Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:Ken,

Try to read and comprehend what Jac is saying. Put aside the tone you're reading into his posts. Focus on what he's actually saying.

He doesn't give any constructive criticisms, all he does is insult! And this isn't the first time. Before he accused me of doing stuff that if he simply read what I wrote he would have realized I didn't do it; then when I pointed it out to him in a kind way, he just disappeared and refused to reply. If I made such a mistake I would be big enough to apologise for my mistake; but he can't even do that! He was just rude then he goes away! See for yourself to the post titled "atheism belief or position" 3/23/14. It is kinda hard to respect what a person is saying when they behave this way

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Ken,

Try to read and comprehend what Jac is saying. Put aside the tone you're reading into his posts. Focus on what he's actually saying.

He doesn't give any constructive criticisms, all he does is insult! And this isn't the first time. Before he accused me of doing stuff that if he simply read what I wrote he would have realized I didn't do it; then when I pointed it out to him in a kind way, he just disappeared and refused to reply. If I made such a mistake I would be big enough to apologise for my mistake; but he can't even do that! He was just rude then he goes away! See for yourself to the post titled "atheism belief or position" 3/23/14. It is kinda hard to respect what a person is saying when they behave this way

Ken

Ken,
Reread Jac's post on the previous page. The post where he quoted Daniel when it was actually your quotes. Read his responses. He's showing you why your arguments are wrong. Reread it again.

You need to understand why your arguments don't hold water. His criticism is constructive. You just aren't grasping it.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Ken,

Try to read and comprehend what Jac is saying. Put aside the tone you're reading into his posts. Focus on what he's actually saying.

He doesn't give any constructive criticisms, all he does is insult! And this isn't the first time. Before he accused me of doing stuff that if he simply read what I wrote he would have realized I didn't do it; then when I pointed it out to him in a kind way, he just disappeared and refused to reply. If I made such a mistake I would be big enough to apologise for my mistake; but he can't even do that! He was just rude then he goes away! See for yourself to the post titled "atheism belief or position" 3/23/14. It is kinda hard to respect what a person is saying when they behave this way

Ken

Ken,
Reread Jac's post on the previous page. The post where he quoted Daniel when it was actually your quotes. Read his responses. He's showing you why your arguments are wrong. Reread it again.

You need to understand why your arguments don't hold water. His criticism is constructive. You just aren't grasping it.

The problem is he didn't explain what I said that was wrong, he just said my arguments were baseless and any christian that agrees with me are wrong also. What did I say that he claims was wrong, and why was it wrong?

Ken

1over137 wrote:Kenny,

It seems to me you have prejudices toward Jac. Please, do not have. Instead, try to get to know people.

Cheers.

I have prejustices against him??? Have you read some of the stuff he said about me? Read what he wrote then read what I said to him and tell me who is prejudging

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Ken,

Try to read and comprehend what Jac is saying. Put aside the tone you're reading into his posts. Focus on what he's actually saying.

He doesn't give any constructive criticisms, all he does is insult! And this isn't the first time. Before he accused me of doing stuff that if he simply read what I wrote he would have realized I didn't do it; then when I pointed it out to him in a kind way, he just disappeared and refused to reply. If I made such a mistake I would be big enough to apologise for my mistake; but he can't even do that! He was just rude then he goes away! See for yourself to the post titled "atheism belief or position" 3/23/14. It is kinda hard to respect what a person is saying when they behave this way

Ken

Ken,
Reread Jac's post on the previous page. The post where he quoted Daniel when it was actually your quotes. Read his responses. He's showing you why your arguments are wrong. Reread it again.

You need to understand why your arguments don't hold water. His criticism is constructive. You just aren't grasping it.

The problem is he didn't explain what I said that was wrong, he just said my arguments were baseless and any christian that agrees with me are wrong also. What did I say that he claims was wrong, and why was it wrong?

Ken

Well first,

You changed the meaning of biblical faith. And Jac showed you why your definition is wrong. Then you claimed that your definition was ok to use because some Christians use your definition too. Then Jac tried to explain that just because people believe something to be correct, that doesn't make it correct.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Ken,

Try to read and comprehend what Jac is saying. Put aside the tone you're reading into his posts. Focus on what he's actually saying.

