DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**gennickhif** · 07-07-2011, 10:31 PM

First, thank you posters 25-28. I comment below, but you four have demonstrated that you can contribute to a discussion.

Second, forgive me for identifying you with post numbers. It’s easier that way.

#25 wrote: “It is exactly the same question as why would anyone read a book about a God that does not exist? Because people believe God exists. Just as people believe time exists. However, it's been proven that time is a fallacy.”

It has not been proven that time is a fallacy, and why wouldn’t anyone read a book about the God who does exist? The Bible has been proven true over and over again. Think of the many archeological confirmations, for example.

#26 wrote, “…you'll get such weird features as time dilation.”

I agree, but something that does not exist can’t dilate.

#27 wrote: “I think it's more accurate to say that trust and science can go together.”

Okay, but for me, faith and trust are more or less synonymous.

#28 wrote: “Faith to me is strictly belief w/ out proof.”

Not to me. The displays of intelligent design are so overwhelming that one who is an atheist must close his eyes and shut his ears to reality. In short, it takes more much more faith (essentially denial) to be an atheist than a theist.

When we all were in the wombs of our mothers, none of us had even a clue as to what life was all about. After some decades of living, however, some adults affirm that there is no God. But which of them has travelled throughout the entire universe in 30-50 years since birth to give him the right to pontificate that God cannot exist because he didn’t find him. It’s like the child who says there is no fish in the ocean because he didn’t catch one. We humans have amazing abilities, but compared to God, we are pretty stupid.

I agree. Faith is almost the opposite of science in a lot of ways. Faith to me is strictly belief w/ out proof. Science on the other hand is process of collecting proof.

07-07-2011, 10:31 PM	#31
gennickhif Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 729 Senior Member	First, thank you posters 25-28. I comment below, but you four have demonstrated that you can contribute to a discussion. Second, forgive me for identifying you with post numbers. It’s easier that way. #25 wrote: “It is exactly the same question as why would anyone read a book about a God that does not exist? Because people believe God exists. Just as people believe time exists. However, it's been proven that time is a fallacy.” It has not been proven that time is a fallacy, and why wouldn’t anyone read a book about the God who does exist? The Bible has been proven true over and over again. Think of the many archeological confirmations, for example. #26 wrote, “…you'll get such weird features as time dilation.” I agree, but something that does not exist can’t dilate. #27 wrote: “I think it's more accurate to say that trust and science can go together.” Okay, but for me, faith and trust are more or less synonymous. #28 wrote: “Faith to me is strictly belief w/ out proof.” Not to me. The displays of intelligent design are so overwhelming that one who is an atheist must close his eyes and shut his ears to reality. In short, it takes more much more faith (essentially denial) to be an atheist than a theist. When we all were in the wombs of our mothers, none of us had even a clue as to what life was all about. After some decades of living, however, some adults affirm that there is no God. But which of them has travelled throughout the entire universe in 30-50 years since birth to give him the right to pontificate that God cannot exist because he didn’t find him. It’s like the child who says there is no fish in the ocean because he didn’t catch one. We humans have amazing abilities, but compared to God, we are pretty stupid. I agree. Faith is almost the opposite of science in a lot of ways. Faith to me is strictly belief w/ out proof. Science on the other hand is process of collecting proof.
	Quote