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?

[POI]

Your own response begs the question:

Negative. My question alludes to the conclusion that besides an assertion made from an ancient text, there looks to be no valid evidence suggesting an actual "fall" took place.

Why can the FALL not be a real thing given the human condition one finds everywhere throughout the world?

Not only are you begging the question, but now you are also shifting the burden. It is your job to prove a 'fall'. It is not my job to prove why it did not happen. I'm not claiming it did not happen. I'm instead stating I do not believe the claim from the book alone. I need more. Think of it this way...

A gumball machine is filled to the top. Without counting, one person asserts there exists an even number of gumballs. The person next to them asserts an odd number. I do not yet believe either of them. It is not my job to prove them wrong. It is their job to prove their assertion(s).

Your job is to demonstrate that an actual "fall" happened, outside an assertion being made from an ancient text. Can you begin to do that? Or, are you going to continue with fallacious responses alone?

I can assume that there is GOD because no one has produced biological life from inert substances that already exist ---- let alone from nothing.

Then by your logic, have you witnessed a God "producing" matter?

Further, if matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then ex materia always was. Hence, logically, no need for a "creator". Maybe a "change agent" at best.

[LittleNipper]

Your own response begs the question:

Negative. My question alludes to the conclusion that besides an assertion made from an ancient text, there looks to be no valid evidence suggesting an actual "fall" took place.

Why can the FALL not be a real thing given the human condition one finds everywhere throughout the world?

Not only are you begging the question, but now you are also shifting the burden. It is your job to prove a 'fall'. It is not my job to prove why it did not happen. I'm not claiming it did not happen. I'm instead stating I do not believe the claim from the book alone. I need more. Think of it this way...

A gumball machine is filled to the top. Without counting, one person asserts there exists an even number of gumballs. The person next to them asserts an odd number. I do not yet believe either of them. It is not my job to prove them wrong. It is their job to prove their assertion(s).

Your job is to demonstrate that an actual "fall" happened, outside an assertion being made from an ancient text. Can you begin to do that? Or, are you going to continue with fallacious responses alone?

I can assume that there is GOD because no one has produced biological life from inert substances that already exist ---- let alone from nothing.

Then by your logic, have you witnessed a God "producing" matter?

Further, if matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then ex materia always was. Hence, logically, no need for a "creator". Maybe a "change agent" at best.

It is but my job according to The Lord JESUS CHRIST to spread the message of the GOSPEL (death, burial, and resurrection of CHRIST). You can believe or not believe as you so wish. Since GOD created matter, could anyone but GOD destroy it? My job has nothing to do with what you expect me to prove. And if you don't wish to accept the FALL of man, then you must come to you own conclusions. The HOLY SPIRIT works in my heart and reveals many things regarding HIS Word. If you feel nothing, then you may question why, but not of me.

[POI]

It is but my job according to The Lord JESUS CHRIST to spread the message of the GOSPEL (death, burial, and resurrection of CHRIST). You can believe or not believe as you so wish.

Aside from your prior fallacious responses, you are now adding irrelevant responses. This reply has absolutely nothing to do with the debate question. But is instead meant to proselytize.

Since GOD created matter, could anyone but GOD destroy it?

You completely avoided my last response here. Under natural law, matter cannot be created. Which means matter always was in one capacity or another. So, how exactly might one create something that already, or has always, existed?

[Capbook]

But it's the old problem of the pot and the potter. If God made everything including angels and humans, and they turn out flawed, isn't that the fault of the maker?

Maybe one can argue (I've heard it) that God needed men (and angels, it seems) to have free will or their love and obedience meant nothing. But that was his choice and decision. Who else is going to be responsible for how they turned out and what they did? Like some trumpery dictator, God is the ole responsible, but refused to do anything but blunder on trying to correct His mistakes by wiping out most of creation and starting again with a select Best family (who of course were no better than the original creation). God at least shows some sign of remorse, but doubles down by being no better than his creation, picking one select tribe and treating them as bad as he treats the other people, and trying to fin a way out of the Sin he created by a sacrifice that really wasn't that didn't get really rid of the sin it was supposed to.

