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]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #229]

Ironically enough, you just made a statement, in another thread, which attests to the video's point. You stated:

"God doesn't hold anyone accountable for things they cannot control." Great. This is the point of the video. It is then illogical to instead hold Adam/Eve accountable, being they had no God-given 'moral compass'.

Further, "Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” Luke 23:34

Does this mean Jesus disagrees with his dad?

[Capbook]

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.

I do not discredit science, I discredit scientist, Stephen Hawking idea of universe creation as circular reasoning. It was as Hawking basically saying "That the universe exist because the universe needed to exist and because the universe needed to exist, it therefore created itself".

Are those "foundational arguments" beyond reasonable doubts? I've heard some lawyers create evidence that favor his client. They make a new document antedated significant to the case put in inside a pot, and put fire under the pot that makes the new document looks as an ancient one, then boom strong evidence.

Then what was the name of the first human of evolution then. Scientist can't.
but the Bible can.

When I was in high school we do science experiment, we observe the actual thing, study it and then make conclusions. That very believable you actually sees it. While on fossil case only the remains, which we can't exactly know its age even. Because scientist dating is founded on unprovable assumptions such as 1) there has been no contamination and 2) the decay rate has remained constant.

I dismissed the idea that God is behind the evolutionary process. I do believe that the enemy of God is behind it, had sneak it in men's mind to deny God.

You are making some fair points. Mainly about presenting arguments to favour the case. This is 'Rhetoric'. Not science. Science doesn't work that way. Scientists criticise each other's theories better than any doubter could. And the hypothesis always awaits confirmation.

Where you go wrong is in thinking the only valid science is what can be made to happen in a lab. You ignore the traces left and the conclusions they lead to. This is forensic science and is what detection is and how it works, and if you dismiss that (evolution, or indeed archaeology, and geology), you dismiss all of criminal forensics or indeed crash site investigations.

I'll say again, cosmic origins only leads to a 'don't know'. Same with origin of life. It does not lead to a god. You only think it does because of the Bible. But the Bible claims are themselves open to criticism and in fact when tested in a laboratory, fall short. Snakes and Donkeys do not talk; sheep do not genetically chance because of what sticks you put in the water, people do not heal or rise from the dead because of saying prayers and some magical process.

If science fails, then the Bible fails even more. The idea of a first man is unscientific . And the Bible claim for the name carries no weight. Other creation myths may have their own first humans names. It proves nothing.

Your idea that Satan is behind the evolutionary process is..interesting. You mean that God did not intend us to turn out as we did? Then couldn't God have stopped it? This whole idea of the world's problems being blamed on Satan requires that God stand by and just let it happen. Yet they still expect God to be
there, doing stuff as 'evidence' that their beliefs are real.

None of this God -apologetics makes any sense, rational, practical or evidential.

Rhetoric? I quote those words from a scientist.

I only dismiss scientist's theories that dismissed God.

As for life, we know that it has this what I may call digital database (mind) that produces language. For me, it is the only one capable to construct language. The Biblical explanation for me is that "In the beginning was the Word, Logos. The Logos could utter words for creation, unlike evolution that the origin of intelligent human owes it to mindless matter.

I do believe in science. What I do not agree are those theories that replace God.

It is a matter of choice, God honor our choices either to chose Him or not, or to be theist or non-theist.
I believe most atheist were educated on Christian schools and were even allowed to propagate their belief in universities. God created Adam sinless, but he chose to sin cause of his love to Eve. Fallen generation follows, meaning men are naturally sinful and Jesus sacrifice led us to chose the hope He is giving or not.

As for me, evolution's rationality comes from irrationality that mind comes from the mindless matter.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

I do not discredit science, I discredit scientist, Stephen Hawking idea of universe creation as circular reasoning. It was as Hawking basically saying "That the universe exist because the universe needed to exist and because the universe needed to exist, it therefore created itself".

