Trivia Creation and Causality: Does Everything Need a Creator?

[Kaplok Kaplok]

The fine-tuning argument as a candidate in explaining the existence of the universe may be flawed but at least it kind of points out to something more plausible [like a fine-tuner may be?] compare to the assumption of random process that many atheists hold.

An problema nga po ay yung fallacious judgement na more plausible sya. How is it more plausible? You have to start with the assumption that it is intelligent design. However intelligence of a design is a human centric idea. At kung human centric lang din ang line of thinking, why ignore the property of the universe that annihilate instead of create?
In short, the idea fails to consider the other possibilities that could have been based on the one sample of a universe.

If you find the claim for God as fairy tale then it is fair to say that it is a fantasy to claim that a man is capable of becoming a woman and vice versa, which is a popular talking point of secular liberal lunatics.

This comment is assumptious, and does not have any connection with the topic at hand. Kung theist ka dahil sa emotional reasons mo against liberal socio-politics, isn't this a sign na invalid ang reasoning ng bias mo?

I agree that there is some element of fear in religion, but the point of instilling that fear is to encourage believers to do or act good otherwise the consequence is hell. This is not alien to us since our secular government is practicing this as well, which by the way is imported from a religious doctrine, specifically judeo-christian doctrine.

Fallacy again. Appeal to hypocrisy. Walang lugar sa scientific discourse ang ganitong thinking. Walang pupuntahan ang emotionally charged polarized arguments na ganito.

And wow, your following arguments...? Labas labas din ng bahay pag may time. The internet is not the world.

 

[N E G A N]

Mukhang mahirap ang sasabihin ko dahil medio conflict ang paniniwala ng creationist versus evolutionist. Ang creationist katulad ng Adam and Eve, literal speaking, kung babasehan ang biblia, wala talaga dinosaur sa written sacred text. Kahit bali-baligtarin pa ang ating world, 100 hundred percent wala. Ang meron lang is mga hayop. Yun lang. Kapag evolutionist, natural, kasama po diyan ang dinosaurs.

Alam niyo ba ang chicken? Hindi ko maalala kung what type of dinosaurs galing ang chicken pero meron siya. Hindi siya katulad ngayon na maliit ang chicken. Malaking dinosaur siya. Nakakatawa nga dahil ang kinakain natin ngayon na chicken, mas malaki siya kaysa sa atin ng panahon ng mga dinosaur. Basta. Nakakatawa. Pati ako, nagulat as in. Sobra.

Pagkatapos ang pinakamatagal na nag-evolve ay ang slot. Oo. Meron hayop na slot. Ito yun o. Tinawag na hayop na slot dahil sobra niyang bagal.​

View attachment 2930400
​

Um. Papaano ba ito? Feel ko kase hindi magkasundo ang creationist at evolutionist and so dinosaur? Kung same sila nag-exist? Hindi sila sabay. Tama. Mas nauna ang dinosaur bago ang tao. Bago kase ang tao, meron dinosaur and then nag evolve into animals pagkatapos andiyan na ang animals na nag evolve naman into human.

Pero kung mag aask na kung ang Adam at Eve na same existing sila sa panahon ng dinosaur..... parang conflict? Walang nakalagay sa bible na meron ginawa ang God na dinosaur but some Theist , isiningit nila ang dinosaur in the bible and so... you know? Meron ng dinosaur in the bible and hindi ko alam kung anong bible verse and hindi ko alam kung anong interpretation. If literal interpretation or more on symbolical or metaphorical interpretation. Hindi ko alam.

But meron dinosaur talaga. Nakita mismo ang buto ng mga dinosaur. Proof iyon na meron at nasa musuem po ang lahat ng patungkol sa dinosaur but in Adam and Eve.... wala e. Ang proof lang is galing bible. Wala na. Iyon lang.
​

Perfect sis

Pagsabihin kasi ng mga theist na hindi possible meaning fake ang bible kasi nakalagay sa genesis ginawa una ang hayop and then ang tao araw lang pagitan.

Pagsinabi namang possible mag exist together ay paki explain nalang kasi anlalaki nila hahaha and yung date ng mga fossils ng dinosaurs mas older pa kesa sa bungo ng tao.

 

[dummy01]

An problema nga po ay yung fallacious judgement na more plausible sya. How is it more plausible? You have to start with the assumption that it is intelligent design. However intelligence of a design is a human centric idea. At kung human centric lang din ang line of thinking, why ignore the property of the universe that annihilate instead of create?
In short, the idea fails to consider the other possibilities that could have been based on the one sample of a universe.

