The Hindu / Buddhist Belief in God and the Universe (mahaba) [Archive] - Timog Forum

sweetscrazy

10-20-2007, 04:47 PM

Maraming nagtatanong kung ano ang explanation ng Buddhism and Hinduism about God and why there is Creation and why is there suffering. Everything can be explained logically (without depending on blind belief, unlike Abrahamic / Semitic religions like Christianity and Islam). I've summarized Buddhist and Hindu beliefs (Vedanta, Yoga, Tantra, Vaisnava, Saivism) in a very basic format. The question on everyone's mind is: How do Buddhists and Hindus view God? How is life created? Why is there suffering? Everything can be answered by logic and analysis:

1. Fact: The Universe exists and has a beginning and will have an end

Science has discovered that the Universe is 14 billion years old, is expanding and will contract and eventually cease to exist (impermanent). But what about the Laws that keep the Universe in order? Is it permanent or is it non-permanent?

2. Fact: The Laws that create and maintain the Universe existed before the Universe

If the Universe began as a Big Bang, what will trigger it to explode? Why did the Universe explode instead of contracting? Why did hydrogen fuse to become helium instead of exploding into quarks? ANSWER: Because the Laws (i.e. gravitation) existed PRIOR to the creation of the Universe. If the Laws existed before Creation, then we assume that there is an intelligent Being that created these Laws.

3. Fact: God created these Laws to create the Universe

Buddhists don't believe in a Creator of the Law, they just believe in the existence of the Law that acts on its own. But since Hindus and most people believe in God more, I'll go with the Hindu explanation. So God created the Laws to create the Universe to create Man. To find out why He created the Universe in the first place, we have to ask: what is the nature of God? Without the physical Universe, God can still exist. Since physicality (matter), space, and time are not present, Then how can God exist?

4. Truth: God is Consciousness

Since physicality did not exist, what is the bare minimum requirement for an Entity to exist? ANSWER: something to perceive existence with --> A Consciousness (pag-iisip). Without atoms, an entity can still exist, if it has consciousness. Genesis says that God made man in his image and likeness. That means God gave man consciousness in order to 'be alive' like Him. If you meet an alien, the alien won't have human features like you, but it WILL have consciousness just like you and other living beings. Ngayon ang tanong: Why did God create the Universe?

5. Fact: God created the Universe to add value to His Exsitence

As a singular Consciousness, God existed but He couldn't know how big, great, magnificent He was, since all He had was a perception of existence. Let's say you felt you were very gwapo. If you were the only living person, how will you verify that you're gwapo? ANSWER: By looking at your reflection.

In the orginal state, God could not verify if He was 'Great' because there was simply nothing to compare it to. When you look in a mirror, a duplicate entity is produced in the mirror which you look at and verify your "gwapo"-ness. The entity in the mirror also appears to appreciate your real self even if you know that he is just an illusion. In the same way, God created other consciousnesses (entities) to 'mirror' Himself which will allow Him to know Himself and thus adding value to His Existence.

Okay fine. But how did God create the Universe since He was just Consciousness?

6. Truth: God created the Universe from Himself

Recall that before the Universe existed, only God existed. God could not have 'materialized' the Universe / other entities because there was no 'outside' to materialize it to. Since Absolutely Everything was God, there was no choice but to create it from Himself. So how did God create the Universe from Himself?

7. Fact: God 'destabilized' Himself from the Perfect state

Before creation, everything was Perfect and Stable because nothing else existed. Good and Bad did not exist. Negative and Positive did not exist because God was simply Neutral Consciousness (zero) Who had no value. By 'destabilizing' zero, you will get either positive or negative or both and therefore will have value. So, how would you destabilize consciousness? ANSWER: by thinking.

Since consciousness is merely a perception of existence, it is 'passive'. When consciousness 'moves' then it starts to think and it becomes 'active'. When your consciousness is 'passive' then you will have no thoughts, but be aware of your existence. If your consciousness is 'active' then thoughts start to form.

8. Fact: When God started to think, the Universe and other entities were Created

So now, there are two states of God: the inactive 'Passive' Consciousness (which is called Shiva) and the active 'Creative' Consciousness (which is called 'Shakti'). Before the Universe existed, only the active and passive states of God was there. So how did God create other 'entities' from these 2 states? How did God 'think' the Universe? ANSWER: by using Shakti to 'split up' His Conscisouness (original Perfect State).

Since Shakti was now 'active' (destabilized Consciousness), it can now 'act on' Shiva (who has zero value) to make it as imperfect as possible and thus create both negative and positive (create value). Shakti not only destabilizes God into positive and negative, It also 'splits up' God into many smaller individual consciousnesses which seems to be separate from the Original Consciousnesses (to act as mirrors of God), which becomes the building blocks of the physical Universe. Question: Why did God split Himself up into sooooo many?

9. Assumption: To maximize His Value and Existence.

If you knew you were very pretty, won't you want to look at yourself using a mirror and move it to different angles? Seeing yourself from many different angles gives you more appreciation, knowledge and enjoyment. God created as many consciousnesses as possible to reflect and look at Himself at as many angles as possible, since God is infinitely vast, then the number of 'derived / split-up consciousnesses' also need to be as many.

Shakti + Shiva = Maya (illusion). Just as the reflection on a mirror is an illusion of the person, so is the Universe an Illusion (mirror) of God in all His negative and positive values. By having negative and positive values, duality (good and bad, happiness and suffering) start to exist..

So how are these smaller individual consciousnesses converted into matter?

I'll continue with the rest of the explanation next week..

Stacie Fil

10-20-2007, 06:18 PM

OK ! Quite interesting.

NemoySpruce

11-07-2007, 05:18 PM

HAHAHHA!! pare. iisa isahin ko ang facts mo ha.

1. Fact: The Universe exists and has a beginning and will have an end

how is this fact? where you there when the universe was created? did you see the universe end? do you have a picture of it? please post it here. cant do it? do you know why? ANSWER: this is not a fact. its a guess.

osige. yan muna. banat. :D

sweetscrazy

11-07-2007, 06:09 PM

1. Fact: The Universe exists and has a beginning and will have an end

how is this fact? where you there when the universe was created? did you see the universe end? do you have a picture of it? please post it here. cant do it? do you know why? ANSWER: this is not a fact. its a guess.

osige. yan muna. banat. :D

Have you ever heard of the Big Bang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang)? :D

NemoySpruce

11-07-2007, 08:09 PM

the big bang theory? yep. its a theory. not proven. not fact. sorry thanks for playing. :D

even the most well known theorists do not claim to know what existed before the big bang. they theorize, that before the big bang there was a singularity. in which the laws of physics probably did not exist as we know it today. but thats just a guess too.

dude. this is high school physics. :D

Have you ever heard of the Big Bang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang)? :D

shinshinobi

11-07-2007, 08:18 PM

the big bang theory? yep. its a theory. not proven. not fact. sorry thanks for playing. :D

even the most well known theorists do not claim to know what existed before the big bang. they theorize, that before the big bang there was a singularity. in which the laws of physics probably did not exist as we know it today. but thats just a guess to.

dude. this is high school physics. :D

NemoySpruce, are you an atheist? tanong lang po.