Are those "foundational arguments" beyond reasonable doubts? I've heard some lawyers create evidence that favor his client. They make a new document antedated significant to the case put in inside a pot, and put fire under the pot that makes the new document looks as an ancient one, then boom strong evidence.

Then what was the name of the first human of evolution then. Scientist can't.
but the Bible can.

When I was in high school we do science experiment, we observe the actual thing, study it and then make conclusions. That very believable you actually sees it. While on fossil case only the remains, which we can't exactly know its age even. Because scientist dating is founded on unprovable assumptions such as 1) there has been no contamination and 2) the decay rate has remained constant.

I dismissed the idea that God is behind the evolutionary process. I do believe that the enemy of God is behind it, had sneak it in men's mind to deny God.

You are making some fair points. Mainly about presenting arguments to favour the case. This is 'Rhetoric'. Not science. Science doesn't work that way. Scientists criticise each other's theories better than any doubter could. And the hypothesis always awaits confirmation.

Where you go wrong is in thinking the only valid science is what can be made to happen in a lab. You ignore the traces left and the conclusions they lead to. This is forensic science and is what detection is and how it works, and if you dismiss that (evolution, or indeed archaeology, and geology), you dismiss all of criminal forensics or indeed crash site investigations.

I'll say again, cosmic origins only leads to a 'don't know'. Same with origin of life. It does not lead to a god. You only think it does because of the Bible. But the Bible claims are themselves open to criticism and in fact when tested in a laboratory, fall short. Snakes and Donkeys do not talk; sheep do not genetically chance because of what sticks you put in the water, people do not heal or rise from the dead because of saying prayers and some magical process.

If science fails, then the Bible fails even more. The idea of a first man is unscientific . And the Bible claim for the name carries no weight. Other creation myths may have their own first humans names. It proves nothing.

Your idea that Satan is behind the evolutionary process is..interesting. You mean that God did not intend us to turn out as we did? Then couldn't God have stopped it? This whole idea of the world's problems being blamed on Satan requires that God stand by and just let it happen. Yet they still expect God to be
there, doing stuff as 'evidence' that their beliefs are real.

None of this God -apologetics makes any sense, rational, practical or evidential.

Rhetoric? I quote those words from a scientist.

I only dismiss scientist's theories that dismissed God.

As for life, we know that it has this what I may call digital database (mind) that produces language. For me, it is the only one capable to construct language. The Biblical explanation for me is that "In the beginning was the Word, Logos. The Logos could utter words for creation, unlike evolution that the origin of intelligent human owes it to mindless matter.

I do believe in science. What I do not agree are those theories that replace God.

It is a matter of choice, God honor our choices either to chose Him or not, or to be theist or non-theist.
I believe most atheist were educated on Christian schools and were even allowed to propagate their belief in universities. God created Adam sinless, but he chose to sin cause of his love to Eve. Fallen generation follows, meaning men are naturally sinful and Jesus sacrifice led us to chose the hope He is giving or not.

As for me, evolution's rationality comes from irrationality that mind comes from the mindless matter.

So you quoted a scientist, but he was talking about Rhetoric, not science. Do you suggest that everything a scientist says has to be science? And your dismissal of anything (science or not) that conflicts with your Godfaith is the ultimate in illogical argument.

The evidence is that DNA created life ( by replicating) and eventually reaction became instinct, instinct became reaction input, reaction became problem solving and advanced problem solving in animals became reasoning. Nothing magical about it. Logos 'Word') has nothing to do with it other than an easy invention of a big invisible human made everything by saying "Do it". Evolution theory has a mechanism and evidence, no matter how you dismiss it through illogical preference, as I already said.

As to the rest what you believe doesn't matter. What you can validate matters. So far you have produced nothing but faithclaims and false arguments. Carry on you are doing a great job for rational and evidence - based atheism.

[Capbook]

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.

I do not discredit science, I discredit scientist, Stephen Hawking idea of universe creation as circular reasoning. It was as Hawking basically saying "That the universe exist because the universe needed to exist and because the universe needed to exist, it therefore created itself".

