A Question for Religious People

[C-Nub]

I got this from a book.

Oh, and for the atheists out there, I'm one of you, don't post that there is no God. Just sit on your hands and be good for a while.

Please?

Anyways, here's the question. It might be better suited for the philosophy area, but once again, I'm an internet Jedi, and moderators will leave this thread alone.

Would you rather continue more or less as you are, believing in God and telling people that you know he exists and loves you, or would you rather know for a fact that there's a god, that mankind has been in actual, factual contact with him, but he's a giant worm that lives on mars?

Odd question, I know, but I'm curious. Options again are

A) I believe in God, but I'm kind of not sure even though I sometimes pretend I am.

B) I've seen pictures of God! He's a giant Martian Worm that loves me!



Personally, I have to default to B. I don't believe in God, so if I were to be faced with the choice between having faith and having proof, I opt for the proof. Worms never bothered me though.

[Goat]

Well, you are the one that originally used the term..

Correction: ZZ was. This all started where ZZ accussed a poster of a baseless claim. I showed how ZZ was incorrect. This particular claim had a reference to a book. Therefore it was not a baseless claim.

Keep this stuff straight now.

Just because it has a 'reference' in a book doesn't mean the claim has merit.

A book can make a claim that does not have a foundation in fact.

[AB]

Well, you are the one that originally used the term..

Correction: ZZ was. This all started where ZZ accussed a poster of a baseless claim. I showed how ZZ was incorrect. This particular claim had a reference to a book. Therefore it was not a baseless claim.

Keep this stuff straight now.

Just because it has a 'reference' in a book doesn't mean the claim has merit.

A book can make a claim that does not have a foundation in fact.

Ok, since you have attempted to replace "baseless" with "merit" you are re-defining the debating point. Lets get that straight before we proceed. Are you qualified to debate honestly?

[Fallibleone]

Moderator note: AB, I was all set to make a general comment about all members checking what they write before they hit 'submit', but reading back, it appears to be comments such as those I have quoted below which, if they do not directly viloate the rules, are a gnat's nosehair away from doing so. Neither of these comments is pertinent to the debate. Please carefully review what you have said before you commit yourself.

First define "baseless" in the context you are asking this. Sorry, I don't trust skeptics in debate.

Are you qualified to debate honestly?

[AB]

Moderator note: AB, I was all set to make a general comment about all members checking what they write before they hit 'submit', but reading back, it appears to be comments such as those I have quoted below which, if they do not directly viloate the rules, are a gnat's nosehair away from doing so. Neither of these comments is pertinent to the debate. Please carefully review what you have said before you commit yourself.

First define "baseless" in the context you are asking this. Sorry, I don't trust skeptics in debate.

Are you qualified to debate honestly?

Review what I said dude.

[AB]

Moderator note: AB, I was all set to make a general comment about all members checking what they write before they hit 'submit', but reading back, it appears to be comments such as those I have quoted below which, if they do not directly viloate the rules, are a gnat's nosehair away from doing so. Neither of these comments is pertinent to the debate. Please carefully review what you have said before you commit yourself.

First define "baseless" in the context you are asking this. Sorry, I don't trust skeptics in debate.

Are you qualified to debate honestly?

Review what I said dude.

Please specify which part of my comments you have problems with. It they are legitimate, I will then correct.

[Fallibleone]

Moderator comment: please ask any questions you may have via PM to avoid derailing the thread.

[AB]

Moderator comment: please ask any questions you may have via PM to avoid derailing the thread.

The thread was derailed because the skeptic was expose trying to mislead and change what I said. I was talking about "baseless". I just want to keep that clear.
Go back and check. Is the skeptic qualified to debate honestly?

[Cathar1950]

Moderator comment: please ask any questions you may have via PM to avoid derailing the thread.

The thread was derailed because the skeptic was expose trying to mislead and change what I said. I was talking about "baseless". I just want to keep that clear.
Go back and check. Is the skeptic qualified to debate honestly?

Is a believer qualified to debate honestly, after all they feel doubt is a weakness?
How is doubt not merited to claims that can't be supported or even proven because they seem to fall outside the realm of reason and even causality?
Even if we could agree that the supernatural exists how is one claim more relevant then another?
Even those that have revelations or follow revelations can't agree.
It seems that a lack of doubt seems rather immature and child-like is not the same as childish.
Faithfulness and trust are not the same as beliefs that are unbelievable.

[AB]

Moderator comment: please ask any questions you may have via PM to avoid derailing the thread.

The thread was derailed because the skeptic was expose trying to mislead and change what I said. I was talking about "baseless". I just want to keep that clear.
Go back and check. Is the skeptic qualified to debate honestly?

Is a believer qualified to debate honestly, after all they feel doubt is a weakness?

Excellent point. It all depends own how the debator (believer or skeptic) proceed.

[achilles12604]

I will tie this in to our original discussion.

300 years ago we had no idea about the big bang or the universe. Then we suddenly had a few observations of strange phenomina. The red shift. Isotope dating of rocks stopping at a certain time. The background radiation.

Stumbling on these things had nothing to do with logic (well actually the radiation did so strike that one). THEN . . . . AFTER this data had been collected, we used logic to conduct experiments and reach our conclusion.

You said you must accept the universe as eternal even if it flys in the face of science.

Absolutely not. Quote me on that, or on what makes you think infers that. I only said I thought "beginning of time" was a paradoxical and illogical expression, which I commonly hear tied to the Big Bang. I never said anyone should accept anything that contradicts science. Even I don't. I love the universe because I'm dumbfounded by it, and how the science I so trust seems illogical on issues that transcend the physical universe.

I still think you should concede that science does not exist without logic, as you yourself have defined it, which is the point I was now trying to make.

You are correct. You referred to the beginning of time about which I agree with you. So I think we have figured out the problem.

I think time is eternal and/or doesn't really exist at all in anything other than a concept. I think the universe (ie the current formation and sequencing of matter we call the universe) has NOT always existed.