This comment is assumptious, and does not have any connection with the topic at hand. Kung theist ka dahil sa emotional reasons mo against liberal socio-politics, isn't this a sign na invalid ang reasoning ng bias mo?

Fallacy again. Appeal to hypocrisy. Walang lugar sa scientific discourse ang ganitong thinking. Walang pupuntahan ang emotionally charged polarized arguments na ganito.

And wow, your following arguments...? Labas labas din ng bahay pag may time. The internet is not the world.

It is funny you don't even understand my arguments. Welp, that is understandable in a typical internet atheist. Btw, if you don't get the news, the new atheism is dead because your Darwinian sacred cow is being thrown out as the amount of evidence against it is piling up and prove to be "fallacious" in explaining the existence of the universe from the cosmological standpoint down to the biological standpoint. So yeah, try presenting us more plausible ideas other than what the theists are constantly presenting to you since the death of Christ.

Side note: Your favorite atheist Richard Dawkins admitted that it is highly likely that there is a mind behind the design of a machine-like code of the DNA and the discovery in Microbiology regarding the mechanical circuit-like complex interactions of the cells. Right, intelligent design is fallacious to you and yet one of the four horsemen is admitting it. Who do you think the people here tends to believe more? You or Dawkins?

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

It is funny you don't even understand my arguments. Welp, that is understandable in a typical internet atheist. Btw, if you don't get the news, the new atheism is dead because your Darwinian sacred cow is being thrown out as the amount of evidence against it is piling up and prove to be "fallacious" in explaining the existence of the universe from the cosmological standpoint down to the biological standpoint. So yeah, try presenting us more plausible ideas other than what the theists are constantly presenting to you since the death of Christ.

Side note: Your favorite atheist Richard Dawkins admitted that it is highly likely that there is a mind behind the design of a machine-like code of the DNA and the discovery in Microbiology regarding the mechanical circuit-like complex interactions of the cells. Right, intelligent design is fallacious to you and yet one of the four horsemen is admitting it. Who do you think the people here tends to believe more? You or Dawkins?

No. It is not that i dont understand. Tingin ko ikaw hindi nakakaintindi kung bakit invalid ung argument mo. You are in too deep into ideologies.
Atheist don't have a claim. We are merely choosing the most plausible guess based on observation. In fact, it is theists who has a claim, atheists have been waiting for a logically sound argument and a tiny bit of evidence for your claim.

Kelan ko sinabi favorite ko si Dawkins? Yan problema sa mga ideology driven na tao tulad mo e. Palibhasa dinadaan niyo sa favoritism ang paniniwala nya, ipproject mo pa samin.

One of the four horsemen admitting something doea not constitute a proof of anything. Ilatag mo ung argument, himayin natin with logic.

 

[kruizer]

Good argument po yan on the side of science you cant create things out of thin air that means meron talagang pinag mulan ang isang bagay, so sa theory neto is na rereason out niya na ang mga living organisms ay nag mula sa non living or abio-genesis.

So isa sa lesson naman name sa philosophy is ang watchmaker. It can be said na walang watch kung walang watch maker. God is the watchmaker and we are the watch.

Mythological/cultural point of view lots of things were depicted on our culture on how life started such as goddess and goddesses who gifted us life.

In every aspect of different beliefs each are all different. The point of having something to believe is to bring color to life to explore and understand the past. Whether your religious or not a heart full of compassion and love to people is all that matter.

 

[dummy01]

No. It is not that i dont understand. Tingin ko ikaw hindi nakakaintindi kung bakit invalid ung argument mo. You are in too deep into ideologies.
Atheist don't have a claim. We are merely choosing the most plausible guess based on observation. In fact, it is theists who has a claim, atheists have been waiting for a logically sound argument and a tiny bit of evidence for your claim.

Kelan ko sinabi favorite ko si Dawkins? Yan problema sa mga ideology driven na tao tulad mo e. Palibhasa dinadaan niyo sa favoritism ang paniniwala nya, ipproject mo pa samin.

One of the four horsemen admitting something doea not constitute a proof of anything. Ilatag mo ung argument, himayin natin with logic.

