[Xhirako]

^the flying sphagetti monster
...the meaning for faith according to many dictionaries is belief in something without concrete evidences, it seems we have different definitions...ah relativism...
...let me just paraphrase it then " most humans ascribed it to God because of their personal experiences/emotions rather than anything else", well, no one can disprove that..
...some scholars argue that early israelites were not pure monotheist all along, but they are henotheists. There were passages that suggests the existence of the Gods of other tribes to which scriptures do not deny, though they do not confirm it either...It is through Isaiah that israelites became pure monotheists...but before that, Yahweh is just merely a tribal God of Israel, coexisting with other tribal Gods of other tribes. I myself adhere to this belief, and of course, i speak only for myself.
..
..
..
..p.s...I don't know if it's just me, or my search for some Frederick Burnham only returned a scout and a boat-race champion. And by the way, a vast majority of scientist were agnostics and atheists, about 85%+ of them, and an opinion of one of them, either a believer or unbeliever, is in no way represent the whole of science community

[sam_wel]

Originally Posted by Xhirako

^the flying sphagetti monster
...the meaning for faith according to many dictionaries is belief in something without concrete evidences, it seems we have different definitions...ah relativism...
...let me just paraphrase it then " most humans ascribed it to God because of their personal experiences/emotions rather than anything else", well, no one can disprove that..
...some scholars argue that early israelites were not pure monotheist all along, but they are henotheists. There were passages that suggests the existence of the Gods of other tribes to which scriptures do not deny, though they do not confirm it either...It is through Isaiah that israelites became pure monotheists...but before that, Yahweh is just merely a tribal God of Israel, coexisting with other tribal Gods of other tribes. I myself adhere to this belief, and of course, i speak only for myself.
..
..
..
..p.s...I don't know if it's just me, or my search for some Frederick Burnham only returned a scout and a boat-race champion. And by the way, a vast majority of scientist were agnostics and atheists, about 85%+ of them, and an opinion of one of them, either a believer or unbeliever, is in no way represent the whole of science community

oh, i see. a FSM must have caused the universe. well, it's a new theory (i said theory not in science term, since i am guessing, that you havenot experienced this fsm)

well, i as well believe that many of them were henotheists. but that is the exact point of the bible, to turn them into monotheist. abraham was a monotheist.

[Xhirako]

...well, i admit I don't feel the existence of the FSM at all, except while eating some pasta....and my lack of experience in It is no way diminished Its chance of being true [it cannot be disprove but it has no proof either]...
...yup, the stories in fact transform them into monotheists, but it will be always in their history that they believe that the Gods of other tribes exist as well of their own. In that past there has been no attempt to question the existence of those gods, but simply questions of their power over Yahweh,

[sam_wel]

Originally Posted by Xhirako

...well, i admit I don't feel the existence of the FSM at all, except while eating some pasta....and my lack of experience in It is no way diminished Its chance of being true [it cannot be disprove but it has no proof either]...
...yup, the stories in fact transform them into monotheists, but it will be always in their history that they believe that the Gods of other tribes exist as well of their own. In that past there has been no attempt to question the existence of those gods, but simply questions of their power over Yahweh,

i noticed your capitalization for the the FSM hahahaha.

yes, it was indeed part of their history. over and over yahweh wanted them only to worship him and only him, but they find him insuficient so they always find their way to worship another god.

probably, when they wanted something that they were not able to attain, they blamed it to yahweh, his insufficiency,and thus they turned for another god, who they thought might be able to sustain them of what they wanted.

[greyhame]

Originally Posted by sam_wel

kaya nga 1st cause. who would cause a first cause? nothing. because 1st is the beginning.

the bigbang theory states that there is a beginning of the universe and time.

so whatever caused the bigbang must be outside time, powerful enough to cause such thing. it follows that it must be a personal agent.

why personal? because it cannot be material. material only began to exist after the bigbang.

we come with one possible answer. something immaterial caused it.

there are two kinds of non materials:abstract objects like numbers, and the second is the mind, like yours and mine.

it is imposible for abstrct objects to cause something, therefore, one is left, a mind. a mind has causal possibilities. like say, your mind will tell you to walk, and you walk.

so who caused the bigbang? a mind, a personal agent.