Are those "foundational arguments" beyond reasonable doubts? I've heard some lawyers create evidence that favor his client. They make a new document antedated significant to the case put in inside a pot, and put fire under the pot that makes the new document looks as an ancient one, then boom strong evidence.

Then what was the name of the first human of evolution then. Scientist can't.
but the Bible can.

When I was in high school we do science experiment, we observe the actual thing, study it and then make conclusions. That very believable you actually sees it. While on fossil case only the remains, which we can't exactly know its age even. Because scientist dating is founded on unprovable assumptions such as 1) there has been no contamination and 2) the decay rate has remained constant.

I dismissed the idea that God is behind the evolutionary process. I do believe that the enemy of God is behind it, had sneak it in men's mind to deny God.

You are making some fair points. Mainly about presenting arguments to favour the case. This is 'Rhetoric'. Not science. Science doesn't work that way. Scientists criticise each other's theories better than any doubter could. And the hypothesis always awaits confirmation.

Where you go wrong is in thinking the only valid science is what can be made to happen in a lab. You ignore the traces left and the conclusions they lead to. This is forensic science and is what detection is and how it works, and if you dismiss that (evolution, or indeed archaeology, and geology), you dismiss all of criminal forensics or indeed crash site investigations.

I'll say again, cosmic origins only leads to a 'don't know'. Same with origin of life. It does not lead to a god. You only think it does because of the Bible. But the Bible claims are themselves open to criticism and in fact when tested in a laboratory, fall short. Snakes and Donkeys do not talk; sheep do not genetically chance because of what sticks you put in the water, people do not heal or rise from the dead because of saying prayers and some magical process.

If science fails, then the Bible fails even more. The idea of a first man is unscientific . And the Bible claim for the name carries no weight. Other creation myths may have their own first humans names. It proves nothing.

Your idea that Satan is behind the evolutionary process is..interesting. You mean that God did not intend us to turn out as we did? Then couldn't God have stopped it? This whole idea of the world's problems being blamed on Satan requires that God stand by and just let it happen. Yet they still expect God to be
there, doing stuff as 'evidence' that their beliefs are real.

None of this God -apologetics makes any sense, rational, practical or evidential.

Rhetoric? I quote those words from a scientist.

I only dismiss scientist's theories that dismissed God.

As for life, we know that it has this what I may call digital database (mind) that produces language. For me, it is the only one capable to construct language. The Biblical explanation for me is that "In the beginning was the Word, Logos. The Logos could utter words for creation, unlike evolution that the origin of intelligent human owes it to mindless matter.

I do believe in science. What I do not agree are those theories that replace God.

It is a matter of choice, God honor our choices either to chose Him or not, or to be theist or non-theist.
I believe most atheist were educated on Christian schools and were even allowed to propagate their belief in universities. God created Adam sinless, but he chose to sin cause of his love to Eve. Fallen generation follows, meaning men are naturally sinful and Jesus sacrifice led us to chose the hope He is giving or not.

As for me, evolution's rationality comes from irrationality that mind comes from the mindless matter.

So you quoted a scientist, but he was talking about Rhetoric, not science. Do you suggest that everything a scientist says has to be science? And your dismissal of anything (science or not) that conflicts with your Godfaith is the ultimate in illogical argument.

The evidence is that DNA created life ( by replicating) and eventually reaction became instinct, instinct became reaction input, reaction became problem solving and advanced problem solving in animals became reasoning. Nothing magical about it. Logos 'Word') has nothing to do with it other than an easy invention of a big invisible human made everything by saying "Do it". Evolution theory has a mechanism and evidence, no matter how you dismiss it through illogical preference, as I already said.

As to the rest what you believe doesn't matter. What you can validate matters. So far you have produced nothing but faithclaims and false arguments. Carry on you are doing a great job for rational and evidence - based atheism.

