Questions for the Atheists

[Xian120]

---

sakto man na kang Maslow mao ng importante nga ang pangitaon ang sakto nga perception. kay di man puede nga tanan perception tinood naa man jud nay di tinood or bakak.

unsa nga perception imong pasabot? akong gi mean is perception of the self, di ka mka ingon nga sakto or dili ang perception nimo sa imong self, kay kong unsa imong tan-aw sa imong kaugalingon mao man imong basihan sa imong pangbuhaton ug maka hatag sad ug influence kong unsaon nimo pagtan-aw ang kalibutan.

[Xian120]

good nga naka sabot naka nga science can never be used to explain God.

on your next point tho..i disagree. ang sakto nga perception mao ni...Logic ang gigamit sa philosophy bai to explain God so are you saying nga useless ang logic?

how naive for you to assume what i think bro..

science will never be used to disprove the existence of God nor will it ever be used to prove him..

yes logic bitaw nang Philosophy, logic in general is not useless, in fact mao sad na ang gigamit sa science to stipulate theories before na nila i prove.. pero logic sa usa ka tawo nga narrow ug perception perhaps to some extent maoy dili kasaligan..

[_hizuka_]

Mayka dha kay naa kay Holy Spirit ba to?

... di ka motoo? aw hinoon kay dili man ka kita ani

[noy]

aw..

haha, Science was never used to explain the existence of a God.. God is a Philosophical entity, born in the mind, conceived in the mind therefore exists only in the mind, at least that's what we believe...

science was never used to prove or disprove the existence of God bai, unfortunately
it is used for basis of unbelief. now if God only exists on the mind, why do we have uncertainties?
and why do things fall into their places as if it were planned..like blessings in disguise...
like past mistakes we detest the most but turned out to be a learning tool..
both are physical phenomenon..
we can say that it was just us?possible...but it can never take away the possibility that it was the hand of God..
maybe God is also physical rather than just philosphical, and maybe the reason why we can't see Him physically is
because our understanding about physical is not at its fullness.

[salbahis]

this thread will never end... as long as there are people who will not stop until they get you in their side...

[Xian120]

i would agree in most part jud bai pramis! hahaha esp sa part nga it depends on how we see the world

but in this life, when the philosophical and physical truth collides...unsaon man na nato pag reconcile?
science can provide us physical proofs but not even the entirety of it mao nay point nga gi stress out ni siodenz diba regarding the belief and unbelief of God..

let's say if the belief of God is only something philosophical (philosophical int he sense that most people who believe in God focus on the philosophical truths like how the bible or holy books explain things) nag base ra pud ko sa imu gisulti bai ha..hehehe

then why are using physical truth to decide whether God exists or not? especially that the physical truth we hold is only a portion of the universal truth? and what if the philosphical truth about God holds a larger portion of the universal truth if there is God, unsaon man na nato?

thanks bro for saying that..

Science was never used to prove the existence of God nor will it ever be.. Philosophy on its own level can answer physical questions but such a collision on the Physical answer on things can never happen, and just because science cannot answer some of man's questions that doesn't mean that it is untrustworthy,.. we still don't know everything, hell we don't even know what there is that we don't know in the first place..

our conversion differ point by point, so let me just state my own case..

knowing what we know now about the universe, i can pretty well conclude that there is no God, coz if there is i then have to ask and let me repeat this again. Who created God? and who created his creator? and so on.. this infinite regress of logic to me is obscure and unbearable and confusing.. then i realized that inorder for me to answer this i have to take away the finite nature of the universe and stipulate that God is infinite and eternal, the alpha and the omega, and i have also to take away the concept of time (that God has no beginning) inorder for me to understand his nature so i cannot question his existence.. but by doing so it created a whole lot more confusions.. there is no God, i came to embrace that idea, and that to me is the truth..

Philosophical truth is not Physical truth so it can never hold a large portion of the universal truth..

[Xian120]

this thread will never end... as long as there are people who will not stop until they get you in their side...

stopping paves not a way for learning.. and it's not about winning people to get on your side.. it's about knowing what you know and to stand for it, for people who are strong and true to his words create change..

[Xian120]

science was never used to prove or disprove the existence of God bai, unfortunately
it is used for basis of unbelief. now if God only exists on the mind, why do we have uncertainties?
and why do things fall into their places as if it were planned..like blessings in disguise...
like past mistakes we detest the most but turned out to be a learning tool..
both are physical phenomenon..
we can say that it was just us?possible...but it can never take away the possibility that it was the hand of God..
maybe God is also physical rather than just philosphical, and maybe the reason why we can't see Him physically is
because our understanding about physical is not at its fullness.

same rman na sa lotto, if the number of mamustahay will be increased the number of chances nga naay modaog magkadako sad.. there is such a thing as coincidence, and such phenomena is normal in this growing population.. and did you ever count the number of instances where divine intervention missed? like road accidents, cancer patients not cured through prayer, people not changed by their belief, world wars, to name a few.. sure the idea of divine intervention is nice, but i cannot rely on it

[noy]

Philosophical truth is not Physical truth so it can never hold a large portion of the universal truth..

is that a statement of absolute truth for you bai?

this is just for the sake of discussion bai ha..
but to say such, one has to posses a full understanding about the universal truth.

anyway, about who created God and who created His creator, that's one side of the coin...or out of the many possiblities...
but is it not possible that He doesn't have a creator?

imu pud nanag opinion about the universe ha, but kasagaran mga tao
who studied it understood,learned and confused by its order and complexities...
if para nimu, it doesn't show that someone could have designed it...aw imoha pud na...

[Xian120]

is that a statement of absolute truth for you bai?

this is just for the sake of discussion bai ha..
but to say such, one has to posses a full understanding about the universal truth.

anyway, about who created God and who created His creator, that's one side of the coin...or out of the many possiblities...
but is it not possible that He doesn't have a creator?

imu pud nanag opinion about the universe ha, but kasagaran mga tao
who studied it understood,learned and confused by its order and complexities...
if para nimu, it doesn't show that someone could have designed it...aw imoha pud na...

libog nuon ko aning truth2 da, kay naa nsad absolute truth hahaha...

naa koy gi post earlier about katong 1+1, i dont know if you read it, but let me just post it again.. Bertrand Russell on his book Principia Mathematica, he proved that 1+1 indeed is equal to 2.. now makaingon ba ka nga siya ra ang naay right nga moingon nga 1+1=2 since siya rman ang nka prove ana?

we dont have to know everything to conclude things, otherwise i would have to ask for you the same thing kong moingon ka nga naay Ginoo..

if God has no creator then he will have no purpose.. for if something is to have purpose there must be an entity higher in meaning that shall command purpose from it..

Confusing man jud ang universe and wonderful and mysterious, that's why mka conclude jud and tawo nga naay ga design, but lets not also forget nga destructive sad ang universe and scary, a fact that verifies the fact that it is not perfect, so if it is designed then it is not perfect..