------------------



a balloon with air dont just exist out of nothing. someone must have put air in that balloon.

subukan mo mag-iwan ng balloon na walang hangin. abutin man ng taon-taon, hindi yan malalagyan ng hangin ng walang naglalagay ng hangin jan.

-----------------------



in actual, this is impossible since everything has a beginning. if we go in a loop, a circle has no beginning nor starting point. we do not see any gap. but as you've mentioned, we begin in the explosion.




science cannot provide even a hypothesis before the bigbang.

so when a theist would argue about god based on his personal experiences accorded with faith, it is always debunked.

well, as argued by others, personal experiences do not count.

Cosmological argument has been with us for a long time.
From the link I provided several posts ago:

First Cause Argument

a.k.a. something can't come from nothing, Cosmological Argument, Every effect has a cause, First law of thermodynamics proves God exists
Premise:
Everything that exists in our world is the result of some sort of "first cause" which brought about its existence. Therefore, there must have been a force which created the universe. That "first cause" is what we call God.
Critique:
Like many arguments of this nature, theists make a special pleading to exempt God from their argument. If everything that exists must have a cause, who created God? Variations of this argument employ the first law of thermodynamics to imply that God has always existed because the first law of thermodynamics says matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Nice notion, but it still doesn't prove there's a God. It merely suggests there's more for us to understand, and every day scientists get closer to addressing these issues without referencing God or anything supernatural.
If there's a recurring theme in any of these arguments, it's that theists pick and choose which tenets of science they want to embrace (the ones that help prove their claims) and ignore all the rest as if they don't exist. These theories are part of a complex interconnected system. It's intellectually dishonest and unethical to ignore evidence that counters your supernatural claims. The First Cause Argument ignores huge amounts of contradictory evidence, as do many of the arguments herein.
More importantly, as we are only half-way into the most common arguments for God, I'm sure you've heard most of these before. And the next five will likely not be a surprise either. The real surprise is that these arguments have been bandied about for hundreds of years. And the refutations of these claims have also been present. This is a testament (no pun intended) to how many religious leaders willfully ignore the flaws and downright misrepresentations in their claims. These critiques are nothing new. A hundred years ago, famous people like Robert G. Ingersoll gave public speeches outlining the same issues. Don't think your neighborhood pastor or priest isn't aware of the faulty logic he is foisting on his flock. It may be their livelihood and they have an interest in saying these stories, but ask yourself if you have as much of a personal advantage in believing the stories told by people who know they aren't true?

This parallels St. Augustine's Unmoved Mover
(from his "Five Ways"), which I suspect is what you're hinting at.
St. Anselm also has an interesting argument.

If you have serious doubts about the big bang, and feel that these doubts are scientifically valid, here is a thread to post those points:

*Only fully-registered users can see this link.*

They have many other threads about the big bang. You can search their site.
I'm sure they'll gladly answer you. They're cool. =)

There are also many theistic scientists, and they also make their views known.
The majority, however, are not, as Xhiraco pointed out.
In any case, that argument is a logical fallacy called argument from authority-- Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true.
Usually, this is followed by Ad hominem-- argument that attacks the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. Believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded, or tanga, hindi nakakaintindi, hindi marunong gumamit ng internet, etc.

Happens every time.

Kierkegaard (for one), pointed out that rational explanation of god is unnecessary, because faith would then be made irrelevant.
(This is
*Only fully-registered users can see this link.*
-- the idea that religious faith and reason are incompatible with each other. It is the view that religious faith is separate from reason and cannot be reconciled with it. According to fideism, faith involves a degree of absolute certainty and personal commitment that goes beyond what can be rationally justified. Therefore, one cannot and should not seek evidence for religious belief.)
Which is fine with me, as according to our favorite doctor,
"Rational arguments don't usually work with religious people. Otherwise there wouldn't be religious people."

[pcruztemp]

Originally Posted by kickerzz04

okay, eto na, scientific evidence ha,
yan, kainin mo yan,

these people were astrophysicists.
Wag ka nang magreklamo sa sinabi nila.
They are scientists. Masmagaling sayo.

Basahin mo nalang, scientific proof of the existence of God.