NemoySpruce

11-07-2007, 08:23 PM

no Im not :D

NemoySpruce, are you an atheist? tanong lang po.

infinite_trial

11-07-2007, 08:23 PM

commercial lang po brought to you by wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) :D

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

shinshinobi

11-07-2007, 08:28 PM

no Im not :D

what do you believe in then?

I think we should know what's your stand on this "God and creation" thing before having a long discussion so we should know where you are standing...

NemoySpruce

11-07-2007, 08:32 PM

correct IT chang. theory and fact are not necessarily opposite. but the key words are 'testable' and observable. the apple falling to the ground can be tested by anyone. the explanation of gravity is a theory. no one knows what it is. but its effects can be predicted. so gravity is both fact and theory. the creation of the universe however... unless may kakilala kang buhay nung time na yon, at may dala syang handi cam.

commercial lang po brought to you by wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) :D

infinite_trial

11-07-2007, 08:34 PM

what do you believe in then?

I think we should know what's your stand on this "God and creation" thing before having a long discussion so we should know where you ar standing...

i'm not nemoy, but allow me to butt in. imo, you do not need to know the person's "personal stand" in order for you to have a long discussion (erm probably translated = sensible discussion) about "god and creation"...you don't do that even in debates.

NemoySpruce

11-07-2007, 08:36 PM

Tell you what, lets make it interesting. I wont tell you my stand, you have to ask me questions that is relevant to the thread. And from my answers you have to figure out what im standing on. :)

what do you believe in then?

I think we should know what's your stand on this "God and creation" thing before having a long discussion so we should know where you are standing...

shinshinobi

11-07-2007, 08:37 PM

i'm not nemoy, but allow me to butt in. imo, you do not need to know the person's "personal stand" in order for you to have a long discussion (erm probably translated = sensible discussion) about "god and creation"...you don't do that even in debates.

ah ganun po ba?:D

thanks for telling me.

anyway, go ahead peeps.:thumb:

Tell you what, lets make it interesting. I wont tell you my stand, you have to ask me questions that is relevant to the thread. And from my answers you have to figure out what im standing on.

no it's ok, please proceed:D

NemoySpruce

11-07-2007, 09:24 PM

ok. to proceed pareng sweets, Ive shown that your statements 1-3 are false. they are not facts because they are not observable and not testable.

statement no 4. Truth: God is Consciousness

so i noticed you used truth instead of fact :D though im still not sure what you are trying to say here. And you dont provide an explanation why you believe God = Consciousness. But saying that He is conscious is like saying the ocean is damp. or the earth is heavy. or the universe is large. its true, but close to senseless.

‘Since physicality did not exist, what is the bare minimum requirement for an Entity to exist? ANSWER: something to perceive existence with --> A Consciousness (pag-iisip). Without atoms, an entity can still exist, if it has consciousness.’

Ok. Question. How can you perceive existence if there is nothing? Nothing to perceive and nothing in existence?? What do you think consciousness is made up of? And I don’t think entity means what you think it means. Check dictionary just to be sure :D

Ok I will stop here and let you catch up on some reading. I will post more next time. before i go I have a question. Do you now realize that its easier to poke holes in someone's beliefs, than it is to try to understand what you yourself believe in? ANSWER: Yes, unless your an insensitive clod :) nyt nyt folks

sweetscrazy

11-08-2007, 01:30 PM

ok. to proceed pareng sweets, Ive shown that your statements 1-3 are false. they are not facts because they are not observable and not testable.

no, you've merely shown that you don't believe in physics nor in the scientific method. it's easy to say that the Big Bang theory is nonsense IF you haven't studied and devoted your life to physics. Most physicist support the Big Bang theory because it is consistent with earlier physics laws formed from the time of Newton, and has proof obtained from radio telescopes and Hubble. Before a Law becomes a Law, it first becomes a Hypothesis then becomes a Theory.

How can you perceive existence if there is nothing? Nothing to perceive and nothing in existence?? What do you think consciousness is made up of? when you dream, physicality does not exist, yet you know you exist (as either a participant or observer of the dream, or both)

Ok I will stop here and let you catch up on some reading. I will post more next time. before i go I have a question. Do you now realize that its easier to poke holes in someone's beliefs, than it is to try to understand what you yourself believe in? ANSWER: Yes, unless your an insensitive clod :) nyt nyt folks
Of all the philosophies, I've found that the Vedic philosophy is the most comprehensive and watertight of all. Atheists cannot explain how life begins. Christians cannot explain where Jesus physically is now. But Vedic and Hindu Philosophy answers all, even questions like why did the exorcisee float when angered by the exorcist? :cool:

NemoySpruce

11-08-2007, 02:52 PM

no, you've merely shown that you don't believe in physics nor in the scientific method. it's easy to say that the Big Bang theory is nonsense IF you haven't studied and devoted your life to physics. Most physicist support the Big Bang theory because it is consistent with earlier physics laws formed from the time of Newton, and has proof obtained from radio telescopes and Hubble. Before a Law becomes a Law, it first becomes a Hypothesis then becomes a Theory.

I did not say its nonsense. I said its not a fact.

when you dream, physicality does not exist, yet you know you exist (as either a participant or observer of the dream, or both)

sweets. please. you cannot dream without your brain my friend. your consciousness is attached to your brain. no brain. no dreams. whats my proof? everything you dream about involves something you do with your 5 senses. if your dreams are not connected to your physical self, you would experience things that are beyond your 5 senses.

Of all the philosophies, I've found that the Vedic philosophy is the most comprehensive and watertight of all. Atheists cannot explain how life begins. Christians cannot explain where Jesus physically is now. But Vedic and Hindu Philosophy answers all, even questions like why did the exorcisee float when angered by the exorcist? :cool:

ok. if thats what you believe then i wont argue with you. but. just to expand your horizons a bit. Atheists have the same level of belief in abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenisis) as you seem to have on the big bang. think about that.

