Questions for the Atheists

[quantumnasher]

---

my point of view lang ha....not all atheist rejects the existence of god, usa pud ko ka atheist (as recognized by the christian church, coz i was not baptized by any religion). Pero ako pagtuo is naa jud creator, pero i dont think nga naa xay enuf power para ma sustain iya hinimo(just like mag abli ka ug gadget nga dili na ka kahibalo mo uli hehehe), kay sa mga preachings gud ana sila kahibalo ang ginoo sa tanan, yet knowing that the world would go nuts then why let it happen(murag gud kahibalo ka nga init ang kayo imo pa diay ipaduol imo kamot didto?).

no flames intended just speaking out my opinions....peace sa tanan

[lingkwyz]

this thread is far better than the previous atheism-atheist thread.. more informative and less ad hominem-type of people.. keep 'em coming.. ^________^

[ketllac]

my point of view lang ha....not all atheist rejects the existence of god, usa pud ko ka atheist (as recognized by the christian church, coz i was not baptized by any religion). Pero ako pagtuo is naa jud creator, pero i dont think nga naa xay enuf power para ma sustain iya hinimo(just like mag abli ka ug gadget nga dili na ka kahibalo mo uli hehehe), kay sa mga preachings gud ana sila kahibalo ang ginoo sa tanan, yet knowing that the world would go nuts then why let it happen(murag gud kahibalo ka nga init ang kayo imo pa diay ipaduol imo kamot didto?).

no flames intended just speaking out my opinions....peace sa tanan

ah imo belief pareha sa clockwork universe theory or in some way deism... but ang pangutana kung makacreate ang God ug universe nganong iya man gibutangan ug suffering ang kalibutan nga di sya maka interfere. Kung siya man ang supreme architect ngano wa nya gi design ang universe nga perfect in the first place? Whats the purpose niya aron tagaan ta niya problema? the idea that he existed before the universe was created why he didnt design a universe that he can't interfere or intervene?

[ketllac]

@yanong_banikanhon

Pero kasagaran sa ila nalimot nga ang laws of logic mismo, dili gikan sa matter and therefore is not bounded by space and time. The laws of logic transcends the material world.

the idea that it transcends the material world is not a convincing idea to the atheist that God exists. After all, abstracts ideas like love, justice, peace, equality, goodness, moral lives etc. is also the same with laws of logic in the sense that all of these ideas don't have a physical properties (intangible) but it can also exist in a society that doesn't believe in the existence of God. In other words its possible to transcend the world with these abstract concepts without having a belief in God.

[pinoy_09]

@ketllac

we can say A is A but not explicitly because we can't deny the fact that pure objective knowledge about the very nature of things is impossible to attain in the sense that our thinking is influenced by subjectivity. That is why Aristotle didn't explicitly claim that A is A.However it doesn't mean that this law is not constant , its just that we can't go to a deeper aspect when it comes to objectivity. In math you can change the standard of counting but you can't change the tangible things that you derived your inference from. The law is constant but our explanation might have a semantic content.

As the saying goes The thingness of a thing makes a thing a thing..hehhehe

If you say A is A and B is B you are stating this formula in an objective sense. Therefore realistically and naturally we can say this formula is true since in the first place a thing cannot have two identities, correct? That brings us to the third law, the Law of Excluded middle, which states that statements can only be either true or false.

That goes back to my answer in the previous page that logic of law is not universal. A law can only be universal if they're found together under certain conditions. You cannot have absolute truth because, as you said, we are influenced by our subjectivity.

So if you ask me if the correct answer to 1+1 is always 2, I would say no. If a different formula was invented we would have a different answer. The only reason it's 2 because an "individual law" was devised that later evolved into a universal one which everyone agrees (in this case, 2).

[pinoy_09]

my point of view lang ha....not all atheist rejects the existence of god, usa pud ko ka atheist (as recognized by the christian church, coz i was not baptized by any religion). Pero ako pagtuo is naa jud creator, pero i dont think nga naa xay enuf power para ma sustain iya hinimo(just like mag abli ka ug gadget nga dili na ka kahibalo mo uli hehehe), kay sa mga preachings gud ana sila kahibalo ang ginoo sa tanan, yet knowing that the world would go nuts then why let it happen(murag gud kahibalo ka nga init ang kayo imo pa diay ipaduol imo kamot didto?).

no flames intended just speaking out my opinions....peace sa tanan

But sir, atheism is about rejecting the existence of God. It can either be a belief that God doesn't exist or the lack thereof. If one moves away from these two definitions, one cannot in essence be called an atheist. Kung imong belief is naay creator, then you are not an atheist.