*Only fully-registered users can see this link.*



aangal ka pa?? Proven na ha.
Yan naman hanap mo dba? Pakasasa ka.

dude. we are skeptics. we like you don't believe merely on the say so of one man, even if he's a great scientist.

And I have some background in physics and cosmology and I can read and understand and criticize the report from a scienctific perspective. Did you analyze that link yourself critically?

first we need some background about the author

Hugh Norman Ross (born July 24, 1945) is a Canadian-born astrophysicist and Christian apologist.

Ross has a PhD in astronomy from the University of Toronto and an undergraduate degree in physics from the University of British Columbia.[1] He is known for establishing his own ministry called Reasons To Believe which uses scientific evidence to ague for the truth of Christianity.[2] It promotes progressive and day-age forms of Old Earth Creationism. Ross accepts the scientific consensus on an old age of the earth and an old age of the universe, though he rejects the scientific consensus on evolution and abiogenesis as explanations for the history and origin of life.[3]

*Only fully-registered users can see this link.*



Page 1 palang ng PDF meron na "white lie"

Michael Turner, from the University of Chicago, says the significance of this discovery cannot be overstated. They have found the Holy Grail of cosmology. As to how holy of a grail we’re talking about, George Smoot, who led the team of 30 American astrophysicists who made the discovery said, “What we have found is evidence of the birth of the Universe. It’s like looking at God.”

is that really what Geoirge smoot said?

COBE scientist George Smoot is quoted as saying, of his data: "It's like looking at God" (p. 19). This quotation is a bit more accurate than "seeing the face of God," as Smoot was widely quoted in the press when the results were first announced. What Smoot claims he said was: "If you're religious, this is like looking at God." Ross has quoted him, ever-so-slightly, out of context, implying that Smoot saw God in his data. I have talked personally with Smoot, and he denies any such intention for his words. Throughout this book, Ross subtly and unsubtly rewrites the facts to support his pre-ordained conclusions.

*Only fully-registered users can see this link.*

"If you're religious," said Smoot at the press conference after the formal announcement, "it's like seeing God."

*Only fully-registered users can see this link.*


still on page 1

Now, what exactly was it that these astronomers discovered? They found 90% of the universe. Any day that you find 90% of the universe is a red-letter day. What they essentially found was a new kind of matter. For a couple of years, physicists have suspected that the universe must have a different kind of matter.

the discovery of dark matter. That per se doesn't prove god

page 3

What encouraged me about Jeffrey’s statement was that even Jeffrey, as an atheist, recognized the equation, Big Bang = Jesus Christ. If you prove the Big Bang, you prove Jesus Christ.

gee, isn't this contrary to your point of view

To his dying day, Einstein held to his belief that as the result of the verification of his theory of General Relativity, God exists. God created the universe and God is intelligent.

its still a theory, why do you still believe it? lolz


anyway, einstein may have believed in a god but not the judeo christian god. he was a deist

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. However, it is interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."4

*Only fully-registered users can see this link.*



page 5

if you prove that time has a beginning, that it was created, it eliminates all theological possibilities but Jesus Christ.

BS. if true, that only proves there is a creator. It does not identify the creator. It could be the FSM, brahma, quetzocoatl or odin

well in fairness the next paragraph has some explanation

Why? Because if you were to open up the Holy books of the religions of the world, only one of them would describe God as a being that creates the universe independent of time, space, matter and energy.
The other Holy books describe God as creating within time. The Bible states that God creates independent of time. That’s the difference.

so what? it could have been a lucky guess. and besides, he's wrong

Creation ex nihilo (Latin "out of nothing"), also known as "creation de novo", is a common type of mythical creation. Ex nihilo creation is found in creation stories from ancient Egypt, the Rig Veda, the Bible and the Quran, and many animistic cultures in Africa, Asia, Oceania and North America

*Only fully-registered users can see this link.*

Apache

In the beginning nothing existed -- no earth, no sky, no sun, no moon, only darkness was everywhere. Suddenly from the darkness emerged a thin disc, one side yellow and the other side white, appearing suspended in midair. Within the disc sat a small bearded man, Creator, the One Who Lives Above. As if waking from a long nap, he rubbed his eyes and face with both hands.

