Proof: For the belief in G_D.

reply to post by YHWH2


You wrote to me:

["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"]

Before I can relate to your topic, I need to know, what it is.

Quote: ["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's not clear from OP or your later writings, whether you talk about 'proof that you have a belief (rather faith actually)" or you talk about 'proof of the intrinsic content of your faith'.

But I take it from the quote above, that you're talking about 'proof that you have a belief'. That this belief is validated by itself is rather obvious. Why did you start a thread on that you have a self-contained belief?

But then in a following post to Staranais you seem to return to your former confusion

Quote form post to Staranais: ["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."]

So could you please state, which of your optional directions on the thread you REALLY intend to follow.

So I agree with ErtaiNagia, be clear about your intentions.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
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.

You would be attacking my position if you were to contend that I am deluded for believing in G_D.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

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

I feel that is very necessary to examine my position in the belief of G_D, when Prof. Dawkins contends that my holding such a belief is delusional. I have to question myself, to know if I'm delusional. Because if I am as he claims than how else am I being delusional in my life, and perhaps I need to be locked away from society. I am responding as a responsible member of society. You seem to infer that this is wrong.

If I prove to others, others will realize who is wrong in the argument.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

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

I don't just hold this belief I have proof for holding this belief, different all together matter.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

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?

...To prove to them that I am not delusional for holding such a belief.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

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.

edit on 19-6-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)

Please re-examine my opening post, seems you are lost with your thought process, and going round-a-round.

Peace be with you,
YHWH2

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by YHWH2

 

You wrote to me:

["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"]

Before I can relate to your topic, I need to know, what it is.

Prof. Dawkins purports that I and others like me such as Prof. Lennox -- are delusional for believing in G_D. This is the central contention in his bestseller book.

I, through the assistance of Prof. Lennox, now hold the contention that I am not delusional for beleiving in G_D, that proof can be articulated to refute Prof. Dawkins' contention, thus validating my position that I am not delusional for holding such a belief.

Originally posted by bogomil

Quote: ["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's not clear from OP or your later writings, whether you talk about 'proof that you have a belief (rather faith actually)" or you talk about 'proof of the intrinsic content of your faith'.

But I take it from the quote above, that you're talking about 'proof that you have a belief'. That this belief is validated by itself is rather obvious. Why did you start a thread on that you have a self-contained belief?

How do you know I am not delusional for holding such a belief? It's like you want me to argue your position for you, further supporting my belief that you have no idea of the fundamentals of this debate, and your place in it.

Originally posted by bogomil

But then in a following post to Staranais you seem to return to your former confusion

I am not confused, I think it is you that is confused.

Originally posted by bogomil

Quote form post to Staranais: ["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."]

So could you please state, which of your optional directions on the thread you REALLY intend to follow.

So I agree with ErtaiNagia, be clear about your intentions.

edit on 19-6-2011 by bogomil because: (no reason given)

Thanks for coming by.

Peace be with you,
YHWH2

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
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.

Name one such New Atheist which has stated such a line, please?

Prof. Lennox says:"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."

Cheers,
YHWH2

Originally posted by YHWH2

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.

I chose the Sagan video because it expresses the “is god or the universe eternal” problem better than I could

to put it in my own words, we don’t know the state of things before the beginning of the universe – there could well be a natural mechanism which would account for the start of the universe – but logically you don’t need to invoke some kind of god hypothesis to account for the start of the universe as its an unnecessary step

And anyone who would try and use the god hypothesis to account for the start of the universe better have some bloody good evidence for such a claim

Are we just talking about videos?

This video

in which the scallywag Lennox is caught in a lie

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?

?
How about this - I have faith that you believe, you believe in whatever you believe in

And if what you believe in is christianity – then I believe you are suffering from some kind of delusion

Originally posted by ellieN

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.

edit on 19-6-2011 by ellieN because: added to.....

edit on 19-6-2011 by ellieN because: trying not to sound condeming

edit on 19-6-2011 by ellieN because: Hmm..

Tell your dad that he is wrong. In religion, specifically in what is called the G_D Delusion Debate, it is Prof. Lennox who is beating the pants off Prof. Dawkins, the author of the book by the same title.

