Haven't registered here yet? Sign up now! to participate in the forums and enjoy all the cool features of TristanCafe Social Network. Everything's FREE, and it will only take less than a minute, pramis :)
Forum Index Board - Category: Politics & Issues
minsan ba naisip mo na walang Diyos?
posted by (Jul 10, 2005 @ 3:56PM) views: 4863
minsan ba naisip mo na walang Diyos? minsan ba naisip mo na ang lahat ng buhay na bagay sa mundo ay mula lang sa kalikasan? minsan ba naisip mo na ang tao ay di nilikha ng Diyos na siya ay bunga lang ng isang napakahabang ebolusyon?

wala akong balak makipagdebate kung sino man ang kokontra sa mga nakasaad sa post na ito. dahil wala din naman mangyayari kung magtatalo tayo. iba ang paniniwala mo sa pininiwala ko. pero kung gusto mo pa rin magpost, ok lang. ang dahilan ko lang kaya ako ng post ng ganito ay upang kahit papaano ay maliwanagan yung iba na humihina ang pananalig nila sa pinaniniwalaan namimg Diyos.......


1. The complexity of living system could never evolve by chance—they have to be designed and created.
A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (a mouse trap is a simple example.) If any part of that system is missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have come together fully formed and integrated. Many living system exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc) . when you look at the watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to “happen” by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.

2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.
Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. This is at the core of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). DNA is far by the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity that a 4-gigabit hard drive. Ironically, evolutionist scan the heavens using massive radio telescopes hoping for relative signal patterns that might have originated in outer space, all the while ignoring the incredibly complex intelligence of superior intelligence built into every human’s DNA. While we’re waiting to hear signs if intelligence behind interstellar communication, we’re ignoring those built into us.

3. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.
Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from “amoeba” to “man” would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variations between a species (finch beak for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.

4. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.
This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or “the least energetic state”. There a re some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in the living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advance over time. This is directly opposed the law of entropy.

5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms (“missing links” required for the evolution to be true.
Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don’t see this—that there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils shows the different kinds of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil records shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized “kinds.” Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven’t been.

6. Pictures of ape-to-human “missing links” are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists’ already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived.
The series of pictures or models that shows progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be “reconstructed” a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed “ape-men” are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called “ape-man” would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the “missing link” (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn’t come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look at someone’s eyes based on a few old bones.

7. The dating method that evolutionists rely upon to assigns millions and billions of years to rock are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions.
Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the chemical being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed system—that no isotopes was gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It’s common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don’t fit their expectations. What’s not commonly known is that the majority of dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions.

8. Uses continue to be found for supposedly “leftover” body structures.
Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it’s impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there’s always a possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. That’s been the case for over 100 supposedly useless organs which are now known to be essential. Scientist continues to discover uses for such organs. It’s worth nothing that even if an organ were no longer needs (e.g. eyes of blind creatures in caves); it would prove devolution not evolution. The evolutionary hypothesis needs to find examples of developing organs—those are increasing in complexity.

9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology.
When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was now called “spontaneous generation.” Louise Pasteur that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). “Chemical Evolution” is just another way of saying “spontaneous generation”—life comes from non-life. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.

Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five “heads” in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might even get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go seat in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it’s given, non-life would never become alive.

10. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins.
Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for micro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuously by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn’t mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible’s teaching of creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God’s revealed Word.
Post a comment [82 comments]
newer post:
Politics and Nursery Rhyme
older post:

:: comments ::
Note: New comments (since you last visited this post) are marked with
eveanndassa_and_mike    •reply Jul 10, 2005 @ 4:56 PM
i have faith to God talaga!
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-10-05@5:04PM
sana mas pinaikli ko pa para mas madaling basahin..
ty po!
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-11-05@12:12AM
nagtataka lang ako... bakit kaya napunta ito dito sa category na ito eh originally nasa lifestyle and culture toh?? may mumu sa tristan
  eveanndassa_and_mike    •reply    Jul-11-05@8:22AM
ok lang yan
darkheart    •reply Jul 10, 2005 @ 6:52 PM
fuck you! merong god! mamatay ka sa hell! burn baby burn!!! hahah! joke joke joke!!! ayaw ko nang basahin tol masyadong mahaba
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-10-05@11:49PM
waaaa!!! ano bang sinasabi nyo!? ayaw nyo kasi basahing mabuti eh! yung ten major laws of evolution eto po yung nagpapatunay na ang lahat ng bagay ay merong creator.... for example ang isang buhay na bagay ay hindi pwedeng magmula sa isang lifeless na bagay kaya dapat merong magbibigay buhay nito, yun ang DIYOS. at eto pa, masyadong perpekto ang bung mundo at universe so dapat talaga may designer nito, yun ang DIYOS! ano ba ang sinasabi nyo???!! naniniwala po ako kay GOD ang sakit nyo naman magsalita
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-11-05@12:14AM
hehe dapat nga pala pinaikli ko pa
thnx for droppin by dark!!
  coke_blitz    •reply    Jul-11-05@8:15AM
simple_shaina    •reply Jul 10, 2005 @ 7:02 PM
no one is perfect! lahat tayo may kanya kanyang paniniwala! hndi natin alam ang totoo.... pero walang masama kung maniniwala ka walang mawawala satin dba! yun lng po...
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-11-05@12:03AM
hehe! as i said in the post iba ang paniniwala natin sa isa't isa kaya walng dapat maging pagtatalo dito di ba? para lang ito sa mga gusto pang maging faithful kay God
by the way thanx for droppin' by shaina
khuleyts    •reply Jul 10, 2005 @ 7:40 PM
minsan naisip ko kung walang DIYOS paano pa ako nakakagising sa umaga, at patuloy na humihinga.
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-10-05@11:56PM
yeah! TAMA!
inche    •reply Jul 10, 2005 @ 8:04 PM
iba talaga ang science sa religion..

