It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proof: For the belief in G_D.

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Proof: For the belief in G_D.

I choose to use the traditional Jewish spelling approach: G_D.

Dr John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, fellow in mathematics and philosophy of science, and pastoral adviser, is the leading Christian opponent of the New Atheists. He has faced Prof. Richard Dawkins, the most vocal and well-organized of the New Atheists, author of the bestselling 2006 book with 'Delusion' in the title -- in what is titled, 'The God Delusion Debate' at the Fixed Point Foundation, which describe the topic of the debate as follows: 'Most critical question of our time: the existence of God.'

The debate centres around Dawkins' views as outlined by him in his book, and 'their validity over and against the Christian faith'.

To make sense of the debate, from the philosophical approach, the correspondence theory of truth and the coherence test for truth or its explanation, is central to answer the question: Is Christianity true?

The New Atheists will say that G_D is no longer necessary because you don't need G_D (anymore) to explain the universe, you don't have to believe in G_D to be a moral person, and so using the principle of Occam's razor in selecting the hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions -- therefore G_D is no longer necessary.

But let us remember that science emerged out of Christianity, and moreover that if science could save your soul than it would become a religion.

Karl Marx, the German political philosopher and revolutionary, if he could, would have attempted to turn science into a faith. So, these proponents seek instead to remove the souls from our bodies and replace what they seek to remove with reason and do so with science's cultural authority.

By setting-up scientific laws with the agency of G_D in the form of competing concepts is wrong. Just because we can see gravity at work doesn't mean we can't marvel in the way G_D created, the apple falling to the earth. We need G_D to say that gravity is clever, for instance, and so therefore that G_D is a clever designer.

So, Prof. Dawkins should have titled his book with more accuracy, Prof. Lennox accurately argues, saying that he should have titled it; 'The Created G_d's Delusion'.

Prof. Dawkins believes that the Theory of Everything or TOE, will provide the single model to explain the theories of...well...everything, yet what he's also saying is that not only cannot G_D be at the key to it all, but G_D cannot have any place in the theory at all. Is this reasonable from a man whose Foundation is subtitled: 'For reason and science.' Is this reasonable thinking from someone who describes his website as: 'A clear-thinking oasis.'

Perhaps a more clear-thinking scientist than Prof. Dawkins, Niels Bohr, the Danish physicist and Nobel laureate, said; 'It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.' And how amazing is it that we can do physics? Doesn't this question suggest that G_D is amazing for designing physics for us to study, and therefore that because physics exists He exists? These are 'pointers from science that there is a G_D', says Prof. Lennox.

But to continue on Prof. Lennox's precisely accurate understanding, don't go into faith blindly, but replace 'faith' with trust, just like you trust that an apple falling from a tree will move downwards until it eventually hits the ground.

If you spent your money on Prof. Dawkin's book with 'Delusion' in the title and agree with him, you have not only bought a mistake but bought into a mistaken contention. You should request your money back as a matter of principle, and should you actually receive it than I would suggest you send a part of it to Prof. Lennox as payment for his assistance in helping us uncover the opposite in Prof. Dawkin's contention being true, in fact; that proof exists for the belief in G_D, and therefore believing in G_D from the Christian perspective is not a delusion but trust in a real person.

I'm not going to tell you to go and join a religion which holds G_D at the centre of its belief system, but it would be wrong of me to not warn you that your soul is at risk of harm by having the belief of G_D absent or missing from your life.

Cheers,
YHWH2




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Ok .. where's the proof? proof is a powerful word.. it's used far too liberally here these days.. Why are you hiding the word God with an underscore?
edit on 18-6-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


I'm not hiding anything, read what I've written.

What kind of proof do you need?

Cheers,
YHWH2



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by YHWH2
reply to post by miniatus
 


I'm not hiding anything, read what I've written.

What kind of proof do you need?

Cheers,
YHWH2



Actual proof .. verifiable evidence.. if proof existed it would be a huge earth shattering thing, but it doesn't .. sorry



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


There is proof, but it seems you are confusing mathematical proof with the truth for the belief in G_D proof. The truth is in the fact that G_D gave us electricity to use, even though we cannot define what electricity actually is. In fact, it would be much easier to just say that electricity doesn't exist.

Are you saying that there is just energy and matter?

No need to apologise for your own failure. The debate is out there, check it out and then apologise for your own ignorance. It was earth-shattering for me when I realized that proof for the belief in G_D exists.

Cheers,
YHWH2
edit on 18-6-2011 by YHWH2 because: Question added.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
However much I disagree with the validity of your claims and mainstream religion in general. I still respectively read your thread as I always enjoy and appreciate differing views from my own.

However..


I'm not going to tell you to go and join a religion which holds G_D at the centre of its belief system, but it would be wrong of me to not warn you that your soul is at risk of harm by having the belief of G_D absent or missing from your life.


A dangerous statement my friend.. and in my opinion has discredited you and your entire thread.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by YHWH2
reply to post by miniatus
 


There is proof, but it seems you are confusing mathematical proof with the truth for the belief in G_D proof. The truth is in the fact that G_D gave us electricity to use, even though we cannot define what electricity actually is. In fact, it would be much easier to just say that electricity doesn't exist.

Are you saying that there is just energy and matter?

No need to apologise for your own failure. The debate is out there, check it out and then apologise for your own ignorance. It was earth-shattering for me when I realized that proof for the belief in G_D exists.

Cheers,
YHWH2
edit on 18-6-2011 by YHWH2 because: Question added.


Proof is what it is, I didn't define it .. I respect your beliefs, but proof .. it isn't.. perhaps a better title would be "My opinion/points/thoughts/reasons for the belief in G_D"
edit on 18-6-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by YouDeserveToKnow
 


Why is my statement dangerous, I don't think it is?

