Proof: For the belief in G_D.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by YHWH2

 

In a later post you wrote to MrGrimm:

["If this thread is pointless than you are speaking for yourself, only."]

MrGrimm is definitely speaking for me also.

You skip around from persepctive to perspective, and you have very little understanding of the 'tools' you use on the way.

That is your opinion.

My proof for the belief in G_D is real and true, thanks to Prof. Lennox. I am not deluded like Prof. Dawkins has claimed in his book.

Why are you still here if this thread is pointless, why did you offer an opinion at a thread which pointless in the first lace? Seems like you are being pointless in offering such an opinion.

Cheers,
YHWH2

Originally posted by YHWH2
reply to post by bogomil

 

It has been proven, thanks to Prof. Lennox, that proof exists for the belief in G_D. Hence, I am not deluded for believing in G_D.

Thanks for coming along. Now go and watch the debates at the Fixed Point Foundation between Prof. Lennox and Prof. Dawkins.

Cheers,
YHWH2

I'm not here to communicate with a video. So please, in your own words: What are Prof Lennox's 'proofs'?

Originally posted by YHWH2

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by YHWH2

 

In a later post you wrote to MrGrimm:

["If this thread is pointless than you are speaking for yourself, only."]

MrGrimm is definitely speaking for me also.

You skip around from persepctive to perspective, and you have very little understanding of the 'tools' you use on the way.

That is your opinion.

My proof for the belief in G_D is real and true, thanks to Prof. Lennox. I am not deluded like Prof. Dawkins has claimed in his book.

Why are you still here if this thread is pointless, why did you offer an opinion at a thread which pointless in the first lace? Seems like you are being pointless in offering such an opinion.

Cheers,
YHWH2

I don't refer to opinions. I operate with the concept 'proof'', which you yourself have introduced. So stick with the appropiate procedures for 'proof'' instead of evasive semantics. DO get around to the 'proofs' instead of talking about them.

Hitler's rhetorics on the half-occult übermensch-idea were pointless. Nevertheless it was important to relate to them.

reply to post by onequestion


I happen to have a similar belief to yours - in that, with our current comprehension and understanding it is either impossible to prove or does not require proof. In saying that I also believe that their are both truths and lies in most religions and in order to hold a belief or faith I find it impossible to narrow it down in order to be explainable. I suppose what I am in essence trying to say is that if we are truly open minded and hold our inner self in the highest regard the answer may come to us. I will not discount or discredit options just because proof does not exist.

"But let us remember that science emerged out of Christianity"

actually History states that Christianity held back science or any belief that took away from the churches control.

reply to post by YHWH2


since you like professors so much here's another one

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by YHWH2
reply to post by bogomil

 

It has been proven, thanks to Prof. Lennox, that proof exists for the belief in G_D. Hence, I am not deluded for believing in G_D.

Thanks for coming along. Now go and watch the debates at the Fixed Point Foundation between Prof. Lennox and Prof. Dawkins.

Cheers,
YHWH2

I'm not here to communicate with a video. So please, in your own words: What are Prof Lennox's 'proofs'?

I'm not asking you to communicate with a video, I'm asking that you understand at what point the debate ended, and where it is now, through an extended examination.

I'm more than happy to engage with you, you are an intelligent person from what I can tell, but you have to put some work in first, prove that you understand the debate. So far, as you may be aware, a lot of posters haven't even understood the discussion, and what I posed in the opening post.

Prof. Lennox's proof is very robust and it lead me to believe that I am not in a state of delusion for believing in G_D. This is the central contention. Come at me again, with more of an understanding and I will happily outline in my own words what Prof. Lennox provides us as proof,. Evidence that a belief in G_D from the Christian perspective is not a delusion.

Cheers,
YHWH2

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by YHWH2

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by YHWH2

 

In a later post you wrote to MrGrimm:

["If this thread is pointless than you are speaking for yourself, only."]

MrGrimm is definitely speaking for me also.

You skip around from persepctive to perspective, and you have very little understanding of the 'tools' you use on the way.

That is your opinion.

My proof for the belief in G_D is real and true, thanks to Prof. Lennox. I am not deluded like Prof. Dawkins has claimed in his book.

Why are you still here if this thread is pointless, why did you offer an opinion at a thread which pointless in the first lace? Seems like you are being pointless in offering such an opinion.

Cheers,
YHWH2

I don't refer to opinions. I operate with the concept 'proof'', which you yourself have introduced. So stick with the appropiate procedures for 'proof'' instead of evasive semantics. DO get around to the 'proofs' instead of talking about them.