It is not my problem if you do not get my stances and I am not oblige to do so. You are not that special, you know. Let's finish it here since you have no counter to my counter arguments. I am not doing a thesis here to get examine by you and then accept your prattle one-sidedly. You stating that atheists are not claiming of anything only shows your lack of foundation of what atheism even is. Fine, I take back that Dawkins is your favorite atheist (how presumptuous of me, haha). I'll take the L on that part. But only that part just so you know. Btw no one is claiming here that Dawkins admission is a proof that constitute theism is right, so get that idea out of your mind.

Side note: If you take back and state you are wrong about your dismissive statement on the fine-tuning argument, I might consider engaging again, otherwise forget it.

Good argument po yan on the side of science you cant create things out of thin air that means meron talagang pinag mulan ang isang bagay, so sa theory neto is na rereason out niya na ang mga living organisms ay nag mula sa non living or abio-genesis.

So isa sa lesson naman name sa philosophy is ang watchmaker. It can be said na walang watch kung walang watch maker. God is the watchmaker and we are the watch.

Mythological/cultural point of view lots of things were depicted on our culture on how life started such as goddess and goddesses who gifted us life.

In every aspect of different beliefs each are all different. The point of having something to believe is to bring color to life to explore and understand the past. Whether your religious or not a heart full of compassion and love to people is all that matter.

Unfortunately, the user I quoted above failed to comprehend it, which is not that suprising. To dismiss and say the fine-tuning argument is fallacious that observational cosmology, theoretical physics, and microbiology is considering it a strong candidate in explaining the genesis of the universe and life says everything about how this user thinks. No matter how credible the evidences you present to them, they'd stick to their NPC mode of 'there is no God'. For demonstration, there's a hypothetical scenario to challenge the atheists that if granted that God or Jesus himself came down in heaven and personally say I am God and points them to look up at the cosmos as the stars and galaxies rearranged themselves with a statement 'I am God of the universe' in different languages, they still won't believe it. They would rather considered it as hallucinatory or made by aliens or something else than admit that it is what it is. Thus, convincing them to believe is already a lost cause.

 

[jayendecastro]

It is not my problem if you do not get my stances and I am not oblige to do so. You are not that special, you know. Let's finish it here since you have no counter to my counter arguments. I am not doing a thesis here to get examine by you and then accept your prattle one-sidedly. You stating that atheists are not claiming of anything only shows your lack of foundation of what atheism even is. Fine, I take back that Dawkins is your favorite atheist (how presumptuous of me, haha). I'll take the L on that part. But only that part just so you know. Btw no one is claiming here that Dawkins admission is a proof that constitute theism is right, so get that idea out of your mind.

Side note: If you take back and state you are wrong about your dismissive statement on the fine-tuning argument, I might consider engaging again, otherwise forget it.


Unfortunately, the user I quoted above failed to comprehend it, which is not that suprising. To dismiss and say the fine-tuning argument is fallacious that observational cosmology, theoretical physics, and microbiology is considering it a strong candidate in explaining the genesis of the universe and life says everything about how this user thinks. No matter how credible the evidences you present to them, they'd stick to their NPC mode of 'there is no God'. For demonstration, there's a hypothetical scenario to challenge the atheists that if granted that God or Jesus himself came down in heaven and personally say I am God and points them to look up at the cosmos as the stars and galaxies rearranged themselves with a statement 'I am God of the universe' in different languages, they still won't believe it. They would rather considered it as hallucinatory or made by aliens or something else than admit that it is what it is. Thus, convincing them to believe is already a lost cause.

Sa ganang hypothetical scenario i will not have a problem in believing in whatever god that will be… pero pano kung its not the same god that u believe in?? What would u do then?? Tska whats stopping ur god for doing just that para matapos na ung confusion at questions about him??

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Perfect sis

Pagsabihin kasi ng mga theist na hindi possible meaning fake ang bible kasi nakalagay sa genesis ginawa una ang hayop and then ang tao araw lang pagitan.

Pagsinabi namang possible mag exist together ay paki explain nalang kasi anlalaki nila hahaha and yung date ng mga fossils ng dinosaurs mas older pa kesa sa bungo ng tao.​

Hmm. Hindi ko sure kung pwede ko masabi na fake ang bible. Hindi ko din alam. Depende po kase sa interpretasyon ng tao. Maraming interpretasyon. Meron literal interpretation, meron allegorical interpretation, meron metaphorical interpretation pagkatapos meron symbolical...... I mean hindi ko din alam dahil depende sa interpretation ng tao sa bible po e but as far na alam ko , well , kapag sasabihin na literal interpretation ang Adam and Eve , you know? Tipong literal na literal na ginawa si Adam sa lupa at pagkatapos na literal na literal na si Eve galing sa ribs ni Adam ay for me , hindi siya acceptable sa akin. Impossible. Iyon. Fake talaga siya. Fake ang bible kung ganoon ang intepretation pero kapag halimbawa , symbolical lang siya or metaphorical lang po.... mga ganun po, medio acceptable pa sa akin.