I don't find it negative to secure my position in the debate that belief in G_D from a Christian perspective is not delusional, and therefore I am not delusional for holding such a belief. It is positive to me, because I know that even though this book is a bestseller, it is founded on a mistake, and everyone on here who disagrees is wrong, and I am right. That I am not delusional for believing in G_D. There is proof for my belief.

Cheers,
YHWH2

Originally posted by racasan

Originally posted by YHWH2

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.

I chose the Sagan video because it expresses the “is god or the universe eternal” problem better than I could

to put it in my own words, we don’t know the state of things before the beginning of the universe – there could well be a natural mechanism which would account for the start of the universe – but logically you don’t need to invoke some kind of god hypothesis to account for the start of the universe as its an unnecessary step

And anyone who would try and use the god hypothesis to account for the start of the universe better have some bloody good evidence for such a claim

Are we just talking about videos?

This video

in which the scallywag Lennox is caught in a lie

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?

?
How about this - I have faith that you believe, you believe in whatever you believe in

And if what you believe in is christianity – then I believe you are suffering from some kind of delusion

edit on 19-6-2011 by racasan because: (no reason given)

I will to tell you exactly what I believe: I believe in G_D from a Christian perspective.

Is it your contention that I am suffering from a delusion for holding this position?

1. If I prove to you that my belief is based on proof, will you withdraw your position by accepting the evidence?

2. Do you accept that we have two basic theories of truth, from what is a philosophical point of view: We have the correspondence theory of truth: such as if a thing is true, it ought to correspond to reality. And then secondly, the coherence test for truth: "Does it hang together"?

Cheers,
YHWH2

Originally posted by YHWH2

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by YHWH2

 

You wrote to me:

["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"]

Before I can relate to your topic, I need to know, what it is.

Prof. Dawkins purports that I and others like me such as Prof. Lennox -- are delusional for believing in G_D. This is the central contention in his bestseller book.

I, through the assistance of Prof. Lennox, now hold the contention that I am not delusional for beleiving in G_D, that proof can be articulated to refute Prof. Dawkins' contention, thus validating my position that I am not delusional for holding such a belief.

Originally posted by bogomil

Quote: ["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's not clear from OP or your later writings, whether you talk about 'proof that you have a belief (rather faith actually)" or you talk about 'proof of the intrinsic content of your faith'.

But I take it from the quote above, that you're talking about 'proof that you have a belief'. That this belief is validated by itself is rather obvious. Why did you start a thread on that you have a self-contained belief?

How do you know I am not delusional for holding such a belief? It's like you want me to argue your position for you, further supporting my belief that you have no idea of the fundamentals of this debate, and your place in it.

Originally posted by bogomil

But then in a following post to Staranais you seem to return to your former confusion

I am not confused, I think it is you that is confused.

Originally posted by bogomil

Quote form post to Staranais: ["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."]

So could you please state, which of your optional directions on the thread you REALLY intend to follow.

So I agree with ErtaiNagia, be clear about your intentions.

edit on 19-6-2011 by bogomil because: (no reason given)

Thanks for coming by.

Peace be with you,
YHWH2

You haven't answered anything, except that a subjective christian perspective naturally leads to subjective christian beliefs. Exactly as with other subjective perspectives.

My question was: Do you intend to continue from there and additionally try to verify the christian perspective as such. (I.e. its sources, doctrines, methodologies etc)?

I hope, that you this time will answer me instead of dodging my question (which is very simple).

And again, I can not relate to your position, before I know it. What I have seen of you through this thread makes me doubt either your competence or your intellectual honesty. You're still at the level of the FSM argumentation.

Originally posted by YHWH2

I will to tell you exactly what I believe: I believe in G_D from a Christian perspective.

Is it your contention that I am suffering from a delusion for holding this position?

Well let’s put it this way – you are sadly mistaken if you think the bible hold some kind of real verifiable information about the beginning of the universe

1. If I prove to you that my belief is based on proof, will you withdraw your position by accepting the evidence?

if you think you have some kind of information relevant to the christian god hypothesis then please present it

2. Do you accept that we have two basic theories of truth, from what is a philosophical point of view: We have the correspondence theory of truth: such as if a thing is true, it ought to correspond to reality. And then secondly, the coherence test for truth: "Does it hang together"?