Vedic philosophy is airtight? :D maybe, but your philosophy is full of holes.

sweetscrazy

11-08-2007, 04:26 PM

I did not say its nonsense. I said its not a fact.
hello? are you saying that the radio measurements and other scientific evidence proving galaxies are moving away from another are not a fact? duh.

you cannot dream without your brain my friend
If you say the mind or soul needs a physical body, then you conclude that after death, the self / soul / mind simply stops existing and therefore life is meaningless. That idea, when brought to the greater view of things, simply falls apart very easily. If you don't have any experience in the occult, then you wouldn't bother about what happens after death or why praying to Saint X produces different results from praying to goddess Y. Those saints/dieties are physically non-existent, yet they can still produce results.

your abiogenesis is also a theory, but compared to the Big Bang, it has no scientific evidence. :p

Vedic philosophy is airtight? :D maybe, but your philosophy is full of holes.
only if you don't have the ability to analyze in depth :rolleyes: i've dealt with atheists before and i have less restraint in bashing them compared to dogmatic religious people, who at least believe in God. :halo:

NemoySpruce

11-08-2007, 04:49 PM

hello? are you saying that the radio measurements and other scientific evidence proving galaxies are moving away from another are not a fact? duh.

now those are facts. they are observable. the big bang is not. do i have to explain this to you slowly? this is high school physics....:(

If you say the mind or soul needs a physical body, then you conclude that after death, the self / soul / mind simply stops existing and therefore life is meaningless. That idea, when brought to the greater view of things, simply falls apart very easily. If you don't have any experience in the occult, then you wouldn't bother about what happens after death or why praying to Saint X produces different results from praying to goddess Y. Those saints/dieties are physically non-existent, yet they can still produce results.

no. im just saying I believe consciousness is attached to your brain. who knows, maybe if you can duplicate your brain somehow then you can recreate your consciousness. but i dont have any information to support that, that is borderline science fiction. but hey, lasers used to be science fiction.

your abiogenesis is also a theory, but compared to the Big Bang, it has no scientific evidence. :p

Its not my theory, i did not come up with it :D .....no scientific evidence? its based on the same scientific methodology used to come up with the big bang. if you believe in the bigbang, then you should also believe in abiogenisis. any argument you use to prove bigbang is `true` i can use to defend abiogenisis.

only if you don't have the ability to analyze in depth :rolleyes: i've dealt with atheists before and i have less restraint in bashing them compared to dogmatic religious people, who at least believe in God. :halo:

well. too bad. im not atheist.. but just for fun. bring it on. :D

sweetscrazy

11-08-2007, 05:06 PM

now those are facts. they are observable. the big bang is not..and from those facts, they came up with the Big Bang Theory. Cosmologists now have fairly precise measurement of many of the parameters of the Big Bang model, and have made the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. haaay.. basahin kasi muna ang Big Bang theory eh. :rolleyes:

it's not my theory, i did not come up with it :D .....no scientific evidence? its based on the same scientific methodology used to come up with the big bang. if you believe in the bigbang, then you should also believe in abiogenisiseh? they're different. where's the proof of abiogenesis? wala. If you're talking about the crystals that organized 'by themselves', that was brought about by external factors, because the crystals were part of a self organizing system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_organizing_syst ems).

well. too bad. im not atheist.. but just for fun. bring it ondogmatic adventists are sometimes just as bad

NemoySpruce

11-08-2007, 05:16 PM

..and from those facts, they came up with the Big Bang Theory. Cosmologists now have fairly precise measurement of many of the parameters of the Big Bang model, and have made the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. haaay.. basahin kasi muna ang Big Bang theory eh. :rolleyes:

ive read it. i know. but why is it not called big bang fact? :D its not fact. its theory. yun lang ang point ko tungkol jan, mahirap ba intindihin?

eh? they're different. where's the proof of abiogenesis? wala. If you're talking about the crystals that organized 'by themselves', that was brought about by external factors, because the crystals were part of a self organizing system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_organizing_syst ems).

whats your proof for the big bang? remember its an event that scientist predict happend 14-16 billion years ago, do you even have any idea how long ago that was?? abiogenisis on earth? maybe 4 billion years ago. they are both scientific models backed by facts. but at present we dont have the technology to prove them. paulit ulit na ako ah.

dogmatic adventists are sometimes just as bad

nope sorry. not me. try again.

alexb

11-08-2007, 08:53 PM

Christians cannot explain where Jesus physically is now.

para sa iyong kaalaman (superior intellect??)

But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. -Acts 7:55

alam mo na kung nasaan??

shinshinobi

11-08-2007, 10:03 PM

para sa iyong kaalaman (superior intellect??)

But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. -Acts 7:55

alam mo na kung nasaan??

Jesus is not in heaven.

Jesus' remains were actually found near the Talpiot apartments in Jerusalem, Israel.

KHBQz6GWJAI

alexb

11-08-2007, 11:23 PM

Jesus is not in heaven.

Jesus' remains were actually found near the Talpiot apartments in Jerusalem, Israel.

this has been discussed before...

click here (http://www.timog.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111 38)

sweetscrazy

11-09-2007, 12:29 AM

But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. -Acts 7:55

alam mo na kung nasaan??

o sige, sabi mo nasa 'Right Hand of God' siya. nasaan ang 'Right Hand of God' na ito? is it on planet Earth or is it outside of planet Earth? :D defend your dogma if you can

whats your proof for the big bang?uh, it's calledradiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_ microwave_background _radiation).:rolleye s: your abiogenesis is just a hypothesis which is not supported by any fact. i've read up on theories on how intelligent life could have come from unintelligent process and there's no evidence to support it :cool:

NemoySpruce

11-09-2007, 11:36 AM

uh, it's calledradiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_ microwave_background _radiation).:rolleye s: your abiogenesis is just a hypothesis which is not supported by any fact. i've read up on theories on how intelligent life could have come from unintelligent process and there's no evidence to support it :cool:

actually its called Cosmic Background Radiation. It supports the BigBang theory. It is an observable phenomenon. It does not make the BigBang a fact though. Cant you get that into your thick skull??:D

there are tons of evidence to support abiogenisis. and non to support intelligent design. sorry, you need to read more. And it is not my theory, i did not make it up. and it cant be called a theory if there are zero facts to support it. duh.

In 1936 Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Ivanovich_ Oparin), in his "The Origin of Life on Earth", suggested that organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-less atmosphere, through the action of sunlight. These molecules, he suggested, combine in ever-more complex fashion until they are dissolved into a coacervate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coacervate) droplet. These droplets could then fuse with other droplets and break apart into two replicas of the original. This could be viewed as a primitive form of reproduction and metabolism. Favorable attributes such as increased durability in the structure would survive more often than nonfavorable attributes.and also dictionary definition of THEORY (you need to brush up on vocabulary my friend)

a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena

sweetscrazy

11-09-2007, 01:25 PM

there are tons of evidence to support abiogenisis

wiki on coacervates: However, the lack of any mechanism by which coacervates can reproduce leaves them far short of being living systems....While this is vaguely similar to modern theories, regarding the formation of first life, coacervates are no longer thought actually to have become the first cells directly

your supposed 'evidence' proved to be a dead end. :D i hope the other 'tons of evidence' don't lead to a dead end either..

and also dictionary definition of THEORY
gamitin kasi muna ang utak eh. Before Copernicus and Galileo, the belief was that the Earth was the center of the solar system, without any scientific proof. But Copernicus and Galileo proposed a THEORY that the Sun was the center, with matching scientific proof. While the heliocentric theory was just a theory during that time, it was in realty already a FACT. The Earth was already revolving 'round the Sun. Gets?

