'm right and you're wrong?

no no, the problems starts when someone wants another to believe his beliefs.
we dont really care what you believe as long as you dont keep recruiting people (mostly children, who have little to no ability to reason)

wouldn't you want me to accept your views? of course you do otherwise you wouldn't be here reasoning with me.. but duna bay kagubot? Nope. so i'm afraid you're wrong. bigotry or intolerance is the problem.

recruiting people? that's what religion do..spreading the news we believe that is good..enforcing religious views however is an entirely different thing.
children? what about 'em? when they grow up they'll just figure themselves out.
diba ikaw? you were raised as a practicing catholic? karun nag atheist ka..ako sa una kay agnostic theist due to poor religious instruction or lack thereof, later embraced catholicism...o diba? we figured ourselves out? haha
teaching children about the religion their parents grew up with is just natural.
it's like teaching your kids about the things you believed to be ethical.
suma, pag naa nakay anak..i bet you'd teach them whatever you think that is best for them. ana ra na bai.murag intolerant ka sa religion bai..sus mao nay sugod sa problema...Lol

Yes it does make sense in the context of physical evidence. We have yet to find evidence for this unicorn but thankfully for god we dont have to since there is none, according to you
&;
E clarify daw nganong nonsense ang unicorn example? through argument bsan pag magbuhat2x kog chiwiwi e clarify daw nganu nonsense sya in the context of physical evidence

True. but are you trying to use this as a support to your claim? because if you are, this isnt reall an argument.
You know it yourself that it is a logical fallacy, as in your response that because there are more people who believe in god than in unicorns
Now, i assume this is going to lead to you saying 'therefore god is more probable than unicorns', im just assuming, but am I wrong of my assumption?

imu rang gitubag imung pangutana bai when you confirmed nga walay scientist mutuo ug unicorn, pero daghang scienctist ang mutuo ug Ginoo..
kana pa lang daan bai..klaro na kaayo ug unsa ka hanggaw nang unicorn oi.. Lol
the basis is the validity of the philosophical premise..

kung sa Ginoo pa, mao ni ang usa sa mga philosophical points/arguments.

creation follows natural law that maintains and sustains it(--this is a fact).
as if everything is seemingly designed(--philosophical analysis)
a designer must then exist (--a philosophical conclusion).
--to go a little bit further, creation itself is the "physical proof" of the creator.

karun ang sa unicorn?

wala jud, pero at least naa tai na accomplish
1. There is no scientific evidence for god
2. "who's right in absolute terms? no one really knows..hehe" If sakto akong interpretation ani imong response, you are saying that we don't know the real answer to god's existence

1. Science as we know it today is still very fragile and almost insignificant compared to the absolutes this universe hold and for that reason it is not equipped to be used as a measurement to prove/disprove God's existence..
therefore, the lack of Scientific proof for God is natural and insisting for scientific proof for God is utterly absurd.
Science is within the boundaries of space and time, God isn't.

2. a logical person would not conclude in absolutes if he doesn't hold absolute knowledge but it doesn't mean he doesn't know where he stands.
to answer your question, i know the real answer to God's existence because my belief is real enough for me.
the absolutes would have to wait.. hehehe

based on 1&2, do you have enough to establish your claim as truth?

before i answer your question, can you define Truth first? thanks

wa juy catholic practice questions diha bai? kapuya na aning istoryaha oi..Lol

[pakinimo]

neither does the Atheistic postion. Lol

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

There's none. Lol because that's the beauty of philosophy..it goes beyond what is tangible. but know this, a theory ony becomes scientific when it has been tested through scientific methods but before then it all started as something philosophical.
as long as the philosophical basis are rooted from reality and actuality of things then that philosophical stand point can be considered as valid.

A theory starts with philosophical argument, but what is philosophical argument alone? Just because all legitimate B's are caused by A's does not mean all A's will cause future legitimate B's.

The Lack of empirical evidence only points out to two things..
1. It's not really there.
2. we just lack the resources.

in God's case, it is number 2. why? because we are way tooooo far from knowing everything there is about creation. wa paman gani nato nahurot ug tuki atong kaugalingon nga utok, atong lawas..the entire universe pa kaha?

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.

question for you, do you honestly think that Science as we know it today is enough to Prove whether God does or does not exist?
If Yes, why?
If no, then why the heck are you asking me to prove God's existence using Science? Lol

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

of course but what if i'm right and you're wrong?

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.
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..

wouldn't you want me to accept your views? of course you do otherwise you wouldn't be here reasoning with me.. but duna bay kagubot? Nope. so i'm afraid you're wrong. bigotry or intolerance is the problem.

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

recruiting people? that's what religion do..spreading the news we believe that is good..enforcing religious views however is an entirely different thing.
children? what about 'em? when they grow up they'll just figure themselves out.
diba ikaw? you were raised as a practicing catholic? karun nag atheist ka..ako sa una kay agnostic theist due to poor religious instruction or lack thereof, later embraced catholicism...o diba? we figured ourselves out? haha
teaching children about the religion their parents grew up with is just natural.
it's like teaching your kids about the things you believed to be ethical.
suma, pag naa nakay anak..i bet you'd teach them whatever you think that is best for them. ana ra na bai.murag intolerant ka sa religion bai..sus mao nay sugod sa problema...Lol

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.
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

imu rang gitubag imung pangutana bai when you confirmed nga walay scientist mutuo ug unicorn, pero daghang scienctist ang mutuo ug Ginoo..
kana pa lang daan bai..klaro na kaayo ug unsa ka hanggaw nang unicorn oi.. Lol

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
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.

kung sa Ginoo pa, mao ni ang usa sa mga philosophical points/arguments.

creation follows natural law that maintains and sustains it(--this is a fact).
as if everything is seemingly designed(--philosophical analysis)
a designer must then exist (--a philosophical conclusion).
--to go a little bit further, creation itself is the "physical proof" of the creator.

karun ang sa unicorn?

eeeeenk

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

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

1. Science as we know it today is still very fragile and almost insignificant compared to the absolutes this universe hold and for that reason it is not equipped to be used as a measurement to prove/disprove God's existence..
therefore, the lack of Scientific proof for God is natural and insisting for scientific proof for God is utterly absurd.
Science is within the boundaries of space and time, God isn't.

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.

2. a logical person would not conclude in absolutes if he doesn't hold absolute knowledge but it doesn't mean he doesn't know where he stands.
to answer your question, i know the real answer to God's existence because my belief is real enough for me.
the absolutes would have to wait.. hehehe

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

before i answer your question, can you define Truth first? thanks

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

wa juy catholic practice questions diha bai? kapuya na aning istoryaha oi..Lol

mingaw ang payag bai... haha..

nakoi pangutana
1. unsaon pag kahibaw if e interpret literally or metaphorically ang usa ka verse?
2. sala bana sa tao kung iya e interpret metaphorically? regardless of his intentions
3. nganu daghan man bible versions?