Put your case lets see what you have

reply to post by YHWH2


I guess you fail to see what really is ok....
ok I don’t know how you believe the earth formed ??Or for that matter the universe?? or our Galaxy ???

Do you believe in the big bang or do you believe in the bible in Genesis where as on day one day two day three day four day five day six day seven??

day one >>god created> heaven and earth>>> what is heaven to you can you tell me ??can you describe it and what is in heaven ?? is it warm there or does it have lakes .. birds fish and cats ???
.
day two >>god created > made the horizon and separated the water above and below the horizon.

Scientists have proved that there is some form of liquid on certain planets so I guess the seperation was only meant for his select planets.. and how come he didnt make life on the moon and venus and mars and why just earth???

day three>> god created > made the water under the sky come together in one area, and let the dry land appear.
how did this happen ?? he must of been a really good astrophysicist..

Also on day three god> named the water which came together he named it the sea. He thought this was a real good thing and he let the earth produce vegetation, plants , seeds, trees. so after this was all done there was evening then mourning.

day four>>god created >Let there be lights in the sky to separate the day from the night a larger light to rule the day and a smaller light to rule the night so the sun and moon were created

Ok this is kind of wierd because wouldnt you create the sun and moon before the plants and vegetation ?? so things could grow??? according to this the Sun and Moon come after he made plants and trees and vegetation???

Day five>>god created >the fish in the waters &swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens notice it says HEAVEN"S And God created all the great sea monsters, and also every living creature that moves.

Day Six>>God created> the four legged creatures dogs, cats bugs and living creatures after their kind cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind

Ok so the bugs and spiders and all micro organisims started after the birds and flying creatures ??? I find that wierd that great sea monsters were living before micro organisisims and bugs were nowhere to be found >.LOL


Day Seven>>God created>> he said let us ???? who is US?? create man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

And then God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. But then who created God??

Do you have a picture of Adam and Eve or even a drawing on a cave wall Im talking a real artifact of adam ???

So this is the wonderful story that is wrote by man ??? and who that man was Im not exactly sure of ??who told this story.. just like any of the stories ... ???

Tell me this how did it come to be that God was indeed Identified as a supreme master?? and who was it that first called him God another words can you tell me the first person who actually spoke the word God?? and then this person must of started talking of a god but yet many other groups of people back then had different Gods .. why is your god any better than the other gods? other gods were worshipped .. the Sun god was worshipped ..

When was the word god first used and by whom?? was it in BC or AD .. ?????
Seeing that there wasn’t any human living until ???? you tell me

the real truth is that a great spirit lives outside of time and has always been there ....silly Christians make me laugh

Man created God the god in your mind is man created .. So you are believing in a mans written words perceived and assumed by man

The great spiritual being did not divide humans up into religions man did this .. and you are only speaking of your singular religion there are many people on this earth .. and whether you like it or not
they are all covered by the great spirit they are not being judged for sins and told they will end up in a burning pit of fire ..

The great spirit above provides us with the connection to the Universe and even the evil are treated in a way that your mind nor mine will ever know .. And NO Satan is not involved..LOL
My Spiritual faith don’t have rules or commandments to live by we instinctively know right from wrong.
If no one ever taught you any right or wrong how would you know ??? .. ok a child learns from its parent or other people who are around it .. if you do someting wrong on earth you surely will know whether it is accepted or its not ..

There are what is called, Karma .. Or Divine interventions
You only mention the earthly realm there are other dimensions in the universe its very complex once you read more on what is actually out and surrounding our earth you may look at it different ..

Did cavemen first draw a distinction between murder and justified homicide?
au.answers.yahoo.com...

I believe in the free will and a conscience to know the difference

I am not out to change your mind about how you believe or your faith but first things first .. is God just a name supported by tons of believers that huddle together ust like other religions of the world only they all seem to disagree with each other so why is one more right than the other ??

by YHWH2
From a philosophical perspective you don't have proof for your belief in the way I do from my Christian perspective. If you think that is a warning than you can take it as that. Harold Camping is a fundamentalist Christian who reads the Bible literally, I don't subscribe to his views and I don't agree with a literal reading of the Bible.

So can you tell us what it is exactly your philosophical proof and perspective beliefs from your christian insight??