For me kase, kapag ang interpretation na hindi literal , ina-associate siya sa reality like yung symbol is Eve na humanity. Na forgot ko naman kung anong symbol ni Adam. Meron kase ako na basa na ganun. Hindi siya literal interpretation. Ayun. Acceptable pa sa akin.

Ang problem lang kase.... ah.... as a human being , tao lang tayo para mag-ask ng question kung ano ang totoo intepretasyon ng bible talaga and so , ayun , magulo. Siguro , faith na lang ng tao iyon o depende lang din sa tao kung saan siya align based on conscience at based sa kung ano ang nararamdaman niya. Ganun.

But meron ibang theist (Ibang theist lang naman) na some written content ng bible ay ina-associate nila sa science. Meron ibang theist pero hindi lahat ng theist. And so, pang reality based ika nga dahil siyempre, facts raw ang science , sabi ng ibang tao. Again , depende sa interpretation kung anong fit in para sa ibang tao.

Interpretasyon lang ata nagkakagulo-gulo. I think. Siguro, iyon ang rason why hindi magkakasundo ang tao pagdating sa paniniwala.​

 

[N E G A N]

Hmm. Hindi ko sure kung pwede ko masabi na fake ang bible. Hindi ko din alam. Depende po kase sa interpretasyon ng tao. Maraming interpretasyon. Meron literal interpretation, meron allegorical interpretation, meron metaphorical interpretation pagkatapos meron symbolical...... I mean hindi ko din alam dahil depende sa interpretation ng tao sa bible po e but as far na alam ko , well , kapag sasabihin na literal interpretation ang Adam and Eve , you know? Tipong literal na literal na ginawa si Adam sa lupa at pagkatapos na literal na literal na si Eve galing sa ribs ni Adam ay for me , hindi siya acceptable sa akin. Impossible. Iyon. Fake talaga siya. Fake ang bible kung ganoon ang intepretation pero kapag halimbawa , symbolical lang siya or metaphorical lang po.... mga ganun po, medio acceptable pa sa akin.

For me kase, kapag ang interpretation na hindi literal , ina-associate siya sa reality like yung symbol is Eve na humanity. Na forgot ko naman kung anong symbol ni Adam. Meron kase ako na basa na ganun. Hindi siya literal interpretation. Ayun. Acceptable pa sa akin.

Ang problem lang kase.... ah.... as a human being , tao lang tayo para mag-ask ng question kung ano ang totoo intepretasyon ng bible talaga and so , ayun , magulo. Siguro , faith na lang ng tao iyon o depende lang din sa tao kung saan siya align based on conscience at based sa kung ano ang nararamdaman niya. Ganun.

But meron ibang theist (Ibang theist lang naman) na some written content ng bible ay ina-associate nila sa science. Meron ibang theist pero hindi lahat ng theist. And so, pang reality based ika nga dahil siyempre, facts raw ang science , sabi ng ibang tao. Again , depende sa interpretation kung anong fit in para sa ibang tao.

Interpretasyon lang ata nagkakagulo-gulo. I think. Siguro, iyon ang rason why hindi magkakasundo ang tao pagdating sa paniniwala.​

so believer karin sis?

 

[Asherah Goddess]

so believer karin sis?

Hindi po kase ako Theist po. Deist po ako. Naniniwala ako na create ang mundo pero hindi based on kung ano ang sinasabi sa biblia. Naniniwala ako from the universe and then nabuo ang mundo, and then nag-evolve ang hayop sa tao. Natural process na papaano na create ang earth na naniniwala ako na meron God pero ang God for me is natural. Hindi siya maipaliwanag at hindi siya measurable. Kase, abstract siya. Eternal siya kung baga. Abstract siya na kasing abstract siya ng universe dahil ang universe is hindi siya pwede emeasure or hindi siya pwede masukat dahil beyond na siya sa limited ng ating consciousness. Tao lang kase tayo. Limit lang ang knowledge natin. Unlike sa Theist, well, kailangan pa nila kilalanin ang God na parang tao. Then kilala din ng tao ang God nila bilang masculine. Kilala din nila bilang mapagparusa. Kilala din nila na nalulungkot daw siya, nagagalit, nagseselos.... basta. Masakit sa utak. Haha. Sorry, mga Theist. Haha. Hindi ko kase ma comprehend na papaano nasusukat ng Theist ang concept nila about their God. Haha. Sorry talaga. Baka meron ma offend na Theist.