Fortunately, there is a way out of this mental tangle (other than by ignoring it and reciting the claims that it's all Perfect, he did nothing wrong, and it's everyone else's fault) and that's to recognise that it's all tall tales and made up stories to explain the way all things evolved, to survive, with either selfishness or empathy, and humans (understanding little before science) just invented big invisible humans (from Inzanami to Viracocha and Odin to Shiva to explain what they didn't understand, and that's why it makes no sense and conflicts with the evidence.

Of course, our valued poster you will deny all that, make faith -claims and cite Bibleverse as though that validated something or anything.

We debate here, so what you believe or what I believe is irrelevant. What seems to fit the evidence and reason is what counts, and the evidence is that Eden and sin was arranged by God to bring out man's innate created flaw of pride, disobedience, knowledge of facts rather than just accepting what lies they are being told. And the evidence is that virtually nothing in the first two books is actually true, even if Exodus is loosely based on the Hyksos expulsion.

The choice then is to deny the evidence - not only science, like life evolved over millions of years and wasn't made in one lump in a week, or the pyramids of Egypt or the Maya temples are nothing to do with Babelian ziggurats, but what the Bible itself says, like the daylight and night was made before the sun, or the women ran from the tomb after having met the risen Jesus (Matthew) or ran from the tomb having no idea what had happened (John), and to reject logic and reason, like the burden of proof being on the claimant or the validity of the more probable explanation, not the far -fetched undisprovable that one prefers to belief.

Because Faith is not a virtue, gullibility is not praiseworthy, and to deny evidence and reason as valid means that the faithbased argument has no logical or evidential validity.

And that is the 'choice' that we have, not to believe or not (which we can't choose) but to accept or deny evidence and reason, or choose Faith and Denial by preference.

May I know what is your evidence of your statement that Eden and sin was arranged by God?

A study was made by Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
Titled: Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
These two researchers concluded that homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. Further, the concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down, they said. Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical and stop from there.

My question is why still continue to proclaim that?

Now this is off the top of my head, but we can look at this if you want. But humans actually have one less chromosome than apes. This was found to be because the ape DNA later had a fused chromosome, proving that the ape DNA evolved from the ape DNA. You cannot have a fused chromosome without an earlier unfused origin.

https://johnhawks.net/weblog/when-did-h ... me-2-fuse/

The study refers to (published by 'apologetics press' wanted to throw doubt on primate ancestry, so ignore the detail evidence (e.g retroviruses) and simply said 'that does not prove it'. It looks like a flawed, incomplete apologetics debunk, not a valid paper. Biologists continue to proclaim the evidence for the evolutionary relation between human and chims because that is what the evidence shows.


As to Eden, the scenario is that Life and knowledge were somehow incorporated into the fruit of two trees, which makes no sense, since Adam would continue to live all the time he ate from the tree of Life. But that morality was contained in a fruit seems absurd. If God didn't want Adam to eat from it, why even have it there? On top of that he w had a walking snake that was able to talk at least just for that scenario (so who gave it that ability?) and it told what was evidently the truth.having knowledge of morality would not cause Adam to die. It was God arranging that as a punishment.

Previous discussions have forced apologists to even suggest that God was working blind otherwise He could just have stepped in and prevented this. The strong conclusion is that God wanted this to happen so that sin could enter the world as well as death, as some game of his own.



Fortunately I don't have to struggle with (or simply dismiss and ignore) such conclusions, because it is simply a fairy - tale to explain how and why we are as we are, when God should have made us perfect (and God already got the angels wrong, too).

I was shown by POI of Kenneth Miller in YouTube explaining about chimps and human chromosomes.
Miller, a devout Catholic and evolutionist, believes God and science can coexist in the chapel and the lab. The key, Miller says, is to set aside the assumption that science and religion rule each other out.