pareho namang tinuturo yan diba?

e kahit naman noon pa.. simple lang... haba ng sinulat mo.. evolution lang ng ape to man diba? tapos yung creation ni God according to bible... ibang iba na!

so I think wala ngang dapat pagtalunan d2..

but then again.. the point is in your last sentence..

I would rather put my faith in God’s revealed Word.

  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-10-05@11:53PM
wala po akong ginagawang comparison between science and religion ang gusto ko lang po ipoint out eh yung lahat ng bagay at lahat ng system sa mundo kahit ang system ng lahat ng nilalang ay merong designer. alam ko po na talagang iba ang religion sa sience... haiz
  inche    •reply    Jul-11-05@12:18AM
your article thinks otherwise

pati nga sa title mo eh
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-11-05@12:26AM
ehehehe! yan kasi ang title nyan eh. ayaw ko po siyang baguhin baka mademanda ako
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-11-05@12:32AM
science lang pow ang focus ko dito. masisira kasi ang ulo ko kung icocompare ko yung nakasulat sa genesis at ang sampung laws na to peace!
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-11-05@12:22AM
well anyweiz tnx for droppin by!
preciouz    •reply Jul 10, 2005 @ 8:39 PM
napag-aralan na nmn yan sa social studies
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-11-05@12:10AM
nyehehe.. kami ginawa naming thesis nung 2nd yr college
alex_23    •reply Jul 11, 2005 @ 12:42 AM
nasagi sa isip ko nugn bata ako na may Dyos nga ba tlga? pero ngaun, mas tumindi na ung faith ko na may Diyos talaga!!kpag down na down ka, minsan maiisip mo may Dyos ba tlga. Pero ndi ba, tuwing down na down din tayo,natin naiisip na ipagpasaDYos ang lahat..
nice article!!
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-11-05@12:51AM
ahhhh salamat po alex! talaga yung sinabi mo hirap din kasi maniwala kapag for an instance may mabigat kang problema tapos sasabihin mo "bakit mo ko pinababayaan?" maiisip mo tuloy na kung meron ka nga ba talagang kausap o wala. kung meron nga ba talagang gumagabay sayo na Maykapal.. ang hirap isipin noh? pro once na natanggap mo na sya hindi na yan maaalis sa puso mo di ba?? for droppin by!
Pretty_Logan    •reply Jul 11, 2005 @ 1:11 AM
I was always skeptical about the existence of God eversince. And always be
smilet_heart    •reply Jul 11, 2005 @ 2:01 AM
nice post..
i strongly believe na there is GOD ....

share k lang itong fave song ko bout God n everytime n down ako i just sing this song tpos ok n ko..

Great is the Lord of most worthy of praise
In the city of our God the Holy place
The joy of the whole earth

Great is in WHO we have the victory
He aids us against the enemy
We bow down on our knees...

And LORD we want to lift
Your name on high
And Lorg we want to thank You
For the works You've done in my life
And Lord we trust in Your unfailing Love
For You alone are God Eternal
Through out earth and heaven above...
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-11-05@10:25AM
masarap talaga umawit para kay God
Thanx smilet heart!
  smilet_heart    •reply    Jul-12-05@1:05AM
ur most welcome
Pretty_Logan    •reply Jul 11, 2005 @ 2:15 AM
What are your basis in believing on someone you haven't seen, touched, talked to...answered you, etc?
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-11-05@9:57AM
well if you don't believe in God that's ok, i respect your belief.. but as i said in my post, a debate is not necessary.... hehe im just speakin' out my mind about my belief and so are you
anyways thanx for droppin' by logan!
honeygeeko    •reply Jul 11, 2005 @ 2:17 AM
hello mang ambo! naalala ko ung chracter ni larry alcala mang ambo un diba? u got the ur screen name from that character? well i strongly believe in God.u dont have to see it to believe it. what will be my proof that there is God? myself. and every living and nonliving things that are amazingly designed and sculptured by our creator HImself.keep the faith God is with you always, never have a doubt. have a nice day (mala lailow na pagbati)
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-11-05@10:13AM
si larry alcala nga si mang ambo kaya lang di ko dun nakuha yung idea ko sa pangalan ko.. naisip ko kasi na yung pangalang mang ambo eh parang symbolism ng talagang pagiging matanda (pero di po ako matanda ha ) di ba kasi kapag matanda ang isang tao parang punong puno sya ng kuro kuro at kung ano anong kwento... kaya yun ang naisip ko...

