D
Actually sa Blog na yan, andameng atheist na di natuwa. Tinawag syang "not expert" kahit sinabi na nya na may degree sya.hindi lang ito ang nauna majority ng mga historian ang nagsasabi si jesus ay nag exist
pero sa aklat ni Dawkins na God Delusion ay nag proclaim siya na hindi daw nag exist si jesus according sa majority ng mga Historian
kaya ng mag debate sila ni John Lenox na isang theist at mathematician ay tinanong siya ni lenox kung saan nya binase ang assumption nya na hindi na majority ng mga historian ay di naniniwala si Jesus ay nag exist
guess what umamin siya at napa amin siya ni lenox sa history blunder at kasinungalingan nya
he hilariously admitted that jesus was existed
ganyan kasinungaling ang mga atheist just to disprove God ay kahit hindi nila domain ang history ay mag iimbento sila ng kasinungalingan
Actually sa Blog na yan, andameng atheist na di natuwa. Tinawag syang "not expert" kahit sinabi na nya na may degree sya.
Ang nakakatawa ung mga non historian pa ung nandegrade sakanya.. HAHAHA..
Medyo mahiraps sila kausap.ganyan yan mga yan mayayabang mga hambog kala mo alam nila lahat
the majority of the scientists atheist and theists believe that jesus was existed - jesus existed end of story, missing body in the tomb lahat ng yan ay accepted ng madaming historians buta na sila dyan
kaya ang debate na lang dyan is about resurection
for the sake of this argument, lets just say i'll agree that..
it is possible that there MAYBE existed someone called 'Jesus Christ' who is also a preacher, carpenter at that time.
still, it WOULDN'T SATISFY or PROVE all the fantasy/magic things written on bible.
who is that O'Neill again? a subscriber of Australian Atheist? and irritates atheist too? he's weird, he doesnt have any name in atheist community. and like what ive said.. it doesnt matter if jesus christ really exist as a person historically, it would not PROVE all the FANTASY written on bible.Ahhh.. so basically kahit na kapwa atheist na HISTORIAN na MAY DEGREE ung nagsabi deny ka padin sa existence Nya..
Okay..
About his "POWER", paliwanag mo nga ulit sakin on how humanity came into existence WITH THE COLLISION OF TWO "ENERGY"?
I think that is ALSO A FANTASY.
Nagexist naman talaga si Jesus. Historical person siya. Maraming taong Jesus o Yeshua ang pangalan sa 1st century Judea. Ang hindi nag-exist ay ung Jesus na may superpowers. Kathang isip lang un.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Hindi ako science-denier at history-denier. Tanggap ko ang lahat ng facts. Ang hindi ko tinatanggap ay ang supernatural dahil hindi un fact.bumait ka ata at wala na yung paborito mo litanya na b0b0 hehehe
wag mo na ipilit yung sayo accepted ng history yan jesus was existed nagkakaisa mga historian dyan jesus in the bible
dawkins accepted that, hitchens accepted that and i am talking jesus in the bible - wag ka magmayabang at mag astang mas may alam ka pa sa mga historian
manuod ka na lng ng mga debate ng theist at atheist sa yôutubê para malaman mo kung pano inamin ni dawkins na pseudo history ang pinagbatayan nya na si jesus ay hindi nag exist - and his talking jesus of the bible not jesus na sinsabi mo
Hindi ako science-denier at history-denier. Tanggap ko ang lahat ng facts. Ang hindi ko tinatanggap ay ang supernatural dahil hindi un fact.
Historical fact na nag-exist si Jesus. Maraming Jesus sa Israel noon. Ang hindi fact ay may superpowers ang Jesus na un.
Religious leader na nagngangalang Jesus lang na ipinako sa krus ang nagexist. Hindi nagexist ung Jesus na anak ng diyos, may superpowers, lumakad sa tubig, nagpagaling ng mga maysakit, gumawa ng iba pang mga himala, nabuhay 3 days pagkatapos mamatay at umakyat sa langit. Walang historian ang naniniwala dun.egoy ang pinag uusapan dito ay historical jesus of the bible the messiah of the christian faith
ang pinag uusapan dito ay history at ang inaamin ng mga atheist na idol mo nag exist ay ang same messiah ng christian faith hindi yung kung sino jesus na sinisingit mo baliw ka na hahaha
Religious leader na nagngangalang Jesus lang na ipinako sa krus ang nagexist. Hindi nagexist ung Jesus na anak ng diyos, may superpowers, lumakad sa tubig, nagpagaling ng mga maysakit, gumawa ng iba pang mga himala, nabuhay 3 days pagkatapos mamatay at umakyat sa langit. Walang historian ang naniniwala dun.
Your Atheist Historian pertains to the Jesus of Nazareth. Lalala.Nagexist naman talaga si Jesus. Historical person siya. Maraming taong Jesus o Yeshua ang pangalan sa 1st century Judea. Ang hindi nag-exist ay ung Jesus na may superpowers. Kathang isip lang un.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
When a Non Historian degrades someone with AN ACTUAL DEGREE..who is that O'Neill again? a subscriber of Australian Atheist? and irritates atheist too? he's weird, he doesnt have any name in atheist community. and like what ive said.. it doesnt matter if jesus christ really exist as a person historically, it would not PROVE all the FANTASY written on bible.
and.. when did i mention something about "POWER"? and "COLLITION OF TWO ENERGY" where did you even get that?