My question is why rule the Bible out? My arguments are quoted from the Bible.
And the belief of some scientists that science is the only source of truth is not even a scientific idea.

You can say that again. science makes no pronouncements about the philosophy of truth, only the method of detection we rely on every day as being the way to do it. It is theists trying to denigrate science that accuse it of claiming to be the only source or truth, which is really projection of their own position (faithbased) and fails because they can't even agree which Faith it should be.

"There are many religions; there is only one science". Why should we rule the Bible out? You tell me. Why rule out the Quran or the Bhaghavad Gita? Well, we know why, because the Bible claims support from the 'science' of history. But if anything, the Quran is better based on history. hardly anyone doubts that Muhammad spread Islam through conquest. That is a better record than on whether the Biblical Jesus is historical.

I can respect the views of those scientists who still believe in 'god'...sorta. At best, they keep science and faith apart, but there is always the threat that the religion will sneak in and compromise the science.

It's like this, we can tolerate mechanics who believe that engines run because of invisible engine gnomes, so long as they do their job as though they didn't.

Science makes no pronouncements about the philosophy of truth, scientists did.

You believe more on Quran that had better record? Quran mentioned the Scriptures and it confirms its existence.

Scriptures existed during Judaism's time.
While the first instance of Bible translation took place in about 300 B.C.
The pioneer of science was born on February 15, 1564.
Contrary to your assumption, it is science that sneaked in and tried to compromise the long existed Scriptures and the Bible.

Science makes no pronouncements about anything other than what models of reality (hypotheses) the evidence indicates. It is religion that makes dogmatic pronouncements about 'truth'.

I don't trust the Quran any more than the Bible, but the indirect history seems to support a warlord spread Islam in the time of the Byzantine empire. It was probably Muhammad and there may be a record of his existence outside the Quran. I'll check. There is little or none for Jesus outside of the Bible.

Judais scripture existed during Judaic times. That proves just..what? The Jewish writings were first translated for Ptolemy's library. So what, exactly? What does the pioneer of science have to do with anything?

Your suggestion that science coming later and explaining ancient writings and finding they are actually wrong is somehow not valid? How do you work that out? Antiquity validates nothing but something being old. The Sumerian or Egyptian myths are some of the oldest. That doesn't make them true, does it?

You say, "Science makes no pronouncements about anything other than what models of reality (hypotheses) the evidence indicates. It is religion that makes dogmatic pronouncements about 'truth".
........Science' pioneers believe God's truth, until a famous scientist take out God's truth and replace it with the "circular reasoning" as the truth. Science did no such pronouncements, scientist did.

Even if just a little mention of the Scriptures in the Quran but it proves its existence.
Unlike scientist's foundational argument is not even a scientific idea.

Scriptures clearly mentioned the genealogy of men from creation.
Scientist theory is from single cell, then to what? Lice? Rat? etc. Why not mention the sequence to be believable?

[TRANSPONDER]

But it's the old problem of the pot and the potter. If God made everything including angels and humans, and they turn out flawed, isn't that the fault of the maker?

Maybe one can argue (I've heard it) that God needed men (and angels, it seems) to have free will or their love and obedience meant nothing. But that was his choice and decision. Who else is going to be responsible for how they turned out and what they did? Like some trumpery dictator, God is the ole responsible, but refused to do anything but blunder on trying to correct His mistakes by wiping out most of creation and starting again with a select Best family (who of course were no better than the original creation). God at least shows some sign of remorse, but doubles down by being no better than his creation, picking one select tribe and treating them as bad as he treats the other people, and trying to fin a way out of the Sin he created by a sacrifice that really wasn't that didn't get really rid of the sin it was supposed to.

Fortunately, there is a way out of this mental tangle (other than by ignoring it and reciting the claims that it's all Perfect, he did nothing wrong, and it's everyone else's fault) and that's to recognise that it's all tall tales and made up stories to explain the way all things evolved, to survive, with either selfishness or empathy, and humans (understanding little before science) just invented big invisible humans (from Inzanami to Viracocha and Odin to Shiva to explain what they didn't understand, and that's why it makes no sense and conflicts with the evidence.

