Evidence for God from Science

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:I believe faith is a rationally supported trust and that without evidence, faith is blind and not true faith. Call me a doubting Thomas as the Mormons do, but I cannot have trust in something that gives no logical reason to believe / have trust (I.E evidence). For me to ever have faith in a theistic being, it would first be rationalized through examination and skepticism of evidence supporting such. Is this a weak foundation? Should a foundation of one's faith be otherwise? I view it is possible to come to a particular religion through pure rationalization along with "revelation." Obviously many people disagree with and I'm curious why.

I've heard from some of the evangelicals floating around (Virginia) that placing too much weight on evidence is damaging to faith and is not a strong foundation; those who know me here can assume I don't buy into this (insofar as theism, as there's no evidence in deism for me to question aside from complexity of 'design'). Shouldn't your Christian faith be full of questioning? Does that make your faith stronger? If Christianity is the true religion, wouldn't it make sense to state that all evidence points to it's truth? If this is true, how could evidence damage faith?

What is with the Mormon thing you keep bring up?

I suggest you review at least this thread linked below as it might help you.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 6&start=75

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature goes through the OT concept of faith and makes note that the basic idea is to attach oneself too what one has faith in. You have faith in you views on atheism. All atheist have faith in what they perceive and are convinced of. So to add a bit more to Jac's article, here is a bit more from this light reading venture:

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature

Faith.

...in some of the most important passages of the Old Test. history the word "faith" occurs; e.g. with regard to Abraham (Gen 15:6), "he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness;" of the people of Israel (Exo 4:31; compare 1, 5, 8; Exo 14:31); with regard to the possession of Canaan (Dt 9:23; comp. Dt 1:32; Psa 78:22; Psa 78:32; Psa 106:24); with regard to the covenant of the law (Exo 19:9).

In view of these pregnant passages, we may say that the foundation laid for the N.T. in the Old is laid in "faith" (comp. 2Ch 20:20; Isa 53:1; Isa 7:9; Isa 28:16; Jonah 3:5). But unbelief is far oftener spoken of in the O.T. than faith (comp. Psa 27:13; 2Ki 17:14; Psa 78:22; Psa 78:32; Psa 106:24; Num 20:12; Dt 9:23; Isa 7:9; Isa 53:1; Num 14:11; Psa 106:12; Psa 119:66).

The verb used in all these passages הֶאֵַמין Hiph. of אמן, to fasten, build to make firm. From the last of these significations follows that of to support, to rely upon, to trust (Job 39:11-12; Job 4:18; Job 15:15); holding a thing for certain and reliable (1Ki 10:7; 2Ch 9:6; Lam 4:12; Jer 40:14; Dt 28:66; Job 24:22). Used with relation to God, it denotes a cleaving to him, resting upon his strength, sure confidence in God, which gives fixedness and stability (2Ch 20:20; Isa 7:9).

Next, in Bob Utleys' work: You can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series, He writes on the OT concept of Faith below:

You can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series, by Bob Utley

Genesis 15:6

Gen15:6 "Then he believed in the LORD" This is not to imply that Abram did not believe back in chapter 12, for he did leave Ur and follow God. But, here the term "believe" (BDB 52, KB 63, Hiphil PERFECT, which denotes a life of trust, not just this one act) is from the root אמנ, from which we get "amen."

The root means "to be strong" or "to lean upon." Abraham put his complete trust in the promise of God that he would have descendants. It was an act of faith without sight (cf. Gen 22:16; Gen 22:18; Heb 11:1). Abram took God at His word, by faith, without demanding physical sight.

This is extremely important because this becomes the basis of Paul's argument of justification by grace through faith found in Romans 4 and Galatians 3. Paul also uses Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11 and the author of Hebrews in Heb 10:38. It seems that the essence of the term is "Abraham leaned upon YHWH and not upon himself."

Throughout this section of Genesis is emphasized again and again that it is God's initiating love, not human resources, which is required for their salvation. The term "believed" can be translated in English by three words: believe, trust, and faith (cf. Exo 4:5; Exo 4:31; Deut 1:32; 2Ch 20:20; Isa 43:10, relates to Messiah in Isa 28:16 and refers to unbelief in Num 14:11; Num 20:12; Deut 9:23; 2Ki 17:14; Psa 78:22).