The belief of some scientists that science is the only source of truth, is that a scientific idea? Is it rhetoric?
So you mean to say and believe that scientist Hawking's some statements in his The Grand Design book is not science?
For me putting God first over men (scientists) is the most conceivable argument.

So you accept you are a product of the mindless matter?

You says, evolution theory has a mechanism and evidence. May I know what's the evidence of the origin of life?

As you say before, science still lack of evidence specially the origin of cosmos. Can you stand beyond reasonable doubt base on legal aspect?

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

I do not discredit science, I discredit scientist, Stephen Hawking idea of universe creation as circular reasoning. It was as Hawking basically saying "That the universe exist because the universe needed to exist and because the universe needed to exist, it therefore created itself".

Are those "foundational arguments" beyond reasonable doubts? I've heard some lawyers create evidence that favor his client. They make a new document antedated significant to the case put in inside a pot, and put fire under the pot that makes the new document looks as an ancient one, then boom strong evidence.

Then what was the name of the first human of evolution then. Scientist can't.
but the Bible can.

When I was in high school we do science experiment, we observe the actual thing, study it and then make conclusions. That very believable you actually sees it. While on fossil case only the remains, which we can't exactly know its age even. Because scientist dating is founded on unprovable assumptions such as 1) there has been no contamination and 2) the decay rate has remained constant.

I dismissed the idea that God is behind the evolutionary process. I do believe that the enemy of God is behind it, had sneak it in men's mind to deny God.

You are making some fair points. Mainly about presenting arguments to favour the case. This is 'Rhetoric'. Not science. Science doesn't work that way. Scientists criticise each other's theories better than any doubter could. And the hypothesis always awaits confirmation.

Where you go wrong is in thinking the only valid science is what can be made to happen in a lab. You ignore the traces left and the conclusions they lead to. This is forensic science and is what detection is and how it works, and if you dismiss that (evolution, or indeed archaeology, and geology), you dismiss all of criminal forensics or indeed crash site investigations.

I'll say again, cosmic origins only leads to a 'don't know'. Same with origin of life. It does not lead to a god. You only think it does because of the Bible. But the Bible claims are themselves open to criticism and in fact when tested in a laboratory, fall short. Snakes and Donkeys do not talk; sheep do not genetically chance because of what sticks you put in the water, people do not heal or rise from the dead because of saying prayers and some magical process.

If science fails, then the Bible fails even more. The idea of a first man is unscientific . And the Bible claim for the name carries no weight. Other creation myths may have their own first humans names. It proves nothing.

Your idea that Satan is behind the evolutionary process is..interesting. You mean that God did not intend us to turn out as we did? Then couldn't God have stopped it? This whole idea of the world's problems being blamed on Satan requires that God stand by and just let it happen. Yet they still expect God to be
there, doing stuff as 'evidence' that their beliefs are real.

None of this God -apologetics makes any sense, rational, practical or evidential.

Rhetoric? I quote those words from a scientist.

I only dismiss scientist's theories that dismissed God.

As for life, we know that it has this what I may call digital database (mind) that produces language. For me, it is the only one capable to construct language. The Biblical explanation for me is that "In the beginning was the Word, Logos. The Logos could utter words for creation, unlike evolution that the origin of intelligent human owes it to mindless matter.

I do believe in science. What I do not agree are those theories that replace God.

It is a matter of choice, God honor our choices either to chose Him or not, or to be theist or non-theist.
I believe most atheist were educated on Christian schools and were even allowed to propagate their belief in universities. God created Adam sinless, but he chose to sin cause of his love to Eve. Fallen generation follows, meaning men are naturally sinful and Jesus sacrifice led us to chose the hope He is giving or not.

As for me, evolution's rationality comes from irrationality that mind comes from the mindless matter.

So you quoted a scientist, but he was talking about Rhetoric, not science. Do you suggest that everything a scientist says has to be science? And your dismissal of anything (science or not) that conflicts with your Godfaith is the ultimate in illogical argument.

