Symbianize Forum
Most of our features and services are available only to members, so we encourage you to login or register a new account. Registration is free, fast and simple. You only need to provide a valid email. Being a member you'll gain access to all member forums and features, post a message to ask question or provide answer, and share or find resources related to mobile phones, tablets, computers, game consoles, and multimedia.
All that and more, so what are you waiting for, click the register button and join us now! Ito ang website na ginawa ng pinoy para sa pinoy!
Atheists and Agnostics Meeting Place
- Thread starter Robotculator
- Start date
- Replies 12,090
- Views 437,425
- Status
- Messages
- 326
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
ayos lang.. HAHA
- Messages
- 128
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
@Storm - napanood ko na yung The Thirtienth Floor. Ang lalim ng story at pwede ito irelate sa different world.
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
O di ba.
It's the essential, barebone Matrix for me.
In the real world, the search for holographic signatures is its equivalent: you know, when scientists test if there's any pixelation in that area somewhere at the Planck scale. It's an ongoing project. If it shows that there's pixelation at the fundamental level, it would mean that our reality, in essence is nothing but a computer-generated program. What kind of computer and what kind of intelligent beings that could come up with such computer program are what would stare us in the face under that scenario.
- Messages
- 128
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
O di ba.
It's the essential, barebone Matrix for me.
In the real world, the search for holographic signatures is its equivalent: you know, when scientists test if there's any pixelation in that area somewhere at the Planck scale. It's an ongoing project. If it shows that there's pixelation at the fundamental level, it would mean that our reality, in essence is nothing but a computer-generated program. What kind of computer and what kind of intelligent beings that could come up with such computer program are what would stare us in the face under that scenario.
Make sense nga naman. The question still remains na "How we sure na itong nakikita, nararamdaman at natatapakan natin ay real?".
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
Yes, it's back to Descartes' floating man play of Avicenna's original proposition. Gone to the movies via Thirteenth Floor, Matrix, Inception, and the like.
Yes, it's back to Descartes' floating man play of Avicenna's original proposition. Gone to the movies via Thirteenth Floor, Matrix, Inception, and the like.
Mga sirs ngayon im so confuse..
Well if God does'nt really exist.
Sino po ang nagcreate ng Universe?.
Sino po ang gumawa sa Tao?
Big Bang Theory isang malaking pagsabog nagkalat na ang iba't ibang planeta?
Eh ang Tao po ba bigla na lang lumabas ano po tayo putok sa buho?
wag na po isama na galing tayo sa unggoy. Kase kung trip nyo po talaga si Charles Darwin eh kayo na lang po maging unggoy wag na po ako..
NGA PALA Theory pa din sya hanggang ngayon saan po basehan nyo ? yung hindi na mga Theory Theory na yan. yung SAGOT na Talaga salamat
Nalilito na kase ako sirs..
- Messages
- 326
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
Two words: grow up. Fairy tales are for kids. Be a responsible adult and try to know more about the world on your own rather than carry the myths of our youth.
Now to the issues you raised (or not):
1. Without going to the details, there is more than enough science to prove that matter and energy can literally pop out of nothing, including entire universes. There is no creator. The universe left alone to its physical laws will end up as the way we know it now, with those super galaxy clusters, cosmic filaments connecting all the large structures of the universe, entire galaxies, solar systems, and planetary systems.
2. Wala ring gumawa sa tao: humans are one of the byproducts of simplest-to-the most complex electrochemical and biological processes that started when Earth's ecosystem finally allowed it after billions of years.
3. Mag-aral din at alamin kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng Big Bang. Ginawa mo siyang parang grand fireworks lang ng mga Intsik.
4. Nasa iyo kung ayaw mo sa unggoy. Alin ang gusto mo, yung sugarcoated na kasinungalingan? Truth need not hurt and be ugly. There is more beauty in knowing the struggles of the simplest single-cells as they prevailed over circumstances than simply believing in fairytales meant for kids and babies.
5. Alamin ang pagkakaiba ng scientific theory kontra sa "theory" sa pagkakaintindi mo na walang pinagkaiba sa bolang kristal ni Madam Auring.
Person 1 (believer):
> I believe in God
> I believe in what the Bible says about Him
> I believe na tayong mga tao ay makasalanan,
> I believe na may langit at impyerno, and
> I believe in Jesus, ang anak ng Diyos na ipinadala para tayo ay maligtas sa ating mga kasalanan
> I believe na si Jesus ang tanging daan papunta ng langit
> I believe na kung sinoman ang manampalataya kay Jesus ang siyang maliligtas
Person 2 (unbeliever):
> I dont simply believe that there's God and I dont believe in Jesus
> Ofcourse I dont believe in Bible, it may just be a myth
> At syempre hindi din ako naniniwalang may langit at impyerno
> I simply dont believe that there's a judgement when I die
You see the difference between two people who believe and
do not believe. But the thing that is common to them is that they do
not see God yet.