It seems that the essence of the OT term is found in "trust" or "trustworthiness," not focused in ourselves, but in the faithfulness of God and His promises.

Notice Abram believes

1. in the Lord (personal relationship)
2. in His word (propositional revelation)

It has been helpful for me to characterize biblical faith as

1. faith in a person (YHWH/Christ)
2. trust in the truths about that person (the Bible)
3. living a life like that person (OT obedience/Christlikeness)

All three are crucial, not optional!

Hope this helps you, Happy...
-
-
-

Happy,

Keep an open mind, look around yourself, watch the world, observe people. Collect data. One day you may have faith. You may not be opposing God then as you would now. You may even one day wish God would exist and try to ask Him to reach you, though still having doubts. Then He may come and erase your doubts and seal you.

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:I believe faith is a rationally supported trust and that without evidence, faith is blind and not true faith. Call me a doubting Thomas as the Mormons do, but I cannot have trust in something that gives no logical reason to believe / have trust (I.E evidence). For me to ever have faith in a theistic being, it would first be rationalized through examination and skepticism of evidence supporting such. Is this a weak foundation? Should a foundation of one's faith be otherwise? I view it is possible to come to a particular religion through pure rationalization along with "revelation." Obviously many people disagree with and I'm curious why.

I've heard from some of the evangelicals floating around (Virginia) that placing too much weight on evidence is damaging to faith and is not a strong foundation; those who know me here can assume I don't buy into this (insofar as theism, as there's no evidence in deism for me to question aside from complexity of 'design'). Shouldn't your Christian faith be full of questioning? Does that make your faith stronger? If Christianity is the true religion, wouldn't it make sense to state that all evidence points to it's truth? If this is true, how could evidence damage faith?

Hello doubting Thomas

Just because you accept Christ as Lord doesn`t mean it will magically wash away your doubts, in fact, for me, it actually increased them. There were/are so many.... the bottom line always being "Is it really, really true?" That`s where the leap of faith was for me, allowing myself to say Yes it was true, or at least could be. Once I did that, things changed. I was uncertain of my beliefs when I first joined here a few months ago. I looked for reasons why it might not be true, some sort of "God delusion" but didn`t find any. I think faith is such a personal thing, we all find our own way to it (or not)

Jac, I think, has already given a pretty good argument why your Fred cannot be the one. That leaves chance or God, does it not? Which one speaks to you, in your heart?

I think you are open minded, I think you want to believe but perhaps you`re nervous of actually admitting to something that you cannot see? Trust me though Happy, you will feel it if you give yourself a chance to.
As for there being no proof of the resurrection.... um.... the shroud is pretty compelling evidence.

I am still fairly new to Christ (although not God) so I still have many doubts, fears and questions but I welcome them. They are part of my belief and as I delve deeper into it all it makes more and more sense to me. There is nothing wrong with doubting and questioning, it`s through them that my faith gets stronger.

What have you got to lose by accepting Christ?

What have you got to lose by not accepting Christ?

It was a no brainer for me.

I'm not sure what you expect from me jac? Did you expect a conversion from reading your posts?

"You had no counter response. You just tapped out."
No kidding, I've made it pretty clear I can't argue nor do I have much desire to. I wrote my message with the intention of conversation, you went sentence by sentence picking out every possible intentional and unintentional mis-wording and manipulating it to back me in a corner. Congratulations, you're good at philosophy.
I wasn't exactly expecting my acknowledgement of my limitations in an art to come back to haunt, I've learned my lesson.

"In short, I presented you evidence and you willfully turned a blind eye. Now, that's your right, but don't play like you are going to be rational now. If you are allowed to ignore evidence in one area because you don't have an answer, why not any other? You don't get to say, "Yeah, that's great evidence. I can't argue against it, therefore, I choose to reject it. Now, anybody have any evidence they want to show me? Really, I'm very open minded!"