It's far more dangerous to have science remove your soul from your body, don't you think?

Cheers,
YHWH2



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by YHWH2
reply to post by YouDeserveToKnow
 


Why is my statement dangerous, I don't think it is?

It's far more dangerous to have science remove your soul from your body, don't you think?

Cheers,
YHWH2



If we have a soul, and if Science were removing it.. sure.. but I disagree with that opinion .. which is all it is, an opinion..



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by YouDeserveToKnow
 


I'll second that.

reply to post by YHWH2
 


I'm positive you do not understand the word proof.

Faith/Belief is not proof, and when you say god, that means you are referring to god being a lone being. So that begins to narrow down you belief system/religion because you have left out every other religion that has beliefs in more than one god.

I'm sorry my friend, you have failed to prove anything.

In fact let me add to this with, I, myself, have my own beliefs and my beliefs in god are good enough for me. Are they proof that gods exist? Absolutely not.
edit on 6/18/2011 by MrGrimm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I didn't read anything that has anything to do with proof.

I happen to actually believe in a form of existence outside of what we perceive here in our known reality. How to define that existence is impossible from the limits placed on us from our language and ability to truly communicate perspective and experience (which could or could not be objective or subjective, or created by my brain depending).



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus Proof is what it is, I didn't define it .. I respect your beliefs, but proof .. it isn't.. perhaps a better title would be "My opinion/points/thoughts/reasons for the belief in G_D"
edit on 18-6-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)


Not only didn't you not define it, you haven't even provided a dictionary's version of the definition, saying that proof it just is what it is. Great work!

No there's no better title for this thread. It's very accurate, so accurate that you're missing its definition.

PROOF: In the belief in G_D, is different to PROOF: G = 2G.

Cheers,
YHWH2



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by YHWH2
 


The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions and convincing or persuasive demonstration.

So please... demonstrate god for us.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus
If we have a soul, and if Science were removing it.. sure.. but I disagree with that opinion .. which is all it is, an opinion..


You have every right to disagree with my opinion, all I'm saying is that unlike Prof. Dawkins' opinion that belief in G_D is a delusion, Prof. Lennox's opinion which I share, is much stirdier and firm, and born out of truth.

I'm sorry you cannot see that, but I respect your opinion even though you haven't provided one.

Cheers,
YHWH2



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by YHWH2
reply to post by miniatus
 


I'm not hiding anything, read what I've written.

What kind of proof do you need?

Cheers,
YHWH2



Actual proof .. verifiable evidence.. if proof existed it would be a huge earth shattering thing, but it doesn't .. sorry


What is mathematically irrefutable proof of transcendental design (and therefore the existence of a designer God) does exist. And it is earth-shattering. Here it it:
smphillips.8m.com...
Over 2500 pages of mathematical analysis revealing the scientific meaning and equivalence of the sacred geometries of the world's major religions. Study it sufficiently and the discoveries will shatter your mind.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by YHWH2

Originally posted by miniatus
If we have a soul, and if Science were removing it.. sure.. but I disagree with that opinion .. which is all it is, an opinion..


You have every right to disagree with my opinion, all I'm saying is that unlike Prof. Dawkins' opinion that belief in G_D is a delusion, Prof. Lennox's opinion which I share, is much stirdier and firm, and born out of truth.

I'm sorry you cannot see that, but I respect your opinion even though you haven't provided one.

Cheers,
YHWH2


dawkings and and lennox could be wrong so why even make the argument?
anyone can believe in god, but it does not make him real, like santa clause
because we can observe things does not prove a god, it proves nature.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by YHWH2
 


Whoa whoa whoa, if this is your opinion then you need to think before you type.

You named the thread "Proof: For the belief in G_D” You may not have contradicted yourself with the comment you just made, but you did discredit yourself.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by YHWH2
reply to post by miniatus
 


I'm not hiding anything, read what I've written.

What kind of proof do you need?

Cheers,
YHWH2



Actual proof .. verifiable evidence.. if proof existed it would be a huge earth shattering thing, but it doesn't .. sorry


What is mathematically irrefutable proof of transcendental design (and therefore the existence of a designer God) does exist. And it is earth-shattering. Here it it:
smphillips.8m.com...
Over 2500 pages of mathematical analysis revealing the scientific meaning and equivalence of the sacred geometries of the world's major religions. Study it sufficiently and the discoveries will shatter your mind.



I remember this, when I was being consumed by the ancient astronaut theory it branched my way of thinking into so many directions. And as much as you feel this is proof, this is just another example of mans ignorance in giving a name to something that is unexplained.
This is why we call things in the universe "dark energy" "dark matter" and in ancient history most would call it black magic or just magic, because we don't know what it is or how to really classify it. Once we get the proof we could name it properly.
edit on 6/18/2011 by MrGrimm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Proof that people believe in god? Yep, people believe in god....

Proof that god exists? Nope.... nothing to prove that.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by vjr1113
dawkings and and lennox could be wrong so why even make the argument?
anyone can believe in god, but it does not make him real, like santa clause
because we can observe things does not prove a god, it proves nature.


So far in the G_D Delusion Debate, it's correct to understand that Dawkins is in error, and thus mistaken -- whilst Prof. Lennox is accurate in proving a belief in G_D.

Anyone who believes in G_D from the Christian perspective trusts in a person. This is very real, and not at all like your Santa Claus inference, simply because there is no historical proof for latter and there is for the former.

It does prove a belief in G_D in the correspondence theory of truth and the coherence test for truth, from the Christian perspective.

Cheers,
YHWH2




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join