Questions for the Atheists

[noy]

---

huh? questioning the existence of a deity implicates one must be god to hav drawn to ask such? ur question runs both ways... if u think god is real based on experience and on a book written by people in ancient times... unsa sad imo concrete nga basihan? kung imo na gi recognize nga ginoo.... murag conceited ra kaau ka kay a large fraction sa tibuok kalibutan, dili mo parehag ginoo...

why not?'cause you have to know all things to conclude God does not exist, 'cause God is simply not like a science project or experiment that can be observed of.

definitely i am not God therefore i acknowledge His existence..not only through personal experience and holy books...
but by the very fact that since science and civilization started, we haven't still landed with a definite conclusion and explanation about the things seen and unseen in this universe..the universe alone is one, its structure and design,its order as if it is following a specific law..the distance between earth and moon which greatly affects the lunar gravitational pull...earth's distance from the sun...DNA,life's toughest questions... i could go on whole day...
the different belief systems is outside the context 'cause the topic here is whether God exists or not...
and you concluding that He does not, therefore you must know all things to come up with that conclusion and for that...and id you know all things,then you must be God...
there's a huge difference between saying i think there's no God and i know there's no God.

the burden of proof does not lie in those who believe bai 'cause long before early science and whatever the first religion was came in to the picture...the belief in someone we call GOD is already there...early people even thought the sun was God Lol point is, long before the belief of deity is already there...then came a time that
people started concluding that there's no God..

if you find it illogical to believe in a God whose existence has not yet been proven..
think twice, 'cause proof is relative..no proof needed for those who believe but no proof is ever valid
for those who do not..
which is more logical,
to believe in God because of failing to understand everything..
or to not believe in God because the proof is lacking..
please know that the proof of His existence does not necessarily adjust on our understanding of what proof is.
unless we the absoluteness of all things

so again, How reliable is your basis? you never answered my question.

and relax lang ta bai ha...this is just a discussion between 2 opposing beliefs

[noy]

no god period

yep no god period, but no God........ ... .. ... .. .... ........^%$^55%%$%%^###...lisud periodan bai

[noy]

Joseph Conrad said, “The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary. Men alone are quite capable of every wickedness.”

the wickedness of man is already supernatural bai

[noy]

If Jesus could heal a blind person he happened to meet, then why not heal blindness? -C.H-

apart from that question, have you ever wondered why there's no answer added to that?

maybe because the person asking that question only possesses finite knowledge, but the answer to those type of questions can only be answered by someone who possesses infinite knowledge about what's right or wrong...and what is best for every circumstance..

[Breakeven]

@noy

nice bro.. iba talaga ang wisdom and understanding of a man with the Holy Spirit in him.... This is the advantage of those who believe in the bible and the Lordship of Jesus Christ!

[Xian120]

poor little guy.

daghan namo gaingon ana part.. i hope di ka parihas sa uban part nga mo judge dayon..

[Xian120]

Saying that there is god or no god is a conclusion that one must be able to break down the very existence of our universe. If we cannot answer it then why we conclude? It is beyond our knowledge to answer such question.

no bro it's about making a stand, the truth could either be just one of those conclusions, the question is which?.. we have every right to decide what to think as long as we wont force it upon others, we dont have to know everything to come up with conclusions, take 1+1=2 bro as an example, si Bertrand Russell rman ang ni try ug prove ana through logical equations [citation needed], now can you say that he is the only one who then have the right to say that 1+1=2?

[Xian120]

why not?'cause you have to know all things to conclude God does not exist, 'cause God is simply not like a science project or experiment that can be observed of.

definitely i am not God therefore i acknowledge His existence..not only through personal experience and holy books...
but by the very fact that since science and civilization started, we haven't still landed with a definite conclusion and explanation about the things seen and unseen in this universe..the universe alone is one, its structure and design,its order as if it is following a specific law..the distance between earth and moon which greatly affects the lunar gravitational pull...earth's distance from the sun...DNA,life's toughest questions... i could go on whole day...
the different belief systems is outside the context 'cause the topic here is whether God exists or not...
and you concluding that He does not, therefore you must know all things to come up with that conclusion and for that...and id you know all things,then you must be God...
there's a huge difference between saying i think there's no God and i know there's no God.

the burden of proof does not lie in those who believe bai 'cause long before early science and whatever the first religion was came in to the picture...the belief in someone we call GOD is already there...early people even thought the sun was God Lol point is, long before the belief of deity is already there...then came a time that
people started concluding that there's no God..

if you find it illogical to believe in a God whose existence has not yet been proven..
think twice, 'cause proof is relative..no proof needed for those who believe but no proof is ever valid
for those who do not..
which is more logical,
to believe in God because of failing to understand everything..
or to not believe in God because the proof is lacking..
please know that the proof of His existence does not necessarily adjust on our understanding of what proof is.
unless we the absoluteness of all things

so again, How reliable is your basis? you never answered my question.

and relax lang ta bai ha...this is just a discussion between 2 opposing beliefs

then again, there's also a huge difference between saying there is a God and really knowing there is a God..

[noy]

then again, there's also a huge difference between saying there is a God and really knowing there is a God..

John 20:24-30

[Peenut]