NemoySpruce

11-09-2007, 01:53 PM

wiki on coacervates: However, the lack of any mechanism by which coacervates can reproduce leaves them far short of being living systems....While this is vaguely similar to modern theories, regarding the formation of first life, coacervates are no longer thought actually to have become the first cells directly

your supposed 'evidence' proved to be a dead end. :D i hope the other 'tons of evidence' don't lead to a dead end either..

cheap and pathetic attempt sweets. you cut out the last part; "..life is thought to have gone through many intermediate steps before becoming cellular." ... tsk tsk. :rolleyes:

gamitin kasi muna ang utak eh. Before Copernicus and Galileo, the belief was that the Earth was the center of the solar system, without any scientific proof. But Copernicus and Galileo proposed a THEORY that the Sun was the center, with matching scientific proof. While the heliocentric theory was just a theory during that time, it was in realty already a FACT. The Earth was already revolving 'round the Sun. Gets?

(- -); sigh...... no. it was a theory then, but it was eventually proven to be a fact. due to advancements in technology. Specifically telescopes... hay nako. I see I have to explain to you what fact and theory means before this discussion can proceed.

lets simplify things so that you can understand.

"The world will not end tomorrow (november 10 2007)". This is a theory, i can back it up with all the evidence that i want, but until nov 11,2007 it will be just a theory. When nov 11, 2007 comes and you are still reading this post, then it becomes a fact. Why? ANSWER: because we have all observed that the world did not end on nov 10,2007. There is a subtle point there. The reason why its fact, is because WE all observed the world did not end on 10,2007. weather or not it it did actually end is beside the point. It could be the world ended, and we are all hooked up into some matrix like machine, but since we all know that the world did not end, then it becomes a fact. comprende?

sweetscrazy

11-09-2007, 03:53 PM

life is thought to have gone through many intermediate steps before becoming cellular."it still doesn't explain how life arises from organic compounds :D

it was a theory then, but it was eventually proven to be a fact
see? The Big Bang Theory is not different :cool:

NemoySpruce

11-09-2007, 03:57 PM

it still doesn't explain how life arises from organic compounds :D

...huh!? dude. you should try to eat meat sometimes. stop inhaling what ever herbs it is you are inhaling.:D

see? The Big Bang Theory is not different :cool:

yes it is. read my post... is that it? thats all you got? i thought you were captain of the debate team or something :D

sweetscrazy

11-09-2007, 09:35 PM

lets simplify things so that you can understand.
"The world will not end tomorrow (november 10 2007)"...blah blah blah

let's say you were the leader of Pilipinas and your weather men warn that a signal number 100 typhoon is coming to the country, based on meteorological evidence. But let's say you're stupid and say "Hwat? Ken't you see dat in fact, its good wether now? Da typhoon is a THEORY. Der is no need to prepare." So instead of warning the people, you go and do jueteng instead. Next day the typhoon comes and destroys everything. The smart people who believed the sensible theory left before the typhoon struck and survived.

In the recent years, the most important 'theory' was that of Global warming (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7060072.stm). Now it's a fact. If people took it seriously back then, then the planet wouldn't be in such a mess now.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44195000/jpg/_44195613_cover300un ep.jpg

alexb

11-09-2007, 10:18 PM

o sige, sabi mo nasa 'Right Hand of God' siya. nasaan ang 'Right Hand of God' na ito? is it on planet Earth or is it outside of planet Earth? :D defend your dogma if you can

hahaha, ikaw nga ang nangangamote eh....kung nagbabasa ka lang sana nabasa mo ang salitang "heaven" dun sa verse....tsk tsk... a waste of time

2nd, bible po ang nagsabi, hindi po ako ang bible tsk tsk....

alexb

11-09-2007, 10:26 PM

...huh!? dude. you should try to eat meat sometimes. stop inhaling what ever herbs it is you are inhaling.:D

yes it is. read my post... is that it? thats all you got? i thought you were captain of the debate team or something :D

nakaka-frustrate talaga, akala ko nga may juice akong makukuha sa kanya...nagdudunong-dunungan lang ata eh. pano na kung wala si pareng wiki?

shinshinobi

11-09-2007, 10:41 PM

nakaka-frustrate talaga, akala ko nga may juice akong makukuha sa kanya...nagdudunong-dunungan lang ata eh. pano na kung wala si pareng wiki?

aren't we all born knowing nothing?

I think what Nemoy want is a detailed explanation on how the universe started, as in detailed.

..but Alexb keeps on insisting that God created everything in seven days, according to their Bible, which lacks scientific proof, which Nemoy wants and which makes Nemoy not a Christian.

...and Sweets wants to tell us that theory, can be proven fact, in time, but Nemoy would not accept theories, which makes him a factist.

No one can really understand how the universe started until man can create his own.

alexb

11-09-2007, 10:51 PM

para malinaw...ito ba ay scientific discussion? biblical discussion? o philosophical discussion?

isa lang para di magulo :D

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

No man has a right in America to treat any other man "tolerantly" for tolerance is the assumption of superiority. -Wendell L. Willkie

shinshinobi

11-09-2007, 11:05 PM

para malinaw...ito ba ay scientific discussion? biblical discussion? o philosophical discussion?

mixed nuts.

Sweets is trying to explain Buddhism, and you insist your Christianity...while Nemoy is slapping both of you to wake up.

it's like an Arab, an Icelander and a Japanese trying to have a conversation on a cozy evening while sipping a cup of coffee filled with ego.:D

adechan

11-09-2007, 11:26 PM

mixed nuts.

Sweets is trying to explain Buddhism, and you insist your Christianity...while Nemoy is slapping both of you to wake up.

it's like an Arab, an Icelander and a Japanese trying to have a conversation on a cozy evening while sipping a cup of coffee filled with ego.:D

shinobishin dito sa thread na ito, i don't see it that alexb is insisting Christianity, if alexb didn't, someone will, sweetcrazy can't keep away mentioning something about Christianity

and wala pa yata akong nakikitang comment ni Nemoy in regards to alexb's comment,

therefore, Nemoy can't slap both

you know, you must be careful yourself too, you can put a big stumbling block to the faith of the weak, be bold and be clear for what you stand and what you believe(PS = i mean not only in this thread)

shinshinobi

11-09-2007, 11:52 PM

shinobishin dito sa thread na ito, i don't see it that alexb is insisting Christianity, if alexb didn't, someone will, sweetcrazy can't keep away mentioning something about Christianity

and wala pa yata akong nakikitang comment ni Nemoy in regards to alexb's comment,

therefore, Nemoy can't slap both

you know, you must be careful yourself too, you can put a big stumbling block to the faith of the weak, be bold and be clear for what you stand and what you believe

ok forgive me:D

adechan

11-10-2007, 12:04 AM

ok forgive me:D
thanks din
:)mas mabuti na ang malinaw

sige tuloy na ninyo ~~ baka ma disclaimer ako ~~ hindi yata ito pang-Christian:D

sweetscrazy

11-10-2007, 05:57 AM

shinobishin dito sa thread na ito, i don't see it that alexb is insisting Christianity, if alexb didn't, someone will, sweetcrazy can't keep away mentioning something about Christianity

believe me, i'd like to stay away from Christianity but for comparison reasons, i've got no alternative. I could compare Hindu/Buddhist philosophy to Taoism or Sufism, but no one else in the forum can relate to it cuz no one knows Taoism or Sufism.

