Questions for the Atheists

[nowpress*]

---

exactly what i keep telling these guys. But that would be ambiguous because if you define god that would mean he has to fit into a criteria DEFINED BY MEN.

sir kinsa diay ang mo defined sir, Iro?

God revealed Himself to men of special qualities and they wrote their encounters on books. We get our definition of God from those books.

[yanong_banikanhon]

There's just no justifiable, absolute proof to convince me that he exist. So for now, I don't believe that he exist. Show me proof that God exist, and I'll be the first one to convert.

In other words, you believe he doesn't exist. Hehe...abi nako og agnostic ka bay, in other words dili sure kun naay Dios or wala.Pero kanang imong statement sa taas sounds very confident that there is NO GOD. Pagtoo man na sa mga atheist. Agnostic gyud kaha ka or atheist nga nahadlok pangutan-on maong nagpa-agnostic2x.

Anyway, kadtong akong gi-present nga proof ngano wala man lagi to nimo gi-refute? Nia ay, akong balikon:


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.

Now that a theistic proof was presented, as an intellectually honest atheist/agnostic, you cannot just dismiss that proof without showing your logical argument why it is false. Ngano imo man lagi na gilikay-likayan? Refute it.

[yanong_banikanhon]

Also, ang basis sa pagtoo sa mga atheists ug agnostics mao ni:

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

Now, without using circular reasoning, can you prove that the statement above is true?

If you cannot provide the proof, then the atheists and agnostics position is absurd. It would appear that it is actually the atheists and agnostics who are making big claims.

Big claim requires big proof. We are yet to hear any logical or scientific proof that THERE IS NO GOD from our atheist/agnostic friends.

[pinoy_09]

In other words, you believe he doesn't exist. Hehe...abi nako og agnostic ka bay, in other words dili sure kun naay Dios or wala.Pero kanang imong statement sa taas sounds very confident that there is NO GOD. Pagtoo man na sa mga atheist. Agnostic gyud kaha ka or atheist nga nahadlok pangutan-on maong nagpa-agnostic2x.

Anyway, kadtong akong gi-present nga proof ngano wala man lagi to nimo gi-refute? Nia ay, akong balikon:


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.

Now that a theistic proof was presented, as an intellectually honest atheist/agnostic, you cannot just dismiss that proof without showing your logical argument why it is false. Ngano imo man lagi na gilikay-likayan? Refute it.

Sorry, bro. Bag-o rako ni abot gikan lakaw. I have this thing called "life" too you know. I can't be online all the time and reply to your post anytime you want me to. It's 12:39 am US Eastern time here. I'll reply to your inquiries tomorrow. Tug sako.

[yanong_banikanhon]

^^ The reason ngano niingon ko nga imong gilikay-likayan akong question is after nako gi-present ang proof, unya nagpasupot ko og mga supporting questions, igo man lang ka miingon:

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.

Unya after ana nga post, niingon pa gyud ka:

There's just no justifiable, absolute proof to convince me that he exist. So for now, I don't believe that he exist. Show me proof that God exist, and I'll be the first one to convert.

Bay, ay pag binuang ba. Hehe....Anyway, have a nice sleep.

[scarletters]

maybe...asking this question itself is a proof that there is a god..

i mean why would u be so curious about something that is not there

the existence of it is what binds in your thoughts thats why youre asking questions

maybe we are just blinded or confused because of too many kinds of religion that gives us aspects that we cant grasp

lets just live our life as we know it..
actions or happenings may occur made by god or not
we have to face it...

[tokidoki]

sir kinsa diay ang mo defined sir, Iro?

God revealed Himself to men of special qualities and they wrote their encounters on books. We get our definition of God from those books.

and that book was written by men who narrated 'so-called' experience centuries AFTER said experience without substantiating validity.

I don't need to remind you how true that is. Daghan na kaayo similar post-documentations done even by scientists and you've seen how their careers took a nosedive after that.

You can't document the past by glorifying events with exageratd testimonies. That falls into the 'creative non-fiction' genre of books.

[yanong_banikanhon]

Nagduda gyud ko nganong gilabay-labayan lang sa mga atheists/agnostics ang issue sa ilang pagtoo. Ang basis sa ilang faith is this one:

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

But the question is:

Without using circular reasoning, can they prove that the statement 'Logic and reason is the only way to examine the truth.' is true?

This is their belief so the burden of proof is on their side. They should prove beyond reasonable doubt that the basis of their faith is true. If they cannot prove it, the only logical conclusion is atheism/agnosticism has no logical basis. Atheists and agnostics exist only because of blind faith.

They are even worse than theists because their (atheists') faith is based on theists' faith. If the theists cease to exist, atheists/agnostics will also cease to exist kay wala naman silay supakon. Hehe...C'mon, guys! Ingon ani ra diay kamabaw ang position sa mga atheists/agnostics? Show us more. Prove that the basis of your faith is true without resorting to circular reasoning.

[pinoy_09]

OT: Online gihapon ka, sir? Before ko natug ganihang tunga's gabii ga online ka, pag mata nako naa gihapon ka diri?

Ok, as promised (ni mata gyud kog sayo ha coz I didn't want you to think gi likay-likayan tika).

Are you affirming the theists' belief here?

Not really. It was just my nice way of saying "this is a waste of my time".

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.

Honestly, if you think about it, that question/statement seems silly. You're asking me to prove that LOGIC is the only way to examine the truth, yet you're using LOGIC itself to formulate that question/statement. What more could you ask for? In other words, your attempt at using logic to disprove logic is, in essence, circular reasoning, and a silly one at that.

In other words, you believe he doesn't exist. Hehe...abi nako og agnostic ka bay, in other words dili sure kun naay Dios or wala.Pero kanang imong statement sa taas sounds very confident that there is NO GOD. Pagtoo man na sa mga atheist. Agnostic gyud kaha ka or atheist nga nahadlok pangutan-on maong nagpa-agnostic2x

Fact of the matter is, there are different kinds of AGNOSTICISM. I like to call myself an agnostic atheist. I have said it clearly in this thread (response to second quote):

https://www.istorya.net/forums/10171954-post40.html

If you don't know what an agnostic atheist is, see below:

Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fault me for confusing you about my beliefs for saying I was agnostic, and thank you for "educating" me about atheism/agnosticism like you know better.

[silent-kill]

i think its more logical to say ...

that an intelligent, conscious/life, powerful Creator created Creation than to claim that dumb,emotionless,lifeless Chemicals created Creation.

its called evolution, but you wouldnt know that cause you like the magical approach to life lol