The Fall!

[POI]

Otseng stated "Yes, I believe the fall is a thing. As for why, it is out of scope for the current discussion, but can be addressed later."

Your wish has been granted.

For debate: Outside the claim being made from an ancient human writing, why is the assertion of 'the fall' a real thing?

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #83]
You say that an attack is not an attack if the victims does not feel attacked. What if they were unconscious? What is they were handicapped in some way and could not perceive that someone was attacking them?

Who are you connecting the "unconscious" or "handicapped" with? You, or the atheists? If "neither" then your analogy is not relevant to that which I am attempting to point out.
If "you", then you can explain why you are unconscious/handicapped and I will respond accordingly.

You define an attack as only being such if the recipient (victim) decides it is an attack. This eliminates those unable at the moment to know that they are being attacked as such. For these poor victims, no attack occurred in your view. My statement was pointing out the flaw in your definition. No one was in mind, certainly not any poster here. Verbal attacks on line, by definition must be at least read by the victim or thes are just words in the clouds the intended object never reaches. If a man lets out steam, a verbal attack, occurs while he is in the shower and no one hears, no attack really occurred. He never communicated this to the target.[/quote]

Another question, in this all is subjective view, is God‘s take on right or wrong subjective?

Is God mindful and self aware/a conscious entity? If so, then yes. Every conscious entity which is able to think - by default - experiences subjectivity in that self aware process.

OK, we agree. He is definately a conscious entity who loves and thinks and communicates as evidenced by those who walked with him and wrote about it and those who still walk with Him.

If you say yes, it is subjective, ought you to tell others that they had better align their behavior according to his subjective view as He will be judging them later according to what he subjectively thought they ought to do?

I see no reason why I ought do that.

Interesting. So does this mean you do not believe that God's "subjective" view on moral right and wrong carries any weight? There are no consequences for violating His standard or ignoring it? Just curious.

[Mae von H]

The truth is, the earth is there whether the speaker decides to admit it or not. The question is begged, who do you think you are that you allow yourself the position of determining that the earth is there? Remember, this is not an attack if you do not think it is one. I guess that means I can say it is not if I do not think it is one either, right? No objective standards, right?

If the earth is an objective standard, what does the earth stand for?

Why does it to stand for something? Why can’t it just be? Does every real thing merely “stand for something” else? Standing on the earth IS the important thing. That some think they have the option to acknowledge the earth they are standing or not on begs other questions.

If the universe is all happening inside the mind of God, is it real or imagined or is it simply something which can only be deemed real, since it is God who is imagining it and placing us into it so we experience it as being real?

This view of reality (really fits “non reality”) is not something Jews or Christians participate in. I am not sure what appeal it has. I see no evidence of this either. But every man is free to think as he/she wishes. Doesn’t change the world outside the mind thinking it.

[TRANSPONDER]

The truth is, the earth is there whether the speaker decides to admit it or not. The question is begged, who do you think you are that you allow yourself the position of determining that the earth is there? Remember, this is not an attack if you do not think it is one. I guess that means I can say it is not if I do not think it is one either, right? No objective standards, right?

If the earth is an objective standard, what does the earth stand for?

Why does it to stand for something? Why can’t it just be? Does every real thing merely “stand for something” else? Standing on the earth IS the important thing. That some think they have the option to acknowledge the earth they are standing or not on begs other questions.

If the universe is all happening inside the mind of God, is it real or imagined or is it simply something which can only be deemed real, since it is God who is imagining it and placing us into it so we experience it as being real?

This view of reality (really fits “non reality”) is not something Jews or Christians participate in. I am not sure what appeal it has. I see no evidence of this either. But every man is free to think as he/she wishes. Doesn’t change the world outside the mind thinking it.

For once I am in agreement with you. I am a materialist skeptic (to use blunderbuss terms I hope will be parsed). I credit the reality of things that appear to be real.

I know about the illusion of matter (it is atoms which and mostly empty space) and am aware of indeterminacy, which suggests things are only what humans see. I suspect that is a matter of common human perception of a stasis reality, much as we all think the sky is blue. It isn't; it is only the way our brains are hardwired. Yet the effect of blueness wavelength on our heads is real.

The reality is, as I have put it, not what you can bang on a table, but what is reliably repeatable, and that the reality (facts (1) exists apart from the human mind, because it is always dealing us the unexpected. Whatever the truth of religious claims, that reality as physics and reliable as repeatable physical effects which remains detectable and reliable gives us a starting -point for our deliberations about what is true and what is our imagination.