Also ..In your own words not from books or from what you read what are your true beliefs on yer faith in comparison to any others ??

reply to post by YHWH2

You would be attacking my position if you were to contend that I am deluded for believing in G_D.

No, I don't think that you are deluded for believing in god....

I think that using the term "Proof" in the title of your thread is misleading....

It sort of indicates that you think that you have "Proof" that the object of your belief Exists...

And we all know how silly that would be.

I feel that is very necessary to examine my position in the belief of G_D, when Prof. Dawkins contends that my holding such a belief is delusional.

Regardless... Noone can prove that god DOESN'T exist, in the same way that noone can prove that God EXISTS.

God, as both an entity, and a concept, is beyond the realms of Proof.

So, noone can actually State with any certainty that a belief in God is delusional.

I don't just hold this belief I have proof for holding this belief, different all together matter.

You see, this is the part that I think you are not being as clear as you can be on...

Your sentance does not contain enough context to BE a complete thought, or concept.

You say that you have PROOF for holding your belief..... and that doesn't really mean anything as a statement, or decleration.

I mean, Yes.. you hold your belief. this is true, and I have no reason to think that you would lie about what beliefs you hold.

To say that you have PROOF for your belief, What exactly are you trying to PROVE?

...To prove to them that I am not delusional for holding such a belief.

Well, I already covered this earlier in this post.... but.... you Have yet to explain Exactly what it is that you are trying to prove.

Please re-examine my opening post, seems you are lost with your thought process, and going round-a-round.

Nope, I'm not lost... You are not being as Clear in your explanations as you think you are.

*WHAT* **EXACTLY** are you trying to prove?

Originally posted by racasan

Originally posted by YHWH2

I will to tell you exactly what I believe: I believe in G_D from a Christian perspective.

Is it your contention that I am suffering from a delusion for holding this position?

Well let’s put it this way – you are sadly mistaken if you think the bible hold some kind of real verifiable information about the beginning of the universe

1. If I prove to you that my belief is based on proof, will you withdraw your position by accepting the evidence?

if you think you have some kind of information relevant to the christian god hypothesis then please present it

2. Do you accept that we have two basic theories of truth, from what is a philosophical point of view: We have the correspondence theory of truth: such as if a thing is true, it ought to correspond to reality. And then secondly, the coherence test for truth: "Does it hang together"?

Put your case lets see what you have

edit on 19-6-2011 by racasan because: (no reason given)

I know what I have, I have told you. And since you are coming at this by failing to accept the questions put to you, you are disrespecting the process of engagement.

Your position is that I'm deluded for believing in G_D. I refute this by saying that I am not.

It is up to you to know your position and not make assumptions about what I might have about the universe.

Answer my questions, state your case with conviction and articulation from the outset, and we can begin.

Until then I bid you peace,
YHWH2

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by YHWH2

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by YHWH2

 

You wrote to me:

["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"]

Before I can relate to your topic, I need to know, what it is.

Prof. Dawkins purports that I and others like me such as Prof. Lennox -- are delusional for believing in G_D. This is the central contention in his bestseller book.

I, through the assistance of Prof. Lennox, now hold the contention that I am not delusional for beleiving in G_D, that proof can be articulated to refute Prof. Dawkins' contention, thus validating my position that I am not delusional for holding such a belief.

Originally posted by bogomil

Quote: ["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's not clear from OP or your later writings, whether you talk about 'proof that you have a belief (rather faith actually)" or you talk about 'proof of the intrinsic content of your faith'.

But I take it from the quote above, that you're talking about 'proof that you have a belief'. That this belief is validated by itself is rather obvious. Why did you start a thread on that you have a self-contained belief?

How do you know I am not delusional for holding such a belief? It's like you want me to argue your position for you, further supporting my belief that you have no idea of the fundamentals of this debate, and your place in it.

Originally posted by bogomil

But then in a following post to Staranais you seem to return to your former confusion

I am not confused, I think it is you that is confused.

Originally posted by bogomil

Quote form post to Staranais: ["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."]

So could you please state, which of your optional directions on the thread you REALLY intend to follow.

So I agree with ErtaiNagia, be clear about your intentions.

edit on 19-6-2011 by bogomil because: (no reason given)

Thanks for coming by.

Peace be with you,
YHWH2

You haven't answered anything, except that a subjective christian perspective naturally leads to subjective christian beliefs. Exactly as with other subjective perspectives.

