1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?
2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?
3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?
4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?
5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?
6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?
7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?
8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)

9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?
10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?
11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?
12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?
13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause? If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause? 14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?
15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?
Questions for Agnostics
1. Of the two possible kinds of agnostic, which kind are you: 1) Strong agnostic who says we can’t know anything for sure? or 2) Weak agnostic who says we don’t know anything for sure (but we could if we had enough evidence)?
2. If you are the strong kind, then how do you know for sure that you can’t know anything for sure?
3. If you are the weak kind of agnostic, then is it not possible that we could know for sure that God exists (if we had enough evidence)?
4. Do you agree that an open-minded person should be willing to look at all the evidence? If so, then are you willing to look at the evidence for God’s existence?



Source: http://geekychristian.com/questions-for-atheists-agnostics/

Cc; lalasticlala
Cc; Mynd44
Cc;Seun

Most times logics emerge that appeal so much to the senses trying to prove the existence of God. But these questions have inherent flaws I don't have time to point out.

However, I'm a weak agnostic. Ready to look at all the evidences trying to prove the existence of God.

What I do know is that in any eventuality that there's a Supreme being, he's not what men have represented him as.

Or where is when muslims walk into churches and sack the congregation. Killing some and destroying the whole church and sacramental facilities?

Where is he when hoodlums invade nunneries to rape nuns who have devoted their lives to him?

Where is Allah when Boko Haram bomb mosques?

Forget intellectual Consternations and let's get real with empirical happenings in our daily society.

OfficialAwol:
Most times logics emerge that appeal so much to the senses trying to prove the existence of God. But these questions have inherent flaws I don't have time to point out.

However, I'm a weak agnostic. Ready to look at all the evidences trying to prove the existence of God.

What I do know is that in any eventuality that there's a Supreme being, he's not what men have represented him as.

Or where is when muslims walk into churches and sack the congregation. Killing some and destroying the whole church and sacramental facilities?

Where is he when hoodlums invade nunneries to rape nuns who have devoted their lives to him?

Where is Allah when Boko Haram bomb mosques?

Forget intellectual Consternations and let's get real with empirical happenings in our daily society.

Humans are allowed free will but some misuse it

Is that ten questions in your eye.

DivinelyBlessed:

Humans are allowed free will but some misuse it

And what do you mean?

Well,

Abjay97:
1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God?

First, God is relative and a subjective term. Kindly define god first.

If not, then is it not possible that there is a God?

I gat no issue with this cos its a recycled bullsh!t

And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?

If you have vivid evidences for the existence of any god or a god aside FAITH and anecdotal evidence, kindly provide them.

2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?

Maybe if you can tell me how an undesigned universe looks like, then we could proceed further with this part.

3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?

If you can believe something cannot come out of nothing, why not employ the same logic when it involves "god"?

Besides, I'm of the personal opinion that "there is nothing like something but there is something like nothing"

4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?

Just because I can't Buhari's name isn't adepeter2027 doesn't mean ADEPETER2027 is not president of Nigeria.

Absence of evidence could as well be the evidence of absence.

5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?

This has been addressed above.
Furthermore, if you're a Christian, I believe the Bible said a lot about god showing himself.

6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?

You keep recycling same question numerous times.

7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?

Recycled question again.

Anyways, if you believe god has always existed, why not believe man and the universe equally have been in existence?

8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)

OH god. You keep repeating same questions over and over again.

9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?

I seem to be confused here.

10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?

Morality? Chisos

I can't even start explaining.

11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?

What's the point if I may ask?

12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?

Which will lead to an infinite regress.
It will also make sense cos the super-intelligent designer needs a more complex-hyper designer. The hyper designer needs a super-hyper-nova-complex designer too.

Hope you dig?

13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause? If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause? 14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?
15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?

Recycled nonsense.