In what jac? "Now, anybody have any evidence they want to show me." Where is that coming from?
Instead of being vague be specific. If you're talking about me not be a christian that's a violation your own tenants of a revelation being required. Minus the global flood I'm not really sure what 'evidence' I've rejected blindly. Examples jac, examples.
I'll actually list off what I've changed Jac. I'll even include changes of opinions formed from outside reading
-Historicity of christ existing
-existence of records possibly indicating a factual resurrection
-S&D existing from outside reading instigated by a separate topic here.
-The historicity of exodus and judges
-I do have a drastically changed view of islam
-Compatibility of the christian God and modern science (outside listening)

Your belittlement of my 'open-mindeness' is unfounded jac.

What is with the Mormon thing you keep bring up?

They've decided i'm a prime target so they feel the need to visit me near daily. So mormon thoughts come up when i'm irritated.

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:They've decided i'm a prime target so they feel the need to visit me near daily. So mormon thoughts come up when i'm irritated.

I got rid of the Mormons bugging me by telling them that they were emissaries from Satan. If you hiss at them, it adds dramatic effect.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:They've decided i'm a prime target so they feel the need to visit me near daily. So mormon thoughts come up when i'm irritated.

I got rid of the Mormons bugging me by telling them that they were emissaries from Satan. If you hiss at them, it adds dramatic effect.

FL

I'd pay to see the reaction.

That's just a feeble attempt at an insult.

It was an insult, although I contend it's classification as a feeble one.

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:It was an insult, although I contend it's classification as a feeble one.

It was a good insult, I guess, but I'm really immune to insults. The immunity comes from the knowledge that I'm much, much worse than any insult can suggest.

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:I'd pay to see the reaction.

The last time I tried this was with Jehovah's Witnesses. The 4 pretty women who were canvassing on my street piled into their car and left after their encounter with me. They haven't been back since. My brother-in-law was so tired of Witnesses coming to his house that he answered the door completely naked. The mother and daughter Witness team never returned; it has been several years now.

Back when I was an stupid atheist, there was this blind Jehovah's Witness who would stand just outside my apartment building holding a stack of Awake! newsletters in one arm, and a single Awake! in the other - outstretched - arm. So when you'd walk by, you could just grab the newsletter from his hand and walk on. Well, I got tired of seeing him there day after day. One day, I walked out of the building with a lighter and set his newsletter on fire. It took him a moment or two to understand what was going on. He dropped his burning Awake! and left. I never saw him again.

Now, I don't recommend that you assault people but if the Mormons are annoying you, it may be that you are just too nice. If you accept to read their junk and chat with them, that's asking for trouble. It's like going into a swamp without mosquito repellant.

Now that you know what to do, do it.

FL

The last time I tried this was with Jehovah's Witnesses. The 4 pretty women who were canvassing on my street piled into their car and left after their encounter with me. They haven't been back since. My brother-in-law was so tired of Witnesses coming to his house that he answered the door completely naked. The mother and daughter Witness team never returned; it has been several years now.

Back when I was an stupid atheist, there was this blind Jehovah's Witness who would stand just outside my apartment building holding a stack of Awake! newsletters in one arm, and a single Awake! in the other - outstretched - arm. So when you'd walk by, you could just grab the newsletter from his hand and walk on. Well, I got tired of seeing him there day after day. One day, I walked out of the building with a lighter and set his newsletter on fire. It took him a moment or two to understand what was going on. He dropped his burning Awake! and left. I never saw him again.

Now, I don't recommend that you assault people but if the Mormons are annoying you, it may be that you are just too nice. If you accept to read their junk and chat with them, that's asking for trouble. It's like going into a swamp without mosquito repellant.

Now that you know what to do, do it.

FL

So you're saying I should call them emissaries of satan, pour gasoline on the book of mormon and burn it in front of them? Sounds efficient. I'm surprised you actually just send the mormons/jehova's witnesses away, I would've expected you as a Christian to try to convert them.

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:So you're saying I should call them emissaries of satan, pour gasoline on the book of mormon and burn it in front of them?

