Questions for the Atheists

[pinoy_09]

---

you are not talking to me?
YOU are not talking to me yet you start your sentence with a DOC.?
see your quote?
That's too lame.!

Note you use STFU and GTFO like its a good word.
and you say ako namersonal.

Wth are you talking about? Kami ra nag discuss ni YANUNG nya nikalit raman kag ambit. Imo kong gi quote nya gitubag tika (napugos ra ko), nya mamersonal man nuon ka. Apilon pa gyud ang conspiracy theories like it's relevant. Hahahaha

[silent-kill]

hahahaha ka lingaw, nindot ni nga topic kanang mag inum hahaha


when we die do we become closer to god.... because we no longer exist?

[silent-kill]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[silent-kill]

this may answer your doubts about God's existence bro...

YouTube - ‪Ravi on How do you know there is a God?‬‏

this is the ultimate proof that there is a god bro! hahahahaha

YouTube - ‪God Made Bananas‬‏

[kajrot1]

Wth are you talking about? Kami ra nag discuss ni YANUNG nya nikalit raman kag ambit. Imo kong gi quote nya gitubag tika (napugos ra ko), nya mamersonal man nuon ka. Apilon pa gyud ang conspiracy theories like it's relevant. Hahahaha

wala day mi labot sa inyong discussion bro ^_^ kamo ra diay duha heheh
i tot free for all ni ^_^..
bitaw d lng sad ta tah mag trashtalk ^_^..

[kajrot1]

this is the ultimate proof that there is a god bro! hahahahaha

YouTube - ‪God Made Bananas‬‏

is this an ultimate proof oh bugal2 lng bro ...

[silent-kill]

is this an ultimate truth oh bugal2 lng bro ...

naa ra nimo hahahaha

[ketllac]

Naglibog nako asa padung atong discussion. I feel like our discussion is shooting up in different directions. hehehe.

Anyways, ang ako lang masulti is logic shouldn't be a set of rules to govern human behavior; it's not an ABSOLUTE LAW that governs the universe. So I still stand by my point that law of logic is not universal. When we say universal man gud, it is constant, which it is not because it can be manipulated like what religion does (and has been doing) to people. To be able to come up with something as "truth", one must undergo different processes (premise, interference, conclusion). Religion and belief in God seems to have it the other way around.

Para di ka mag libog ako klarohon ako post...

ang ato disagreement ni sanga sa argument nga ang laws of logic is constant and universal in which you disaggre. akong klarohon nga ang law of identity is universal and constant. dili nag pasabot mao ni nag govern sa universe ug human behavior but kini ang ato pamaagi sa pag sabot sa essence sa usa ka butang ug sa universe. kini constant and universal kay kini maoy pundasyon sa science and math but it doesnt mean nga absolute ni sya. universal ni sya kay mao ni syay sinugdanan o unang principle sa pag sabot nato sa mga butang. ug kini nga principle ni sanga ang mga branches sa science. Kung naa man gani discovery nga ma refute dili nag pasabot nga flaw sa systema nga mao ang laws of logic kundili ang ato panabot ug interpretasyon. Kini nga law dili gibuhat ug tawo like Criminal law nga pwede ma manipulate but ang law nga constant nga matod pa ni Hegel the first aspect under which Hegel treats the category of essence is that of the ground of existence. The conception of the ground of existence implies the idea of something which is fundamental and permanent.

heres the explanation about the law of identity from Aristotle;

Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is.To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else. An entity can have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part of its identity. A car can be both blue and red, but not at the same time or not in the same respect. Whatever portion is blue cannot be red at the same time, in the same way.

tanan studies ni adhere ani ma pa physics, biology, math, etc. In fact ang physics sige pa gani study kabahin anang string theory and theory of everything nga in fact mao ni pinaka first principle nga ila gi apply sa ila theory..

can you nullify this?

ug maka provide ba ka lain nga principle sa pag sabot sa essence sa usa ka butang nga tangible?

ug kung wala kay ma refute then it remains constant and universal but not absolute..

[Devian]

evidence for what lagi? for faith?

ask bitaw ko nimo kay wa ko kasabot. wa pud diay ka kasabot imo post.

hala undang ta ani.

[yanong_banikanhon]

So kung atong analayson pag-ayu imong argument, sir, pasabot diay nga gagamit pud ka sa chemical state sa imong utok. ...Dili ba proseso kini sa imong pangutok, which means chemical firings pud diay ni siya diay.

Let's assume for a while nga chemical state lang ang tanan. There are no constant, unchanging and immaterial laws of logic.

Can you prove that the statement 'All logical conclusions are nothing but chemical state inside one's brain' is true?

Tubaga palihug. Ayaw og likay-likay.

Fact of the matter is, ang atheists dili sila mu tuo ug mga "entity" without proof or evidence (that includes the pink unicorn, FSM, ug uban pa). Kung mu ingon ka nga ang atheist walay mapakitang ebidensya sa Ginoo, nag imply diay ka nga naa kay ikapakitang ebidensya? Unsa man imong ebidensya kuno?

Yes, daghan kaayo. Kun atong tagsa-tagsaon, basin mapuno ning forum. One of the evidence is kanang gitawag og transcendental proof for God's existence. In short it goes like this:

In a material world, we verify the truth or falsity of a thing using the laws of logic. Logic itself trancends the material world (it is not bounded by space and time). Any transcendental thing cannot originate from a material source, it should come from a source that is also transcendental. This SOURCE should not be bounded by the material universe(s). This SOURCE is called GOD. Without GOD, it is impossible to prove anything.

So naa na, mga abay ang usa sa mga ebidensya nga inyong gipangita. Mga atheists/agnostics, i-refute kuno na. Kay aron dili magtuo ang mga theists nga ang basis sa mga atheists ug agnostics is no more than a blind faith - mga panghinaut/pangandoy nga nasayop lang ang mga theists sa ilang pagtoo.

Kay morag sa akong tan-aw, ang existence sa mga atheist kay nakadepende lang sa mga theist. Dili man sila makapakita og proof (logical man o scientific) sa ilang pagtoo. Igo ra silang magsupak2x. Unya kun pangutan-on hain man ang imong ebidensya nga walay DIOS, mobahag dayon ang ikog. Manumangil na dayon sa mga theists. Hehe...I-refute kuno ninyo kanang proof sa taas.