well about naman sa comment mo.... surely there are many things that you needed to see to believe especially God pero ang sabi sa bible mapapalad ang naniniwala kahit di nila nakikita. and also that your sole existence is a living proof that a God really exist.

Thanx honeygeeko!!
  honeygeeko    •reply    Jul-11-05@8:28PM
hehehe kala ko idol mo ung matandang albularyo n character ni larry alcala...so parehas pla tyo who believes in God kala ko atheist ka..u dont have to see Him literally, personally to believe..if u have faith, u will feel his presence..at wag din tyo mgbulag bulgan..everything we see around us, i strongly believe that God created it.He gave us eyes to see in the first place.we're so lucky
Tank20    •reply Jul 11, 2005 @ 4:47 AM
Kapag nasubukan mo ng ma ambush o mapasalang sa mainitang palitan ng putok sa mga bulubundukin ng Mindanao o saan man lupalop ng lupa dalawa lang malamang mangyayari:

una : tumawag sa dios, sa birheng maria at sa lahat ng santo at maghanap ng makukublihan!

pangalawa: maihi sa takot kung wala ka ng makukublihan.

Maniwala man kau o hindi sa Dios eh bahala na ka, hindi ako taga husga dyan.

  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-11-05@10:16AM

salamat pareng tank!
Pedroz    •reply Jul 11, 2005 @ 9:46 AM
I better die knowing there is God than nothing at all. I hate the idea of us being formed so complex and decompose into just that for no reason then that is why there is God and his work. If it didnt make sense I suggest u pray and ask for his forgiveness.
  Lailow    •reply    Jul-11-05@10:01AM
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-11-05@10:26AM

Thanx pedroz!
music_lover00    •reply Jul 11, 2005 @ 11:42 AM
it's just another test of your faith to GOD...kk
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-11-05@10:14PM

well anyweiz thanx for being here music!
angelbambi    •reply Jul 11, 2005 @ 1:08 PM
ang haba po.. balik nlng ako bukas...
po muna c ako!
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-11-05@10:27PM
JeFFjam    •reply Jul 11, 2005 @ 1:13 PM
Ako, bilang kristiyano ay buong pusong nagpapasakop sa paniniwala na ang Diyos ay umiiral. Ang bibliya ay waksing bukas na nagpapahayag ng mga samo't saring paliwanag hinggil sa mga bagay bagay na hindi nakikita, naririnig, nakakausap, at nasasalat.

Sa itaas ng artikulong ito ay maliwanag na ipinahayag ang pangangailangan ng matalinong manlilihikha sa likuran ng mga bagay na nalatad sa ating pangunawa sa ngayon.

Kung atin nga namang pakaiisipin, Makatwiran bang maniwala na ang daigdig ay nilalang ng Diyos? Kung kyo ba ay makakita ng isang magandang gusali, iniisip ba ninyo kung sino ang nagtayo nito? Kung may magsabi na walang nagtayo nito at lumitaw na lamang, maniniwala kaya kyo? Syempre hindi! Sa Hebreo 3:4, Sinasabi na "Bawat bahay ay may nagtayo". Hindi ba natin matatanggap ang makatwirang pasya na "Siya na nagtayo ng lahat ay ang Diyos? Kung walang Diyos, Paano ipaliliwanag ang mga bagay na ito?

Noon pa may isang malaking katanungan na kung papaanong ang sansinukod at ang bilyun-bilyong bituin nito ay nakapaglalakbay sa kalangitan ayon sa mga batas na nagpapanatili sa kanila sa sakdal na kaayusan(Isaias 40:26). Kamangha mangha kung iisiping ang bilyun-bilyong bituin ay kusang lumitaw, at, bagaman walang pumapatnubay, ay bumuo ng dambuhalang mga galaksi na kumikilos sa kamanghamanghang kaayusan!-(Awit 14:1). Ang ganito kaorganisadong sansinukob ay hindi lilitaw na lamang. Kinakailangan ang matalinong Maylikha na may dakilang kapangyarihan.(Awit 19:1,2).