Pero 'What if the Bible is just a fictional book?'
Good question...
If the Bible is just a fictional book,
Person 1 wins (believer).
Even if the Bible is not true atleast nabuhay siya sa mundo ng maayos,
Following the words in Bible is not bad at all. Wala namang masamang itinuturo
and Bible so if you follow it, you live a meaningful life.
Person 2 wins (unbeliever)
Ofcourse person 2 feels winner kasi no matter what that person did on earth , kahit pa nagpakasama siya, nangrape, pumatay ng tao, wala siyang haharaping judgement, gets ? walang langit at impyerno na magiging destination mo
PERO If the what the Bible says are true:
Person 1 wins (believer)
Panalo ka kasi ang reward mo ay mapupunta ka sa langit. Lugar na walang
paghihirap, sakit, etc. .
Person 2 loses (unbeliever)
Sa taong hindi naniniwala sa Bible, mararanasan niya sa kabilang buhay
ang consequences ng hindi niya pagsampalataya sa Diyos. Ofcourse that person
will be sent to Hell. Ang lugar na nonstop kang paparusahan sa apoy.
I hope you realize,
If you are a believer, you are in a win-win situation. Totoo man o hindi
and Bible , atleast namuhay ka ng maayos sa mundo,
But if you simply dont believe in God and with what the Bible says, nasa
50-50 ka lang. Wala kang kasiguraduhan sa buhay kung ano naghihintay sayo
pagkamatay mo..
It's up to you na mamili. Dun ka sa sigurado o sa di sigurado?
> I believe in God
> I believe in what the Bible says about Him
> I believe na tayong mga tao ay makasalanan,
> I believe na may langit at impyerno, and
> I believe in Jesus, ang anak ng Diyos na ipinadala para tayo ay maligtas sa ating mga kasalanan
> I believe na si Jesus ang tanging daan papunta ng langit
> I believe na kung sinoman ang manampalataya kay Jesus ang siyang maliligtas
Person 2 (unbeliever):
> I dont simply believe that there's God and I dont believe in Jesus
> Ofcourse I dont believe in Bible, it may just be a myth
> At syempre hindi din ako naniniwalang may langit at impyerno
> I simply dont believe that there's a judgement when I die
You see the difference between two people who believe and
do not believe. But the thing that is common to them is that they do
not see God yet.
Pero 'What if the Bible is just a fictional book?'
Good question...
If the Bible is just a fictional book,
Person 1 wins (believer).
Even if the Bible is not true atleast nabuhay siya sa mundo ng maayos,
Following the words in Bible is not bad at all. Wala namang masamang itinuturo
and Bible so if you follow it, you live a meaningful life.
Person 2 wins (unbeliever)
Ofcourse person 2 feels winner kasi no matter what that person did on earth , kahit pa nagpakasama siya, nangrape, pumatay ng tao, wala siyang haharaping judgement, gets ? walang langit at impyerno na magiging destination mo
PERO If the what the Bible says are true:
Person 1 wins (believer)
Panalo ka kasi ang reward mo ay mapupunta ka sa langit. Lugar na walang
paghihirap, sakit, etc. .
Person 2 loses (unbeliever)
Sa taong hindi naniniwala sa Bible, mararanasan niya sa kabilang buhay
ang consequences ng hindi niya pagsampalataya sa Diyos. Ofcourse that person
will be sent to Hell. Ang lugar na nonstop kang paparusahan sa apoy.
I hope you realize,
If you are a believer, you are in a win-win situation. Totoo man o hindi
and Bible , atleast namuhay ka ng maayos sa mundo,
But if you simply dont believe in God and with what the Bible says, nasa
50-50 ka lang. Wala kang kasiguraduhan sa buhay kung ano naghihintay sayo
pagkamatay mo..
It's up to you na mamili. Dun ka sa sigurado o sa di sigurado?
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
yun lang.... "matter and energy can literally pop out of nothing"? "including the entire universe"??
Hindi factual ung mga sinabi niya.
Kung ite-trace mo ang original sources ng mga un at kahit dun sa mga wikipedia articles na nagdidiscuss sa kanila, assumption, speculation o hypothesis lang ang pagka-present sa mga idea na un. Walang generally accepted theory sa cosmonogy (origin ng universe). Sa katunayan, isa sa mga unsolved problems sa physics ang origin ng universe at origin ng life, at puro speculations lang LAHAT ng Pre-Big Bang hypotheses na meron ngaun. Ang origins science ay isang hypothetical at unsettled science.
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
Hindi factual ung mga sinabi niya.
Ah, I thought my little piece would be too good to pass for you and your little babbles. Need i remind you how our little conversation about this matter turned out for you?