Hitler's rhetorics on the half-occult übermensch-idea were pointless. Nevertheless it was important to relate to them.

edit on 19-6-2011 by bogomil because: Grammar and syntax

You might operate from the concept "proof" but you haven't added anything to my introduction. You haven't claimed, for instance, that I and Prof. Lennox are deluded for our belief in G_D from our Christian perspective.

It is important to understand that I am picking up from a debate and a position which proves that Prof. Dawkins contention is a mistake. I don't agree with you that I don't understand something like "tools" you think I use.

Set up your position, and pose your questions from it, and I will happily illustrate for you my understanding of Prof. Lennox's ascendancy over Prof. Dawkins mistaken argument.

Cheers,
YHWH2

Originally posted by staranais
reply to post by onequestion

 

I happen to have a similar belief to yours - in that, with our current comprehension and understanding it is either impossible to prove or does not require proof. In saying that I also believe that their are both truths and lies in most religions and in order to hold a belief or faith I find it impossible to narrow it down in order to be explainable. I suppose what I am in essence trying to say is that if we are truly open minded and hold our inner self in the highest regard the answer may come to us. I will not discount or discredit options just because proof does not exist.

If someone said to you that you were deluded to believe in G_D, you wouldn't just accept that they are right because they sold a book which sold like a bestseller. You would, if you were like me or Prof. Lennox, question such a claim against your belief, to find out if you are really deluded. Blind faith is dangerous, and so it is far better to look for proof, and find it.

Proof does exist that I am not deluded in believing in G_D. I thank Prof. Lennox for helping me reach such a conclusion.

Cheers,
YHWH2

Originally posted by willydude89
"But let us remember that science emerged out of Christianity"

actually History states that Christianity held back science or any belief that took away from the churches control.

Which history are you referring to and what book and author are you citing to make this claim?

Modern life, therefore science and its technology, emerged out of Europe, and this continent was Christian, so yeah, science emerged out of Christianity.

I think what you are trying to say is that through the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, the power of the Vatican and the authority of the Pope, science was retarded to protect its power over people, holding sway over what people were allowed or permitted to believe in Europe.

There is no other proof beyond the fact that science emerged out Christianity in Europe.

Cheers,
YHWH2

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by YHWH2

 

since you like professors so much here's another one

Why does Prof Dawkins trump the embarassing Sagan, and Prof. Lennox trumps Prof. Dawkins???

Who created the Creator, question? From the Christian perspective, G_D has always existed, G_D is eternal.

G_D therefore is not created.

Sagan was discredited a very long time ago by first year university students studying theology. Much better for you to stick with Prof. Dawkins if you want to stick with the losing side in the debate.

Cheers,
YHWH2

i went looking for lennox/Dawkins vids on youtube and found



from this all I see is lennox is a typical liar for jesus

but i also found this
Christopher Hitchens vs John Lennox - Is God great?