*Only fully-registered users can see this link.*


page 6

When I present this evidence to atheists, their most frequent response is the same one I got from both of my sons when they were three years of age. It was, “If God created us, then who created God?”
My sons and the atheists are assuming that God is confined to time in the same way that we are. But the Bible and the equations of General Relativity tell us that the entity that brought the universe into existence is not confined in time like we are, or the way that the universe is.

how is this different from children discussing a tv show "e bakit sya nakatakas e ang daming kalaban" "kasi meron super powers sya"

page 9

If the universe is fine-tuned in one part to the 10 to the 37th power, one part in 10 to the 40th power and one part in 10 to the 55th power on three different characteristics, then that tells us that God must be personal; that He’s not only transcendent, he’s personal!
Why do we say this? Because only a person is capable of fine-tuning to the degree that we’ve observed, and that person must be orders of magnitude more intelligent and creative than we human beings. One hundred trillion times more intelligent and creative than we human beings, just based on that one characteristic. But he’s also creative and loving.

the fine tuning argument again. that has been busted before

II. To come back to the general argument, there is one gigantic objection, the kind of thing that does not seem obvious but seems that way after you understand it. That objection is simply that fine-tuning is not an argument for design, but rather an argument against design! The idea of an extreme fine-tuning beyond which the target cannot exist is indicative of a precarious natural system, not of intelligent planning.
...
III. Another objection to the fine-tuning argument is that we should not be surprised or befuddled that the universe is adapted to our needs, since we evolved within the universe and its parameters. Evolution tends towards adaptation of life to its environment. Therefore, we should no more be surprised of how well the universe fits us, than we should be surprised of how well a baked cookie fits its mold.
...
IV. We have good reason to object to a number of assumptions that are explicitly or implicitly held by theologians who use fine-tuning. The first assumption is contained in the following formulation:

“2. Other combinations of physical constants are conceivable.”

Now granted, some theologians do not explain this step at all, but they usually have no justification for their assumption that physical constants could be otherwise. So Drange’s formulation here is in fact a concession.

At any rate, it is unclear why the fact that “other combinations of physical constants are conceivable” lead to the conclusion in (3) that:

“some explanation is needed why our actual combination of physical constants exists rather than a different one”

In fact, (3) implies that these “other combinations” could exist. But there is no way to deduce this from (2). The fact that something is conceivable does not make it possible! It only means that our imagination can encompass it. I can imagine plenty of things that are plainly impossible,
...
V. Two other implicit assumptions can be addressed simultaneously. These assumptions are:

Change in physical constants can be isolated.
Change in physical constants necessarily brings about states where life is impossible.

The first assumption is committed by a lot of theologians, but our argument-type does not commit it. I will therefore only justify the second. I already noted that the assumption that our specific carbon-based evolution cannot be special in any way. We must assume that, given a sufficient lifespan for stars, some form of evolution is at least possible.

With this in mind, physicist Victor Stenger developed a program called “MonkeyGod”. This program generates universes using four of the physical constants we have discussed. While this is not as convincing as analyzing the twenty physical constants that we know, MonkeyGod still demonstrates that long-lived stars “occur in a wide range of parameters”. Given this preliminary result, there is no reason to assume a priori that any change would result in the impossibility of life.

*Only fully-registered users can see this link.*

It seems to me that fine tuning arguments are similar to the dice rolling guy. The fine tuning argument is this: the odds of “rolling the dice” to get, by chance, a universe where life can exist, are so low that the universe must have been designed. But the objections to this are the same as with the dice rolling guy: unless we know how many universes there are, and how many big bangs there have been, we can’t know if our particular universe is very unlikely to have occurred by chance or not. There might be millions of universes. And if there are a very large number of universes, then the odds of getting one tuned for life, are very good. And in that case, there are good odds that in at least one of the universes tuned for life, there evolved intelligent people like us who remark that this universe looks fine tuned for life.

*Only fully-registered users can see this link.*



page 9

What does this tell me about the Creator? That God so loved the human race that he went to the expense of building one hundred billion stars and carefully shaped and crafted those hundred billion trillion stars for the entire age of the universe, so that for this brief moment in time, we could have a nice place to live.

this is actually an argument against god. why would god create a universe filled with billions of galaxies each with billions of stars just for us? We only need the earth, one sun, maybe the moon and a few stars for navigation. It's a waste of material and effort

page 10

We live in a Special Solar System, Too

We can extend this argument of design from the universe to the solar system itself. When we look at the solar system, we discover that we have a heavenly body problem. It’s not that easy to get the right galaxy.

