ok lang pagbintangan mo ko... nde ko rin kasi alam eh hehehehe let's just say god, or the idea of god, is never quantifiable through human language (kaya nga sa puso na lang daw sabi ni boss oblak)... so you can classify/brand me in any way you want as any ordinary fundie or and old-timer inquisitor and i'll be more than happy to concur

i havent called you any names yet. that is why i had asked for you to identify a stance on religion or the idea of God so that i would not go ahead to conclude.

i'm not saying you did, although i'm giving you permission, if that could help you paint a better picture of me

you seem hot headed lately, eh? kelangan mo ngang pakalasing

sabi nila, kaya lang daw nabanggit ang Diyos para matakot na di gumawa ng masama.

Pwede naman tayong gumawa ng mabuti kahit di natin sya isipin ahhh... pero lagi ko syang naiisip!

Mabuhay ka geebee!!!

Napabilib mo ako sa sagot mo. Tama ka, pwede naman tayong gumawa ng mabuti ng hindi iniisip ang dios. Ang paggawa ng kabutihan ay magandang kusang lumalabas na lang at hindi kailangang isipin muna ang dios o bibliya para lang makagawa tayo ng kabutihan. (Although maaari din namang makatulong ang mga konseptong ito at konseptong nilalaman nito sa atin) Atsaka palagay ko, hindi dapat takot sa dios ang dapat pairalin para makagawa ng kabutihan. Ang paggawa ng kabutihan ay nanggagaling sa pagmamahal mula sa puso natin. Meron akong ipapabahagi sa'yo na magandang aral mula kay Gautama Buddha:

Si Buddha at ang sinimulan nyang uri ng Buddhism (Theravada) ay hindi naniniwala sa mga dios na sakop sa konsepto ng deities. Pero kahit wala silang mga kinikilalang deities, mga spiritual ang mga taong ito at mga mababait at may busilak na puso.

pwede naman tayong gumawa ng mabuti ng walang dios
at pwede rin naman tayong gmawa ng masama ng walang demonyo
pwede kang makagawa ng mabuti kahit wala kang kinikilalang dios
at pwede kang gumawa ng masama kahit maka dios ka

pero ang dios ba ay para panuntunan ng mga gawa kung sila ay mabuti o masama?

maganda nga ang turo ni gautama... doubt everything. I say everything mr mulder. trust no one mr mulder. they're out to get you mr.mulder. in the meantime, care to hear my group's beliefs? hahahha

share ko lang, baka makatulong!
I find this a very interesting example:
It seems to be a good logical answer.

A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut
and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to
work, they began to have a good conversation.
They talked about so many things and various
subjects. When they eventually touched on the
subject of God, the barber said: "I don't believe
that God exists." "Why do you say that?" asked
the customer. "Well, you just have to go out in the
street to realize that God doesn't exist. Tell me, if
God exists, would there be so many sick people?
Would there be abandoned children? If God
existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I
can't imagine a loving a God who would allow all
of these things." The customer thought for a
moment, but didn't respond because he didn't
want to start an argument. The barber finished his
job and the customer left the shop. Just after he
left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street
with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed
beard. He looked dirty and unkempt. The
customer turned back and entered the barber
shop again and he said to the barber: "You know
what? Barbers do not exist." "How can you say
that?" asked the surprised barber. "I am here, and
I am a barber. And I just worked on you!" "No!" the
customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist because
if they did, there would be no people with dirty long
hair and untrimmed beards, like that man
outside." "Ah, but barbers DO exist! " answered
the barber. "What happens, is, people do not
come to me. " "Exactly!"- affirmed the
customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist!
What happens, is, people don't go to Him and do
not look for Him. That's why there's so much pain
and suffering in the world."

Ayos yan, geebee!

Yang sinabi ng barbero, lumang tugtugin na yan. Diyan mo maririnig yung mga omni-omni na sinasabi ng mga taong hindi naniniwala sa Dios (e.g. omnipotent, omniscient) . Heto ang argumento nung barbero:

Maraming naghihirap at nasasaktan sa mundo.

Ang Dios ay perpekto
Ang Dios ay walang hanggan ang kapangyarihan.
Ang Dios ay walang hanggan ang pagkabait.

Kung ang Dios ay may walang hanggang kapangyarihan at bait, bakit meron pa rin paghihirap sa mundo?