My question on where Jesus is now actually came from the Buddhist Thread (http://www.timog.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148 20&page=10) which alexb didn't answer for a long time. i think that i should've replied to that on the Buddhist Thread instead.

para malinaw...ito ba ay scientific discussion? biblical discussion? o philosophical discussion?
this is a logical, scientific discussion so (naturally) biblical references are discouraged. But since, in Hindu / Buddhist Philosophy, the occult and spirituality are also scientific then they can be included

alexb

11-10-2007, 09:37 AM

..but Alexb keeps on insisting that God created everything in seven days, according to their Bible, which lacks scientific proof, which Nemoy wants and which makes Nemoy not a Christian.

I only answered sweetscrazy's question (which is not about creation), I commented on the paikot-ikot tactic ni sweetscrazy, but I can't remember posting about 7 days creation here or on any other thread...let's be truthful ok :D

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

No man has a right in America to treat any other man "tolerantly" for tolerance is the assumption of superiority. -Wendell L. Willkie

shinshinobi

11-10-2007, 11:11 AM

I only answered sweetscrazy's question (which is not about creation), I commented on the paikot-ikot tactic ni sweetscrazy, but I can't remember posting about 7 days creation here or on any other thread...let's be truthful ok :D

sorry I must've been smoking the wrong thing:D

I think Sweets read a lot of stuff about Bhuddism and Hinduism than most of us here, you gotta give him credit for that...

If you (not only you, but the rest of us here) found God by reading the Bible, that's fine.

You don't have to engage into a debate just to prove that your "God" is the real one because you wouldn't know if some of us here found God in a different way.

If I claim that I found my "God" while reading the back of a shampoo bottle, it's my right to believe and for you to wonder, because God can be in anyway we choose Him to be, as long as He makes us feel good and love life.

As I've said in my other thread, Love is what we only need...

sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone,.

but please, do continue the discussion:D

NemoySpruce

11-11-2007, 12:15 PM

aren't we all born knowing nothing?

I think what Nemoy want is a detailed explanation on how the universe started, as in detailed.

hindi po. wala pa tayo sa main discussion ng thread na ito. Ang point ko lang is, yung number 1-3 ng first post ay mali. kasi nakalagay, FACT: The universe has a begining and end blah blah..I am just saying that this is not a FACT. But thread starter keeps dancing around the point, instead of admiting his mistake so the discussion can proceed. In my opinion this is the reason why discussing religion is a mistake, unless all participants are willing to see that there is possibility that they could be wrong, the discussion becomes meaningless.

aren't we all born knowing nothing?
...and Sweets wants to tell us that theory, can be proven fact, in time, but Nemoy would not accept theories, which makes him a factist.

No sweets misunderstood what FACT and THEORY are. Factist? what is that? hehehe, first time ive heard that label. I suppose I am a factist, but shouldnt we all be?

No one can really understand how the universe started until man can create his own.

Even if man creates his own universe, he will understand only that universe that he created. This universe will still be a mystery. The only way for man to understand this universe is for man to understand and travel through or manipulate time. What is really fascinating about this universe is most of the things that keep it together, for us are still mysteries, gravity, consciousness,light, time..space itself is a mystery. these things we observe everyday but even with the advancements in human technology and information, we have no clue as to what they really are.

For me these mysteries need to be solved first, before we try to figure out great questions like who or what created the universe. And fighting about it and blowing up people is really stupid, because after all the debates and discussions it just boils down to this, "We dont know." And there it is. What I believe in.... We.dont.know.... Its not so bad, its actually fun trying to figure it out. And Im not worried, I believe if there is a God who created the universe, then a human's lifetime of searching will not test his patience. I am opposed to any system of belief that hinges on fear. If there is a God that rules by fear, then I dont want to exist in his universe. Id rather not exist than be coerced by fear for all eternity.

shinshinobi

11-11-2007, 02:26 PM

In my opinion this is the reason why discussing religion is a mistake, unless all participants are willing to see that there is possibility that they could be wrong, the discussion becomes meaningless.

yes, I agree, but according to Sweets, Bhuddism is not a religion. I too don't belong to any religion.

Factist? what is that? hehehe, first time ive heard that label. I suppose I am a factist, but shouldnt we all be?

yes, it's a new term for you because you only rely on hard evidence and won't accept theories.

only way for man to understand this universe is for man to understand and travel through or manipulate time.

I thought you don't believe in theories?

For me these mysteries need to be solved first, before we try to figure out great questions like who or what created the universe. And fighting about it and blowing up people is really stupid, because after all the debates and discussions it just boils down to this, "We dont know." And there it is. What I believe in.... We.dont.know.... Its not so bad, its actually fun trying to figure it out. And Im not worried, I believe if there is a God who created the universe, then a human's lifetime of searching will not test his patience. I am opposed to any system of belief that hinges on fear. If there is a God that rules by fear, then I dont want to exist in his universe. Id rather not exist than be coerced by fear for all eternity.

same here.

sweetscrazy

11-11-2007, 08:35 PM

kasi nakalagay, FACT: The universe has a begining and end blah blah..I am just saying that this is not a FACT. But thread starter keeps dancing around the point, instead of admiting his mistake so the discussion can proceed.

To one who has NOT directly experienced God, then 'God' will simply be a 'theory' which can easily be denied. To one who HAS experienced God, the existence of 'God' will always be a precious fact and will therefore be undeniable. It will cause him to go crazy with joy and drunk with sweetness, upon knowing the existence and true nature of God.

To a person who has not experienced the 'nonexistence' of the Universe, then the nonexistence of the Universe is only a 'theory'. But to a person who has experienced this 'nonexistence', it becomes a fact.

After that, there will no longer be any 'mystery' and existence will be complete.

NemoySpruce

11-12-2007, 12:02 AM

yes, it's a new term for you because you only rely on hard evidence and won't accept theories.

I am very flattered that you created a label just for me. but I am wondering why you think i dont 'accept theories'? i dont understand what you mean.

I thought you don't believe in theories?

what gave you that idea?

To one who has NOT directly experienced God, then 'God' will simply be a 'theory' which can easily be denied. To one who HAS experienced God, the existence of 'God' will always be a precious fact...

you still dont get it. no matter how real it feels to you, its not a fact until other people can confirm by trying to disprove your claims. if they fail to disprove your claims then it becomes a fact. but if it cannot be disproved then it cannot be a fact. its really a simple concept, if you think about it a while im sure you will understand. sabi mo nga, gamitin ang utak.

To a person who has not experienced the 'nonexistence' of the Universe, then the nonexistence of the Universe is only a 'theory'. But to a person who has experienced this 'nonexistence', it becomes a fact.