Constant work in progress ang SCIENCE. Narerevise un batay sa new knowledge at evidence na naauncover. Hindi un gaya ng religion na nakataga na sa bato at hindi na pwedeng baguhin kahit mali.na close tuloy yung kabilang thread dahil sa kabugukan mo haha
so lets continue on this wag mo lang sasamahan ng kabaliwan at ng matino ang talakayan
alam mo yan dinadal mo mga recent alternative theories ay kaylan lang nabuo yan egoy nag babase ka sa concensus ng mga scientist pero hindi mo ma accept na ang universe ay may beginning, nakikichismis ka lang kasi at hindi mo alam at nauunawa ang pinagsasabi - why u cant accept that big is the most plausible explaination of the origin of the universe eh mga kapwa atheist nagsasabi iyan ay may beginning?i take my time kanina para silipin un isa sa mga sources ng link mo
kung ganyan nman labanan stupid style ng debate na style mo mas madali sakin yan so pag bibigyan kita sa agos mo
ang isang link ng pinagkuhanan mo ay may title na
Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning
sabi mo ay bumabase ka sa scientific concencus egoy sa title pa lang nito ay palpak na at walang scientific fact "may had a begginning maaring may beginning? hahaha asan un exact science dyan
talagang oudated na ang utak at basehan mo
one of the proponent of this 20th century idea is according na din sa article ng link mo ay si Saurya Das a theoretical physicist, and i take my free time how credible this physicist, maski sa wikipedia entry ay wala itong pangalan
he never heard o may pangalan man lang siya sa scientific community pati na istupidong theory nila
i dont know what is the religious affeliation of this man but judging from his race as indian ay hindi ako nagtataka kung bakit ganyan ang paniniwala nya at nagkaroon siya ng ganyang istupidong theory
he taken it from vedict literature where as the standard big bang was first proposed by a catholic priest from the genesis of the bible at ito naging inspiration nyan since according to vedict ang universe ay eternal
“Material nature and the living entities should be understood to be beginningless. Their transformations and the modes of matter are products of material nature.” - Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 13, Verse 20.
this is one of the 2 example how atheist and scientists s†éáling from the idea of God hahaha
anyway the man is never heard of in scientific community so we can consider it as bogus and pseudo science
duon naman sa isa dinadaldal mo na alternative sa big bang na Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem
there is no way to get rid of a beginning to any universe that is characterized by cosmic expansion (Hav > 0). Since our universe is characterized by cosmic expansion, it must have had a beginning. So, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem eliminates the eternal inflation model, which is based upon an ever expanding multiverse.
-Borde, A., A. H. Guth, and A. Vilenkin. 2003. Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete.
binasa at nauunawaan mo talaga yan o bug0k at b0b0 ka lang talaga
since unanimously the scientist now belive that time and space was originated on big bang tatanga ***** at mangmang ka lang kaya hindi mo matanggap
"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." Stephen Hawking -The Beginning of Time
"The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything." Stuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University
"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning." Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan
"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the Universe began with a "Big Bang" ~15 billion (15,000,000,000 or 15E9) years ago." "The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the Universe." Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan
"The present location and velocities of galaxies are a result of a primordial blast known as the BIG BANG. It marked: THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE! THE BEGINNING OF TIME!" Terry Herter, Cornell University
"That radiation is residual heat from the Big Bang, the event that sparked the beginning of the universe some 13 billion years ago." Craig Hogan, University of Washington
"The universe cannot be infinitely large or infinitely old (it evolves in time)." Nilakshi Veerabathina, Georgia State University
"Evidence suggests that our universe began as an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity." Stephen T. Abedon, Ohio State University
"A large body of astrophysical observations now clearly points to a beginning for our universe about 15 billion years ago in a cataclysmic outpouring of elementary particles. There is, in fact, no evidence that any of the particles of matter with which we are now familiar existed before this great event." Louis J. Clavelli, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, University of Alabama
"The dominant idea of Cosmology is that the Universe had a beginning." Adam Frank, University of Rochester Department of Physics & Astronomy
bob0 magbase ka sa concencus ng mga scientist, the universe had a beginning at hindi sa mga bag0ng -lumang 20th first pesudo science
who are you to discredit the credential of those scientists, eh mangmang ka taga basa ka lang naman ng bagay na hindi mo nauunawan o ayaw mo tanggapin dahil sa religism mental illness mo kaya wala ka na pag asa matut0 Napapako ka na sa kamangmangan mo dahil sa pagkabulag mo at galit mo sa religion
walang maniniwala sayo dyan sa pesudo science mo ang majority sa kanila ay nagkakaisa sa bagay na yan at maski die hard atheist scientist ay dinidiscredit yang kahibangan mo
Kindly read again my reply (Please understand every word that i said).When a Non Historian degrades someone with AN ACTUAL DEGREE..
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?