Sa paniniwala ko lamang, mas makatwiran pa ring paniwalaan ang bibliya higit sa anupamang patotoo ng siyensiya at pilosopiya. Bagamat ang Origin of Species na inilathala ni Charles Darwin noong 1959 ay nagpaliwanag at naghayag ng ilang makasiyentipikong patotoo na humamon sa turo ng Bibliya hinggil sa paglalang ng Diyos, ay higit na kwestyunable at di katiya tiwala. Gaya din nman nila Freud, Nietzsche, Marx, at iba pa na nagharap ng teoriya na umakay sa panghihina ng pananampalataya sa Diyos at nagbangon ng mga agam agam sa turo ng bibliya..ay may butas hinggil sa pagkakasuwato nito sa iba pang mga tuklas. Kayat kung atin lang pakakausisain ang turo ng bibliya..matitiyak natin na ating masusumpungan ang katalinuhan sa paghahanap ng tao sa Diyos. Sinabi ni Jesus sa Mateo(Nakalimutan ko po ang eksaktong sitas, pakitanong na lng kay Skye )..na "Hanapin ninyo at inyong masusumpungan."

Mga kapatid, dapat po tayong pasakop sa kapangyarihan ng Diyos..alalaong baga na kung hindi nakikita ang Diyos ay di na dapat paniwalaan? Isang lohikal na pagtanaw ang ihahayag ko sa inyo. Kung inyo pong susubukin na tumitig ng deretsa sa araw(sun) ng isang oras..tiyak na kayo'y mabubulag o di kaya'y magkakadeperensya sa paningin. Mga kapatid, ang Diyos ay higit na makapangyarihan sa araw..hindi kakayanin ng sino mang tao na makita ang kaluwalhatian ng Diyos sapagkat siya'y mamamatay-Exodo 19:21. Kung kayat hindi ipinapahintulot na makita ang Diyos, ni marinig ang kanyang tinig..kung kayat gumagamit siya ng kulog sa pakikitalamitam ky moises. ( Upang higit na maliwanagan ay ipinapayo ko pong basahin ang kasaysayan ng mga Israelita sa bundok ng Sinai-Exodo 19:1-25.

Sinasabi sa Juan 1:18 na walang sino mang tao na nakakita kaylan man sa Diyos. Subalit isang pangako ang matutupad para sa may malilinis na puso, sapagkat makikita nila ang Diyos-(Mateo 5:8).

Atin pong bigyan ang Diyos ng papuri at paggalang, sapagkat Siya na lumalang sa lahat ng bagay, at naaayon sa kanyang kagustuhan ay kanyang pinanatili. Apocalipsis 4:11, Gawa 14:15-17; 17:24-26.

Purihin ang Diyos!
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-11-05@10:18PM
jeff at nagbigay ka pa ng mga bible verses!
  skye    •reply    Jul-13-05@3:36PM
haba jeff

buton sabi ' skye: bibong bata!' di po mali yan
  JeFFjam    •reply    Jul-13-05@3:58PM
Napasarap po ang paliwanag e!

IKAW:bibong bata!
  skye    •reply    Jul-13-05@4:12PM
ikaw pala ay bibong bata eh
  JeFFjam    •reply    Jul-14-05@4:09AM

ikaw ang kulit mo talga!
  skye    •reply    Jul-14-05@10:38AM
di naman halata mahihilo ka nyan
  JeFFjam    •reply    Jul-15-05@8:41AM
Halata ko nga e..palo kita jan!
  skye    •reply    Jul-15-05@9:04AM
kurut kita

halata na ba
  JeFFjam    •reply    Jul-15-05@11:08AM

Ako lng nman kakahalata kaya wag po ikaw magalala!
  skye    •reply    Jul-15-05@11:44AM

kaw lang ba good biro lang
  JeFFjam    •reply    Jul-15-05@2:31PM

Opo! Di nila alam un..yaan mo po tuwa naman si ako e!
  skye    •reply    Jul-15-05@2:39PM

  JeFFjam    •reply    Jul-15-05@4:55PM

Welcome po!
  skye    •reply    Jul-19-05@9:20AM

plastic gusto mo biro lang
Lailow    •reply Jul 11, 2005 @ 1:54 PM
Mang_Ambo: A very classic subject matter:

RELIGION versus SCIENCE. The Existence of God vis a vis Scientific Theories (Big Bang, Theory of Evolution, etc.) Each side have their own arguments and premises - some pretty much convincing, some pretty much ridiculous. I would still think that rather than make Science and Religion Clash, they complement each other. It does not mean that both have their own way of "seeing" and "perceiving" things when it comes to the Creation of the Universe and Man but it does not mean they are contradicting.

Anyway, I have answered this in another Article pertaining to the Existence and Inexistence of God. Let me give you a succint way of the Proofss why God exist. These are well-established Schools of Thought, imbibed and adhered by all people - from Religious personages to Scientific practitioners.