After that, there will no longer be any 'mystery' and existence will be complete.

no. facts cannot be for one person only, it should be true for anyone who cares to test it. oh and your post is illogical. a person cannot experience the nonexistence of the Universe. im not saying its impossible, its just illogical.

sweetscrazy

11-12-2007, 10:28 PM

you still dont get it. no matter how real it feels to you, its not a fact until other people can confirm by trying to disprove your claims.sure, the Discovery Channel has proven that Buddha boy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Bahadur_Bomjon) can survive for many days without any food or water, and has stated that 'science textbooks must be re-written' (to accomodate the new proof that man does not need that much food/water to live). I've also spent a couple of years in the occult and i've seen miracles that would make Buddha boy's ability look insignificant.

But the main issue is: theories today will be proven facts tomorrow. Right now, physicists have measured the age of the Universe but are debating whether the Universe is finite or infinite. If we apply Vedic wisdom to it, then we can conclude that the Universe is finite. Not only is it finite, it also has a lifespan which the Vedas already has measured. By applying Vedic wisdom, we can increase efficiency in research by using it as a guide, and turn theories into facts much quicker.

a person cannot experience the nonexistence of the Universe. im not saying its impossible, its just illogical.say that to a Buddhist/Hindu monk, and he will smile at your ignorance. To you it's illogical to not eat and drink anything for long periods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting), but for monks and holy people of all religions, it makes a lot of sense, because it's a proven way to cut through the illusion of Creation.

NemoySpruce

11-13-2007, 05:45 AM

sure, the Discovery Channel has proven that Buddha boy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Bahadur_Bomjon) can survive for many days without any food or water, and has stated that 'science textbooks must be re-written' (to accomodate the new proof that man does not need that much food/water to live). I've also spent a couple of years in the occult and i've seen miracles that would make Buddha boy's ability look insignificant...

nope. what they proved was there was a boy meditating under a tree for great lengths at a time. They were not allowed to film through the night, they were not allowed to medically examine the boy while he was meditating. they were not allowed to use infra red cameras to measure heat. It could be possible that the boy had food hidden in his clothing, and maybe he had water stored somewhere and he could sip it through a straw while no one was looking... your making same mistake as many people who 'claim' to be religiously enlightened. You grab information wherever you can and try to stitch them together to make your version of reality. Much like how science fiction writers do it, only science fiction writers know its fiction. you apparently do not.

But the main issue is: theories today will be proven facts tomorrow. Right now, physicists have measured the age of the Universe but are debating whether the Universe is finite or infinite. If we apply Vedic wisdom to it, then we can conclude that the Universe is finite.

is that the main issue? then you are mainly wrong. not all theories will be proven facts tomorrow. you can assume if you want. but you cant conclude anything unless you use some sort of scientific method. otherwise your just creating your version of reality. which is fine, but that does not give you the right to impose your perception of reality to other people. which makes it useful only to yourself. so keep it to yourself.

Not only is it finite, it also has a lifespan which the Vedas already has measured. By applying Vedic wisdom, we can increase efficiency in research by using it as a guide, and turn theories into facts much quicker.

really? this is new to me, how did the Vedas (is that Darth Vedas?) measure the lifespan of the universe? did they use tapemeasure?

say that to a Buddhist/Hindu monk, and he will smile at your ignorance. To you it's illogical to not eat and drink anything for long periods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting), but for monks and holy people of all religions, it makes a lot of sense, because it's a proven way to cut through the illusion of Creation.

no. not just to me, logic is for all. there is no such thing as personal logic. i smile at your ignorance. so to cut through the illusion of Creation we should die, because thats what fasting and meditation is... its controlled death. i for one prefer to live at the moment, so yes, to me fasting is illogical. but still, you cannot percieve a non existent universe. its like saying 1 plus 1 equals zero. not logical. you can fast until your skin and bones but 1 plus 1 will always equal 2. my advice is, lay off the hooka for a while bro. dont use it to think, it burns up brain cells....

sweetscrazy

11-14-2007, 03:00 PM

It could be possible that the boy had food hidden in his clothing, and maybe he had water stored somewhere and he could sip it through a straw while no one was looking...hehe don't you think they didn't bring that up to the Discovery Team during the course of the filming? :cool:

but you cant conclude anything unless you use some sort of scientific method...so keep it to yourself. haller?!? :biglaugh: don't you think hubble and radio telescopes are scientific? a majority of phsycists already believe in the Big Bang because its scientific evidence have been consistent with physics laws since the time of Newton.

You said you believe in existence after death. But how can you believe that if you only believe in scientific evidence? Science cannot prove existence of souls, God, etc. You contradict yourself ne? :nono:

really? this is new to me, how did the Vedas (is that Darth Vedas?) measure the lifespan of the universe? did they use tapemeasure?
the same way you would measure a lifespan of an organism. By being in a position to see it live and die and calculate the interval in between as the lifespan.

no. not just to me, logic is for all. there is no such thing as personal logic. i smile at your ignorance. so to cut through the illusion of Creation we should die, because thats what fasting and meditation is... its controlled death. i for one prefer to live at the moment, so yes, to me fasting is illogical. but still, you cannot percieve a non existent universe. its like saying 1 plus 1 equals zero. not logical. you can fast until your skin and bones but 1 plus 1 will always equal 2. my advice is, lay off the hooka for a while bro. dont use it to think, it burns up brain cells....hehe you just showed how ignorant you are :D A controlled death would happen in a hospital. Fasting and meditation is not a controlled death. It's a scientific method to sharpen a part of the brain. By not eating, the digestive system is relaxed, by not moving, the nerves are freed. Since energy cannot be created nor destroyed, all of the energy goes to the purpose of cutting through the Illusion. Buddha took six years to cut through the Illusion and he didn't die from it :cool:

Stacie Fil

11-14-2007, 08:49 PM

NemoySpruce

11-15-2007, 12:11 AM

Well thanks for sharing about the boy.

Thou, I've seen other things better. If he sit like a log without food for four days. I've seen people running and working serving others while doing more than four days fasting. They are doing lots of good things benificial for themself and others rather than just wasting time.

heh. good point Stacie. i definitely agree. :D

hehe you just showed how ignorant you are A controlled death would happen in a hospital. Fasting and meditation is not a controlled death. It's a scientific method to sharpen a part of the brain. By not eating, the digestive system is relaxed, by not moving, the nerves are freed. Since energy cannot be created nor destroyed, all of the energy goes to the purpose of cutting through the Illusion. Buddha took six years to cut through the Illusion and he didn't die from it

oooh. so using namecalling technique? ran out of logic so using your 6 yr old argument skills? hehehe. digestive system relaxes when you dont eat? have you ever felt hunger? thats not relaxing dude :D and if meditation is mind controlling the body, then it shouldnt matter if your stomach is full or not. Tsk tsk.. and please read up and understand what the first law of thermodynamics really means, before you go using it to backup your nonesense.:rolleyes: food in your system is converted to energy. no food, means less energy. so if you need energy to cut through illusion, whatever that means... you need more food. not less. your logic sucks.big time.

sweetscrazy

11-15-2007, 12:41 PM

So, after reaching pavilion 11 not eating and doing nothing, what now is the next step?
He does so until he reaches Enlightenment. After that, he teaches others how to gain enlightenment and, depending on his level of Enlightenment, forgives the sins of people.