so i have something to watch this afternoon

Originally posted by ZackMorris
You don't need proof all you need is faith. God designed it that way. If I had a million dollars and told you all you have to do is say that you believe I'm god, you would say it in a heartbeat but you wouldn't mean it. that's why Satan gives proof. Go ahead worship him and you will "get something out of the deal" if thats what matters to you. I don't go around threatening people with hell and I agree that we don't really know what hell is,(I sometimes think hell is what we put ourselves through when we don't live according to our purpose and heaven is the opposite) or god for that matter. How could we understand these things? God IS still necessary. We know there is gravity sure but we don't understand everything about it. And there are tons of things we don't understand. Once we understand everything about our universe and life and death then you can begin to start to say there isn't a god if you want. But until you die you don't know what will happen. I don't think you will go to hell for saying "i don't think there is a god" see, the elites who decided to put that man-made clause in the religion was clever. Now we are divided. We could simply be a group who believes and a group that doesn't, but no, the group that does has to threaten the group that doesn't and further divide the people. And I've noticed lately that atheists are getting just as bad as Christians when it comes to throwing their beliefs in your face and ridiculing you and being ignorant by thinking that if you've met one Christian you've met them all... "oh you're a Christian? Oh you believe in a 10,000 year old earth and that a man named Noah gathered every single animal on the planet and packed them into a boat...since you are a Christian I am smarter than you by default". I could start a thread saying "Does god allow dogs in heaven?" And I would have 10 replies on the first page saying "there is no god and no heaven so it doesn't matter" By the way I'm not just a Christian, I'm a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and Pagan. If you are open minded enough you can see that they all have something to offer. Nothing is for certain that is the only thing I am certain about. Maybe there isn't a god, and if there is, I somehow doubt he would punish us for being curious and asking questions. But I believe there is based on nothing but my personal experiences in life, bit I will never harm or exclude anyone based on my beliefs so it shouldn't matter to you if I believe or not unless you have an agenda. I usually pray to the Creator, or I sometimes I just call it/him/her The Universe or Love. Capitalizing is not important to me either. Basically anything invented by man could ne useful in some ways but is not necessary. Like the bible. I appreciate many religious texts but all I Need is to look inside myself to know what is right and wrong. So, don't burn the bible, but dont burn people who choose not to read it or believe it. Just let it be at peace. Live and let live. But if you become violent or hateful to one another and that will become your downfall. You might gain some material goods or popularity in this fashion but that doesn't even begin to compare to the price you will pay by losing a part of yourself. I live below the poverty line. My family is quite happy and so am I. We don't seek to be respected but we are because the people in our community are continually astounded by the acts of kindness and selflessness performed by us on a daily basis. I know that if I didn't give up so much that I could probably have a Lot of "nice things" bit that could never compare to the rewards that come with helping others. I guess you could say I am selfish and that's why I help others because like a junkie, I love the feeling I get from it. It's not a self righteous feeling, its a feeling of having a purpose worthy of my time and effort, and seeing it fulfilled little by little on a daily basis. I rarely mention my deeds because its not my goal to be praised or looked up to. But sometimes, when I feel there is a chance someone else might be inspired to do the same, I will take the time to explain what I do and the rewards involved, which includes a lot of freedom from the system. I am still faaaaaar from perfect... *takes a drag off my smoke* I can be especially nasty when I come across a person being unkind to another, especially when the person committing the unkindness is more clever than the person they are "attacking"... I see everyone as my family and I don't like people hurting my family, even my own family doesn't get away with that... But, I am not here to attain perfection. Anything good that I do is because of god/creator/universe/love and anything bad I do is because of me. To the OP, read my first sentence. I believe this information could straighten out some of the members issue with your thread title. God Bless you all. *waiting for the cynical replies regarding all the great and wonderful things I supposedly do all the time, lol, even though I stated I take no credit for any of it, and I have no church or organization for anyone to donate to so clearly I have no agenda but to show others one pathway I have found that works for me, keeping in mind that it is not the only pathway and I have not finished traveling it yet so I can't even tell you where it leads to* did i cover all my bases? If noone replies then I guess I did. People make so many assumptions and since I rarely return to a thread after my initial post, I sometimes find it necessary to make a long post explaining all the "what ifs" since I will not be back to defend myself or my beliefs. For that, I apologize.

edit on 19-6-2011 by ZackMorris because: clarification

I agree with Prof. Lennox that blind faith in G_D is dangerous. I would go further and say that a literal understanding of the Bible is a mistake.

I might suggest to you, that you exchange the word faith with the word trust. That way, from the Christian perspective, you also trust in a real person. Preface this with what Prof. Lennox says: "Because if you teach people that faith is believing where there's no evidence, then you don't have to consider any evidence because by
definition it doesn't exist, but belief in God and faith in God is not simply faith in a theory about God."

Cheers,
YHWH2

Originally posted by racasan
i went looking for lennox/Dawkins vids on youtube and found

from this all I see is lennox is a typical liar for jesus

but i also found this
Christopher Hitchens vs John Lennox - Is God great?

so i have something to watch this afternoon

With Hitchens, you are doing better than with Sagan, on par with Prof. Dawkins, in any case. I've read Hitchens' book to which you refer.

Prof. lennox says this: "You see I can't speak for other religions. There is blind faith around in the world and it's very dangerous. I would agree with the New Atheists especially when it's coupled to authoritarianism. But as far as Christianity is concerned, faith is not blind in that sense. It is a response to evidence. I mean after all, take the book of the New Testament that talks most about it. You've got to look at the documents and what they claim before we discuss it. The Gospel of John, the fourth biography of Jesus at its end says, 'Many other things Jesus did in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book, but these are written in order that you might believe."

I would also add this, by Prof. Lennox: "If you teach people that faith is believing where there's no evidence, then you don't have to consider any evidence because by definition it doesn't exist, but belief in God and faith in God is not simply faith in a theory about God. It's trust in a person. I would almost abolish the word 'faith' and replace it by what it means, that is, trust."

You are still on the losing side, I'm afraid to tell you. Prof. Lennox is certainly not Jesus' liar. This is a flawed opinion. Keep searching, though. You are close to at least being on the same page as the discussion is presently sitting. At least by watching you are engaged in the debate, and you will agree that it is the most compelling debate around. Try the Fixed Point Foundation for more videos for your afternoon viewing.

Peace be with you,
YHWH2

reply to post by YHWH2


You said

Prof. Dawkins believes that the universe created him. So when Prof. Lennox asks him who created the universe?, he will have to admit to believing in the Universe being eternal, but he won't admit it, further supporting the contention that his position is built on the poorest of arguments.