The evidence is that DNA created life ( by replicating) and eventually reaction became instinct, instinct became reaction input, reaction became problem solving and advanced problem solving in animals became reasoning. Nothing magical about it. Logos 'Word') has nothing to do with it other than an easy invention of a big invisible human made everything by saying "Do it". Evolution theory has a mechanism and evidence, no matter how you dismiss it through illogical preference, as I already said.

As to the rest what you believe doesn't matter. What you can validate matters. So far you have produced nothing but faithclaims and false arguments. Carry on you are doing a great job for rational and evidence - based atheism.

The belief of some scientists that science is the only source of truth, is that a scientific idea? Is it rhetoric?
So you mean to say and believe that scientist Hawking's some statements in his The Grand Design book is not science?
For me putting God first over men (scientists) is the most conceivable argument.

So you accept you are a product of the mindless matter?

You says, evolution theory has a mechanism and evidence. May I know what's the evidence of the origin of life?

As you say before, science still lack of evidence specially the origin of cosmos. Can you stand beyond reasonable doubt base on legal aspect?

It is hardly Rhetoric but may be a philosophical (logical) point , but evidence - based. What, I can argue is known to be so on science evidence versus what on evidence of religious claims? That science has the proven track record in finding out how stuff works (and religious claims failing) in not rhetoric but a validated situation.

So far as I know what hawking argues is science, just as much as Einstein in argued his theory (based on mathematics) and Newton his. What is wrong with that, other than you don't want to credit a universe from nothing without a god doing it? You say it is most conceivable argument. Of course it is the easiest to imagine, like a flat earth with a dome over it, but that doesn't make it right.

We are made from mindless matter, unless you want to say that biochemical think. We are put together (grow) and we Work. What else? The origin of life is of course theoretical (hypothesis) but that is not the case with evolution, which has evidence that religions can only long for but do not have.

Abiogenesis has at least an (unproven) hypothetical mechanism. Complex molecules of biochemicals just have toi replicate (DNA) and you have Life. The rest is evolution.

What has theism? A big invisible human waves a magic wand. That is not the mose credible hypothesis, is it? Never mind which 'god' did it.

I'll get back to you on cosmic origins. Have an Urgent date

Cosmic origins. Bottom line here is - if I were to concede a probability of an intelligent creator, which one? Shiva? Allah? Chronos? It still gets you nowhere.

However. on 'Legal' aspect, I suspect you mean logical. And there the logic is nobody has an explanation, so it is Unexplained: "We don't know", and that means neither side (God or not) has a case. It does NOT, NOT, mean that the god claim remains the default theory.

So the legal (logical) theist case fails on two counts. Now I won't disrespect you by pointing up infinite regression arguments which are nothing to do with it, but look at the gap for god with legs, which is to say the intellectual incredulity of 'something from nothing', which is understandable and persuasive, but is actually a fallacy to use as an argument 'appeal to incredulity' or 'That makes no sense to me, so It cannot be true'. And to appeal to what we are used to seeing on earth no more means it cannot have happened any more than the fact that people do not rise from the dead today does not mean that it cannot have happened to Jesus.

Even aside from that (and I am not counting it as a third fail ) the question of a Force that created the stuff that made the event that made the universe that made the Life that made the humans that made the community that built the house that Jack lived in demands the question of where that originating force came from. It is not legitimate to make a faithclaim that 'God is eternal, He never needed to be created'. So an uncreated complex being that never needed to be created itself, and with superior mind and abilities as well. This is intellectual incredulity and Something from nothing would actually make more sense. And that God - apologists would simply reject that knejerk is no argument at all.

Which is the point, that intellectual credulity requires that is nothing can exist without being created and nothing can exist without something to create it, nothing has to produce something, simply because Nothing is the only thing that does not need to be created.