He doesn't give any constructive criticisms, all he does is insult! And this isn't the first time. Before he accused me of doing stuff that if he simply read what I wrote he would have realized I didn't do it; then when I pointed it out to him in a kind way, he just disappeared and refused to reply. If I made such a mistake I would be big enough to apologise for my mistake; but he can't even do that! He was just rude then he goes away! See for yourself to the post titled "atheism belief or position" 3/23/14. It is kinda hard to respect what a person is saying when they behave this way

Ken

Ken,
Reread Jac's post on the previous page. The post where he quoted Daniel when it was actually your quotes. Read his responses. He's showing you why your arguments are wrong. Reread it again.

You need to understand why your arguments don't hold water. His criticism is constructive. You just aren't grasping it.

The problem is he didn't explain what I said that was wrong, he just said my arguments were baseless and any christian that agrees with me are wrong also. What did I say that he claims was wrong, and why was it wrong?

Ken

Well first,

You changed the meaning of biblical faith. And Jac showed you why your definition is wrong. Then you claimed that your definition was ok to use because some Christians use your definition too. Then Jac tried to explain that just because people believe something to be correct, that doesn't make it correct.

It was not my intention to change the meaning of the word faith. I said what I believed my definition was and BTW my definition is in line with the dictionary definition; and I gave examples of why I believe my definition was right. Now if he had just showed me why my definition was wrong, that would have been fine but he did not. He just said I was wrong and became rude about it.
By the way , is there a difference between the english version of the word "faith" and the biblical version of the word faith? If so why?

Ken

I did show you why it was wrong. I also pointed out the Hebrew and Greek words and defined them for you. In all sincerity, Kenny, how many times and in how many ways should I point out where you are mistaken? Two times? Three? Seven? Eighteen? Why is the once not enough? Because if the first time you simply ignore what is said, what confidence should I have that the second or third or fifteenth will be any different? And shy of that, why should I take time out of my day to answer you again and again and again when I have already done so? In other words, why should I--or anyone--bother even repeating myself once when you don't even show the slightest inkling of being open as to where you have misunderstood? You want to talk about me being rude? Do you not see the breathtaking arrogance you display (actually, it would only be breathtaking if I had not seen it many times before)? Coming here and proceeding to act as if you know something about the subject matter that we don't know? Thinking that you can come here and propose arguments that the greatest minds the world has ever known for well over two-thousand years haven't already thought of and rebutted countless times?

It's not your ignorance that astounds me. None of us are born understanding this, and some of this is very difficult. What I and others have been pointing out to you since nearly your first post here is the offensive hubris with which you present yourself.

FL has already pointed you to atheists on this board who are respected, after whom you ought to model yourself. It isn't your atheism I find laughable. It's your manner. It is, as I told you before, the quality of your responses and you deep naivete and total lack of self-awareness, and worse than all of that, your total disinterest in having a real conversation. Your presumptuousness--that you merely assume that because you created a screen name and posted a few questions that somehow you are entitled to any degree of deference--is absurd. If you want to be respected, then act respectably.

As for me, I've not offered you a single insult. I have told you--plainly, granted, but told you all the same--how you are presenting yourself. That you choose to regard that as an insult simply points to yet another example of your own immaturity.

Now, feel free to continue to complain that I'm "insulting" you and that I won't bother responding. Or, do some real work and go back and read what you have been told. The answer to every question you just asked has already been given in previous responses. To say it all again would only be to repeat ourselves. One thing of many that I have learned in some two decades of this type of work is that, when you answer someone's question and they ask it again insisting that you haven't answered it, then you are dealing with a person who isn't interested in answers at all. You are dealing with a person who would rather preach, and the only "answer" they find acceptable is the one they want to hear.

My hope for you, Kenny, is that you will put yourself in our shoes, read your posts, and realize just how pompous you've presented yourself, and that you will change your assumptions and your approach and learn. Stop arrogantly assuming that your opinion on definitions of words has absolutely any interest to anyone. Why should they? Who cares what you believe? And before you take that as another insult (as I suspect you will, given your previous behavior), note that no one here really cares what anyone thinks--not even me. The question is, and only can be, what is the evidence for what the Scripture says. If you think you have an argument as to what Scripture says and you want to submit it for critique, then by all means, feel free. But to say, "Well, I think the word means X because a dictionary defines a word that didn't even exist when the real word was written so defines it . . ." is completely irrelevant. If you want to insist on your absurd definition of "faith" (which you have been REPEATEDLY told is incorrect, and yet you arrogantly persist in the position), then I'll simply roll my eyes, point out then, at worst, "faith" is not the proper translation of aman/pistis.

tl;dr - try to show a little respect. The way you do that isn't by pretending to be polite (it's very possible to be politely disrespectful). It's by taking the time to really read what is being said to you, reading it closely, and reading for understanding. It's by taking the approach of a learner and getting rid of this insane notion that you have that you have anything to teach any of us.