Of course, our valued poster you will deny all that, make faith -claims and cite Bibleverse as though that validated something or anything.

We debate here, so what you believe or what I believe is irrelevant. What seems to fit the evidence and reason is what counts, and the evidence is that Eden and sin was arranged by God to bring out man's innate created flaw of pride, disobedience, knowledge of facts rather than just accepting what lies they are being told. And the evidence is that virtually nothing in the first two books is actually true, even if Exodus is loosely based on the Hyksos expulsion.

The choice then is to deny the evidence - not only science, like life evolved over millions of years and wasn't made in one lump in a week, or the pyramids of Egypt or the Maya temples are nothing to do with Babelian ziggurats, but what the Bible itself says, like the daylight and night was made before the sun, or the women ran from the tomb after having met the risen Jesus (Matthew) or ran from the tomb having no idea what had happened (John), and to reject logic and reason, like the burden of proof being on the claimant or the validity of the more probable explanation, not the far -fetched undisprovable that one prefers to belief.

Because Faith is not a virtue, gullibility is not praiseworthy, and to deny evidence and reason as valid means that the faithbased argument has no logical or evidential validity.

And that is the 'choice' that we have, not to believe or not (which we can't choose) but to accept or deny evidence and reason, or choose Faith and Denial by preference.

May I know what is your evidence of your statement that Eden and sin was arranged by God?

A study was made by Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
Titled: Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
These two researchers concluded that homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. Further, the concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down, they said. Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical and stop from there.

My question is why still continue to proclaim that?

Now this is off the top of my head, but we can look at this if you want. But humans actually have one less chromosome than apes. This was found to be because the ape DNA later had a fused chromosome, proving that the ape DNA evolved from the ape DNA. You cannot have a fused chromosome without an earlier unfused origin.

https://johnhawks.net/weblog/when-did-h ... me-2-fuse/

The study refers to (published by 'apologetics press' wanted to throw doubt on primate ancestry, so ignore the detail evidence (e.g retroviruses) and simply said 'that does not prove it'. It looks like a flawed, incomplete apologetics debunk, not a valid paper. Biologists continue to proclaim the evidence for the evolutionary relation between human and chims because that is what the evidence shows.


As to Eden, the scenario is that Life and knowledge were somehow incorporated into the fruit of two trees, which makes no sense, since Adam would continue to live all the time he ate from the tree of Life. But that morality was contained in a fruit seems absurd. If God didn't want Adam to eat from it, why even have it there? On top of that he w had a walking snake that was able to talk at least just for that scenario (so who gave it that ability?) and it told what was evidently the truth.having knowledge of morality would not cause Adam to die. It was God arranging that as a punishment.

Previous discussions have forced apologists to even suggest that God was working blind otherwise He could just have stepped in and prevented this. The strong conclusion is that God wanted this to happen so that sin could enter the world as well as death, as some game of his own.



Fortunately I don't have to struggle with (or simply dismiss and ignore) such conclusions, because it is simply a fairy - tale to explain how and why we are as we are, when God should have made us perfect (and God already got the angels wrong, too).

I was shown by POI of Kenneth Miller in YouTube explaining about chimps and human chromosomes.
Miller, a devout Catholic and evolutionist, believes God and science can coexist in the chapel and the lab. The key, Miller says, is to set aside the assumption that science and religion rule each other out.

My question is why rule the Bible out? My arguments are quoted from the Bible.
And the belief of some scientists that science is the only source of truth is not even a scientific idea.

You can say that again. science makes no pronouncements about the philosophy of truth, only the method of detection we rely on every day as being the way to do it. It is theists trying to denigrate science that accuse it of claiming to be the only source or truth, which is really projection of their own position (faithbased) and fails because they can't even agree which Faith it should be.