Life can only happen on late born stars. If it’s a first or second-generation star, then life is impossible because you don’t yet have the heavy elements necessary for life chemistry. There’s a narrow window of time in the history of the universe when life can happen.

If the universe is too old or too young, life is impossible. Only spiral galaxies produce stars late enough in their history that they can take advantage of the elements that are essential for life history, and only 6% of the galaxies in our universe are spiral galaxies. Of those 6%, you must go with galaxies that produce all of the elements that are essential for life. It’s not that easy.

that's not proof. that can also be explained by chance. there are billions of stars with billions of planets at one time in the galaxy. By chance a few of them will be born at the right time and the right location

If somebody claims to be psychic and they win the lottery three times in a row. That seems to be good evidence. However, if they bought every possible combination of numbers for each of those lotteries. That feat requires no psychic abilities at all.

*Only fully-registered users can see this link.*


page 11

There’s one life essential element that the supernovae do not make, however, and that’s Fluorine. Fluorine is made only on the surfaces of white dwarf binaries. A white dwarf is a burnt out star. It’s like a cinder in a fireplace, just glowing.
...
Two American astrophysicists concluded about a year ago that rare indeed is the galaxy that has the right number of this special kind white dwarf binary pair in the right location, occurring at the right time, so that life can exist today. The universe contains a trillion galaxies. But ours may be the only one that has the necessary conditions for life to exist.

is that so?

An Explosive Idea
In 1988 Woosley and University of Washington physicist Wick C. Haxton suggested a way around this problem. They proposed that fluorine can be both created and saved by supernovae. The stellar explosions fling the fluorine into space fast enough to protect it from the elements that would destroy it. In a 2002 paper, Woosley and others declared that neutrinos in supernovae probably make most of the universe's fluorine. If so, the fluorine in your toothpaste wouldn't exist without phantom particles that pass through almost anything.

When a massive star like Antares goes supernova, 1058 neutrinos storm through the exploding star. Although neutrinos are normally harmless--trillions of solar neutrinos pass through us each second--supernova-born neutrinos carry so much energy and blow through such a dense medium that 1 in 200 of these normally ghostly particles interact with matter outside the newborn neutron star. If such a supernova happened at the Sun's position, the neutrino burst alone would kill us.

Such an interaction, wrote Woosley and Haxton, produces fluorine. Before it explodes, a massive star creates an enormous store of neon-20, which has 10 protons and 10 neutrons. During the explosion the neutrinos race through the star's neon layer, and some knock off a proton to make fluorine-19 or remove a neutron to make radioactive neon-19, which decays into fluorine-19. Either way, fluorine is born. Unfortunately, no one has ever observed fluorine in a supernova or supernova remnant, so the neutrino-process remains speculative.
A Giant Discovery
In 1992 three astronomers did report the discovery of fluorine--not in supernovae, but in dozens of red-giant stars. Says Alain Jorissen (Free University of Brussels), "That was one of these few moments in a career when you think, `Wow--that's really great,' because theory meets observations, and without any trigger from one or the other." While completing his thesis in Belgium, Jorissen developed a theory for fluorine's production, without knowing that two Texas astronomers had already confirmed it. At a conference in Indiana, Jorissen bumped into David L. Lambert (University of Texas, Austin). Lambert told Jorissen that he and Verne V. Smith (University of Texas, El Paso), while studying other elements in giant stars, had accidentally detected the infrared signature of hydrogen fluoride (HF). Up to that time fluorine had been seen only in the Sun, Venus, Betelgeuse, the interstellar medium, cosmic rays, the envelope of a carbon star, and a planetary nebula or two. Before long the astronomers had measured the fluorine abundance in 65 giant stars.