There are six Arguments


We cannot deny the fact that there are certain phenomena that Science could not explain even fathom - more than that, happenings we don't understand in the form of miracles. We can look at a MIRACLE in two ways in terms of definition.

One: An event that contradicts and goes against all that we know about laws governing the physical world (do you remember the Wedding Banquet where Jesus turned water into Wine)

Two: An event that is unlikely to transpire which leads us to wonder that it was only the doing of a divine personality - simply put divine intervention.


God's existence comes from a vantage point that human thru history was able to develop its own MORAL CODES. The idea of "conscience" which guides and influences behavior and attitude presupposes the variable that something created it. It argues that that source is God Himself.


There are a lot of people that claim and confirm an "actual experience" of God. This argument also states that Trust or Faith in the genuine experience of another person may act as proof and eviddence of a divine being.


It relates to the nature of the world or design. The world is too complicated and complex at the same time orderly and someONE must have produced this.


This is the idea of the PRIME MOVER. The existence of the Cosmos must have a source and came from something. Plato would put it very simply - THE FIRST CAUSE that made all things move.


It argues that the existence of God says that His BEING by nature includes the concept of necessary existence. God is the perfect being. As He is most perfect, He must have all perfections. If God laked existence He would not be perfect, as He is perfect he must exist.

You have a nice day.
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-11-05@10:26PM
but no matter what arguments people raise, still, the fact that a living God truly exist and its a matter of faith and skepticism to the PEOPLE LIVING IN THE FURS OF THE RABBIT THAT IS PULLED OUT FROM THE MAGICIAN"S TOP HAT

thanx lailow!
a very interesting comment indeed
Pretty_Logan    •reply Jul 11, 2005 @ 2:57 PM
The author said: "well if you don't believe in God that's ok, i respect your belief.. but as i said in my post, a debate is not necessary.... hehe im just speakin' out my mind about my belief and so are you
anyways thanx for droppin' by logan!"

I have my own faith and i never said i don't believe in God completely. I'm not trying to steer you into a debate, i'm just asking a question. Ngayon would you mind answering
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-11-05@9:54PM
ehehe! sorry po kung medyo mali ang pagkakaintindi ko dun sa comment mo
ok... well i don't have any basis, kahit di ko sya nakikita naniniwala pa rin ako sa kanya in a catholic way of belief kasi dun ako sa paniniwala na yun pinalaki ng mga parents ko. at saka meron tayong bible di ba, siguro sapat na yun bara paniwalaan ko sya
wolf_csi    •reply Jul 11, 2005 @ 4:58 PM
Ako noong panahon na SUNOD-SUNOD. Take note ha? sunud-sunod akong nabasted sa mga babaing napupusuan ko!!!

Pero nanatili akong nanalangin na bigyan ako ng lakas ng loob ( AT TIGAS NG MUKHA ! ) para muling umibig at manligaw.Awa ng Diyos ako'y sinagot din. (in Other words, eh NK-PAMBOLA DIN HEHEHEHEH! ).

kIDDIng aside, isa lang ang masasabi ko lahat ng tao, mahirap ka man o mayaman ay dumadaan sa matinding pagsubok sa buhay. Ang mahalaga ay laging nk-sentro ang ating lakas at damdamin sa ating Poong Maykapal. GOD BLESS TO ALL>>>
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-11-05@9:59PM
: tama : : lol : nangyari na rin sakin yan!

tnx wolf!
mang_ambo    •reply Jul 11, 2005 @ 9:28 PM
hindi po ako aetheist, kung babasahin nyo lang pong mabuti yung mga laws isinasaad dito na masyadong perpekto ang andar ng mundo, isipin nyo na lang kung paano magagawa and sobrang complicadong systema ng kalawakan. for an instance, ang solar system, una sa lahat yung perpektong hugis bilog ng mundo and then secondly yung perpektong pagkakasunod-sunod at ikot ng mga planeta (note: alam nyo na kung hindi dahil sa jupiter ay matagal ng walang tao sa earth dahil ang jupiter ay ang planetang humaharang sa mga cometang dapat ay babagsak sa earth) at isang pang example would be the human DNA, ang isang patak ng dugo ay naglalaman ng bilyong bilyong strands ng DNA. at ang bawat isang DNA naman ay naglalaman ng bilyong bilyong data tungkol dun sa may-ari ng dugo. hindi po talaga ako aetheist medyo nakakalito lang yung title pero it is all about the impossibility of all evolutionists' (eto yung mga totoong aetheist) statements about the world.
DYOBAN    •reply Jul 12, 2005 @ 4:55 PM
Well as of me na lumaki malapit kami sa simbahan (di yung bahay namin ha ) simula sa erpat ko hanggang sa mga bro ko na naging sakristan ng simbahan namin sa cebu. I grew up knowing that god really exist dahil isa din ako sa member ng simbahan namin. And come to think of it gus2 kung pumasok sa seminary matapos akong mag graduate sa grade school pero ayaw lang ng erpat ko. Pero ang point ko kasi sa comment ko is from the day I started going to kindergarten to college I believe that god exist. But there was a lesson that I will never forget way back in my high shool years when my science profesor introduce the evolution of mankind from primate to homosepians. And knowing that chemistry is a science that deals with chemicals and basic elements of nature and human bodies. So na discover ko that most of the human body is made up of water, H2O, with cells consisting of 65-90% water by weight. Therefore, it isn't surprising that most of a human body's mass is oxygen. Carbon, the basic unit for organic molecules, comes in second. 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of just six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. The total breakdowns are as follows

