Evidence for God from Science

B. W. wrote:

Audie wrote:It is discouraging trying to talk to someone who takes all, and runs it through a converter,
from where it comes out as something completely different. Then they respond to that,
and you realize they are doing both sides of the convrrsation.

Smart thing, not always observed by me, is to walk away and let them talk to themselves.

Audie, Ken asked a question, and stated that he wanted to know our stance. We gave him our stance and answered his question thoroughly.

He will not accept our answers, plain and simple no matter what we say or use to prove it.

Only answer he will accept is the one he already has in his mind but that is unknown to us.

How does Romans 1:19-23, Job 33:13-40, John 3:19-21 not answer Ken's question?

Those bible scriptures has nothing to do with it. Audie made that statement in reference to ACB misrepresenting my words, implying I said something completely different than what I actually said, then responding to all that stuff I did not say. Those Romans, Job, and John bible scriptures have nothing to do with the conversation between ACB and I.

Ken

Those scriptures answer your first question asked on this thread, that is all.

I thought I made that clear...

have a nice day!
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:Those scriptures answer your first question asked on this thread, that is all.

I thought I made that clear...

have a nice day!
-
-
-

When a person answers my question from their perspective, even though I may not agree with their perspective, I thank them for answering my question and I move on. I’ve done this with several of the responders here; yourself included.
The person Audie and I were talking about did not do this; he twisted my words around to mean something I did not say, then he responded to all that stuff I did not say thus the comment Audie made which I completely agreed with.

Ken

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:So if I understand you correctly, using the scenario I presented, this 14th century west African would attribute the Sun rising/Sun sets, Storms, the birth of a child, and all the other wonders of life to the God of the bible whom he never heard of rather than Amma; the God of his village; the only deity he has ever known.
If this is your position; thanks for answering my question.

Ken

Thank you for listening and have a great day, Ken!

However, such a person would not in the least attribute these to God the bible reveals but rather instead makes up his own ideas for the reasons mentioned above to Audie...

That is the difference...

Do you suppose "making up his own ideas for the reasons" might include attributing them to Amma the only Deity he ever knew of?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:So if I understand you correctly, using the scenario I presented, this 14th century west African would attribute the Sun rising/Sun sets, Storms, the birth of a child, and all the other wonders of life to the God of the bible whom he never heard of rather than Amma; the God of his village; the only deity he has ever known.
If this is your position; thanks for answering my question.

Ken

Thank you for listening and have a great day, Ken!

However, such a person would not in the least attribute these to God the bible reveals but rather instead makes up his own ideas for the reasons mentioned above to Audie...

That is the difference...

Do you suppose "making up his own ideas for the reasons" might include attributing them to Amma the only Deity he ever knew of?

Ken

Which again Romans 1:19-23 answers - yes...

To which you are prepared to respond that we made up God and are no different that the 14 century man making his own god - I too used that same line of reason long ago - Ken.

So I will answer that charge with how someone onced answered me:

In order to test that out, you must be willing to empirically become a Born Again Christian to test it for yourself. So why the fear?

Why are you determined to serve your own philosophy? It cannot save you from death...

All world religions with one exception, Biblically based Christianity, teaches self works needed to earn one's way to paradise. This means, trust yourself, have faith in what you do.

Biblically based Christianity instead simply teaches to trust God's Grace, what he has done for us, to enter Heaven's land. It is all about God, simply His free Gift.

The uniqueness of Biblically based Christianity points out the true way back to God's favor - faith that HE IS a rewarder of those that SEEK HIM.

This acts like a big arrow pointing out the right way to go as it restores trust in God and reset relationship with God that no works of performance can ever match. You have a right to ignore that way - pointing clearly back to God but for you Ken to be true to your own convictions you must-must be willing to empirically become a Born Again Christian to test it for yourself...

Why not start now?
-
-
-

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Audie wrote:It is discouraging trying to talk to someone who takes all, and runs it through a converter,
from where it comes out as something completely different. Then they respond to that,
and you realize they are doing both sides of the convrrsation.

Smart thing, not always observed by me, is to walk away and let them talk to themselves.

Audie, Ken asked a question, and stated that he wanted to know our stance. We gave him our stance and answered his question thoroughly.

He will not accept our answers, plain and simple no matter what we say or use to prove it.

Only answer he will accept is the one he already has in his mind but that is unknown to us.