By Realizing God first, 'Crises of Faith' (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.ht ml) can be avoided. One who has seen God is a better teacher of God (and can serve humanity better) than one who has not.

Lao Tzu (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/l/lao_tzu.html) said: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. To teach a man to fish, you need to know how to fish yourself FIRST right? Now replace fish with God, and you will be teaching salvation.

food in your system is converted to energy. no food, means less energy. so if you need energy to cut through illusion, whatever that means... you need more food

sorry, if it were that easy there would be a billion Christs walking on the Earth right now.

The Bahá'í Faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditation#Forms_of_ meditation) teaches that meditation is necessary for spiritual growth, alongside obligatory prayer and fasting. 'Abdu'l-Bahá is quoted as saying:
"Meditation is the key for opening the doors of mysteries to your mind. In that state man abstracts himself: in that state man withdraws himself from all outside objects; in that subjective mood he is immersed in the ocean of spiritual life and can unfold the secrets of things-in-themselves."

i smell Deism :D

Stacie Fil

11-15-2007, 09:34 PM

He does so until he reaches Enlightenment. After that, he teaches others how to gain enlightenment and, depending on his level of Enlightenment, forgives the sins of people.

Are you for real or making up your own story? Actually this statements only proves you know nothing about Christianity. The same reason buddist struggle hard to learn Christianity after they were enlightened. Being enlightened is not the ultimate goal, but only the first step.

By Realizing God first, 'Crises of Faith' (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.ht ml) can be avoided. One who has seen God is a better teacher of God (and can serve humanity better) than one who has not.

I don't think all dedicated Christian had done the same meditation as what you had shared, only to come to conclusion of realizing God first. "Luckier are those who abide by Gods will even without miracles and stuff to make him believe".

So, how does God look like?

As you taught that just by looking/observing the creation/environment, we can already percieve God. Why need to see in meditation? How can you be a good teacher when all you've done is sit and meditate.

Lao Tzu (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/l/lao_tzu.html) said: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. To teach a man to fish, you need to know how to fish yourself FIRST right? Now replace fish with God, and you will be teaching salvation.

sorry, if it were that easy there would be a billion Christs walking on the Earth right now.

I'm not sure when God made covenant to the ancestors of those who were doing meditation, that they can equate themself to Christ. Did God also promise to send those people? Were there also prophets sent to educate and prepare their ancestor to wait for thier birth? So the Dalai lama has rights to fogive sin in heavens right. God gave the authority after nervana?

The Bahá'í Faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditation#Forms_of_ meditation) teaches that meditation is necessary for spiritual growth, alongside obligatory prayer and fasting. 'Abdu'l-Bahá is quoted as saying:
"Meditation is the key for opening the doors of mysteries to your mind. In that state man abstracts himself: in that state man withdraws himself from all outside objects; in that subjective mood he is immersed in the ocean of spiritual life and can unfold the secrets of things-in-themselves."

i smell Deism :D
I can agree to spiritual growth. But to some other things you've said, its quite absurd for me. Sorry...

:)

adechan

11-16-2007, 05:23 AM

NemoySpruce

11-16-2007, 10:15 AM

i smell Deism :D

no, thats probably the smoke from the hooka you keep sucking on. But you know what? deism is actually a stronger argument than this hindu vedic/misinformed science you are spouting. Im not a deist, but my information tells me deism makes more sense than your made up belief. :D

sweetscrazy

11-16-2007, 12:32 PM

Are you for real or making up your own story? Actually this statements only proves you know nothing about Christianity. Being enlightened is not the ultimate goal, but only the first step.
nope. Gurus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru) (Buddhas) can forgive sins and give salvation. In the technical spiritual sense, Jesus was a guru, but there are others. Eastern Religions have their own ways of dealing with sin (bad karma/negativity) and they don't need Jesus.

Being enlightened is not the ultimate goal, but only the first step.
so what are the next / final steps? die and go to heaven?

So, how does God look like?
sorry, i can't tell. if i said God was like 'this' then He would automatically be reduced to something which is comprehensible by the mind, which He is not.

As you taught that just by looking/observing the creation/environment, we can already percieve God. Why need to see in meditation? How can you be a good teacher when all you've done is sit and meditate.
hmm..maybe because trees can't talk to you or tell you what you should do with your life? As i said before, prayer is talking to God, meditating is listening to Him. If you master both skills, then you will have a 2-way connection with God. The problem is, people only pray. They don't know that God is telling them answers to their prayers, but they just can't hear it.

Did God also promise to send those people? Were there also prophets sent to educate and prepare their ancestor to wait for their birth?
yup. Krishna says in the Bhagavad-Gita: "Whenever there is decline of dharma, Oh Arjuna, I shall manifest Myself in order to restore balance"

So the Dalai lama has rights to fogive sin in heavens right. God gave the authority after nervana?The Dalai Lama is a bodhisattva, not a Buddha

alexb

11-16-2007, 05:48 PM

The Bahai faith teaches that...

Bahai Faith - a cult?

ex-member speaks:

"Strict obedience to what is believed to be divinely revealed truth and authority is emphasized in the Baha'i Faith today. All writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha are considered infallible scriptural text; all writings of Shoghi Effendi are authoritative, and his interpretations of previous scriptures are regarded as infallible..."

"...Instead of open minds, the Baha'i Faith closed people's minds once they belonged to it. Instead of tolerance and respect for differences of opinion, the Baha'i Faith demanded absolute agreement with its scriptures and leadership on everything..."

"In the summer of 2002 I accepted Jesus Christ in my heart and began to consider myself a Christian."

read more, click here (http://www.bahai-faith.com/)

sweetscrazy

11-16-2007, 07:40 PM

Bahai Faith - a cult?thanks for the article on Bah'ai. I'm interested in Bah'ai because our monks go to inter-religious conferences and Bah'ai is like the fastest growing 'new kid on the religious block'. They do promote unity among religions and that's a good thing, but regarding infallibility of their texts, i think it's common for religions to regard their texts 'infalliable'.

Christians believe the Bible (and the Pope) is 'infalliable'. The Muslims believe the Koran is 'infalliable'. so what makes Ba'hai's different? :rolleyes: At least they haven't KILLED as many people as Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades) and Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests) have. demmit i don't even know where to put the apostrophe in Bahai. :banghead:

Im not a deist, but my information tells me deism makes more sense than your made up belief
ooohh yeahhh.. believing in science but not in its theories and makes A LOT of sense. believing in only in scientific measurable evidence at the same time believing in spirits and souls is so not contradictory....NOT ! :biglaugh:

NemoySpruce

11-19-2007, 10:19 AM

you see its that kind of narrow minded thinking that causes so much unnecessary conflict in the world :) can you rephrase that into a proper question? take out the childish tone, and you might have a good point underneath... might. can you even try to talk like an adult?

ooohh yeahhh.. believing in science but not in its theories and makes A LOT of sense. believing in only in scientific measurable evidence at the same time believing in spirits and souls is so not contradictory....NOT ! :biglaugh:

alexb

11-19-2007, 11:29 AM

Ang "Big Bang" ba ay matatawag na science? Kung oo, dapat ito ay (1) can be observed (2) can be tested (3) can be repeated - in a laboratory.