My question was: Do you intend to continue from there and additionally try to verify the christian perspective as such. (I.e. its sources, doctrines, methodologies etc)?

I hope, that you this time will answer me instead of dodging my question (which is very simple).

And again, I can not relate to your position, before I know it. What I have seen of you through this thread makes me doubt either your competence or your intellectual honesty. You're still at the level of the FSM argumentation.

I believe in G_D from a Christian perspective.

Is it your contention that I am suffering from a delusion for holding this position?

1. If I prove to you that my belief is based on proof, will you withdraw your position by accepting the evidence?

2. Do you accept that we have two basic theories of truth, from what is a philosophical point of view: We have the correspondence theory of truth: such as if a thing is true, it ought to correspond to reality. And then secondly, the coherence test for truth: "Does it hang together"?

Cheers,
YHWH2

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by YHWH2

 

You would be attacking my position if you were to contend that I am deluded for believing in G_D.

No, I don't think that you are deluded for believing in god....

If you don't think I'm deluded for believing in G_D than we have no argument as you don't hold the same position as Prof. Dawkins.

End of discussion.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

I think that using the term "Proof" in the title of your thread is misleading....

Sorry you were misled, it was not my intention to mislead anyone.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia


It sort of indicates that you think that you have "Proof" that the object of your belief Exists...

And we all know how silly that would be.

I feel that is very necessary to examine my position in the belief of G_D, when Prof. Dawkins contends that my holding such a belief is delusional.

Regardless... Noone can prove that god DOESN'T exist, in the same way that noone can prove that God EXISTS.

God, as both an entity, and a concept, is beyond the realms of Proof.

So, noone can actually State with any certainty that a belief in God is delusional.

Please email this line to prof. Dawkins, I'm sure he would enjoy reading it.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

I don't just hold this belief I have proof for holding this belief, different all together matter.

You see, this is the part that I think you are not being as clear as you can be on...

Your sentance does not contain enough context to BE a complete thought, or concept.

My apologies for your not doing the research which would have been appropriate to understand the context of my position.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia


You say that you have PROOF for holding your belief..... and that doesn't really mean anything as a statement, or decleration.

I mean, Yes.. you hold your belief. this is true, and I have no reason to think that you would lie about what beliefs you hold.

To say that you have PROOF for your belief, What exactly are you trying to PROVE?

You have asked this already. Answer stated.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

...To prove to them that I am not delusional for holding such a belief.

Well, I already covered this earlier in this post.... but.... you Have yet to explain Exactly what it is that you are trying to prove.

Please re-examine my opening post, seems you are lost with your thought process, and going round-a-round.

Nope, I'm not lost... You are not being as Clear in your explanations as you think you are.

*WHAT* **EXACTLY** are you trying to prove?

I'm not trying to prove anything which hasn't already been proved. That people who believe in G_D are not delusional as Prof. Dawkins contends, because there is proof for the belief in G_D. Thank you to Prof. Lennox this has been proven, a position I share.

Cheers,
YHWH2

reply to post by YHWH2


You have created a thread on vague and uncertain premises. Apparently you are unable or unwilling to clarify your intentions by answering very simple questions.

So I have to take your undefined options and answer them separately.

1/ If your own position and its corresponding perspective are presented as subjective, no criticism of delusion. I love classical music and trad jazz, and I hate rap-music. I can't justify or explain these personal preferences, and I have no intentions of trying to do so through the method of reductionist materialism. It's just subjective, and not making me a weirdo.

2/ If you on the other hand claim objectivity for your faith and its perspective (without some darned good explanation), you ARE delusional.

As you refuse to answer on which optional position you have, you can choose for yourself amongst the above.

Save the 'philosophy' until you have learned to answer simple questions.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by YHWH2

 

You have created a thread on vague and uncertain premises. Apparently you are unable or unwilling to clarify your intentions by answering very simple questions.

So I have to take your undefined options and answer them separately.

1/ If your own position and its corresponding perspective are presented as subjective, no criticism of delusion. I love classical music and trad jazz, and I hate rap-music. I can't justify or explain these personal preferences, and I have no intentions of trying to do so through the method of reductionist materialism. It's just subjective, and not making me a weirdo.