On logical basis alone that would answer the most serious problems to an intelligent creator. So on a 'legal' basis 'something from nothing' would be the preferred unproven hypothesis. But there is even evidence to support it. A box of Nothing produced virtual particles. Now, the apologists said it wasn't "Really" nothing . But that doesn't matter What matters is that it is Nothing enough that it doesn't need to be created, at least, not beyond intellectual credulity.

So there, I'd say, the Theist argument loses it's third swing and, like the failed president said 'Three strikes and you're out'.

[Clownboat]

Cosmic origins. Bottom line here is - if I were to concede a probability of an intelligent creator, which one? Shiva? Allah? Chronos? It still gets you nowhere.

It is a shame that this question continues to be asked on this board and continues to be ignored. Anyone reading these exchanges knows why I'm sure. I wonder if those who continue to ignore this question also know why but don't want to lose out on some heaven idea, so they ignore it? Perhaps it is a fear of eternal torture that inhibits the answering of this question?

Things that make you go hmmm.....

[Capbook]

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.

I do not discredit science, I discredit scientist, Stephen Hawking idea of universe creation as circular reasoning. It was as Hawking basically saying "That the universe exist because the universe needed to exist and because the universe needed to exist, it therefore created itself".

Are those "foundational arguments" beyond reasonable doubts? I've heard some lawyers create evidence that favor his client. They make a new document antedated significant to the case put in inside a pot, and put fire under the pot that makes the new document looks as an ancient one, then boom strong evidence.

Then what was the name of the first human of evolution then. Scientist can't.
but the Bible can.

When I was in high school we do science experiment, we observe the actual thing, study it and then make conclusions. That very believable you actually sees it. While on fossil case only the remains, which we can't exactly know its age even. Because scientist dating is founded on unprovable assumptions such as 1) there has been no contamination and 2) the decay rate has remained constant.

I dismissed the idea that God is behind the evolutionary process. I do believe that the enemy of God is behind it, had sneak it in men's mind to deny God.

You are making some fair points. Mainly about presenting arguments to favour the case. This is 'Rhetoric'. Not science. Science doesn't work that way. Scientists criticise each other's theories better than any doubter could. And the hypothesis always awaits confirmation.

Where you go wrong is in thinking the only valid science is what can be made to happen in a lab. You ignore the traces left and the conclusions they lead to. This is forensic science and is what detection is and how it works, and if you dismiss that (evolution, or indeed archaeology, and geology), you dismiss all of criminal forensics or indeed crash site investigations.

I'll say again, cosmic origins only leads to a 'don't know'. Same with origin of life. It does not lead to a god. You only think it does because of the Bible. But the Bible claims are themselves open to criticism and in fact when tested in a laboratory, fall short. Snakes and Donkeys do not talk; sheep do not genetically chance because of what sticks you put in the water, people do not heal or rise from the dead because of saying prayers and some magical process.

If science fails, then the Bible fails even more. The idea of a first man is unscientific . And the Bible claim for the name carries no weight. Other creation myths may have their own first humans names. It proves nothing.

Your idea that Satan is behind the evolutionary process is..interesting. You mean that God did not intend us to turn out as we did? Then couldn't God have stopped it? This whole idea of the world's problems being blamed on Satan requires that God stand by and just let it happen. Yet they still expect God to be
there, doing stuff as 'evidence' that their beliefs are real.

None of this God -apologetics makes any sense, rational, practical or evidential.

Rhetoric? I quote those words from a scientist.

I only dismiss scientist's theories that dismissed God.

As for life, we know that it has this what I may call digital database (mind) that produces language. For me, it is the only one capable to construct language. The Biblical explanation for me is that "In the beginning was the Word, Logos. The Logos could utter words for creation, unlike evolution that the origin of intelligent human owes it to mindless matter.

I do believe in science. What I do not agree are those theories that replace God.

It is a matter of choice, God honor our choices either to chose Him or not, or to be theist or non-theist.
I believe most atheist were educated on Christian schools and were even allowed to propagate their belief in universities. God created Adam sinless, but he chose to sin cause of his love to Eve. Fallen generation follows, meaning men are naturally sinful and Jesus sacrifice led us to chose the hope He is giving or not.

