Questions for the Atheists

[gareb]

---

Sa kalawom sa river or question, naa ra gihapon ang itik, naglutaw sa ibabaw...

Murag wa may outspoken nga atheist nga ilado kaayo diri pinas to answer and satisfy these types of questions....ug sa dihang ni-sulod si Gareb....

how did my name got dragged into this?

[badjaw]

im not here to impress you bai.

why not? Logic can accept that.

now for the question who created the watchmaker? this is a faulty analogy sir. you cannot compare God to a watchmaker. God is eternal, He is the beginning and the end. He is the uncaused cause for infinite regression is impossible. there have to be a first cause.

how can you say it is faulty? if you conclude that there's a designer, then why stop there? you are basically putting an exemption to the 'who created what?' analogy.

well, that is a claim that 'he is the beginning and the end'. again, NO PROOF, purely a claim.

[tokidoki]

^^ yes, even if we do humor the issue, who created Him? He most likely is the beginning of us but who is the beginning of Him?

[cheking...]

PARA NAKO SAYUP SD ANG ATHEISTS, THERE IS REALLY A GOD, klaro man common sense will tell you.. kinsa paman d ay nag himo nato? ngano naay life? ngano naay kalibutan, SO THERE SHOULD BE SOMEONE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THESE,

and SAKTO UNTA ANA, NGANO NAA PAY RELIGION, ako 100% ANTI-RELIGION kaau ko, kay mao NAY HINUNGDAN SA TANAN GUBOT SA KALIBUTAN.
awa ang PILIPINAS, pwerting mka DEBOTO SA CATHOLIC, awa na DATU MO?? ana? POBRE lng ghapon. kamo ray gika buangan sa mga PARI, ay mog paTUNTO ana.

MAONG WA GUY PROGRESS ATONG NASUD TUNGOD NILA, LOOK AT PROMINENT COUNTRIES LIKE EUROPE,US, ETC.
WA SILA NAG PALABI ANANG RELIGION. WA SD SILA NAGPA ILAD....
MGA BRAYT MAN GD MGA TAO NILA.

[yanong_banikanhon]

how can you say it is faulty? if you conclude that there's a designer, then why stop there? you are basically putting an exemption to the 'who created what?' analogy.

^^ yes, even if we do humor the issue, who created Him? He most likely is the beginning of us but who is the beginning of Him?

The question is indeed faulty because it assumes that GOD has a CREATOR and therefore he is only a creature. But if that assumption is true, then he ceases to become GOD and his CREATOR becomes the real GOD. In either case, the theists win because we believe that there is a GOD.

So, sa dili pa mo mangutana nga who created GOD or who is the beginning of Him, pangutan-a sa inyong kaugalingon ani:

Does GOD have a CREATOR?

Kun kaming mga theists ang pangutan-on ana, ang among tubag is: No, there is no creator before GOD and below is the logical argument that supports our answer:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. A causal loop cannot exist.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

Kanang First Cause, ang tawag namo ana is GOD.

Unya kamong mga atheists kay mo-deny man gyud mo sa existence anang First Cause, as intellectually honest individuals, it is your responsibility to prove that the above argument is false.

So, balik ta sa topic (Questions for the Atheists):

Can you give us a logical/scientific evidence that will prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the FIRST CAUSE to exist?

Basin moingon na pud mo, we don't have to prove anything. Supak man kaha mo anang among argument sa taas, so ipakita nga dunay logical or scientific basis ang inyong pagsupak2x.

Tubaga kuno na palihug kay daghan2x na ra ba ang mga questions nga inyong gilikay-likayan.

[Devian]

Does GOD have a CREATOR?

Kun kaming mga theists ang pangutan-on ana, ang among tubag is: No, there is no creator before GOD and below is the logical argument that supports our answer:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. A causal loop cannot exist.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

Kanang First Cause, ang tawag namo ana is GOD.

pa explain sab ko gamay kay di ko kasabot.

1. Every finite and contingent has a cause -- ok
2. A causal loop cannot exist --- why not?
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length ---- again why not?
4. therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist. --- this contradicts item #1. why do u have a 1st cause when everything has a cause?

why should the First Cause be God? which God?