I certainly hope the above is another feeble attempt at an insult because if that's what you got from my post, you are not very bright.

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:I'm surprised you actually just send the mormons/jehova's witnesses away, I would've expected you as a Christian to try to convert them.

It is impossible to deal with people in these cults when they are in a pack. One on one, they will listen - politely - and maybe something will filter through to their spirit...but I doubt it. I seriously doubt it.

I used to work with prisonners. These were men serving life sentences for murder or drug trafficking, or both. They were eligible for parole and were handed over to me as helpers in my job. I drove a truck and we picked up donations in kind to redistribute to needy families. When I had a single prisonner in the truck with me, everything went well and we had intelligent conversation. On those occasions when I had 2 prisonners with me, they cussed, made off-color comments about women, wistled at pretty women, yelled at other drivers & gave them the finger... One on one, these men were smart and knew how to behave in society. Two of them together and they magnified their bad behavior.

So, as a Christian, I don't bother with cultists coming in packs. My methods strongly discourage their witness and, hopefully, the weaker members will be shamed into leaving the sect. I think PaulSacramento has had some success with them, and some cultists manage to come out of the brainwashing on their own. What you are doing is only encouraging them but as an unbeliever, you are also in spiritual darkness.

FL

FL, can you tell me in more detail why you think HFD is not very bright? (I assume HFD is not attepmting to insult).

Also, I cannot recall, how Paul managed to have some success with cultists?

1over137 wrote: FL, can you tell me in more detail why you think HFD is not very bright? (I assume HFD is not attepmting to insult).

HFD is no dummy. I'm sure he's pretty smart. All he's done is taken what I wrote and willingly twisted it to write this comment:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:So you're saying I should call them emissaries of satan, pour gasoline on the book of mormon and burn it in front of them? Sounds efficient.

HFD's deduction is stupid and probably intended to express contempt of me, or disapproval, or both. If you read my posts, you'll see that I never suggested the above. But don't be concerned, I don't take such words seriously.

1over137 wrote:Also, I cannot recall, how Paul managed to have some success with cultists?

You'll have to ask PaulSacramento about that. I seem to remember him berating me for my treatment of cultists, saying that he's managed to get through to at least one.

FL

Being rude or unkind to JW, Mormons ect is not an approach I take, nor is it an approach that I would recommend or encourage from others.
They are misled. slamming doors in people's faces, belittling them and insulting them does not 'work' in our favour nor does it achieve anything for them, they are quite accustomed to this behaviour, it does not deter them. The outcome is they leave you alone. Punching them in the face when they open the door would achieve the same result but it would also make my actions sinful and not a refelction of the goodness of God. Is it really so difficult to treat people with some decency and respect?
They are doing the work that as Christians perhaps we should be doing. They are taking their faith and trying with earnest to bring others to God. They are without question misled but they are guilty by ignorance, by indoctrination. Many of the young Mormons have been born into the religion, they do not know any better. They take the abuse, the unkindness and continue to try to reach others. For that I respect them. For their false teachings I pity them. They are doing all the right things for the right purpose but under a wrong interpretation. That is sad.
There was an elderly lady that was a JW who would visit with me often. Not anymore as I have moved. As time went on she come less and less, age taking its toll on her. I saw her out walking in the rain, in the extreme heat, in the cold, it was obvious that is was difficult for her. She had poor health and bad arthritis. In the beginning I told her I was a believer and that I would not, not ever, become a JW. She smiled and said that was fine. She told me how wonderful it was that I had a relationship with God. I asked her if she believed that JW was the true religion or if it was enough to believe, I asked her what she was more interested in bringing people to God or to the church. She told me she knew her days on this earth were getting fewer and that she wanted people to experience God like she had been blessed to do. In our conversations I told her that I thought people had become too interested in church, trying to bring people to a particular denomination instead of to God. That God didn't care what denomination we were but rather our hearts. She agreed.
She never tried to convert me, and I didn't argue with her about her beliefs. In kindess and love I spoke of why I thought reaching people was so important but that it was a heart condition not a religious stance.
We spoke about God and Jesus. We shared together. She loved God and was a lovely, caring lady. Our exchanges were just two people sharing our love for God. We shared scripture, didn't always agree but it never placed a rift between us.
I have no doubt in my mind that when she passes she will be going 'home'. She didn't fear death and looked forward to meeting her creator. Her faith, albeit a little askew, will lead her home.
She was Polish, spoke fairly poor English and when she came to Australia she was led astray by the JW. But knowing her like I did, her intentions were good. Really good. I didn't see the point in arguing theology with an elderly women who struggled with English. I just spoke to her about Jesus being the key to salvation not JW or any denomination. She listened and did agree. As I said she never, not once tried to convert me.
I had seen one of my neighbours tell this lady to F off. I was disgusted. You don't speak to an elderly lady like that.
I have spoken to my children about how and why JW witnesses are misled and my daughter asked me why I spoke to this lady. I told her because everyone is deserving of my time. Because this lady was kind and not pushy. Because even though she was misled her love for God was genuine and sincere. Because I admired her for walking from house to house when she could barley walk because she wanted to share God with others.
I am constantly reminded in life of Matthew 5:43-48
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
Jesus didn't just love those that loved Him. He loved those that hated him and persecuted Him. He didn't respond with hatred but with love. Jesus is our example, therefore, we are told by Christ to love one another in like manner. It is by our love that the world will know we are Jesus’ disciples.