I am inviting you to come and learn. I hope you choose to do so. I'm not saying you have to believe something just because any of us--least of all me--says it. But, mercy, at least start with the proposition that people with decades of experience studying this stuff, former atheists turned Christians, and people with advanced degrees might know something you don't.

Jac3510
I did show you why it was wrong. I also pointed out the Hebrew and Greek words and defined them for you.

Ken
You said “Pistis” and “Aman” is defined as belief that includes empirical evidence. And you claimed these are the Hebrew and Greek versions of Faith. You didn’t provide any sources; I guess I was supposed to take your word for it. I responded why I disagree that faith should not include empirical evidence; and dictionary.com confirms my definition of the word.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t
Now if you want to make the argument that the Hebrew and Greek words are as you described them, maybe the word “faith” shouldn’t be used! Maybe another word should be used that includes empirical evidence; because let’s face it; when the bible was written, the English language didn’t even exist! Thus the word “faith” didn’t exist.

Jac3510
In all sincerity, Kenny, how many times and in how many ways should I point out where you are mistaken? Two times? Three? Seven? Eighteen? Why is the once not enough?

Ken
You only replied once; and I stated my disagreement with your reply! To which you started to become belligerent

Jac3510
You want to talk about me being rude? Do you not see the breathtaking arrogance you display (actually, it would only be breathtaking if I had not seen it many times before)? Coming here and proceeding to act as if you know something about the subject matter that we don't know?

Ken
Oh so because I have the audacity to disagree with you, all of a sudden I am being rude? And who is this “we” business? My objection is with YOU! I’ve discussed with plenty of people on this site and even though we don’t always agree, they know how to behave. But with you, for some reason you seem to get a little bent outta shape!

Jac3510
Thinking that you can come here and propose arguments that the greatest minds the world has ever known for well over two-thousand years haven't already thought of and rebutted countless times?

Ken
Are you kidding me??? I am not proposing arguments with the greatest minds the world has ever known, I’m proposing my arguments with YOU!! However judging from the arrogance you’ve displayed, it shouldn’t surprise me that you would be delusional enough to consider yourself in such company.

Jac3510
FL has already pointed you to atheists on this board who are respected, after whom you ought to model yourself. It isn't your atheism I find laughable. It's your manner.

Ken
Now why on earth would I attempt to model myself after someone else I don’t know; I may not ever agree with? Of anything I should list some of the Christians on this site that YOU should model YOURSELF after.

Jac3510
It is, as I told you before, the quality of your responses and you deep naivete and total lack of self-awareness, and worse than all of that, your total disinterest in having a real conversation.

Ken
You can call my responses lacking quality, naive, lacking awareness, or whatever you want; but it means nothing unless you explain WHY my responses has those qualities; something you have yet to do. That is why your responses are insulting rather than constructive criticisms.

Jac3510
Your presumptuousness--that you merely assume that because you created a screen name and posted a few questions that somehow you are entitled to any degree of deference--is absurd. If you want to be respected, then act respectably.

Ken
This is a public forum. Anyone can come here and post their opinions and that is what I did. Now if you have a problem with people who might post an opinion that is different than yours, maybe you should leave this forum and go find yourself a choir to preach to because not everybody is gonna march in “lockstep” to your point of view!

Jac3510
One thing of many that I have learned in some two decades of this type of work is that, when you answer someone's question and they ask it again insisting that you haven't answered it, then you are dealing with a person who isn't interested in answers at all. You are dealing with a person who would rather preach, and the only "answer" they find acceptable is the one they want to hear.

Ken
One thing I’ve learned is when a person would rather rant and rave instead of articulating a rebuttal against a person who has a different point of view than his own; (something you’ve neglected to do) this is a person who is only interested in hearing his point of view. Again; maybe you should go find yourself a choir to preach to.

Jac3510
My hope for you, Kenny, is that you will put yourself in our shoes,

Ken
Our shoes? There you go speaking plural again; my objection is not with anyone else, it is with you; the fact that you are rude, neglect to reply, but pretend as if you did.