[yanong_banikanhon]

OT: @Devian, see my comments in red.
1. Every finite and contingent has a cause -- ok
2. A causal loop cannot exist --- why not?
- because of point # 1

3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length ---- again why not?
- because of point # 1

4. therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist. --- this contradicts item #1. why do u have a 1st cause when everything has a cause?
- There is no contradiction, because the first cause is not finite

why should the First Cause be God?
- Wrong question. Sama ra na'g moingon ka: Why should the study of life and living organisms be called Biology?

On topic:
Balik ta sa topic ha, kay mora'g nagsugod na pud og simang. Ang atong topic is: Questions for the Atheists. So akong balikon akong pangutana. PALIHUG OG TUBAG.

Can you give us a logical/scientific evidence that will prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the FIRST CAUSE to exist?

Please also answer these:
1. Can you give us a scientific evidence that the causal loop exists?
2. Can you give us a scientific proof that the causal chain is infinite?

[KlaytoN]

..continuation from Post #1103

This is the voice of the scientific community. I am posting a series of statements or scientific opinion as given by scientific bodies of international standing in response to the "intelligent design" agenda.

American Chemical Society

The American Chemical Society is a nonprofit organization, chartered by the U.S. Congress, with a multidisciplinary membership of more than 158,000 chemists and chemical engineers. It publishes numerous scientific journals and databases, convenes major research conferences and provides educational, science policy and career programs in chemistry.

In a recently adopted policy statement, the Society said that “evolutionary theory is not a hypothesis, but is the scientifically accepted explanation for the origin of species, and explains significant observations in chemistry, biology, geology, and other disciplines."

“Evolution is a well-established, central scientific concept,” said William F. Carroll, Jr., Ph.D., ACS president. “In the proper context, students should be exposed to a wide diversity of ideas to help them shape their own opinions. But they should get a solid understanding of science from their science teachers through a full and robust scientific curriculum. Evolution is the proven scientific model that we should be teaching in the science classroom.”

The Society said that “evolution cannot be dismissed or diminished by characterizing it as mere conjecture or speculation.”

Source: American Chemical Society supports teaching evolution in K-12

I'm copy pasting only the important parts of the statement only. This is to prevent accusations of plagiarism kuno from believers who do anything just to discredit science. Reading the source page is highly encouraged in order to understand the issue.

The scientific community has spoken. So it's up to you to decide whom to believe: The ID or Creationism proponents like Kent Hovind or Michael Behe? or the Scientific Community as a whole? You be the judge. End of debate.

[Peenut]

Can you give us a logical/scientific evidence that will prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the FIRST CAUSE to exist?

Please also answer these:
1. Can you give us a scientific evidence that the causal loop exists?
2. Can you give us a scientific proof that the causal chain is infinite?

Let us have the courage to accept that the person in front of all crowds, including YOU, doesn't know ALL the answers.

[yanong_banikanhon]

Let us have the courage to accept that the person in front of all crowds, including YOU, doesn't know ALL the answers.

Please note that I'm not asking for ALL the answers. My questions are very specific and they focus on the foundation of the atheistic belief. If an atheist cannot answer these questions, then his/her position is absurd and he/she is relying on blind faith.

If that's the case, then dili na lang unta sila manghilabot sa mga theists. Dili na lang unta sila magbugal2x sa DIOS sa mga theists. Unya dili na lang unta sila manghinambog nga ang science nga ilang gihuptan has ALL the answers.

Tan-awa galing ang mga posts sa mga atheists diri di ba pulos hangin, dapat kuno magtuon ang mga theists sa theory of evolution unya kun pangutan-on bahin sa origin of life (nga matud nila 100% sure nga life comes from inorganic chemical without aid of any intelligence), maglikay2x. Daghan pasumangil.

Kun mogamit kuno og logic ang mga theists, ilang ma-realize nga walay DIOS. Unya kun pangutan-on bahin sa logic, moingon lang nga AMBOT. Tarong ba gud na?