*Only fully-registered users can see this link.*


page 14

Paul and Ann Erlich say we have yet to document the appearance of a single animal species in the world of nature,

false. there are many speciation events that have been documented. here are a few

*Only fully-registered users can see this link.*



a common new species is the dog. its ancestors were wolves

page 14

and in the vast majority in the world of species, we cannot even detect any genetic movement. It’s a virtual zero.

false. example

Studies of island rodents were among the first recognized examples of microevolution (e.g., Clarke, 1904; Huxley, 1942). It is commonly observed that insular rodents differ from their mainland relatives in a
variety of traits, including behavior, demography, genetics, physiology, and morphology (

*Only fully-registered users can see this link.*

Catching one species in the act of becoming two is no easy feat. Yet evolutionary biologists working in the Solomon Islands may have done just that. They have found that a single genetic change turns a small, brown-bellied bird black, possibly leading it to mate with like-colored birds--and setting it on the road to becoming a new species.

*Only fully-registered users can see this link.*

[pcruztemp]

page 14

The Bible tells us that God created only one species of life on planet Earth that is spiritual in nature: Adam and Eve, and their descendents. All other species of life are either body only, or body and soul, like the birds and the mammals. Only the human species is comprised of body, soul and spirit.
You can go to any secular anthropologist and ask him to provide you with the most ancient evidence for spirit expression. They will confess that the most ancient evidence dates back to only 8,000 to 24,000 years ago. In the form of a moral code or religious relics, the most ancient finds have been these primitive Venus Idol figurines from 10,000 years ago.

false

While chimpanzees build no churches in which they bow down to an invisible alpha, they do engage in some behaviors that could be considered pre-religious. For example, chimpanzees will make threat displays at an approaching thunderstorm, as if attempting to bluff it away. In this case they have extended a natural propensity beyond the domain of real agents, where a threat might produce results, to the domain of non-agents (storms), where the threat will absolutely not produce results in the form of influencing the behavior of the target entity.

*Only fully-registered users can see this link.*

Dr. Frans de Waal and Barbara King both view human morality as having grown out of primate sociality. Though morality may be a unique human trait, many social animals, such as primates, dolphins and whales, have been known to exhibit pre-moral sentiments. According to Michael Shermer, the following characteristics are shared by humans and other social animals, particularly the great apes:

"attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group".[13]

*Only fully-registered users can see this link.*

Did Neanderthals Believe in an Afterlife?
A possible Neanderthal burial ground suggests that they practiced funeral rituals and possessed symbolic thought before modern humans.
...
Evidence for a likely 50,000-year-old Neanderthal burial ground that includes the remains of at least three individuals has been unearthed in Spain,
...
Unburnt bones of two articulated panther paws were embedded in rock "in an area where the rest of the animal's skeleton was conspicuous by its absence notwithstanding its proximity to the human skeletons," the authors write.

The researchers speculate that a Neanderthal cut off the panther paws and kept them. It is also possible that the paws were added to the bodies before burial, perhaps holding some ritual significance.

*Only fully-registered users can see this link.*



need I continue?

[kickerzz04]

this is actually an argument against god.
why would god create a universe filled with
billions of galaxies each with billions of
stars just for us? We only need the earth,
one sun, maybe the moon and a few stars
for navigation. It's a waste of material and
effort

malay mo ba? Kaya nga yan yung question sa science na di masagotsagot. Whats the purpose, bat ang dami? Whats the purpose of our life? Bat tayo nandito? Why? Why yung earth eh sakto ang distance sa sun, sa moon,?

Puro ka lang false, false... Enexamine mo pa yung background ng author, eh ikaw, inexamine mo ba yung backgrounds ng mga author na pinagkukunan mo ng mga sagot mo??? Baka hater sila, baka, naging mapait ang kanilang buhay, baka sira ulo sila, baka mad genius. Ang importante dun ay, may scientist na nagsasabing someone or something has created the universe, someone has started all these things. A super intelligent being,.

He is an astrophysicist, may reputation sya, a physicist cannot easily believe in god or supreme being kung walang evidence syang nakita.

Sya ay scientist, ibig pong sabihin, may karapatan syang magsalita in behalf sa science. At maybe hindi lang sya, may mga kasama pa sya, yung nakadiscover na astromomers, His colleages (tama ba spelling?) so, maaring hindi sya nagiisa.

Ibig sabihin pala, yung universe was really created by someone or something, a super intelligent being, at hindi yung pinagsasabi nyo ditong, yung universe can create itself without being caused by something or someone.