(1) in fact the basis of science, reason and probability and the basis of epistemology, and reason why Faithbased argument is fallacious. This exist no matter what mistaken beliefs humans have, and all that humans have to do is get as near to understanding what the 'Facts' are. Science and logical reasoning in the best (only) way to do this, Faith, revelation and religious inspiration is not. Faith is , axiomatically - not the right, best, or reliable way to truth. We know this because not only has science shown reliable answers while Faith has been disproven time after time, but (Axiom) 'there are many religions; there is only one science".

[Mae von H]

The truth is, the earth is there whether the speaker decides to admit it or not. The question is begged, who do you think you are that you allow yourself the position of determining that the earth is there? Remember, this is not an attack if you do not think it is one. I guess that means I can say it is not if I do not think it is one either, right? No objective standards, right?

If the earth is an objective standard, what does the earth stand for?

Why does it to stand for something? Why can’t it just be? Does every real thing merely “stand for something” else? Standing on the earth IS the important thing. That some think they have the option to acknowledge the earth they are standing or not on begs other questions.

If the universe is all happening inside the mind of God, is it real or imagined or is it simply something which can only be deemed real, since it is God who is imagining it and placing us into it so we experience it as being real?

This view of reality (really fits “non reality”) is not something Jews or Christians participate in. I am not sure what appeal it has. I see no evidence of this either. But every man is free to think as he/she wishes. Doesn’t change the world outside the mind thinking it.

For once I am in agreement with you. I am a materialist skeptic (to use blunderbuss terms I hope will be parsed). I credit the reality of things that appear to be real.

I know about the illusion of matter (it is atoms which and mostly empty space) and am aware of indeterminacy, which suggests things are only what humans see. I suspect that is a matter of common human perception of a stasis reality, much as we all think the sky is blue. It isn't; it is only the way our brains are hardwired. Yet the effect of blueness wavelength on our heads is real.

The reality is, as I have put it, not what you can bang on a table, but what is reliably repeatable, and that the reality (facts (1) exists apart from the human mind, because it is always dealing us the unexpected. Whatever the truth of religious claims, that reality as physics and reliable as repeatable physical effects which remains detectable and reliable gives us a starting -point for our deliberations about what is true and what is our imagination.

Yes, I agree with all of the above. The perception that reality is what is apart from the human mind is a remarkable statement and I am impressed. I agree, of course, and find that this idea that reality is not merely what we think it is but has its existent entirely apart from our thinking unique in thinking today. Pardon my commentary, but this was a very pleasing post and I cannot but be fair and compliment you on the expression as well as the thought. Kudos to you!!

It is equally impressive because this is actually how all of us must live despite so many thinking their perception trumps all. Whether we perceive the truck barreling down upon us does not affect what we will experience should we not move. So to survive in this world, all of us must look for and accept the reality that is also different than what we perceive. No man places the importance of his personal perception above all other sensory input and survives very long.

(1) in fact the basis of science, reason and probability and the basis of epistemology, and reason why Faithbased argument is fallacious. This exist no matter what mistaken beliefs humans have, and all that humans have to do is get as near to understanding what the 'Facts' are. Science and logical reasoning in the best (only) way to do this, Faith, revelation and religious inspiration is not. Faith is , axiomatically - not the right, best, or reliable way to truth. We know this because not only has science shown reliable answers while Faith has been disproven time after time, but (Axiom) 'there are many religions; there is only one science".

Here we diverge but I must commpliment you on your expression of your views. I have been critical of your expression so it is only fair when I admit that your expression was well done. Does not mean I have to agree, but I can certainly admire your ability to put your thoughts into words. Don't you think this is important in a civil exchange?

On to the point of disagreement... I guess an argument based on faith is in a way fallacious at a point of entry. I mean my brother trusted, had faith in, a business partner who had embezzled from his last business and lost it. My brother had complete faith in him. Our Dad warned him, but he insisted his faith was well placed. Well you can guess the outcome and he did embezzle and my brother lost his whole financial future and ended up committing suicide. The faith he had in David was misplaced and with time and observation, it was shown to be fallacious as you correctly say. There are many such tales unfortunately.