2/ If you on the other hand claim objectivity for your faith and its perspective (without some darned good explanation), you ARE delusional.

As you refuse to answer on which optional position you have, you can choose for yourself amongst the above.

Save the 'philosophy' until you have learned to answer simple questions.

I like how you ignore my questions and substitute them for your choice of two options. And then go on to say I don't know how to answer questions, even simple ones.

So I disagree, I "have created a thread on vague and uncertain premises." Furthermore I disagree that I am, "apparently unable or unwilling to clarify" my "intentions by answering very simple questions".

Thanks for coming by,
YHWH2

Originally posted by NorthStargal52

So can you tell us what it is exactly your philosophical proof and perspective beliefs from your christian insight??

I have already begun doing this from my initial opening post.

Originally posted by NorthStargal52

Also ..In your own words not from books or from what you read what are your true beliefs on yer faith in comparison to any others ??

edit on 19-6-2011 by NorthStargal52 because: corection of paragrah structure spacing

Why not from books or from what I have read, if those books and words best express what I believe?

Cheers,
YHWH2

reply to post by YHWH2


You wrote:

["I like how you ignore my questions and substitute them for your choice of two options. And then go on to say I don't know how to answer questions, even simple ones."]

If you had clarified the confusion, there could have been more than two options. It's next to impossible to relate to incoherent material.

Is your position on subjective/objective a 'secret'.

Did you somehow expect to sneak an objectification of christianity in through the backdoor through your use of scholastics? In that case you're not the first and probably not the last.

I must give it to you guys, you are optimistic.

reply to post by YHWH2


I chose not to read through the thread. My fault. Anyways, atheists don't have to listen to your talk about God. I am not an atheist. But they can be contained in their small real of ignorance toward God.

reply to post by YHWH2

If you don't think I'm deluded for believing in G_D than we have no argument as you don't hold the same position as Prof. Dawkins.

End of discussion.

No, I don't think you are deluded for believing in God, but not for the reasons that you think, and I'll get to that later.

Sorry you were misled, it was not my intention to mislead anyone.

Eh... Using the word "Proof" in Theological arguments is a Pet Peeve of mine... It just... bugs me..

Please email this line to prof. Dawkins, I'm sure he would enjoy reading it.

Nah... I'll pass.

My apologies for your not doing the research which would have been appropriate to understand the context of my position.

Again, I'm not misunderstanding you... I merely have a semantic disagreement with you, that I feel I should bring your attention to, because it could help you to alleviate some of the problems that you seem to be having with these discussions, and as I said before, I will get to that in a minute....

You have asked this already. Answer stated.

Ok, point taken... However....

That people who believe in G_D are not delusional as Prof. Dawkins contends...

That is correct; People who believe in God are *NOT* delusional.. I agree with you.

However (and this is the point I have been leading up to...)

because there is proof for the belief in G_D.

This is the problem.


And no, I don't think you understand my position on this one.

First, I'm going to define "Delusional"

delusion - (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary

A delusion is a belief in something *DESPITE* evidence to the contrary.

This is why I agree with you that a Belief in God is not delusional.... Because It is impossible to PROVE that god does not exist.

Without proof to contrast your Belief to, Your belief cannot, by definition, be delusional.


Now, This should not be read as me saying that There *IS* proof that God Exists... Because There is not, and Can *NEVER BE*

The Concept of God, Exists BEYOND the concept of Proof, necessarily because God exists OUTSIDE of the observable universe, and has qualities and attributes that are IMPOSSIBLE to observe.

Therefore, While No proof can possibly exist of God's Existence....

There can Also be *NO* proof of God's Non-Existence either.


So, since a Delusion is a Belief that can be PROVEN wrong; Believing in god CANNOT be a delusion.

Just don't attempt to claim that you have proof that God Exists.... because that is impossible, by definition.

So, when you were saying that:

because there is proof for the belief in G_D.

What you are essentially saying, Quite literally, is that you have PROOF, that BELIEFS exist.

And this is a meaningless statement, since what you are actually ARGUING, has nothing to do with whether or not you believe something.... only with weather or not it can be disproven.


So, if you understand what I mean.... and use this knowledge for your future arguments, You will be on much stronger ground.

So, anyways.... Good luck, and all.