1. Oxygen (65%)
2. Carbon (18%)
3. Hydrogen (10%)
4. Nitrogen (3%)
5. Calcium (1.5%)
6. Phosphorus (1.0%)
7. Potassium (0.35%)
8. Sulfur (0.25%)
9. Sodium (0.15%)
10. Magnesium (0.05%)
11. Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%)
12. Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts

In the bible it said that man was created in clay and form using the hands of god which is also been question by science. Kung nilikha ng dyos ang tao paano naman niya nilikha ang mga dinosaurs? So theres an elevation between the two kasi the first residence on this planet known to science is the dinosaurs which lives million of years ago. I believe in god but di naman mawala sa isip natin yung tanong kung "meron ba talagang dyos?". I know lahat tayo nagtanong dyan di ba don't tell me not all of us ask the same questions kasi kung ibase mo sa bible at sa science there is a big difference. Nakasulat sa bible ang beliefs and the journey of the messiah and the way he saves the human race nung pinako siya sa kros. What has written in the bible are records of the past religious beliefs pero science point out that does god really exist?

Sabi nila people created by god in his own image? Then look around you and look at yourself in the mirror does god look like you? or the person sitting next to you in the bus or in a place where you are sitting now? God is not what we are look like in the history no one knows what god looks like or he exist according to science. But I know theres a place within us where god resides and god exist that place is in our hearts.
mang_ambo    •reply Jul 13, 2005 @ 9:50 AM
ang galing DYOBAN! hanga ako sa comment mo!
oo tama hindi mo naman kasi pwedeng ikumpara ang science sa religion kung baga may paraan ang Diyos kung paano niya ginawa ang lahat ng misteryo sa mundo. for example nga yung sinasabi mo about dinosaurs and humans, walang sinasabi sa bible na nilikha ng Diyos ang mga dinosaurs dahil nilikha niya ang lahat ng bagay sa mundo sa loob lamang ng pitong araw kasama na ang tao, walang sinasabi sa bibliya na "at nilikha ng Diyos ang mga dinosaurs" di ba? hindi natin alam ang pamamaran ng Diyos dahil tao lang tayo... tao lang tayo... tao lang tayo... tao lang tayo... iniisip kasi ng mga scientist na kaya nilang lutasin ang mga misteryo ng mundo... tao lang sila... tao lang sila...

weeee!!! salamat DYOBAN! ganda ng post mo!
  JeFFjam    •reply    Jul-14-05@4:26AM
Mang ambo..gusto ko lang po sabihin na binanggit sa bible ang paglikha ng "Dinosaurs". Sa Genesis 1:24 ganito po ang nakasulat..

"Sinabi ng Diyos: Magkaroon ng lahat ng uri ng hayop sa lupa-maaamo, maiilap, malalaki at maliliit. At gayon nga ang nangyari."

Ang mga Dinosaurs po ay mga hayop..Kung gayon po sila ay nilikha ng Diyos..at yan ay nasaad sa bibliya! Sa katunayan po..nauna sila sa paglikha..kyat kung matuklasan ng mga siyentipiko na sila ay nabuhay million years ago wala pong kontradikyon yun sa bibliya sapagkat sila po ay naunang likhain kesa sa tao, sabi ni pablo walang nakatitiyak ng isang araw sa Diyos. Ang isang araw po ay hindi bilang ng araw sa daigdig ntin ngayon!
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-14-05@1:36PM
well, may point ka nga dun kya lang hindi kaya ubusin ng mga dinosaurs yung mga iba pang hayop?
naisip ko lang... pero salamat na rin at binigyan mo ko ng idea
  JeFFjam    •reply    Jul-15-05@8:47AM
Hindi nman, kasi most dinosaurs were plant-eaters o herbivores!
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-15-05@9:09AM
yep narealize ko na rin na most of the dinosaurs were herbivores kaya lang sobran laki naman yata nila para sa mga ordinary na hayop nun... baka matapakan sila saka di talaga natin alam kung paano iyon ginawa ng Diyos
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-15-05@9:23AM
what im trying to say is that.. ok, ginawa nga Diyos ang mga hayop kasama na dito ang mga dinosaurs pero aminin na natin magkakaroon talaga ng conflict between jurassic animals saka yung mga ordinaryong animals ngayon.. eto ngayon ang point ko, hindi natin alam kung paano iyon ginawa ng Diyos, kung paano niya maiwasang kaiinin or ubusin ng mga t-rex at iba pang carnivores ang mga hayop tulad ng mga hayop ngayon or kahit ano oang mga dahilan na pwede mong maisip about the conflict, kasi di lahat ng bagay kayang ipaliwanag ng science. saka lagi kong tinatandaan na there shouldn't be any conflict between science and religion