So was faith the problem? No, because there are those who believed in or had faith in Mr/Ms XYZ and it turned out as they had promised and life was good. So faith is sometimes the first step to some other understanding. For many things it is the only step. The way to come to know if there is a God is by faith. In many relationships, people ask others to trust them. Either this proves to be a good decision or not. But we do not go around demanding others demonstrate they are trustworthy generally. Just so, I began to trust God on small matters which meant I did as he told me to do, and I grew to trust Him more and more with more and more serious decisions. So our faith in God might start out as a step not knowing, but with time it grows to knowing. At least that is how it is supposed to be.

But I can see that if one decides to argue their position by their own personal faith as the reason, well, that is rather a fallacy. The atheist's faith in evolution is a faith. The believer's faith in Christ and his view of creation is a faith. Now you can argue that evolution is science but I know many highly educated people who do not see the evidence as supporting the position from science alone. They are atheists, by the way. So both positions are matters of faith. If you, however, bring evidence for your position, I can bring evidence for my position as well. We are not without evidence that is not faith based and not personal.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #104]

Thank you for you fair response to my post.

We do indeed diverge on the merits or indeed meaning of Faith.

It is quite simple One can have faith for good evidential or logical reasons (science - including evolution) or without any good evidence (Religious Faith) or in spite of the evidence (Creationism).

Sure the Bible is a book that has to be evaluated on merits, like any other book. And it has failed more than it makes a case. There are some historical bits,of course, though evidently fiddled or mixed up but overall the faithclaims don't stack up to good evidence.
Thus Faith in the Bible, never mind which Abrahamic religion is the right one does not pass the Galadriel test Resist the temptation to believe that god is pouring Truth into your head and remain in the best conclusion that evidence and logic can do, even if it can sometimes lead to mistaken assessments.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #104]

Thank you for you fair response to my post.

We do indeed diverge on the merits or indeed meaning of Faith.

It is quite simple One can have faith for good evidential or logical reasons (science - including evolution) or without any good evidence (Religious Faith) or in spite of the evidence (Creationism).

Agreed.

Sure the Bible is a book that has to be evaluated on merits, like any other book. And it has failed more than it makes a case. There are some historical bits,of course, though evidently fiddled or mixed up but overall the faithclaims don't stack up to good evidence.
Thus Faith in the Bible, never mind which Abrahamic religion is the right one does not pass the Galadriel test Resist the temptation to believe that god is pouring Truth into your head and remain in the best conclusion that evidence and logic can do, even if it can sometimes lead to mistaken assessments.

That is only one personal opinion. You state it as fact but it is not a fact that Bible has failed to make a case. It has overwhelmingly exceeded if one looks at the events since Christ and the change in the world and men. So you only think it had failed more than it makes a case. And you will not find the majority of those who actually lived out its teachings agreeing.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #104]

Thank you for you fair response to my post.

We do indeed diverge on the merits or indeed meaning of Faith.

It is quite simple One can have faith for good evidential or logical reasons (science - including evolution) or without any good evidence (Religious Faith) or in spite of the evidence (Creationism).

Agreed.

Sure the Bible is a book that has to be evaluated on merits, like any other book. And it has failed more than it makes a case. There are some historical bits,of course, though evidently fiddled or mixed up but overall the faithclaims don't stack up to good evidence.
Thus Faith in the Bible, never mind which Abrahamic religion is the right one does not pass the Galadriel test Resist the temptation to believe that god is pouring Truth into your head and remain in the best conclusion that evidence and logic can do, even if it can sometimes lead to mistaken assessments.

That is only one personal opinion. You state it as fact but it is not a fact that Bible has failed to make a case. It has overwhelmingly exceeded if one looks at the events since Christ and the change in the world and men. So you only think it had failed more than it makes a case. And you will not find the majority of those who actually lived out its teachings agreeing.

It comes down to a valid rational argument (according to logical assessment of evidence) or invalid arguments.

Your argument pretty much concedes that failure of the evidential case as you have to appeal to influence. I recall that I pointed out that Hinduism and Buddhism have had a huge influence, and frankly the 'success' of Christianity has more to do with colonialism than a convincing case.

Human philosophy and technology has had more effect on humans than Christianity had. That is not a validation of the Bible being true. And you also concede that you have no evidential case for Bible reliability by appealing to numbers.

I agree that it does no good being right on evidence if nobody will listen, but that millions of people thought the earth was flat and sun went around it did not make that true. The evidence showed it was false and (in time) that became generally accepted as a mistake. I trust that (once the message gets out and people are able to think with Reason, rather than Faith) they will come to see that the Bible is not reliable, credible, nor valid.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #104]

Thank you for you fair response to my post.