"There are many religions; there is only one science". Why should we rule the Bible out? You tell me. Why rule out the Quran or the Bhaghavad Gita? Well, we know why, because the Bible claims support from the 'science' of history. But if anything, the Quran is better based on history. hardly anyone doubts that Muhammad spread Islam through conquest. That is a better record than on whether the Biblical Jesus is historical.

I can respect the views of those scientists who still believe in 'god'...sorta. At best, they keep science and faith apart, but there is always the threat that the religion will sneak in and compromise the science.

It's like this, we can tolerate mechanics who believe that engines run because of invisible engine gnomes, so long as they do their job as though they didn't.

Science makes no pronouncements about the philosophy of truth, scientists did.

You believe more on Quran that had better record? Quran mentioned the Scriptures and it confirms its existence.

Scriptures existed during Judaism's time.
While the first instance of Bible translation took place in about 300 B.C.
The pioneer of science was born on February 15, 1564.
Contrary to your assumption, it is science that sneaked in and tried to compromise the long existed Scriptures and the Bible.

Science makes no pronouncements about anything other than what models of reality (hypotheses) the evidence indicates. It is religion that makes dogmatic pronouncements about 'truth'.

I don't trust the Quran any more than the Bible, but the indirect history seems to support a warlord spread Islam in the time of the Byzantine empire. It was probably Muhammad and there may be a record of his existence outside the Quran. I'll check. There is little or none for Jesus outside of the Bible.

Judais scripture existed during Judaic times. That proves just..what? The Jewish writings were first translated for Ptolemy's library. So what, exactly? What does the pioneer of science have to do with anything?

Your suggestion that science coming later and explaining ancient writings and finding they are actually wrong is somehow not valid? How do you work that out? Antiquity validates nothing but something being old. The Sumerian or Egyptian myths are some of the oldest. That doesn't make them true, does it?

You say, "Science makes no pronouncements about anything other than what models of reality (hypotheses) the evidence indicates. It is religion that makes dogmatic pronouncements about 'truth".
........Science' pioneers believe God's truth, until a famous scientist take out God's truth and replace it with the "circular reasoning" as the truth. Science did no such pronouncements, scientist did.

Even if just a little mention of the Scriptures in the Quran but it proves its existence.
Unlike scientist's foundational argument is not even a scientific idea.

Scriptures clearly mentioned the genealogy of men from creation.
Scientist theory is from single cell, then to what? Lice? Rat? etc. Why not mention the sequence to be believable?

You are dismissing scientific evidence as circular reasoning and a scientist's pronouncement. That is absolutely not the way it works. If you must discredit science, at least discredit science, not a strawman of it.

All science is based on 'foundational arguments' that need to be verified. Einstein's relativity, Hawking's black holes and the Higg -Boson, even with all the evidence, had to be verified. That is how science works.

A mention of 'scripture' in the Quran no more proves it than a mention of the Ark of Ziasudra proves that the Babylonian religion is true (and the Abrahamic religion is not).

Again, with evolution theory, at least understand it before you try to debunk it. I'll draw you a map. Abiogenesis, unproven, concedo. cells and groups of cells, found in rocks of appropriate age . preCambrian mollusc blobs and seaweed -like plant/animals. Cambrian shelled molluscs and crustaceans. Devonian fish, Silurian plants first on land. Carboniferous (refers to the dated layers of rocks in which the fossils are found) legged 'fish' crawl on land.
Triassic, - age of reptiles, extinction gives dinosaurs a chance, Jurassic and Cretaceous age of dinosaurs. First birds and indeed grass (Genesis creation proven wrong by this evidence) Extinction gives mammals a chance. the rest is history.

That's how it goes as validated by fossils in the right series of rocks and (as Bill Nye said 'not in the wrong strata'). That and not Genesis is how the evidence shows it happened.

You may say a god started the first cell off; you may say that a god is behind the evolutionary process. But it does not tell you which god it was, and the Bible is discredited by the evidence.

[The Tanager]

Moderator Warning



[Replying to Clownboat in post #197]

Refrain from personal attacks on posters. Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Clownboat]

Contrary to your assumption, it is science that sneaked in and tried to compromise the long existed Scriptures and the Bible.