Altough the word atheist is tricky. We are all atheist to those things we do not believe. You and I are atheists to Krishna and Zeus, yet we don't feel the need to name our unbelief. So why should we single out the Judeo-Christian God and name ourselves atheists? So, personally, although I reject the existence of God, I refuse to be called an atheist.

[nowpress*]

sir, if you are observing you cant really say "free thought" kai you do not share thoughts man you can only judge through behavior wa paman ko ka suway og chemo pud, pro mao nai gi ingon sa ako-a kaila nga ning agi og chemo ingon siya murag wala siya sa tarung nga pag huna2x ato nga time

you think ang hubog naa daghan "free thought"?

sir I already told you, this is not about human behavior. it refers sa atong ability to think for ourself. so the question still remains...How does one chemical state of the brain that is altered by the electrical firing of neurons, which leads to another chemical state in your brain, produce free thought and logical inference?

and don't say it doesn't exist kay kong mao na sir it means nga kining imong mga logical inference diri sa forum dili gikan sa imo but gikan sa programming sa imong nuerons then it further means nga mora ka og robot.

[nowpress*]

Of course.....it's like an atheist asking for an emperical evidence (at least "satisfactorily") that there is a god....

this is failure in logic sir. God can be proven by other means like circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence can even be use to prove a crime. bisan walay empirical evidence ang mga prosecutors puede nila magamit ang mga circumstantial evidence to convict a suspect.

why give one option when in reality daghan man ang option to prove a thing? people who usually use this as defense lacks understanding when it comes to investigation and logic.

besides by definition God is Spirit, he cannot be tapped by our senses, so asking for empirical evidence is useless unless na tao ka 2,000 years ago sa Israel kita ta ka ni Jesus .

pero im confused sir ba kay you believe in evolution(darwin) man sa? motoo lagi ka ana sir bisan walay empirical evidence?

[ketllac]

If you say A is A and B is B you are stating this formula in an objective sense. Therefore realistically and naturally we can say this formula is true since in the first place a thing cannot have two identities, correct? That brings us to the third law, the Law of Excluded middle, which states that statements can only be either true or false.

That goes back to my answer in the previous page that logic of law is not universal. A law can only be universal if they're found together under certain conditions. You cannot have absolute truth because, as you said, we are influenced by our subjectivity.

So if you ask me if the correct answer to 1+1 is always 2, I would say no. If a different formula was invented we would have a different answer. The only reason it's 2 because an "individual law" was devised that later evolved into a universal one which everyone agrees (in this case, 2).

ang laws of logic are related to each other. but the idea that it brings us to the law of exclude middle That brings us to the third law, Excluded middle, which states that statements can only be either true or false can't be a valid argument that it is constant.

Here it is;

Ang ato gi argue is the law per se not the thing itself or subject sa ato study which is changing like scientific finding nga changeable and refutable. That is why science doesnt consider facts as absolute idea. However Whatever you will find not true or doenst invalidate the law itself that its not constant but it only addressed to the visible thing that is changing or not constant. Your tool is contants but the thing that you find not constant or not universal is the idea/realization based and result from the method being used which is laws of logic. The thing that you find not constant and not universal is your own realization or ideas based on the system but not a flaw on the system


sa mathematics pwede na nimo ingnon nga 1+1=5 kung naa kay imong standard. but I don't think comfortable ka ani. however it doesnt invalidate again the system, its just that you want to create your own. aside from that the essence of the thing that is apart or independent from your perception remains constant however can't be fully comprehensible. Anyways law of identity is a taulogy and relf referential that can't be falsify.. even though you will say 1+1=4 is still correct if you will have new standard as long as it doenst go beyond the real number (substance) of the thing that you percieved.

[nowpress*]

Kay ngano tanan ba diay ma impierno mga murderers lang? Based on evangelical christianity even a good person who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ, technically, will burn in the lake of fire. Lechonon ka sa impierno for eternity! Is that humane??

that's true sir. kay ang basis is si Jesus man. if you Reject him you are eternally separated from God. kay ang problem sir is not if we are good or not but Sin. naka sala man ta so atong bohaton is to ask for forgiveness and if we are forgiven makasulod nata sa langit.