We do indeed diverge on the merits or indeed meaning of Faith.

It is quite simple One can have faith for good evidential or logical reasons (science - including evolution) or without any good evidence (Religious Faith) or in spite of the evidence (Creationism).

Agreed.

Sure the Bible is a book that has to be evaluated on merits, like any other book. And it has failed more than it makes a case. There are some historical bits,of course, though evidently fiddled or mixed up but overall the faithclaims don't stack up to good evidence.
Thus Faith in the Bible, never mind which Abrahamic religion is the right one does not pass the Galadriel test Resist the temptation to believe that god is pouring Truth into your head and remain in the best conclusion that evidence and logic can do, even if it can sometimes lead to mistaken assessments.

That is only one personal opinion. You state it as fact but it is not a fact that Bible has failed to make a case. It has overwhelmingly exceeded if one looks at the events since Christ and the change in the world and men. So you only think it had failed more than it makes a case. And you will not find the majority of those who actually lived out its teachings agreeing.

It comes down to a valid rational argument (according to logical assessment of evidence) or invalid arguments.

I do not see that your side has the upper hand on valid rational arguments.

Your argument pretty much concedes that failure of the evidential case as you have to appeal to influence. I recall that I pointed out that Hinduism and Buddhism have had a huge influence, and frankly the 'success' of Christianity has more to do with colonialism than a convincing case.

The influence of christianity on the world was the most positive the world had known. A man from India wrote a book acknowleging that the freedoms India enjoys today is because of the British with their Christianity. I have been to a 99% Buddist country and human life is of no value. Very scary.

The whole value of a human being rests entirely on the value that God has given a man. This is the basis for the christians fighting against slavery, an economic arrangement, was that the slave was a person made in the image of God. And this only happened in Christian Europe. No other faith fought against this arrangement.

Human philosophy and technology has had more effect on humans than Christianity had. That is not a validation of the Bible being true. And you also concede that you have no evidential case for Bible reliability by appealing to numbers.

Again untrue. Technology and philosophy (which dates back to the Greeks) had no impact on the value of each human life. None at all. Technology is more likely to enslave people and offers no reason not to at all. The Romans had high technology for their time and had an extensive system of slavery. No moral kindness to be found in technology.

I agree that it does no good being right on evidence if nobody will listen, but that millions of people thought the earth was flat and sun went around it did not make that true. The evidence showed it was false and (in time) that became generally accepted as a mistake. I trust that (once the message gets out and people are able to think with Reason, rather than Faith) they will come to see that the Bible is not reliable, credible, nor valid.

Well, we differ here. If people thought the earth was flat and offering their virgin young women and babies to the gods brought forth the harvest, what has that to do with us? There is no support for a flat earth in the Bible. That the sun revolved around the earth came from Aristotle not the Bible. That SCIENCE fought that conclusion was in reverence for that famous Greek Aristotle. Make no mistake, science fought that theory same as they fought the evidence that the world began with a Big Bang. They hated it. So? Scientists are routinely wrong and were and are men of various philosophical positions they are loath to surrender. Has nothing to do with the Bible.

[William]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #100]
I wrote that the indoctrination involving the non-allowance of divorce is just one example. To say that Jesus endorsed such doesn't align with Matthew 19:29 or Matthew 28:19-20.
You appeared to have skipped that altogether.

[William]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #101]

You define an attack as only being such if the recipient (victim) decides it is an attack.

I continue to be specific (with my definitions) to the interaction between you and the atheists here on this message board . You have created a strawman (critiquing something I didn't argue for), therefore, there is no reason for me to go down that branch of argument with you.

Is God mindful and self aware/a conscious entity? If so, then yes. Every conscious entity which is able to think - by default - experiences subjectivity in that self aware process.

OK, we agree. He is definately a conscious entity who loves and thinks and communicates as evidenced by those who walked with him and wrote about it and those who still walk with Him.

Him/her/it/them et al...

If you say yes, it is subjective, ought you to tell others that they had better align their behavior according to his subjective view as He will be judging them later according to what he subjectively thought they ought to do?

I see no reason why I ought do that.

Interesting. So does this mean you do not believe that God's "subjective" view on moral right and wrong carries any weight? There are no consequences for violating His standard or ignoring it? Just curious.

Are you implying thorough your using ("") around the word subjective, that God's view isn't really subjective?