Hindi nga. Para sa akin lang. Papaano nila nasusukat ang concept of their God? Ang sabi ng ibang Theist, nagpakita raw kay Abraham. Ayun. Pagkatapos sabi pa na keyso ang relihiyon lang nila ang true dahil nga nagpakita nga siya kay Abraham. Ganun ang concept of God nila na talaga nasusukat nila at alam na alam nga nila na detail at literal na ganun ang nangyari. Wala ng iba pa.​

 

[N E G A N]

Hindi po kase ako Theist po. Deist po ako. Naniniwala ako na create ang mundo pero hindi based on kung ano ang sinasabi sa biblia. Naniniwala ako from the universe and then nabuo ang mundo, and then nag-evolve ang hayop sa tao. Natural process na papaano na create ang earth na naniniwala ako na meron God pero ang God for me is natural. Hindi siya maipaliwanag at hindi siya measurable. Kase, abstract siya. Eternal siya kung baga. Abstract siya na kasing abstract siya ng universe dahil ang universe is hindi siya pwede emeasure or hindi siya pwede masukat dahil beyond na siya sa limited ng ating consciousness. Tao lang kase tayo. Limit lang ang knowledge natin. Unlike sa Theist, well, kailangan pa nila kilalanin ang God na parang tao. Then kilala din ng tao ang God nila bilang masculine. Kilala din nila bilang mapagparusa. Kilala din nila na nalulungkot daw siya, nagagalit, nagseselos.... basta. Masakit sa utak. Haha. Sorry, mga Theist. Haha. Hindi ko kase ma comprehend na papaano nasusukat ng Theist ang concept nila about their God. Haha. Sorry talaga. Baka meron ma offend na Theist.

Hindi nga. Para sa akin lang. Papaano nila nasusukat ang concept of their God? Ang sabi ng ibang Theist, nagpakita raw kay Abraham. Ayun. Pagkatapos sabi pa na keyso ang relihiyon lang nila ang true dahil nga nagpakita nga siya kay Abraham. Ganun ang concept of God nila na talaga nasusukat nila at alam na alam nga nila na detail at literal na ganun ang nangyari. Wala ng iba pa.​

Ahh I see. may deist pala hehe.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

You stating that atheists are not claiming of anything only shows your lack of foundation of what atheism even is.

So nakikipag argue ka sa kung ano ung tingin mong claim ko as an atheist? bale wala pala kung position ko kasi nasa isip mo lang ung ka debate mo..

himayin natin kung ano ibig sabihin ng salitang atheism.

a= not theism=believe in dieties. It is merely a lack of belief in gods or goddesses. bakit walang belief? because atheist are unconvinced.
ang problems, ang mga fanatic ng mythologies ay emotionally attached as paniniwala nila, kaya para makipag argue sila, they need a an alternate belief for them to be convinced with. nakakabit kasi ang paniniwala nila sa sense of security. as a result, binabaliktad nila ang burden of proof sa mga taong hindi kumbinsido sa claim nila.

Pero in reality, atheism and agnosticism is just one and the same for the most part. they do not claim to know the origin of the universe. they are aware that they are making guesses based on the observed reality. atheist do not cling to big bang as much as theist claim to faith. This is the simply the most plausible with all the evidence we have. You can invalidate it if you want, but of course, you will need a more compelling evidence than what supports the big bang, hindi young puro kuda ng ideologies.

 

[dummy01]

Sa ganang hypothetical scenario i will not have a problem in believing in whatever god that will be… pero pano kung its not the same god that u believe in?? What would u do then?? Tska whats stopping ur god for doing just that para matapos na ung confusion at questions about him??