Clearly you are misleading others here: no one is claiming the veracity of pre-Big Bang models, but give me any model coming from any religious source that could match the comprehensive details encapsulated in any of those models I gave you in that other thread. None? Of course, but you have your ever-ready reply: god works in mysterious ways.
But of the veracity of quantum fluctuations, Inflation Theory, Big Bang Theory, and Standard Model, you have to be off your rockers to claim otherwise. Have you posted your views yet pertaining those?
- Messages
- 414
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 28
Hmmm. And you think by giving up God can make a person evil? Remind you, giving up God doesn't mean giving up your morals. A prime example of this is the LGBT community. Even if they contradicts the teachings of the Bible they can still remain faithful. Same goes with atheist, we can still be a good person even if we give up God.
i did not force you to believe either. I hope you saw the possibilities of what will happen kung totoo man o hindi ang Bible o ang Diyos..
and you are right, kahit wala ang Diyos may moral pa din ang tao..
diba un naman ang sinabi ko?
believer man o unbeliever , panalo pa din tayo pag nagkataong kathang isip lang ang Diyos..
PERO if God is true, if what the Bible says are true then
Unbeliever loses the chance to get to heaven..even if he has the 'morality'. The standard of the God is that a person must put the faith to Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.
You can chose not to believe in His teachings and define your own morality. But God has His own standards.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
Since you posted this twice and you might have missed my reply in the other thread, here's the same take from me:
AS I said, any claims of revelatory truths are private in nature and should remain as such, private, unless you could back your claims sufficiently. Two thousand years of drivel do not make fiction true in the wave of a hand or the blink of an eye. No amount of veiled threats of life in hell or heaven could ever substantiate such fictional claims.
Like tomorrow I could write about Superman as a living god incarnate who walked the earth during our times. It is fiction, but since today's people are well aware of the art and craft of artistic license, they'd just laugh it off and buy my crazy notions anyway for a good laugh or whatever. But the joke's on all of us if it turned out that after a few thousand years, it's my little crap piece that found itself in the hands of future historians. Not knowing any better, they'd accept all things written on it as historical facts depicting the religious ways of our times.
Now turn your attention to the bible: isn't the fact that we have no historical details and certainty about the most important details, and less so about any criticism, signs that those old folks just chalked it off as good reading for their families at dinnertime? But here we are funny gullible fellows taking everything as absolute, unquestionable truths in our times.
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
Ah, I thought my little piece would be too good to pass for you and your little babbles. Need i remind you how our little conversation about this matter turned out for you?
Clearly you are misleading others here: no one is claiming the veracity of pre-Big Bang models, but give me any model coming from any religious source that could match the comprehensive details encapsulated in any of those models I gave you in that other thread. None? Of course, but you have your ever-ready reply: god works in mysterious ways.
But of the veracity of quantum fluctuations, Inflation Theory, Big Bang Theory, and Standard Model, you have to be off your rockers to claim otherwise. Have you posted your views yet pertaining those?
I find it hilarious how scientists themselves are up front in presenting their ideas as mere "proposals," "speculative hypotheses," "possible theories," as opposed to claiming they are "established" and "factual," and are even unambiguous in their delivery of these ideas in their scientific treatises by their frequent use of qualifying terms, such as “could,” “might,” and “may,” while on the contrary, some internet atheists have misconstrued these ideas as "established facts," and used them as avenue for their atheist evangelism and an opportunity to fire up their antitheist attack and propaganda on naive and pliable believers. Any smart, reflective and unbiased person, fully cognizant with 21st century science should be able to discriminate between science proper, and science tainted with apparent atheist prejudice as evidenced in its language and vocabulary choice, like your impertinent inclusion of the philosophical concepts such as "God" and the "Creator" and the overly misused and abused term "prove," which is enough to dismiss such science as bad science. There is nothing proven in science. There will never be "enough science" to "prove" any theory, And scientists themselves try to avoid that term in their formal scientific writings. Any statement that makes use of unscientific terms like "prove" and "disprove," and include unfalsifiable philosophical / religious concepts like "God" as a conclusion is not scientific itself. It is an ideological statement hell-bent on dis/proving a point. There is no room in science for ANY ideology, religious or otherwise. Science proper was not divorced from philosophy and religion/theology for it to be contaminated by antitheistic or any other ideological drivel. You are terribly misinformed If you think that all these new cosmonogical ideas and hypotheses are conclusively ruling out the need for God. These hypotheses in their unadulterated form officially published in scientific journals and scientific literature do not, at all, make a case for or against any unscientific and unfalsifiable idea. Your inclusion of the statement "There is no Creator" in your scientific explanation is an example of how a metaphysical implication derived from YOUR OWN understanding or interpretation of the scientific hypothesis is arbitrarily interjected there. The statement "There is no Creator" is a philosophical statement that does not address a scientific question and is not a valid scientific conclusion to the hypothesis. Any hypothesis written in a manner that includes such philosophical assertions don't get published in scientific journals or form part of scientific literature (which is the most objective and impartial body of knowledge). You can ONLY read them in popular-level books such as Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design, and Lawrence Krauss' A Universe from Nothing. They are ONLY published in popular science, a platform that allows ideologues to propagate their provocative and radical ideas which get rejected in scientific literature.
