So here's some part of our discussion.
Kuya Frank:The most rational proof of God's existence can be found in the bible and that is written in Romans 1:20.
(Romans 1:20) Sapagka't ang mga bagay niyang hindi nakikita buhat pa nang lalangin ang sanglibutan ay nakikitang maliwanag, sa pagkatanto sa pamamagitan ng mga bagay na ginawa niya, maging ang walang hanggan niyang kapangyarihan at pagka Dios; upang sila'y walang madahilan:
Hayag na hayag na ang ebidensiya sa tao ng katunayan na merong Dios sa pamamagitan ng mga bagay na ginawa ng Dios. Malawak ang uniberso at sa loob ng unibersong yan ay maraming mga nakapaloob na mga planeta at mga bituin. Paano ba lumitaw ang mga yan? Aksidente lang ba ang napakahusay na balangkas ng mga yan? Sapat na sapat na ang mga bagay ng makikita natin sa langit na maniwala na meron ngang Dios na pinangglingan ng lahat ng bagay.
(Awit 19:1) Ang kalangitan ay nagpapahayag ng kaluwalhatian ng Dios; at ipinakikilala ng kalawakan ang gawa ng kaniyang kamay.
That is written in the bible and that is rational.
Me:How can that be rational????
Ok your argument is like this Frank..
Frank: "God must exist."
Jobo: "How do you know."
Frank: "Because the Bible says so."
Jobo: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Frank: "Because the Bible was written by God."
It does not follow that it was written or that it is said in the Bible that God exist, eh naga exist na si GOd. I mean why should we believe in the Bible? Why should we believe in an ancient book full of errors,absurdities, and contradictions? Is that book based on critical thinking or magic lang? (I'd appreciate if you'll answer these)
You know Frank, your reasoning is fallacious because you just assumed that your conclusion is true. Not because the Bible says so eh, totoo nayan. Simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. Begging the question yan Frank. (I guess hindi mo na intindihan ito so just click the link)
You call your argument rational Frank? Do you even know what is rational? Quoting in a book full of errors, absurdities, contradictions and use that as an argument is irrational.
Balik ka lang dito kung may maganda kang isasagot. Ok? And please dont quote Bible verses again. Use your head and think. You just did what Eli did in his blog about atheism.
Frank:Up to now Evolution remains a theory the same with the Big Bang Theory. It simply means that they are not accepted as absolute truth in Science because they don't have strong proof.
[then he gave these links :How Great is God of the Bible (1st Part) and How Great is God of the Bible (2nd Part) saying that these answer what I posted. This do not answer the points i raised. Its like I'm asking a bread and he gave me a shit. ]
Me: You misunderstood "theory" here Frank. As ive said earlier, the word theory there is not used in common usage or in layman's term.
Here's what theory is..
A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:
1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
The term is often used colloquially to refer to any explanatory thought, even fanciful or speculative ones, but in scholarly use it is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class. These requirements vary across different fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.
Frank:It is not a fact. It is still a theory.
Me:Again Frankie, read what "theory" is. The word theory in layman's term is different in scientific terms. Mag basa ka naman ng dictionary or encyclopedia. Mag research kanaman din.
Also saying na "It is still a theory" is not enough. Prove it.
Tapos, look at your answer. It doesnt answer my questions/arguments. Tsk.
Frank:Through deductive reasoning alone it crumbles down pieces beyond repair. If man evolved from apes under certain circumstances and conditions - at one time or another will evolve to become Homo Sapiens. And thus, will occur continuously and consistently. However, no such things was recorded in history to be happening elsewhere in the world. Not a chimpanzee or baboon from Asia finally succeeded to become a full-pledged human. Not even an orangutan or gorilla from Africa was officially proclaimed as a graduate from the animal ape kingdom, welcomed and promoted to enter man's civilization as a totally new human being.
Evolution do not happen in a short time Frank. It do not happen overnight. Have you seen the pictures ive posted? That was recorded Frank and it do not happen for a short time. The basis of that are fossils that were found. Its really time to update yourself to science Frank.
Wait for a couple of thousand years and see what'll happen to us.
Frank: How many thousand years more? Man have existed thousands of years already. How come there are no recorded evidence in history that it happened? It still remains a theory and for Christians it is a hoax.
What do you mean not recorded? Nakita mo ba pictures na pinost ko? Ano pala tawag mo dun? Do you think galing lang yun sa imagination ng author/scientist? Merong physical evidences yan frank. From skulls and bones ng animals and tao.
Also, please do understand what theory is. Hanggang ngayon hindi mo parin alam kung ano ang theory when used in science. Mahina ka ba sa English?
Lastly, Christian Apologists and RCC alike accept the Theory of Evolution as a fact. I mean, Ive saw and heard catholics and christians apologists defend the Theory of Evolution against creationism.
Frank:Why don't you look in the dictionary yourself. Pick a dictionary of your choice and prove to me that it supports your claim that a theory is a fact like what you are doing with the theory of evolution. I challenge you to that and I assure you that you cannot prove it.
Me:Hahay Frank. Did i say na theory is a fact? I said na ang Theory of Evolution is a fact. And the word theory there is not used in common terms but in scientific terms. Mahirap bayang intindihin?? Did you understand my example(the word black)?
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
So here it is. Do you think number 7 lang ang definition ng theory Frank? Again, it depends on how the word is used. In the case of the Theory of Evolution, it is number 1. Tsk. Update yourself in English Frank. I just prove that you wrong.
Evolution as theory and fact.
Frank:sn't it a fact that your physical appearance can be copied by a sculptor?
Isn't it a fact that scientist can imitate a cell but they cannot give life to it?
There are no contradictions in the words of God in the bible.
Have you not seen the magic of David Blaine. How could he behead a chicken and then put it back and the chicken is still alive? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fkckEXVYTc That is not an illusion. There is a spiritual force to that. If someone like him can do it, more so with God.
THEN AGNOSTICS, ATHEISTS, AND SKEPTICS LAUGH AT THIS POST. FAIL. EPIC FAIL.
Heck, spiritual force behind David Blaine's magic tricks??? LOL. WTF. Here's the whole discussion. I think this is still going on. As you can see, he can't even identify magic from illusion. He call himself (and his denomination) rational but look how he writes, look at his arguments. He don't even know what 'theory' is when used in science. Maybe he is just using a pocket dictionary.