I posted the Sagan video as he explains the problem you outlined above – I recommend you watch the video this time so as to get an understanding of what the argument is

next

If you watch the “Dawkins vs Lennox. Refuting Lennox” video you can plainly see Lennox caught in a lie

Lennox was lying of jesus – nothing you say will alter that



I always enjoy watching Hitching in debate, but given that this lennox has already proven himself to be an fool and a liar I will especially look forward to this debate

reply to post by YHWH2

If I prove to you my belief in G_D you lose your attack on me that I'm deluded for holding my belief.

I was not attacking you.

I was asking you why you felt the need to prove to others that you believe in god.

Since they are YOUR beliefs, I think that your simple say so would be enough to convince others that you HOLD those beliefs.

You shouldn't take me at my word...

I really don't understand your contention with my reply to your position.

Why do you feel the need to prove to others that you hold a belief?

I felt the need to start this thread to show you and others that I can prove that I am not deluded for believing in G_D.

Oh... Wait..... Hold on there.....

You mean to say, that you are trying to PROVE the EXISTENCE of God?

You are trying to prove that WHAT you chose to believe in, is REAL?

IS that what you are saying?

Because that is a totally different conversation.

And if that is the case, then your choice in thread titles is slightly misleading.

reply to post by YHWH2


Just a few quick points because...well...I don't have much time for much else because I'm taking a quick break (I'll post more later)

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.

...no, the "New Atheists" (I don't know how we're new because there's a continuous line of atheism stretching back unbroken) would say that a belief in a deity is unnecessary because there is no proof of its existence.

Originally posted by YHWH2

Originally posted by ellieN

I think people want to know why God only waited until Humans could write to reveal Himself to us in a book.

You ask me this like I might have the answer, when this is a question which only G_D can answer.

Cheers,
YHWH2

I'm sorry...I didnot mean for it to read as though I was asking you the question.
You seem to want to debate your faith in God.. You seem to be secure in your belief and very devout to God, so why do you put yourself through all the negativity that you know will come with your Topic Proclamation?
If you are happy and secure then you are in a place you should be right now.
God is God..right? If you have questions , ask them.! Just because He is God does not mean he will slap you down if you want to question something. Why would He? If He is a God of Love, understanding and ever patient.
You don't go around slapping your children because they have questions and kids are always asking ..Why? So why would God be any different? We are His children and God would be even more understanding. Right? He is not like the Gods of Old...How dare you question me?
You get answers everyday. Sometimes you get an answer you need, sometimes it takes much longer. You just have to be aware of where to find them. Look what has been given to us...the Universe and and a mind to explore and to learn more about the Creative force. The answers are not always in the Bible. The information coming in is way too much to add on to the Bible. You wouldn't have a library big enough for it.

My Dad said there are 2 things that you can not win a debate in...Religion and Politics.

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by YHWH2

 

You said

Prof. Dawkins believes that the universe created him. So when Prof. Lennox asks him who created the universe?, he will have to admit to believing in the Universe being eternal, but he won't admit it, further supporting the contention that his position is built on the poorest of arguments.

I posted the Sagan video as he explains the problem you outlined above – I recommend you watch the video this time so as to get an understanding of what the argument is

I can watch the video a hundred times and not know to what argument you are referring, until you state your own position in your own words, and invite me to refute it. State your argument from the side of the debate you wish to hold.

Originally posted by racasan


next

If you watch the “Dawkins vs Lennox. Refuting Lennox” video you can plainly see Lennox caught in a lie

Lennox was lying of jesus – nothing you say will alter that

Are we just talking about videos? I haven't uploaded one video on this thread, purely because the videos of the debates have been superceded by articulation -- fine-tuning of the positions, by both sides. So, I don't accept that Prof. Lennox is lying -- in terms of where the debate has now come to rest. If you want to talk about video performances than I'm not interested, there's no point when those performances are in the past, and both sides have had time to sharpen their points.

Come with a point, and I can attempt to refute it on the basis of holding the same position as Prof. Lennox. That a belief for G_D exists in the form of proof, and thus believing in G_D is not delusional from the Christian perspective.

When you understand the debate from both sides, you will identify that it has progressed beyond how one or the other side did in a previously held debate.

You are on the side of the New Atheists, in so far as you believe that I'm delusional for believing in G_D -- is that not true?

Originally posted by racasan

I always enjoy watching Hitching in debate, but given that this lennox has already proven himself to be an fool and a liar I will especially look forward to this debate

You know my position. Proof: For the belief in G_D. Are you saying I'm delusional or I'm not delusional for holding such a belief?

Cheers,
YHWH2