Ibig sabihin po nito, yung mga post nyong pinagyayabang na galing din naman sa science ay mali. At puro kathang isip lamang. Imagination.

So, ngayon sino ang nagiimagine?
You are imagining na there is no supreme being, no one created the universe, no one caused the existence of the cosmos. Sabi nyo, it happened by chance. Wtf.

Chance ba ang design? Ang dna codes? And human mind? Chance lang ba yan na para tayong isang maliit na cosmos? Malawak mag.isip? You are really dreaming. Wakeup!!!

Scientist na nagsasabing meron, tapos ikaw, kayo, deny pa rin ng deny. Hahanap pa sa net ng mga walang kabuluhang mga sagot na wala din naman maipakitang proof na theory theory nila na hindi nag.eexist ang isang supreme being. The beginner of all things, the uncaused cause, the designer, the lawgiver.

Yung nag.answer pala sa law=lawgiver, para sa akin ay hindi valid yung sagot nyang, ''it doesnt follow na pag.may law, dapat may lawgiver., hindi katulang ang laws of physics sa laws created by men.''

alam ko ho na hindi katulad ang laws of physics sa laws na ginawa ng tao,

the laws of physics is different from the laws created by men, therefore, the laws of physics is an special law, and if it is special, therefore the lawgiver must be also special.

Someone or something super intelligent created these laws. At hindi na nito kelangan ng proof para paniwalaan, use your reason/logic. Hindi na yung pinagsasabi nyong, basta na lamang nag.exist with the universe. Nakakatawa naman yang sagot na yan. Yang answer na yan ay illogical. Answer not accepted.

[kickerzz04]

Quote:
What encouraged me about Jeffrey’s
statement was that even Jeffrey, as an
atheist, recognized the equation, Big Bang =
Jesus Christ. If you prove the Big Bang, you
prove Jesus Christ.

gee, isn't this contrary to your point of
view

even if the bigbang is true, the point is, someone started that bigbang. And that is the supreme being which you are trying to deny.
That equation may be related to the passage in the bible,

if my memory serves me right, it is in JOHN chapter 1.

''all were created through him, all were created for him.''

Jesus was the essence of creation/bigbang .[bigbang=science theory on how the universe came to be]

Thats what it mean.

Quote:
To his dying day, Einstein held to his belief
that as the result of the verification of his
theory of General Relativity, God exists. God
created the universe and God is intelligent.

its still a theory, why do you still believe it?
lolz

theory yan, galing sa isang scientist. Hindi galing sa mga taong ayaw mong paniwalaan.
So, kelangan mong maniwala,

bigbang theory nga naniniwala ka na theory din naman, theory of einstein na God created the universe ayaw mo paniwalaan?

Einstein is intelligent, and the world knows it, he believed in God, because he knows that God really exist, he is a wise man, he will not believe in something which he cannot prove.

At kahit ano pa mang Diyos ang pinaniniwalaan nya, basta sinabi nyang may God na gumawa sa universe, OKAY na yun.

Ibigsabihin din, na yung nakasulat sa thread na to ay nasagot na. At hindi na dapat paulit ulit.

Science na mismo ang nagpapatunay na merong exist na super intelligent being. Supreme being, the designer, the uncaused cause. GOD.

[kickerzz04]

Quote:
Why? Because if you were to open up the
Holy books of the religions of the world,
only one of them would describe God as a
being that creates the universe independent
of time, space, matter and energy.
The other Holy books describe God as
creating within time. The Bible states that
God creates independent of time. That’s the
difference.

[quote]so what? it could have been a lucky guess. and besides, he's wrong [/qoute]

and maybe its not a lucky guess.
Can you call that a lucky guess? Maybe he is wrong ng sinabi nyang yung holy bible lang yung God na nag.crecreate outside time. But the point is, Ibat ibang culture, ibatibang religion, magkakalayong civilization, pero magkakatugma pagdating jan? Lucky guess ba yun???

Its crazy right? But it might not be a lucky guess also. Again, nagpapatunay lang ito na sa sagot mo palang, hindi ka talaga open sa mga counter.arguments sa mga arguments mo. Dahil, sa iisang side lang ang sinabi mo, hindi mo rin binanggit ang other possibility na, 'maybe its not a lucky guess.'