My Enoch Challenge

[VehementiDominus]

Faith is believing something when science says otherwise.

Faith is belief in something without evidence, which is bad enough, but believing in something when science says otherwise is just outright stupidity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Faith is belief in something without evidence...

Yes, I agree with that too.

The long definition I have come up with is: Believing in something when there is no evidence, or when science says otherwise.

This means that I have faith that the Flood was global, despite what you guys claim science says about it being only local.

When I first came here five years ago, all I heard was, "There's no evidence of a global flood."

After I started chanting, "Keep looking" every time someone said that, they switched to, "Evidence says a global flood didn't happen."

Thus the definition: Faith is believing in something when there's no evidence to support it, or when science says otherwise.

 

[VehementiDominus]

Yes, I agree with that too.

The long definition I have come up with is: Believing in something when there is no evidence, or when science says otherwise.

This means that I have faith that the Flood was global, despite what you guys claim science says about it being only local.

When I first came here five years ago, all I heard was, "There's no evidence of a global flood."

After I started chanting, "Keep looking" every time someone said that, they switched to, "Evidence says a global flood didn't happen."

Thus the definition: Faith is believing in something when there's no evidence to support it, or when science says otherwise.

Both cases are idiotic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Both cases are idiotic.

-- thank you.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes, I agree with that too.

The long definition I have come up with is: Believing in something when there is no evidence, or when science says otherwise.

So basically, you need science to tell you what your faith is.

 

[Cabal]

So basically, you need science to tell you what your faith is.

And yet he'll still whale on TEs.

Another sterling AV double standard.

 

[Jazer]

Faith is belief in something without evidence, which is bad enough, but believing in something when science says otherwise is just outright stupidity.

If you do not know God, then human faith is basicly positive thinking. It is very popular with motivational speakers for sports, business and in some cases even education. God's faith is both a gift and a fruit of the Holy Spirit in us. You can not seperate His faith from His love & Healing. In fact all the fruit of the spirit come together in one pkg" love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfullness, gentleness & self control. The gifts or chrisma's are a work of God that He does as He joins us together as one in the Church. So the faith of God works though us and they say God will give to us what He can get through us to others.

 

[Jazer]

This means that I have faith that the Flood was global, despite what you guys claim science says about it being only local.

How do you reconcil the difference in Gen ch 1 where man was told to "fill the earth" compared to ch 2 when Adam was put in the Garden of Eden to take care of it.



"God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you reconcil the difference in Gen ch 1 where man was told to "fill the earth" compared to ch 2 when Adam was put in the Garden of Eden to take care of it.

Good question, bro; thank you for asking.

1. An examination of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) shows that the word was used to mean ‘fill’ from the thirteenth to the seventeenth centuries. In no case quoted in these five centuries does it unambiguously mean ‘re-fill’. The OED defines ‘replenish’ as having 10 meanings throughout its history:

1. Replenished (adjective):
   1. fully stocked; provided, supplied;
   2. filled, pervaded;
   3. physically or materially filled;
   4. full, made full.
2. To replenish:
   1. make full, fill, stock with, as in: ‘This man made the Newe Forest, and replenyshed it with wylde bestes’ (AD1494);
   2. inhabit, settle, occupy the whole of;
   3. fill with food, satiate;
   4. fill (space) with; fill (heart) with (a feeling);
   5. fill up again; fill up (a vacant office) (AD1632);
   6. become full, attain to fullness.

Note that only ‘9’ includes the idea ‘again’. This use first appears in a poem in 1612. It appears again in Pepys’ Diary, where he says: ‘buy ... to replenish the stores’. Only the year 1612 is anywhere near the date of the KJV (1611), and it’s a poetic use. The Hebrew original of Genesis 1:28 is not poetic. All other uses range from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, when it tends to die out in normal writing.

SOURCE

 

[Nathan Poe]

And yet he'll still whale on TEs.

Another sterling AV double standard.

Not so much a double standard as it is no standard at all -- his pathological need to feel superior to others overrides any need for a standard.

 

[Tiberius]

Why you not respond to my post, AV? Have you no answer?

if event X always causes A, B and C, but there is no A, B or C, do you think event X occured or not?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why you not respond to my post, AV? Have you no answer?

Because I think you're trying to eclipse my point with algebra, and you're only confusing yourself, not me.

 

[Tiberius]

Or perhaps that if you answered it, you be put in the position of either admitting that there's no just reason for believing in something that has no evidence, or giving equal weight to any nonsense idea that comes along.

And neither of those is very good, is it? And yet that is what your position has led you to.

Want me to ask it without the algebra? Fine.

If an event always causes certain consequences, is there any reaon to believe that the event took place if those consequences do not exist?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Or perhaps that if you answered it, you be put in the position of either admitting that there's no just reason for believing in something that has no evidence, or giving equal weight to any nonsense idea that comes along.

And neither of those is very good, is it? And yet that is what your position has led you to.

Want me to ask it without the algebra? Fine.

If an event always causes certain consequences, is there any reaon to believe that the event took place if those consequences do not exist?

Forget it, Tiberius -- any answer (or question, for that matter) which AV cannot twist in his great commission to promote AV can take a hike.

 

[VehementiDominus]

Because I think you're trying to eclipse my point with algebra, and you're only confusing yourself, not me.

I understand him perfectly.

If an event always leaves behind three things, yet these three things aren't there, where they should be, then did the event occur or not?

It's a simple question, and it clearly did confuse you.

 

[VehementiDominus]

Forget it, Tiberius -- any answer (or question, for that matter) which AV cannot twist in his great commission to promote AV can take a hike.

I've given him music a couple of times, to help him dance around the question, because he needs it, he's stumbling all over the place.

 

[sandwiches]

Wouldn't half of any class be in the bottom 1/2 of that class for all professions?

ROFL

 

[Jazer]

If an event always leaves behind three things, yet these three things aren't there, where they should be, then did the event occur or not?

It depends on how good you are at cleaning up after the crime or event.

 

[sandwiches]

It depends on how good you are at cleaning up after the crime or event.

It doesn't matter how good you are. If the things you expect to see aren't there, what should one assume?

For instance, let's say I tell you I have a dinosaur in my backyard and you come over to see it because you (reasonably) don't just take my word for it. When you arrive I tell you it ran away. You ask for its droppings; I tell you I cleaned those up. You ask for its footprints; I tell you I just relayed my grass. You ask to see the broken fence where he broke through; I tell you I just put a new fence.

Would you:
a) Think maybe I lied about the dinosaur?
or
b) Think that the dinosaur existed but I just cleaned everything up?

 

[selfinflikted]

It depends on how good you are at cleaning up after the crime or event.

Then that begs the question of why. For instance, if The Flood actually happened, why would god want to "clean up" the evidence to make it appear that The Flood never happened? That seems deceitful.