Pwede nating isipin itong mga ilang posibilidad:

1. Hindi naman talaga walang hanggan ang kapangyarihan nya (meron din siyang hangganan o mga bagay na hindi nya magagawa)

- Kung iisipin natin, nagkakamali ba ang Dios? Kung oo, hindi natin siguro pwedeng sabihing perpekto ang Dios kung ganun. Kung hindi naman, eh di isa ito sa bagay na hindi nya kaya; ang maranasan ang pagkakamali.


2. Walang hanggan ang kapangyarihan niya pero hindi sya mabait palagi.

- Ewan ko ha, pero kung totoo ito, mukhang may punto nga.


3. Gusto lang niyang turuan ng leksyon ang mga tao (sa “freewill” nila) – ang mga paghihirap at pighati nila ay para na rin sa ikabubuti nila.

- Okay siguro ito sa mga taong sukdulan ang kasamaan. Gumawa sila ng kalokohan, sige… dapat lang turuan sila ng leksyon para maisatuwid nila ang buhay nila. Pero paano naman yung mga hindi sukdulan ang kasamaan? Paano yung mga inosenteng bata na namatay o naulila sa Tsunami? Paano yung mga Hudyong pinapatay ni Hitler noong World War II? Paano yung mga taong naulila? Sa tingin mo ba makakatingin ka ng derecho sa mga mata nung mga naulila at sabihin derecha sa kanila na ang Dios na may walang hanggang kapangyarihan na may kakayahang pigilan ang paghihirap at pagpatay sa mga mahal nila sa buhay, ay hinayaang mangyari ang mga karumaldumal na bagay na iyon para sa ikabubuti nila?

Kung susuriin natin, tila nililimita lang ng barbero ang argumento nya sa mga characteristics na kapangyarihan at bait ng Dios. Kung wala yung mga characteristics na yon, para sa barbero, ito ay nangangahulugang walang Dios. Hindi ito logical.


Puntahan naman natin yung argumento ng customer. Para sa kanya, kung merong mga gusgusin at mahahaba ang buhok na tao, ibig sabihin ay walang barbero. Maganda ang banat ng customer dahil naipamukha niya sa barbero na hindi logical ang argumento niya, lalu’t kung ang basehan lang niya ay ang mga characteristics ng Dios na tinitingnan niya. Pero kahit na naipamukha ng customer ang maling argumento ng barbero, hindi pa rin nangangahulugan na mayroon ngang Dios na may walang hanggang kapangyarihan at bait (na nasa langit at huhusga sa atin).

Ang naipakita lang ng customer ay baluktot ang argumento ng barbero – hindi pa rin niya napapatunayan na may Dios nga.

geebee, it's a nice story... but it doesn't necessarily mean it's a logical answer to the question regarding the existence of God.

Atsaka before we start asserting the existence or inexistence of God, can anyone give "the" definition of "God" and "exist"? - this question is meant to make all of us pause for a moment before attacking anyone else's beliefs.

Kahit maayos lahat ng buhok ng tao sa mundo, nde ibig sabihin ay may barbero. Pwede nilang gupitan ang sarili nila, o kaya ng isang marunong pero nde barbero.

Pwede rin namang magulo ang buhok ng lahat ng tao sa mundo, pero may barbero. Yun nga walang gustong magpagupit.

Works both ways, so the story is irrevocably irrelevant to the discussion of god's existence. If you knew your point, you won't have to quote

Teke, BARBERO yun ah! Baket nya kasi pinaniwalaan?!? Barbero nga eh

kaya ko pinost tong story na to ay di ibig sabihin naniniwala na ko! gusto ko lang malaman nyo kung ano ang ibig ipahiwatig ng kwento. hindi ako naniniwala dun sa barbero pero naniniwala ako sa kwento.

pwede mong gupitan ang sarili mo o magpagupit sa iba na di lumalapit sa barbero tulad ng sinabi mo.
pwede kang mabuhay ng di lumalapit sa Diyos. di kaman nya uubligahin na lumapit sa kanya.

ang pagkakaiba lang ng 2 ay... ang iba kaya ayaw lumapit sa barbero dahil walang pambayad, sa Diyos makakalapit ka kahit sino ka pa, kahit wala kang pera!

Walang problema, geebee. Naiintindihan ka naman namin ni boss tertullian.

