Questions for the Atheists

[pinoy_09]

---

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..

I think you're missing the point. Just because mao kini ang fundamental principle or foundation sa math ug science doesn't mean dili kini ma change. In fact, nag evolve kini gikan pa sa panahon ni Aristotle (18th century), Einstein, ug hantud karon (21st century). Ang pruweba niini ang pag evolve sa atong knowledge as well as logic. Mao ni disagree ko nimo pag ingon nimo nga CONSTANT, coz if you say constant, it implies nga it is not changing---and this simply incorrect. If it wasn't changing, we would still be following Aristotle's fundamental law of identity with every new discoveries which states "a thing is thing", but that in itself is anachronism for the simple fact that this "law" has always existed until somebody (Aristotle) wrote it down.

[The_Child]

sigurado ko nga ang giItalicized dili na gikan ni Hegel. Interesting because most of these people dont know any better, you use Hegel and Aristotle in one page, talking about logic, as if their logic does not contradict each other. Whereas Aristotle speaks of non-contradiction, Hegel would speak of a logic founded in contradictions. whereas aristotle speaks real particulars, hegel speaks of a concrete universal. they are strange bed fellows. why conflate them both here?

aristotle 18th century get your history right.
knowledge has evolved? in what way pray tell?

[pinoy_09]

sigurado ko nga ang giItalicized dili na gikan ni Hegel. Interesting because most of these people dont know any better, you use Hegel and Aristotle in one page, talking about logic, as if their logic does not contradict each other. Whereas Aristotle speaks of non-contradiction, Hegel would speak of a logic founded in contradictions. whereas aristotle speaks real particulars, hegel speaks of a concrete universal. they are strange bed fellows. why conflate them both here?

aristotle 18th century get your history right.
knowledge has evolved? in what way pray tell?

I stand corrected, sir. Thanks for pointing that out.

[pinoy_09]

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.



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.

Whoah. Sa kataas sa atong discussion ang source ra diay nimo kay si GOD? What if mu ingon ko nga ang source si PINK UNICORN---mu dawat ka ana?

No offense sir pero once Christians inject GOD, maglisud nami'g refute ana. Di mahuman ang storya kay atheists/agnostics always debate with reason and logic then all of a sudden mugamit ra diay mo'g GOD sa inyong mga pang rason. Wala mi'y dag-anan.

[yanong_banikanhon]

You can call GOD as pink unicorn, a flying spaghetti monster, etc...The name is not important. It is the attributes that count.

Kabalo ka, hardcore atheist sab ko kaniadto. Pero kanang proof sa taas, hangtud karon dili pa gyud na nako ma-refute. Testingi kuno'g refute. Basin daghan mi nga imong ma-convince nga mobalik sa pagtoo nga walay DIOS.

You can start with the assumption that every fact is nothing but chemical states inside one's mind. Then proceed to prove that this statement is true:

All logical conclusions are nothing but chemical state inside one's brain

Is it that really hard? All you need is a proof of GOD's existence di ba? Now that a proof was presented, are you going to conclude that it is false without giving any logical or scientific evidence against it? Nagpasabot ba na nga wala gyu'y logical og scientific basis ang atheism ug agnosticism? That atheism and agnosticism is nothing but blind faith?

[pinoy_09]

You can call it a 'pink unicorn', 'a flying spaghetti monster', etc...The name is not important. It is the attributes that count.

Kabalo ka, hard core atheist sab ko kaniadto. Pero kanang proof sa taas, hangtud karon dili pa gyud na nako ma-refute. Testingi kuno'g refute. Basin daghan mi nga imong ma-convince nga mobalik sa pagtoo nga walay DIOS.

You can start with the assumption that every fact is nothing but chemical states inside one's mind. Then proceed to prove that this statement is true:

All logical conclusions are nothing but chemical state inside one's brain

Is it that really hard? Nagpasabot ba na nga wala gyu'y logical og scientific basis ang atheism ug agnosticism?

I can refute it but it would be very laborious. Since ang imong source si GOD man, bisag unsaon nako ug refute, ang padulngan kay GOD ra gihapon. You see my point sir? It's called circular reasoning. And Chrsitians are very good at that.

[Devian]

@yanong: transcendental proof for God's existence --- God is the source of logic and morals.

your transcendental proof doesnt work for my limited mind which is devoid of philosophy and logic so refuting your statement or rather someone else statement is a waste of time.

I'll leave it to the real philosophers....or are you one of them?

[yanong_banikanhon]

It's called circular reasoning. And Chrsitians are very good at that.

Let me tell you who are really good at circular reasoning.

Atheists and agnostics demand proof for all things. In other words, they believe that the use of logic and reason is THE ONLY way to examine the truth or falsity of any claim.

But the question is: How can an atheist/agnostic prove that logic or reason is the only way to prove factual statements?

Their common answer is: The statement which asserts that the use of logic and reason is the only way to examine the truth, is by itself, logically and reasonably true.

That is circular reasoning, pinoy_09. If you have better answer than what most atheists/agnostics have, please post it here. Lot of us will benefit from it.

[pinoy_09]

Let me tell you who are really good at circular reasoning.

Atheists and agnostics demand proof for all things. In other words, they believe that the use of logic and reason is THE ONLY way to examine the truth or falsity of any claim.

But the question is: How can an atheist/agnostic prove that logic or reason is the only way to prove factual statements?

Their common answer is: The statement which asserts that the use of logic and reason is the only way to examine the truth, is by itself, logically and reasonably true.

That is circular reasoning, pinoy_09. If you have better answer than what most atheists/agnostics have, please post it here. Lot of us will benefit from it.

Even a book on atheism would not be enough for Christians who are so rooted in their belief to be convinced that there is no God.

Ani man gud ni siya sir Yanong, you base your argument in the assumption that there is God. Kung mao ni siya ang imong mentality (and I'm not necessarily singling you out), then lisud na i-refute. Ang among "belief" (if you insist Atheism is a "belief") is the opposite. We do not assume there is a God because in the first place, we do not believe there is a God. So natural we only fall back on what we have, which is reason and logic. Nothing more nothing less.

[yanong_banikanhon]

Since ang imong source si GOD man, bisag unsaon nako ug refute, ang padulngan kay GOD ra gihapon.

Are you affirming the theists' belief here?

We do not assume there is a God because in the first place, we do not believe there is a God.

Then we should start with your assumption, that there is no GOD and that everything has natural explanation.

I know that atheists and agnosticts really hates circular reasoning. Some of them even summarize theism as nothing but circular reasoning.

So, without using circular reasoning, can you prove that the statement below is true?

Logic and reason is the only way to examine the truth.

Atheism and agnosticism is based on that statement. If you cannot prove without circular reasoning that the statement true, then the position of atheists/agnostics (and by extension, atheism and agnosticism) is doubtful.