How does Romans 1:19-23, Job 33:13-40, John 3:19-21 not answer Ken's question?

Those bible scriptures has nothing to do with it. Audie made that statement in reference to ACB misrepresenting my words, implying I said something completely different than what I actually said, then responding to all that stuff I did not say. Those Romans, Job, and John bible scriptures have nothing to do with the conversation between ACB and I.

Ken

Well both you and Audie are ignoring what you said. You said what is right and wrong has changed and will continue to do so in the future,yet it has not as I explained. What is right and wrong has not and does not change despite evil. Me assuming that you think this was because of sinners and what they've done does not change it.This is how we look back in history and say these people were wrong.But you overlook that every time you say what is right and wrong about history confirms what the bible says in Romans 2:13-15. You see God knows you can be a good person and reject God's laws or do not even know about them,and we do too,so you are not saying anything we don't know.It still is not enough though to get to heaven,being a good person,although it is good for a society that a person chooses to be a good person but doesn't believe in God,etc.Every person has the ability to be a good person in them already with or without God according to scripture.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Audie wrote:It is discouraging trying to talk to someone who takes all, and runs it through a converter,
from where it comes out as something completely different. Then they respond to that,
and you realize they are doing both sides of the convrrsation.

Smart thing, not always observed by me, is to walk away and let them talk to themselves.

Audie, Ken asked a question, and stated that he wanted to know our stance. We gave him our stance and answered his question thoroughly.

He will not accept our answers, plain and simple no matter what we say or use to prove it.

Only answer he will accept is the one he already has in his mind but that is unknown to us.

How does Romans 1:19-23, Job 33:13-40, John 3:19-21 not answer Ken's question?

Those bible scriptures has nothing to do with it. Audie made that statement in reference to ACB misrepresenting my words, implying I said something completely different than what I actually said, then responding to all that stuff I did not say. Those Romans, Job, and John bible scriptures have nothing to do with the conversation between ACB and I.

Ken

Well both you and Audie are ignoring what you said. You said what is right and wrong has changed and will continue to do so in the future,yet it has not as I explained. What is right and wrong has not and does not change despite evil. Me assuming that you think this was because of sinners and what they've done does not change it.This is how we look back in history and say these people were wrong.But you overlook that every time you say what is right and wrong about history confirms what the bible says in Romans 2:13-15. You see God knows you can be a good person and reject God's laws or do not even know about them,and we do too,so you are not saying anything we don't know.It still is not enough though to get to heaven,being a good person,although it is good for a society that a person chooses to be a good person but doesn't believe in God,etc.Every person has the ability to be a good person in them already with or without God according to scripture.

Maybe, just maybe the person who wrote the post knows what he said and what he meant; just possiby too, the one who cannot even punctuste properly let alone write a single grammatically correctly is the person who misread it.

Possibly too, it is a shabby bit of a passive- aggressive insult aimed at the author
from he-who-never ever insults anyone. Insulting me too, of course, suggesting I cannot correctly
read what is plainly there.

The passive- aggressive insults and the incompetent or deliberate misrepresentation
of what has been written is a consistent pattern with you.

If you sre not even aware of what you are doing, this could be an excellent time for a bit
of reflection. The fault is not always in other people, no matter how much as you try to put it there.

But hey, just ignore me, I am just one of those atheists whose words never are
worth anything. Just Satan's lies, right?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Audie wrote:It is discouraging trying to talk to someone who takes all, and runs it through a converter,
from where it comes out as something completely different. Then they respond to that,
and you realize they are doing both sides of the convrrsation.

Smart thing, not always observed by me, is to walk away and let them talk to themselves.

Audie, Ken asked a question, and stated that he wanted to know our stance. We gave him our stance and answered his question thoroughly.

He will not accept our answers, plain and simple no matter what we say or use to prove it.

Only answer he will accept is the one he already has in his mind but that is unknown to us.

How does Romans 1:19-23, Job 33:13-40, John 3:19-21 not answer Ken's question?

Those bible scriptures has nothing to do with it. Audie made that statement in reference to ACB misrepresenting my words, implying I said something completely different than what I actually said, then responding to all that stuff I did not say. Those Romans, Job, and John bible scriptures have nothing to do with the conversation between ACB and I.

Ken

Well both you and Audie are ignoring what you said. You said what is right and wrong has changed and will continue to do so in the future,yet it has not as I explained.