Kung mapapansin mo sa sagot ko sa'yo, hindi ko naman sinasabi kung naniniwala kang may Dios o wala. Okay lang naman sa akin kung maniwala ka o hindi eh, nasa sa iyo yan; nasa puso mo at walang sinuman ang makakadikta sa iyo kung ano ang dapat paniwalaan. Sabi nga ng Sexbomb girls "Kung ano ang nasa puso mo sundin mo!"

Yung akin ay tungkol dun sa istorya na ipinabahagi mo sa amin. Ang paksa kasi ay tungkol sa existence ng Dios, hindi ba? Sabi mo:

Yung binanggit mo na parang logical answer itong istoryang ito, logical answer sa anong tanong? Hindi ba ito sa tanong kung may Dios ba o wala?

Hindi nangangahulugan na kahit sa pananaw mo ay logical answer yung mensahe ng istorya ay naniniwala ka nang may Dios. Kaya huwag kang mag-alala, hindi kita inaakusahan o kinokontra sa pananaw mo kung may Dios nga ba o wala. Ang akin lang ay ang pagsusuri ng pagka-logical nung istorya ukol sa pagsagot sa katanungan kung may Dios nga o wala.

Yung istorya, sa aking pananaw, ay nagpapakita lang ng baluktot na katuwiran ng barbero sa pagke-claim na walang Dios. Pero kahit na ipinakita ng customer ang baluktot na katwiran ng barbero, hindi pa rin ito patunay na may Dios nga.

Ganito yan:

A. Sabi ni customer ay may Dios daw.

B. Baluktot ang rason ng barbero.

Kung gusto nating i-establish na tama ang A (may Dios) tapos ibinigay natin ang B na ebidensya, okay nating sabihin na "A is true because of B".

Ang problema, ebidensya nga ba ang B sa existence ng Dios? Kung totoong baluktot ang B, paano nito napapatunayang totoo o tama nga ang A?

Yun ang gusto kong ipahiwatig. Na yung istorya, naipakita man nito ang kabaluktutan ng rason nung barbero, hindi nangangahulugang logical answer ito sa katanungan ng existence ng Dios.

Sige geebee, ingat na lang. Kita ulit tayo sa barberya!

no prob mang oblak!

hmmmm malalim na topic ... Alpha at Omega ang katumbas nito

Anyway ... lets start by the text on the book of Wisdom
authored by King Solomon

Chapter 1 : On seeking GOD and rejecting evil
Verse 1~3

===================================================
Love Virtue, you who are judges on earth
Let honesty prompt your thinking about the LORD,
seek HIM in simplicity of heart;
since HE is to be found by those who do not put HIM to the test,
HE shows HIMSELF to those who do not distrust HIM.
but selfish intensions divorce from GOD;
and omnipotence, put to the test, confounds the foolish
===================================================

One of the points of King solomon is OMNIPOTENCE of GOD

This is what Tertullian say about OMNIPOTENCE of GOD

===================================================
In one sense there will be something difficult even for God - namely, that which
He has not done - not because He could not, but because He would not, do it. For
with God, to be willing is to be able, and to be unwilling is to be unable; all that
He has willed, however, He has both been able to accomplish, and has displayed His ability.

— Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter X [1]
===================================================

To doubt the existence of GOD is simply to PROCLAIM the questions that starts with
"WHY" can be answered by HUMAN LOGIC alone.

Science as the propagation of the LOGIC of MAN .. can explain HOW the sun
shines ... but it can never explain WHY it SHINES ... it can explain HOW the SUN
is "YELLOW" but WHY is it YELLOW ... cannot be answered.

GOD is in heaven [though omnipresent] ... even JESUS explains HIS kingdom
is not here on earth.

So how does MAN asks the EXISTENCE of GOD when it was the PRESENCE of GOD
that HE is actually trying to be answered.

People tends to be confused between PRESENCE and EXISTENCE.

These are very different things. EXISTENCE does not neccessarily
means PRESENCE. Substance EXIST even if they are not PRESENT

An analogy of this is if a man ask about the idea of an internet on
the 18th century ... no one will answer him ... simply because ... the
pre-requisite of the existence of internet is not present .. but it does
not mean it does not EXIST or will not EXIST. Ofcourse it exist but
was only revealed through time.

Second analogy is the ripple on the water in a bowl. Suppose I placed
a bowl of water in a table. As the water becomes still in the bowl I placed
my finger and created a ripple of tiny waves that starts from the center to
the walling of the bowl. The EXISTENCE of the ripple is not associated by
the PRESENCE of the bowl-water dimension but was attributed from the
an EFFECT of external substance that is not part of that dimension ..
which is my hand ofcourse.