As for me, evolution's rationality comes from irrationality that mind comes from the mindless matter.

So you quoted a scientist, but he was talking about Rhetoric, not science. Do you suggest that everything a scientist says has to be science? And your dismissal of anything (science or not) that conflicts with your Godfaith is the ultimate in illogical argument.

The evidence is that DNA created life ( by replicating) and eventually reaction became instinct, instinct became reaction input, reaction became problem solving and advanced problem solving in animals became reasoning. Nothing magical about it. Logos 'Word') has nothing to do with it other than an easy invention of a big invisible human made everything by saying "Do it". Evolution theory has a mechanism and evidence, no matter how you dismiss it through illogical preference, as I already said.

As to the rest what you believe doesn't matter. What you can validate matters. So far you have produced nothing but faithclaims and false arguments. Carry on you are doing a great job for rational and evidence - based atheism.

The belief of some scientists that science is the only source of truth, is that a scientific idea? Is it rhetoric?
So you mean to say and believe that scientist Hawking's some statements in his The Grand Design book is not science?
For me putting God first over men (scientists) is the most conceivable argument.

So you accept you are a product of the mindless matter?

You says, evolution theory has a mechanism and evidence. May I know what's the evidence of the origin of life?

As you say before, science still lack of evidence specially the origin of cosmos. Can you stand beyond reasonable doubt base on legal aspect?

It is hardly Rhetoric but may be a philosophical (logical) point , but evidence - based. What, I can argue is known to be so on science evidence versus what on evidence of religious claims? That science has the proven track record in finding out how stuff works (and religious claims failing) in not rhetoric but a validated situation.

So far as I know what hawking argues is science, just as much as Einstein in argued his theory (based on mathematics) and Newton his. What is wrong with that, other than you don't want to credit a universe from nothing without a god doing it? You say it is most conceivable argument. Of course it is the easiest to imagine, like a flat earth with a dome over it, but that doesn't make it right.

We are made from mindless matter, unless you want to say that biochemical think. We are put together (grow) and we Work. What else? The origin of life is of course theoretical (hypothesis) but that is not the case with evolution, which has evidence that religions can only long for but do not have.

Abiogenesis has at least an (unproven) hypothetical mechanism. Complex molecules of biochemicals just have toi replicate (DNA) and you have Life. The rest is evolution.

What has theism? A big invisible human waves a magic wand. That is not the mose credible hypothesis, is it? Never mind which 'god' did it.

I'll get back to you on cosmic origins. Have an Urgent date

Cosmic origins. Bottom line here is - if I were to concede a probability of an intelligent creator, which one? Shiva? Allah? Chronos? It still gets you nowhere.

However. on 'Legal' aspect, I suspect you mean logical. And there the logic is nobody has an explanation, so it is Unexplained: "We don't know", and that means neither side (God or not) has a case. It does NOT, NOT, mean that the god claim remains the default theory.

So the legal (logical) theist case fails on two counts. Now I won't disrespect you by pointing up infinite regression arguments which are nothing to do with it, but look at the gap for god with legs, which is to say the intellectual incredulity of 'something from nothing', which is understandable and persuasive, but is actually a fallacy to use as an argument 'appeal to incredulity' or 'That makes no sense to me, so It cannot be true'. And to appeal to what we are used to seeing on earth no more means it cannot have happened any more than the fact that people do not rise from the dead today does not mean that it cannot have happened to Jesus.

Even aside from that (and I am not counting it as a third fail ) the question of a Force that created the stuff that made the event that made the universe that made the Life that made the humans that made the community that built the house that Jack lived in demands the question of where that originating force came from. It is not legitimate to make a faithclaim that 'God is eternal, He never needed to be created'. So an uncreated complex being that never needed to be created itself, and with superior mind and abilities as well. This is intellectual incredulity and Something from nothing would actually make more sense. And that God - apologists would simply reject that knejerk is no argument at all.