salamat jeFFjam at kahit papaano naligaw ka dito sa post ko THANX!!!
  JeFFjam    •reply    Jul-15-05@11:27AM
Interesting nman ksi talga e! Salamat din mang ambo...
  DYOBAN    •reply    Jul-14-05@1:56PM
Jeff nabasa ko ang Genesis 1:24 at ito ang pagkasabi niya "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." Di naman sinabi na maliliit or malalaki sinabi lang "beast" at hindi inispicify kung gaano kalaki or kaliit ang nilikha niya. Side ng bible yan in the beliefes of men but in the side of science it was claim that humans are the original martians. Why they say that dahil kung ang earth is three planets distance sa sun would Mars also support life? Kasi base in science earth is abondance in natural resources that is why it supported life but what scientist believes is that Mars is also once a blue planet just like earth and what happened is that Mars was hit by a catastrophy that makes the planet wasted as we all know today.

I'm not questioning what the bible says but what science today have prove that we are not alone in this universe. So did god also created those life forms out there in space? What scientist claim that martians fled mars before a huge asteroids hit their planet and remain here on earth. Remember that earth was once hit by the same huge asteroid that wipe out the dinosaurs race and the reason why there was an evolution which turns primate into man as we are now today. We evolve that's what science believe and what makes it more interesting is that they claim that early primates is our own ancestors. Theory lang yan ha at hindi ko hangad na makabangga ang sino mang mga nasa bible studies d2
  JeFFjam    •reply    Jul-15-05@7:13AM
Siguro nga hindi nabanggit sa ibang salin ng Bibliya ang laki o liit ng nilikha..Pro kung papansinin natin, iisa pa rin ang tema..malinaw na nilikha dyan ay "HAYOP"..at ang ipinupunto ko, ang mga Dinosaurs ay isang uri nang hayop kung kayat..kung sabihin sa Gen. 1:24 na nilikha ng Diyos ang mga hayop..nangangahulugan na kasama sa nilikha ng Diyos ang mga Dinosaur. Hindi ksi ntin masisiguro ang lahat, kung iba iba ang salitang pinagkukunan ntin sa bibliya..bawat bibliyang iba ang nagsalin, iba ang pagkakalarawan nila sa bagay na yan! Subalit kung susuriin lng..pareho din ang tema! Sa isang salin din ng bibliya..inilarawan naman na "kakilakilabot na mga bayawak" ang nilikha..na kung huhugutin natin sa relasyon ng seyensiya..Ang mga bayawak ay isa sa uri ng Dinosaur. Katulad din nman ng mga butiki na gumagapang din..sila ay tinatawag na maliliit na uri ng Dinosaurs..at di maikakaila na sila ay nilikha ng Diyos.."kung ibabatay natin sa Bibliya".
  DYOBAN    •reply    Jul-15-05@5:09PM
ooppss bible na ito anyway well tama ka din sa part about na nilikha ng dyos ang mundo at mga nilalaman nito. Pero ang tanong lang kasi "does god really exist?" alam mo the next biggest question in the world is "what is the meaning of life?". We can't ignore these as for me na lumaki knowing that god exist and sometimes ask the question is he really exist. Alam mo pa ang second most debated theory is that god a man or a woman. In some beliefes his a SHE and some other claims that his a HE.

Anyway when it comes to science it has been prove that man was evolve from primates to homosapiens. it was shown in history that man real ancestor is the primates and don't want to argue about what the bible said and what science said. It clearly shows what the bible lack and science has so I'm not going to argue about this topic anymore kasi takot ako matamaan ng kidlat I don't wanna fight against the bible because what our priest told us when I was little that "No one has the right to contradict what the lord has said to us." kaya lang ako at nalnag ako about it. In closing science proves what the bible couldn't so like Lailow said Have a nice day.
  JeFFjam    •reply    Jul-16-05@12:23PM
Lahat ng katanungang iyan ay may karampatang sagot sa bible kung atin lng susuriin..Ang Diyos ay espiritu, at ang pwersa ng espiritu santo ang nagpapakilala na talgang ang Diyos ay nagexist! At kung ang tao ay nananalig sa ebanghelyo, ang mga katanungan iyan ay dapat na napaparam na sa pananaw ng tao. Sabi sa 1:16 ng Roma, "Ang ebanghelyo ang kapangyarihan ng Diyos sa bawat sumasampalataya." Samaktwid, kung ikaw na sumasampalataya sa kanya ay nagtitiwala sa salita, ang paghahanap ng tao sa Diyos ay makikilala sa Ebanghelyo.