The EXISTENCE of GOD can also be attributed by the EFFECT surrounding us.
The rays of SUN's LIGHT is not part of the dimension of EARTH but we can feel
it and be enlightened by it. When there is EXTERNAL EFFECT ... there is an
EXISTENCE of GOD.


ewan .. mahirap pa rin ba .... hehehe ...o sya sya .... dito nlang tayo sa wikain ni
san agustin

LATIN
====
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides;
cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis -

ENGLISH
======
Faith is to believe what you do not see;
the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.

Just want to contribute the following arguments in favor of God's existence copy pasted from various articles of supporters of Theism:

Evidence for the Existence of God

Argument # 1

1. First Cause Argument ¡V Nothing can come out of nothing, all things came into existence because of a cause.

Formally stated:

a. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence

b.The universe began to exist because on the impossibility of an actual infinite and the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition. In simple terms:

Why can't the past be infinite? The answer is that it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to count to infinity? It is impossible because, no matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to complete an actual infinite by successive addition.
The past is complete. This claim means that the entire series of past events ends now. It ends today. Tomorrow is not part of the series of past events. The series of past events does not extend into the future. It is complete at the present. If it is impossible to complete an infinite series by successive addition (as it is impossible to count to infinity) the past cannot be infinite. If the past is finite, that is, if it had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning. This supports the position that a Creator caused the existence of the universe.

c. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Is the Creator outside of space and time? Yes, we have established above that the Creator is the cause of the existence of the universe. He exist before the universe, hence, he also caused time and space to exist. Since He is not bound by time and space of the universe, He is eternal.

Scientific Support:

„X Support from the Big Bang Theory ¡V According to this theory sometime in the finite past, about 15 billion years ago, the universe is contracted to a single mathematical point which marks the origin of the universe. But objects at rest like this singularity will remain at rest unless acted by an outside force; and yet, since it contained all matter and energy, nothing existed outside of this singularity that could have caused it to explode. Who detonated the singularity to explode and become the universe? This supports the argument that a Creator caused the universe to exist.

„X According to the second law of thermodynamics, processes taking place in a closed system always tend toward a state of equilibrium. This implies that given enough time, since the universe is a closed system, the universe will reach a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, known as the "heat death" of the universe. This death may be hot or cold, depending on whether the universe will expand forever or eventually re-contract. Now the question which needs to be asked is this: if, given sufficient time, the universe will reach heat death, then why is it not now in a state of heat death if it has existed for infinite time? If the universe did not begin to exist, then it should now be in a state of equilibrium. Hence, the universe began to exist and has a cause.

Argument # 2

2. The Design Argument – The laws and constants of nature are so “finely-tuned” or calculated that implies the presence of intelligence in the planning of all creation. The intricacy and “finely-tuned” design of our universe implies a Designer, a God.

Formally stated:
a. The universe began to exist
b. The universe has complexity, order and fine-tuning
c. Complexity, order and fine-tuning imply design
d. Design that began to exist implies a designer
e. Therefore, the universe has a designer

Examples of the finely adjusted/calculated design of the universe:

a. If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop

b. If we nudge one of the constants of nature (Planck’s constant, etc. see annex A) just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.

Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal "Scientific American", reflects on

“how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values”

Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium.

But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:

One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning -- The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.

This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,

but instead:

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,

there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:
the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.

Could the existence of life be random?

Robert Shapiro cites Nobel laureate Sir Fred Hoyle's calculation of the odds of a bacterium spontaneously generating [p.127]. At first Hoyle and his colleague, N. C. Wickramasinghe, endorsed spontaneous generation, but reversed their position once they calculated the odds.

A typical bacterium, which is the simplest of cells, is made up of 2,000 enzymes. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe took the probability of randomly assembling one enzyme and multiplied that number by itself 2,000 times to calculate the odds of a single bacterium randomly coming together. Those odds are 1 in 1040,000. Oh yes, according to the Big Bang the universe is only 15 billion years old. It means life happening in random are too improbable since 15 billion years is not enough to produce a simple cell in random.

Each example makes it less likely that the universe was created at random and more likely that it was designed by a Creator that takes an interest in humanity. Once all of this evidence is taken into account, the argument from design concludes, there can be no question as to whether the universe just happens to be fit for life or whether it was deliberately created that way; the universe clearly exhibits the marks of intelligent design, a Designer, a Creator, a God.