If you don't notice it, I have never expressed disapproval for any scientific idea or hypothesis nor am I arguing against any of it. I did not start this argument in the other thread in order to refute any such idea because all these ideas when put into their proper scientific perspective aren't really challenging nor refuting any mainstream religious belief. Religion is interpretive and even science itself is subject to interpretation. It is, rather, the hubris in your conveyance and your misconception of the status of these ideas that I have a problem with and I am objecting to for which I have successfully rebutted your incorrect notion of "well established facts" that you have presented in that other thread by showing you the scientific articles that state the opposite, and even pointing out to you the important caveat that you have heedlessly missed in one of the sources that you provided me in your hasty attempt to prove me wrong. Ironically, what you said in the post that I initially quoted which started the whole argument applies to you just as much as to the person you quoted. You are free to subscribe to any idea. But you can't go around telling people your subscribed idea is factual just because it is formed scientifically and that automatically invalidates their religious beliefs, and expect no one, properly informed on the subject, to call you out for that and correctt the error in your assertion.
And I fail to see how I'm the one "misleading others" here when I'm not the one who's making a POSITIVE claim over anything or stating my personal views regarding the origin of life or the univese and trying to pass them as facts. I'm not even making a claim AT ALL. All I did was basically reference the wikipedia articles that debunk your notion of "well-established facts" and expound on the relevant points of the topic that you seem to purposely ignore, That's my sole concern here.
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
It's either you still don't get it, or you are just deliberately muddling the essential issue. So which is which?
Your trouble starts from lumping together the scientific models of pre-Big-Bang—which as you say, are hypothetical, and which gets a nod from me—with those standard, generally accepted models, namely the accepted factuality of quantum fluctuations, Inflation Theory, the Big Bang Theory, the Standard Model that encompasses all these bodies of work, and even the details of the cosmic background radiation. In that other thread, I dared you to go back to the materials and tell me where in these last do you find your "might," "could," or "may." Do it. Then perhaps we have a discussion. Read and don't get lost in the details.
- - - Updated - - -
Okay, so just as I expected: nothing more forthcoming from you, just like the last time around in that other thread. I might have let you off easily before, seeing how you can’t help going on embarrassing yourself. Not this time I guess.
Too bad I have offended your divine sensibilities big time with my claims that there is enough science to show that matter and energy—as well as the entire universe, or universes, if you will—could pop out from nothing. I delved into the more advanced treatment of the subject and you went after it nose smoking like a deranged man on a mission. Too bad you missed the point entirely: Quixote chasing after the shadows of the windmills easily came to my mind, and that was funny, I tell you.
First, I told you to skip the pre-Big Bang theories and find what I have been talking about in the accepted models. That was too much to ask I guess, and you kept on conveniently treading the easy off-track road.
So: to cut to the chase, let’s get back to my humongous claims and find the science that support them. Again: there is no longer our pre-Big Bang model we are going to look into, but generally accepted science, in conformity with the Standard Model.
Quantum Fluctuations, Inflation Theory, and the Birth of Matter and the Universe
Inflation is today a part of the Standard Model of the Universe supported by the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and large scale structure (LSS) datasets. Inflation solves the horizon and flatness problems and naturally generates density fluctuations that seed LSS and CMB anisotropies, and tensor perturbations (primordial gravitational waves).
SOURCE
SOURCE
Let’s go over that highlighted part again, shall we: Inflation … naturally generates density fluctuations that seed LSS [large scale structures] and CMB [cosmic microwave background] anisotropies, and tensor perturbations (primordial gravitational waves).
Now you might conveniently shake off what it means, so let’s find a solution:
The inflation theory is a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe prior to the more gradual Big Bang expansion, during which time the energy density of the universe was dominated by a cosmological constant-type of vacuum energy that later decayed to produce the matter and radiation that fill the universe today.
SOURCE
Boy, that should have been easy first time around, ain't it? Now I’ll just stop here to leave you time to digest what I just posted.
You say you have "rebutted" my previous posts and went about spouting the usual fare of mental gymnastics to hide your ignorance and deliberate skipping of the essential scientific materials that would nullify your views. So let’s have you say that again, shall we?
Last edited:
a battle between unreliable religion versus undeniable science
- Status