That is not quite what I said. I said "what is PERCEIVED as right or wrong (remember I am the moral subjectivist) has changed over the years and will continue to in the future". Do you agree with that statement? I mean, what good is having an objective right and a wrong if nobody knows what it is?

Ken

A qualifying adjective can be real importsnt in a contract. I'd sugges thst the able one let a
person skilled in the art* read any contract before he signs one. It would be very dangerous to choose a "perspective" and interpret accordingly.

* i do contracts. I am not volunteering

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Audie wrote:It is discouraging trying to talk to someone who takes all, and runs it through a converter,
from where it comes out as something completely different. Then they respond to that,
and you realize they are doing both sides of the convrrsation.

Smart thing, not always observed by me, is to walk away and let them talk to themselves.

Audie, Ken asked a question, and stated that he wanted to know our stance. We gave him our stance and answered his question thoroughly.

He will not accept our answers, plain and simple no matter what we say or use to prove it.

Only answer he will accept is the one he already has in his mind but that is unknown to us.

How does Romans 1:19-23, Job 33:13-40, John 3:19-21 not answer Ken's question?

Those bible scriptures has nothing to do with it. Audie made that statement in reference to ACB misrepresenting my words, implying I said something completely different than what I actually said, then responding to all that stuff I did not say. Those Romans, Job, and John bible scriptures have nothing to do with the conversation between ACB and I.

Ken

Well both you and Audie are ignoring what you said. You said what is right and wrong has changed and will continue to do so in the future,yet it has not as I explained. What is right and wrong has not and does not change despite evil. Me assuming that you think this was because of sinners and what they've done does not change it.This is how we look back in history and say these people were wrong.But you overlook that every time you say what is right and wrong about history confirms what the bible says in Romans 2:13-15. You see God knows you can be a good person and reject God's laws or do not even know about them,and we do too,so you are not saying anything we don't know.It still is not enough though to get to heaven,being a good person,although it is good for a society that a person chooses to be a good person but doesn't believe in God,etc.Every person has the ability to be a good person in them already with or without God according to scripture.

Maybe, just maybe the person who wrote the post knows what he said and what he meant; just possiby too, the one who cannot even punctuste properly let alone write a single grammatically correctly is the person who misread it.

Possibly too, it is a shabby bit of a passive- aggressive insult aimed at the author
from he-who-never ever insults anyone. Insulting me too, of course, suggesting I cannot correctly
read what is plainly there.

The passive- aggressive insults and the incompetent or deliberate misrepresentation
of what has been written is a consistent pattern with you.

If you sre not even aware of what you are doing, this could be an excellent time for a bit
of reflection. The fault is not always in other people, no matter how much as you try to put it there.

But hey, just ignore me, I am just one of those atheists whose words never are
worth anything. Just Satan's lies, right?

You don't like me grammar? It does not change that I was right.I can't help it you have not dealt with atheists like I have and I know the arguments they make and how they think.Sure not all atheists are the same but generally atheists do use talking points and it does reveal how they think.I'm not attacking you or anybody by dealing with general atheist arguments.Does the shoe fit or something?

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Audie wrote:It is discouraging trying to talk to someone who takes all, and runs it through a converter,
from where it comes out as something completely different. Then they respond to that,
and you realize they are doing both sides of the convrrsation.

Smart thing, not always observed by me, is to walk away and let them talk to themselves.

Audie, Ken asked a question, and stated that he wanted to know our stance. We gave him our stance and answered his question thoroughly.

He will not accept our answers, plain and simple no matter what we say or use to prove it.

Only answer he will accept is the one he already has in his mind but that is unknown to us.

How does Romans 1:19-23, Job 33:13-40, John 3:19-21 not answer Ken's question?

Those bible scriptures has nothing to do with it. Audie made that statement in reference to ACB misrepresenting my words, implying I said something completely different than what I actually said, then responding to all that stuff I did not say. Those Romans, Job, and John bible scriptures have nothing to do with the conversation between ACB and I.

Ken

Well both you and Audie are ignoring what you said. You said what is right and wrong has changed and will continue to do so in the future,yet it has not as I explained.

That is not quite what I said. I said "what is PERCEIVED as right or wrong (remember I am the moral subjectivist) has changed over the years and will continue to in the future". Do you agree with that statement? I mean, what good is having an objective right and a wrong if nobody knows what it is?