Science is a method for arriving at conclusions, not some 'thing' that happened to compromise any religious holy books.

To the general readers:
It is a good thing that following the scientific method allowed us to understand how thunder and lightning works and that they are not the products of the gods. Surely we all agree on this?
That long existing false beliefs (see thunder, lightning, global floods, young earth) must change as humans learn is not something we should be fighting against. Surely we all agree on this?

Therefore, claimed persecution of someone's preferred holy book from this method we call science is fully unjustified and only highlights the weaknesses of the holy book in question.

[Clownboat]

It is but my job according to The Lord JESUS CHRIST to spread the message of the GOSPEL (death, burial, and resurrection of CHRIST).

This is a debate site, not your platform for spreading some message. Surely there is some street corner you can complete your claimed job at, here is where debate is to take place.

You can believe or not believe as you so wish.

This is false. We cannot believe something is true that we know to be false for example.

Since GOD created matter, could anyone but GOD destroy it?

Can you make a decent argument as to why your initial claim about a GOD creating matter is true? I don't even see it as being necessary myself.

My job has nothing to do with what you expect me to prove.

For you to do your claimed job well though, you would be expected to at least suggest your claims might have merit in place of just making the claims. Unless your job is really to offer claims without any evidence to back them. If that is your job, then you seem to be doing fine.

And if you don't wish to accept the FALL of man

The fall of man is important to YOU. Threatening those who see no evidence for it is like threatening people with the story of Humpty Dumpty. Be careful not to project what you find important on to others, less you mistake your importance as another persons.

The HOLY SPIRIT works in my heart and reveals many things regarding HIS Word.

I still have the ability to speak in tongues. What do you make of my relationship with this Holy Spirit?

If you feel nothing, then you may question why, but not of me.

Oh my! I'll just copy from my signature:
"If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments?" - brunumb

[TRANSPONDER]

Witnessing and faithbvased declarations are accomplishing nothing at all. I am familiar with the practice of shouting denial and expressions of Faith, but I don't get what the True believers are supposed to achieve in terms of debate. It seems like after an attempt to wln the discussion and drum up a few fellow -believers (sure it's what we goddless do, too) they give up and just shout declarations of Faith in the hopes that Jesus will remember them when he comes into his kingdom. But I'm only guessing.

[LittleNipper]

It is but my job according to The Lord JESUS CHRIST to spread the message of the GOSPEL (death, burial, and resurrection of CHRIST).

This is a debate site, not your platform for spreading some message. Surely there is some street corner you can complete your claimed job at, here is where debate is to take place.

You can believe or not believe as you so wish.

This is false. We cannot believe something is true that we know to be false for example.

Since GOD created matter, could anyone but GOD destroy it?

Can you make a decent argument as to why your initial claim about a GOD creating matter is true? I don't even see it as being necessary myself.

My job has nothing to do with what you expect me to prove.

For you to do your claimed job well though, you would be expected to at least suggest your claims might have merit in place of just making the claims. Unless your job is really to offer claims without any evidence to back them. If that is your job, then you seem to be doing fine.

And if you don't wish to accept the FALL of man

The fall of man is important to YOU. Threatening those who see no evidence for it is like threatening people with the story of Humpty Dumpty. Be careful not to project what you find important on to others, less you mistake your importance as another persons.

The HOLY SPIRIT works in my heart and reveals many things regarding HIS Word.

I still have the ability to speak in tongues. What do you make of my relationship with this Holy Spirit?

If you feel nothing, then you may question why, but not of me.

Oh my! I'll just copy from my signature:
"If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments?" - brunumb

You do accept things as true that you have no ability to prove. Example: How did life originate on this planet? I'm sure you feel that GOD isn't a correct answer, and yet you do accept natural possibilities entirely without proof. You enjoy telling others what they need to do; however, you seem to fall short in that regard while waiting for others to do all the research to convince you.