If that is the case then I'll do what a rational person would do. Accept it as what it is. Although imho it is highly unlikely that is the case, since the traditions and the book I based my theistic belief, which is continuously being scrutinized up to this day, still stand. I do not have answer to your last question because, honestly, I do not know. However, the discoveries in Science that have strong case for the intelligibility of the universe compels me to believe that it is likely to be true (i.e. there is a mind behind the creation). Newton, Pascal, and Bacon who had been influenced by their theistic beliefs to pursue Science were something that should never be undermined. The debate between materialism and theism boils down to the question of what arises first? Is it mind or is it matter? Theism is pointing us to the idea that a Being with a conscious mind capable of creation, and mankind as the product of His mind created in His image, we are capable of making our own creation and capable of discovering and recognizing the physical laws originated from a Lawmaker. It has explanatory power because we too are conscious beings quite capable of creating new things using the natural laws we discern. On the other hand, materialism has its physical limitation since the mind is untestable due to its immaterial quality. The explanation some may come up with is the hypothetical self-driven process that could be derived from a random natural selection, that has yet to be demonstrated.

 

[jayendecastro]

If that is the case then I'll do what a rational person would do. Accept it as what it is. Although imho it is highly unlikely that is the case, since the traditions and the book I based my theistic belief, which is continuously being scrutinized up to this day, still stand. I do not have answer to your last question because, honestly, I do not know. However, the discoveries in Science that have strong case for the intelligibility of the universe compels me to believe that it is likely to be true (i.e. there is a mind behind the creation). Newton, Pascal, and Bacon who had been influenced by their theistic beliefs to pursue Science were something that should never be undermined. The debate between materialism and theism boils down to the question of what arises first? Is it mind or is it matter? Theism is pointing us to the idea that a Being with a conscious mind capable of creation, and mankind as the product of His mind created in His image, we are capable of making our own creation and capable of discovering and recognizing the physical laws originated from a Lawmaker. It has explanatory power because we too are conscious beings quite capable of creating new things using the natural laws we discern. On the other hand, materialism has its physical limitation since the mind is untestable due to its immaterial quality. The explanation some may come up with is the hypothetical self-driven process that could be derived from a random natural selection, that has yet to be demonstrated.

Andun na ung sagot… “u dont know”… neither do i or anyone else… ur trying to promote the idea na dahil unlikely ang materialism, natural selection or whatever scientific explanation eh automatic may god na agad.. a rational person would ask for proof of something before nea pniwalaan ang isang bagay.. disproving one thing is not a proof for something else…. What it really boils down to eh kung alin ang may proof.. alin ang may evidence…
Even ung mga scientists na nmention mo despite their religious influences eh none of them have proven the existence of a god…none.. sabi mo nga accept it for what it is.. and what it is now eh we dont know..i dont know about you pero di ko habit ang maniwala sa bagay na i dont know…

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Andun na ung sagot… “u dont know”… neither do i or anyone else… ur trying to promote the idea na dahil unlikely ang materialism, natural selection or whatever scientific explanation eh automatic may god na agad.. a rational person would ask for proof of something before nea pniwalaan ang isang bagay.. disproving one thing is not a proof for something else…. What it really boils down to eh kung alin ang may proof.. alin ang may evidence…
Even ung mga scientists na nmention mo despite their religious influences eh none of them have proven the existence of a god…none.. sabi mo nga accept it for what it is.. and what it is now eh we dont know..i dont know about you pero di ko habit ang maniwala sa bagay na i dont know…

In the grand scheme.. lahat naman tlga tayo ay agnostic.. even the so-called theist. Ang problema, merong mga mechanisms ang preaching ng religion that muddies the water in discussion of what they know and what they believe.

Isa pa, theism is highly driven by human emotion and limited point of view, including lahat ng criticsm nila sa scientific theory at kulang sa questioning. For example, yung belief na dapat may intelligent being behind the universe. Besides the fact na weak ang basis na conclusion iyon, even if that is true, It still does not prove if that is the God in the Bible. It could equally be Satan, or the god of another religions.

 

[jayendecastro]

In the grand scheme.. lahat naman tlga tayo ay agnostic.. even the so-called theist. Ang problema, merong mga mechanisms ang preaching ng religion that muddies the water in discussion of what they know and what they believe.

Isa pa, theism is highly driven by human emotion and limited point of view, including lahat ng criticsm nila sa scientific theory at kulang sa questioning. For example, yung belief na dapat may intelligent being behind the universe. Besides the fact na weak ang basis na conclusion iyon, even if that is true, It still does not prove if that is the God in the Bible. It could equally be Satan, or the god of another religions.

Yup.. patong patong na levels yan that they did need to prove.. kahit the fine-tuning argument needs to be proven na fine-tuned nga, na may “nagtune” and that being is a god.. and that god is their specific god… that logic applies sa “creator” and “lawmaker” argument nila..