Ken

I disagree and I thought you did also. Didn't you bring up a past atrocity about hitting somebody with a bat based on their skin color,etc? So you do recognize wrong and right but you think it was somehow right then,but it wasn't. It was wrong then just like it is now so you do know what it is.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:
Audie, Ken asked a question, and stated that he wanted to know our stance. We gave him our stance and answered his question thoroughly.

He will not accept our answers, plain and simple no matter what we say or use to prove it.

Only answer he will accept is the one he already has in his mind but that is unknown to us.

How does Romans 1:19-23, Job 33:13-40, John 3:19-21 not answer Ken's question?

Those bible scriptures has nothing to do with it. Audie made that statement in reference to ACB misrepresenting my words, implying I said something completely different than what I actually said, then responding to all that stuff I did not say. Those Romans, Job, and John bible scriptures have nothing to do with the conversation between ACB and I.

Ken

Well both you and Audie are ignoring what you said. You said what is right and wrong has changed and will continue to do so in the future,yet it has not as I explained.

That is not quite what I said. I said "what is PERCEIVED as right or wrong (remember I am the moral subjectivist) has changed over the years and will continue to in the future". Do you agree with that statement? I mean, what good is having an objective right and a wrong if nobody knows what it is?

Ken

I disagree and I thought you did also. Didn't you bring up a past atrocity about hitting somebody with a bat based on their skin color,etc? So you do recognize wrong and right but you think it was somehow right then,but it wasn't. It was wrong then just like it is now so you do know what it is.

I know what is perceived as right/wrong today differs from 100 years ago. Issues like interracial sexual relationships, 12 yr old children having sexual relationships with adults; the people who got their morality from the bible 100 years ago, have a different perception of right/wrong on these issues than people who get their morality from the bible today. My morals and values reflect the morals and values of today, not yesterday; and I will bet yours does as well.

Ken

In other news, the title of this thread would be quite the interesting example of the difference in the objective v subjective genitive.

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote: Those bible scriptures has nothing to do with it. Audie made that statement in reference to ACB misrepresenting my words, implying I said something completely different than what I actually said, then responding to all that stuff I did not say. Those Romans, Job, and John bible scriptures have nothing to do with the conversation between ACB and I.

Ken

Well both you and Audie are ignoring what you said. You said what is right and wrong has changed and will continue to do so in the future,yet it has not as I explained.

That is not quite what I said. I said "what is PERCEIVED as right or wrong (remember I am the moral subjectivist) has changed over the years and will continue to in the future". Do you agree with that statement? I mean, what good is having an objective right and a wrong if nobody knows what it is?

Ken

I disagree and I thought you did also. Didn't you bring up a past atrocity about hitting somebody with a bat based on their skin color,etc? So you do recognize wrong and right but you think it was somehow right then,but it wasn't. It was wrong then just like it is now so you do know what it is.

I know what is perceived as right/wrong today differs from 100 years ago. Issues like interracial sexual relationships, 12 yr old children having sexual relationships with adults; the people who got their morality from the bible 100 years ago, have a different perception of right/wrong on these issues than people who get their morality from the bible today. My morals and values reflect the morals and values of today, not yesterday; and I will bet yours does as well.

Ken

Ken,

Is that true, or just your subjective opinion?

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Well both you and Audie are ignoring what you said. You said what is right and wrong has changed and will continue to do so in the future,yet it has not as I explained.

That is not quite what I said. I said "what is PERCEIVED as right or wrong (remember I am the moral subjectivist) has changed over the years and will continue to in the future". Do you agree with that statement? I mean, what good is having an objective right and a wrong if nobody knows what it is?

Ken

I disagree and I thought you did also. Didn't you bring up a past atrocity about hitting somebody with a bat based on their skin color,etc? So you do recognize wrong and right but you think it was somehow right then,but it wasn't. It was wrong then just like it is now so you do know what it is.

I know what is perceived as right/wrong today differs from 100 years ago. Issues like interracial sexual relationships, 12 yr old children having sexual relationships with adults; the people who got their morality from the bible 100 years ago, have a different perception of right/wrong on these issues than people who get their morality from the bible today. My morals and values reflect the morals and values of today, not yesterday; and I will bet yours does as well.

Ken

Ken,

Is that true, or just your subjective opinion?

I wouldn't say subjective opinion; but more of a personal observation.

K