Mainam naman talga ang magtanong at magsuri hinggil sa mga bagay bagay, ang pagsusuri sa espiritung aral ng siyensya ay wlang masama! Utos sa atin ang magsuri, Kaso lang mas mainam na bibliya ang una nating sangguniin!

Noon maraming mga scientist na naniniwala na ang mundo ay oblong..may humaka na ito tatsulok! Subalit kung atin lng sasangguniin ang bibliya, libong taon na ang nakakalipas ay sinabi na ni propeta Isaias(Isaias 40:22) na ang mundo ay bilog. at yan ay napatunayan lamang noong ika-16 na siglo, at higit na pinagtibay noong July 1969(kung di ako nagkakamali ) noong maglakbay ang apollo 11 sa buwan at nkunan ng space camera ang earth. At noon din, hindi pa natutuklasan ng mga scientist ang tungkol sa "evaporation", kamangha mangha ito'y nailarawan na sa Eclesiates 1:7. Ang ibig ko lng ipunto dito..bagamat ang bibliya ay hindi aklat aralin sa siyensiya, kpag bumanggit ito ng mga bagay na may kaugnayan sa siyensiya, ito ay nagpapamalas ng malalim at adelantadong unawa.

Magadang araw din sayo tol!

Labas na jan, walang kidlat!
  DYOBAN    •reply    Jul-14-05@2:03PM
isaw_baka    •reply Jul 14, 2005 @ 8:18 AM
nahilo naman ako sa post...ang haba!!
ako,ang parati ko lang sinasabi sa mga taong hindi naniniwala sa Diyos ko at sa pagkalikha nya sa mundo ay...
kung totoo mang nagmula sa kung ano mang elemento sa himapapawid ang pagkakabuo ng mundo,eh saan naman nanggaling ang mga elementong iyon?o yung pinagmulan ng pinagmulan ng mga elementong yon?
nakuha?hindi?hindi ko na problema yun...
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-14-05@1:42PM
naiintindihan kita pare
dadagdagan ko pa.... sa tingin mo ano yung pinaka maliit na particle na bumubou sa isang atom?........ ano naman yung bumubuo dun??....... eh dun, ano yung bumubuo?....... tapos ano yung bumubuo dun?............
never ending di ba? mysterious.... ahhhhh
imago_ms88    •reply Jul 15, 2005 @ 1:12 AM
ngayon ko lang naalalang mag-comment dito. hehe!

hindi ko pa nakikita o nahahawakan ang Diyos, pero naniniwala ako sa Kanya. pero kapag nakikita, nahahawakan, nayayakap ko ang nanay ko, para ko na ring nakita, nahawakan, at nayakap ang Diyos. dahil alam ko na ang nanay ko ang ibinigay ng Diyos sa akin upang iparamdam sa akin ang pagmamahal Nya. kapag kasama ko ang mga kaibigan ko, para ko na ring nakasama ang Diyos. dahil ang mga kaibigan ko ang ginawa Nyang instrumento upang ipakita sa akin na hindi ako nag-iisa.

hindi ko na kailangan pang makasaksi ng isang himala upang maniwala sa Kanya. para sa akin, isang himala na ang makakita ako ng nagdadalang-tao na nagpapakita ng "buhay sa isa pang buhay". para sa akin, isa nang himala ang pagmamahal na ibinibigay natin sa ating mga minamahal.

ang siyensya ay isa lang sa mga instrumento ng Diyos upang ipakita ang Kanyang kapangyarihan. sabi nga sa "Angels & Demons", sa bawat pinto na binubuksan ng siyensya sa atin, madidiskubre mo ang Diyos na nagtatago sa likod nito.

sabi nga ni Albert Einstein, "God does not play dice".
  mang_ambo    •reply    Jul-15-05@9:31AM
"ang siyensya ay isa lang sa mga instrumento ng Diyos upang ipakita ang Kanyang kapangyarihan."
kasi kapag nalaman ng tao na may mga impossibleng bagay na nandito sa mundo marerealize nila na meron talagang ultimate force na gumawa ng lahat ng bagay na iyo!!

salamat imago sa iyong napaka ASTIG! na comment

:: leave a comment

You need to be logged-in order to post comments.
Still do not have an account?
Register for free

newer post:
Politics and Nursery Rhyme
older post:


Not yet a member?
Register for free!

Lost password?