What scientists says:

Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle wrote:

As a result of this, the main efforts of investigators have been in papering over holes in the big bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome . . . I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers (Sir Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang Under Attack," Science Digest 92, May 1984, p. 84)

Scientist Lambert Dolphin notes:

Serious flaws have begun to appear in recent years because of new evidence from the farthest reaches of space and new questions raised in nuclear physics (Lambert Dolphin, Jesus: Lord of Space and Time, Green Forest Arizona: New Leaf Press, 1988, p. 61)

Non-Christian scientist H. Alfven concurs:

On the other hand, there are an increasing number of observational facts that are difficult to reconcile in the Big-Bang hypothesis. The Big-Bang establishment very seldom mentions these, and when non-believers try to draw attention to them, the powerful establishment refuses to discuss them in a fair way . . . .

In the British journal [I]Nature we find the following comment:

Apart from being philosophically unacceptable, the Big Bang is an over-simple view of how the universe began, and is unlikely to survive the decade ahead . . . In all respects save that of convenience, this view of the origin of the universe is thoroughly unsatisfactory. It is an effect whose cause cannot be identified or even discussed (Nature, August 10, 1989)

Scientist David Rosevear observes:

Firstly one has to ask how the material in the universe arose in the first place. The first law of thermodynamics says that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. A theory has been advanced that, given the first few kilograms of matter, the rest could produce itself by a process of self-creation. Apparently this 'free meal' idea can be tolerated because, for such a unique situation, perhaps we should not expect the normal laws of physics to be obeyed! (David Rosevear, Creation Science, Chichester, England: New Wine Press, 1991, pp. 32,33)

NemoySpruce

11-19-2007, 11:51 AM

Ang "Big Bang" ba ay matatawag na science? Kung oo, dapat ito ay (1) can be observed (2) can be tested (3) can be repeated - in a laboratory.

Hello alexb. this is a commonly misunderstood explanation of what science is. When a scientist says 'I believe the universe began with the Big Bang...' its very different from a religious person saying 'I believe God created the universe'. A scientist will present 'facts' to support his theory, then ask his peers to disprove his theory. If there is even one fact that disproves the theory, then the scientist is forced to abandon or refine it. It is very different from defending a religious belief, that you cannot abandon(because it would mean eternal damnation or some sort of cosmic punishment) and cannot refine (scriptures are said to be from God, so it should be infallible).

for the nth time... Big Bang is not a fact.. its just a theory. Its a good theory though, and I think most leading modern scientists 'believe' it.

Hensoldt

11-20-2007, 08:31 AM

Scientific theories are much more believable than creationist theories.

I wonder what creationists think about the existence of dinosaurs millions of years ago.

adechan

11-21-2007, 06:09 AM

Scientific theories are much more believable than creationist theories.

I wonder what creationists think about the existence of dinosaurs millions of years ago.

and you are really still eager and curious to know this one? Not bad.

alexb

11-21-2007, 02:41 PM

Hello alexb. this is a commonly misunderstood explanation of what science is. When a scientist says 'I believe the universe began with the Big Bang...' its very different from a religious person saying 'I believe God created the universe'. A scientist will present 'facts' to support his theory, then ask his peers to disprove his theory. If there is even one fact that disproves the theory, then the scientist is forced to abandon or refine it. It is very different from defending a religious belief, that you cannot abandon(because it would mean eternal damnation or some sort of cosmic punishment) and cannot refine (scriptures are said to be from God, so it should be infallible).

for the nth time... Big Bang is not a fact.. its just a theory. Its a good theory though, and I think most leading modern scientists 'believe' it.

thats exactly what I'm saying...its a theory since it can't be tested/reproduced in a lab, nobody had observed the initial BANG. for it to be "science" dapat magawa ang mga ito.

you're right, if its a theory, therefore, its NOT a fact.

alexb

11-21-2007, 03:02 PM

Scientific theories are much more believable than creationist theories.

I wonder what creationists think about the existence of dinosaurs millions of years ago.

dinosaurs MILLION YEARS ago...eto ang pinag-aawayan pa nila...ang paluxy river footprints controversy (see search) dun nakita na ang tao whom they believed lived AFTER the dinosaurs ay may proof that they co-exists. sira ang timeline nila. like I said, pinagtatalunan pa rin ito, readers decide na lang.

click here (http://http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm)

NemoySpruce

11-21-2007, 03:34 PM

did the search. this is what i got.

Paluxy river (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html)

from the article:

...However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and have been abandoned even by most creationists. The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate (metatarsal) dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and some doctored and carved specimens (most of the latter on loose blocks of rock)...

Hensoldt

11-21-2007, 03:37 PM

dinosaurs MILLION YEARS ago...eto ang pinag-aawayan pa nila...ang paluxy river footprints controversy (see search) dun nakita na ang tao whom they believed lived AFTER the dinosaurs ay may proof that they co-exists. sira ang timeline nila. like I said, pinagtatalunan pa rin ito, readers decide na lang.

click here (http://http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm)

Wow! So you believe that man and dinosaurs co-existed at the same period?

Parang Jurassic Park ha? :D

alexb

11-21-2007, 03:42 PM

Wow! So you believe that man and dinosaurs co-existed at the same period?

Parang Jurassic Park ha? :D

The book of Job describes creatures like dinosaurs

NemoySpruce

11-21-2007, 03:56 PM

thats exactly what I'm saying...its a theory since it can't be tested/reproduced in a lab, nobody had observed the initial BANG. for it to be "science" dapat magawa ang mga ito.

you're right, if its a theory, therefore, its NOT a fact.

I think you slightly get it. Its a theory, because it has not been observed. We cannot reproduce it in a lab, unless you have a lab that is as big as the universe. So at the moment, its not a fact. its theory. But it remains a good theory because all of our knowledge about physics, mathematics and astronomy cannot disprove it. So while scientists are doing their research, at present, the Big Bang is the most acceptable model of the origin of the universe that we have.

Now, I know what your thinking. 'God created the universe' must also be a theory, and all of our science cannot disprove that, so it must be an equally good theory. The answer to that is sadly, no. Because the God created the universe theory does not explain cosmic background radiation, red shifting, light speed and the age of the universe..etc.. The Big Bang theory fits in nicely to these observed facts. So, while God created the universe and the Big Bang theory both cannot be proven to be true, they are not the same. And the difference between them is most interesting.

The Big Bang theory can be disproven by a mathematical equation. If one physicist develops an equation to show that the big bang is impossible, then that is the end of that theory. If and when that happens, scientists will not be sad. They will actually be happy to think up another model, a refined model of the universe. This is science.

The God created the universe theory, cannot be disproven by anything. It would be so easy to reply 'because God wanted it that way, we cannot understand the will of God' end of story ...to any challenge. This is not science.