melanie wrote:
Being rude or unkind to JW, Mormons ect is not an approach I take, nor is it an approach that I would recommend or encourage from others.

You also jumped to a conclusion because you didn't read what I wrote. Notice this:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:So, as a Christian, I don't bother with cultists coming in packs.

And this:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:It is impossible to deal with people in these cults when they are in a pack.

And re-read this analogy:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I used to work with prisonners. These were men serving life sentences for murder or drug trafficking, or both. They were eligible for parole and were handed over to me as helpers in my job. I drove a truck and we picked up donations in kind to redistribute to needy families. When I had a single prisonner in the truck with me, everything went well and we had intelligent conversation. On those occasions when I had 2 prisonners with me, they cussed, made off-color comments about women, wistled at pretty women, yelled at other drivers & gave them the finger... One on one, these men were smart and knew how to behave in society. Two of them together and they magnified their bad behavior.

The common thread is that dealing with cultists in packs is useless. I specifically used the word "pack" because it suggests a wolf pack. Single cultists are easier to deal with and I wrote,

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote: One on one, they will listen - politely - and maybe something will filter through to their spirit...but I doubt it. I seriously doubt it.

The last time a lone Jehovah's Witness came to my door alone, I spoke to her politely and showed her from the Bible where she was wrong. I told her to go home and read a real Bible and that she was free to come back and chat with me. She never did.

I don't slam doors in people's faces. If a pack of cultists come to my door, I don't say "I'm a born-again Christian and you are emissaries of Satan!" I tell them what they are and I tell them to leave, firmly. Such packs are beyond reasoning.

BTW, of all the prisonners I worked with, every man returned to prison after his release. Every man but one. The one who became a regular citizen started reading the Bible and was discipled by a nun. He came to know Christ as Lord and the HS changed him. Cultists also have this possibility but as long as they stay in the pack, they are lost and on the way to hell.

FL

Happy,

Here is what you said about Fred, for those who have not read the Deism Thread..

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:Questioning why the deist god did what it did is indeed a tricky one. I could steal from the Judeo-Christian theist position and state this "being" did it to marvel at it's creation. However the creation in question here is not one of life existing, rather it's of the expanse that is the universe (or multitude of) and it's laws existing.

Perhaps this deist being knew life would be created somewhere, this would seem to indicate this being wanted it to and thus lead to theism. Obviously I disagree.