All I ask is if you disagree with me, explain why! If you think my replies are stupid, Fine! But explain WHY they are stupid. I will be the first to admit, I don’t know everything, I am here to learn like anyone else but you need to realize that you don’t know everything either! In spite of what you might believe, you are not one of the greatest minds the world has ever known! Even YOU can learn something as well. Now would you like to quote insulting each other, shake hands and behave in a civil maner? If we can manage that we both might learn something. I am cool with that; how about you???

Ken


Ken

Kenny, I'm not going to spend my time replying to all of that. You're pulling your typical nonsense. I'l illustrate what I mean from the first point and the first point alone. Then I'll leave it in your court.

Kenny wrote:You said “Pistis” and “Aman” is defined as belief that includes empirical evidence.

Quote me where I said that.

And then, after you've managed to do that (which, of course, you won't, because I never did), then quote what I actually said.

As I've said, if you aren't interested in actually reading and responding to what people better educated than you actually say, why should anybody bother being interested in what you have to say?

Now, this goes one of two ways. Either you answer my question directly--you quote me where I said that pistis and aman are defined as belief that includes empirical evidence--or you retract the claim; and then you quote what I actually said. Shy of that, then whoever else wants to put up with your drivel, that's up to them. I don't have the time to waste on an atheist preacher.

I suspect, though I sincerely hope this is not the case, that my last words to you will be these: for your own sake, drop the belligerent, self-righteous, pompous attitude and adopt a little humility. Learn from those who know more than you. Ask questions. Don't make accusations. Learn, Kenny. Be a student before you presume to teach.

Or, continue with your sermons. I won't be a congregant.

Jac3510 wrote:Kenny, I'm not going to spend my time replying to all of that. You're pulling your typical nonsense. I'l illustrate what I mean from the first point and the first point alone. Then I'll leave it in your court.

Kenny wrote:You said “Pistis” and “Aman” is defined as belief that includes empirical evidence.

Quote me where I said that.

And then, after you've managed to do that (which, of course, you won't, because I never did), then quote what I actually said.

On march 27th at 6:17pm I said: I've always thought of it as to believe and trust without empirical evidence

To which you replied: ” And you've been informed that is not what the word means. The Greek word is pistis. The Hebrew is aman. Neither pistis nor aman mean "faith without empirical evidence”

Those were your exact words. If you didn't mean that pistis and aman includes empiracle evidence, what did you mean?

Ken

Kenny wrote:To which you replied: ” And you've been informed that is not what the word means. The Greek word is pistis. The Hebrew is aman. Neither pistis nor aman mean "faith without empirical evidence”

Yes, those were my exact words. Since when does the fact that the pistis and aman do not mean "faith without empirical evidence" therefore mean that they mean "faith that includes empirical evidence?"

Take this analogy:

You: "Going to work means not being late"
Me: "No, going to work does not mean 'not being late.'"
[conversation continues]
You: "Hey, you are the one who defined 'going to work' as 'being late'!"
Me: *sigh* "When did I say that?"
You: "When you said, 'No, going to work does not mean "not being late".'"
Me: Really?

As far as what I meant, if you go back to the post in question and look at what I was responding to, not only will you see exactly what I meant (hint: look at what Seraph said), but I even linked you to a blog post that explains things in some detail.

Jac3510
Yes, those were my exact words. Since when does the fact that the pistis and aman do not mean "faith without empirical evidence" therefore mean that they mean "faith that includes empirical evidence?"

Take this analogy:

You: "Going to work means not being late"
Me: "No, going to work does not mean 'not being late.'"
[conversation continues]
You: "Hey, you are the one who defined 'going to work' as 'being late'!"
Me: *sigh* "When did I say that?"
You: "When you said, 'No, going to work does not mean "not being late".'"
Me: Really?

Ken
I believe your analogy is a bit flawed but that doesn’t matter; I’ve obviously misunderstood you. Do you believe faith is sometimes empirical but not always? Or is always empirical? This is something you have not made clear; What exactly are you saying here?

Ken

What's there to misunderstand?

You said faith is belief without empirical evidence. I said it is not. That you go on and draw wrong conclusions is hardly my problem. You would do better to revisit what Seraph said to you, which is the same thing the article I point out links to--in other words, looking at what people have actually said rather than assuming people are saying things that they aren't.

Erased.