I believe that this god of mine did allow for life through the laws it established, but is not interested in us (thus the deism). Under my view and understanding of this universal expanse we are one of many, we are not unique. Perhaps this "being" (who will now be referred to as Fred because "being" might confuse in a sentence, and god might indicate YHWH) wanted something to marvel at his creation (Fred is very egotistical) thus why he allowed through the laws he created for life to evolve somewhere. We are certainly capable of admiring creation, we all look up to the stars are marvel at the majestic expanse around us; we're also at a point now where we can even understand the laws that Fred created! I don't think that, if we really are what I just theorized above, this means we're significant or Fred cares at all about us.

As theist state, we cannot understand the mind of God or his reasons. Trying to understand Fred through our logic is impossible, he's above our way of reasoning; Otherwise our reason would lead us to "if he created something to admire him, why wouldn't he care about us." I've tried to come up with a analogy but I can't ( I was going to use "do you care about a scribble on paper you created", but a scribble cannot appreciate you or it's own creation). To understand my view of Fred you must ignore your concept and understanding of God. Fred is not YHWH, he's not a loving, forgiving God, he's not an evil God, he might not even be a egotistical god as I stated above. I don't know his reasons, I don't know his thoughts, but I know he must exist through the complexity of what exists (meaning Laws of Physics).

I know my view sounds childish to most as it's impossible to defeat. If you state something I'll just state "you can't understand Fred."(I'll try my best not to , please state things and pick apart what I believe. I can think rationally). Childish right? Not so to me, to understand what I believe and why I believe you must try to adapt my lens. It may still seem childish and ignorant, and it may be, please state why it is, I have thick skin. All I ask is you attempt to look through my view of Fred first absent ( as impossible as it may seem) your view of God.

I do ask, for the sake of rational conversation, we don't turn this into a furious debate. Let's not do the dissection (quoting small little portions and picking it apart) method of conversing with each other, it makes it difficult to have fluent reading, will normally just instigate somebody's defense mechanism, and it takes things out of context that, in some cases, are clarified later in the post. Please though state why I'm wrong, what's wrong with my view, why you're right, et cetera... ( I know I'm so difficult to understand - I don't want a debate but debate!-, please try to bear with me , I can try to clarify if need be.)

Note that we're still an accident, that is life on this planet. Assuming Fred did want life to appreciate him, he again only set the laws of physics in motion that allowed for the possibility of life evolving to do so.

Your view of God is this:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:Fred is not YHWH, he's not a loving, forgiving God, he's not an evil God, he might not even be a egotistical god as I stated above. I don't know his reasons, I don't know his thoughts, but I know he must exist through the complexity of what exists (meaning Laws of Physics)

Atheist have faith in their philosophy and world view.

Deist likewise have faith in their clockmaker FRED.

I am not sure if you caught this about Jac but he is answering you as your FRED would - not loving, indifferent, not evil, and existing through the complexity of what exists. In other words, he is answering you according to your faith. This is an extremely intelligent move on Jac's part. Therefore, since he has answered you even as your own FRED would, why do you find fault with FRED"S insults?

Happy, your faith is in an amoral God who made a clock like universe and took a long vacation. That is the basic tenant of deism.

Your faith is in a god that is not loving. Why do you find fault when someone is not loving toward your words as your Fred is not loving?

You state that you desire an actual honest conversation but do you?

Let's skip the small talk and get with it...

State three or Four objections to the Judaic/Christian concept of God and no more so we do not stray off on useless intellectual rabbit trials. There are some highly intelligent folks who can add his or her points to your objections. Are you willing to do this? Are you willing to find faith is not what you suppose it is?

If so, then list:

Objection One:

Objection Two:

Objection Three:
-
-
-

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

1over137 wrote: FL, can you tell me in more detail why you think HFD is not very bright? (I assume HFD is not attepmting to insult).

HFD is no dummy. I'm sure he's pretty smart. All he's done is taken what I wrote and willingly twisted it to write this comment:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:So you're saying I should call them emissaries of satan, pour gasoline on the book of mormon and burn it in front of them? Sounds efficient.

HFD's deduction is stupid and probably intended to express contempt of me, or disapproval, or both. If you read my posts, you'll see that I never suggested the above. But don't be concerned, I don't take such words seriously.


FL

@Fl
This was humor, obviously bad humor. I'm sorry you misread it.