Which is the point, that intellectual credulity requires that is nothing can exist without being created and nothing can exist without something to create it, nothing has to produce something, simply because Nothing is the only thing that does not need to be created.

On logical basis alone that would answer the most serious problems to an intelligent creator. So on a 'legal' basis 'something from nothing' would be the preferred unproven hypothesis. But there is even evidence to support it. A box of Nothing produced virtual particles. Now, the apologists said it wasn't "Really" nothing . But that doesn't matter What matters is that it is Nothing enough that it doesn't need to be created, at least, not beyond intellectual credulity.

So there, I'd say, the Theist argument loses it's third swing and, like the failed president said 'Three strikes and you're out'.

Darwin's theory has a mechanism, evidence, unguided and mindless evolution process.
May we put our baby in an experiment where we can actually see them, study, observe, analyze and therefore conclude. The baby grow same as Darwin's subjects of his theory.
Babies become toddler, did your toddler know what is food and what is not without your guidance?
Did your kid know how to write his name without guidance?
I've heard many incidents that toddlers pick things like coins, marbles etc and had swallowed them, that become an emergency situation.
God guided and inform His creation what their foods are. For me, that is the most conceivable and believable beginning of human existence.

You've said, "do you suggest that everything a scientist says has to be science"? So you are doubting scientists statements I believe including those you've mentioned.

You says, "we are made from mindless matter". So your mindless/unguided toddlers could swallow coins, marbles and etc.

Abiogenesis still unproven.

Magic Wand? Our God is omnipotent who guide and cares to let His creation know what their foods are.
Atheists unguided children might get choke to things by believing scientists theories.

May I just reverse that and say your position is the argument from personal credulity. That rationality
comes from irrationality that mind comes from matter.

The unguided, mindless force can produce a very sophisticated fine-tuned things, I don't believe that.
Built a house without a plan that your mind imagined. What is the result? Failure'
As saying goes, "If you fail to plan, you planned to fail".

My point also is, that the Intelligent Designer can create anything out from nothing, He need not being created because He is an un-created God. The eternal Logos, who is behind of all planned very sophisticated and fine-tuned creations.

Well, that is your personal credulity to those scientists that replaces God's truth to their theories.
There are scientists that remains their faith in God.

Allan Sandage widely regarded as one of the fathers of modern astronomy discovered quazars said, "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos there has to be some organizing principle, God to me is a mystery but it is the explanation for the miracle of existence".

It seems your argument is not fine-tuned.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

I do not discredit science, I discredit scientist, Stephen Hawking idea of universe creation as circular reasoning. It was as Hawking basically saying "That the universe exist because the universe needed to exist and because the universe needed to exist, it therefore created itself".

Are those "foundational arguments" beyond reasonable doubts? I've heard some lawyers create evidence that favor his client. They make a new document antedated significant to the case put in inside a pot, and put fire under the pot that makes the new document looks as an ancient one, then boom strong evidence.

Then what was the name of the first human of evolution then. Scientist can't.
but the Bible can.

When I was in high school we do science experiment, we observe the actual thing, study it and then make conclusions. That very believable you actually sees it. While on fossil case only the remains, which we can't exactly know its age even. Because scientist dating is founded on unprovable assumptions such as 1) there has been no contamination and 2) the decay rate has remained constant.

I dismissed the idea that God is behind the evolutionary process. I do believe that the enemy of God is behind it, had sneak it in men's mind to deny God.

You are making some fair points. Mainly about presenting arguments to favour the case. This is 'Rhetoric'. Not science. Science doesn't work that way. Scientists criticise each other's theories better than any doubter could. And the hypothesis always awaits confirmation.

Where you go wrong is in thinking the only valid science is what can be made to happen in a lab. You ignore the traces left and the conclusions they lead to. This is forensic science and is what detection is and how it works, and if you dismiss that (evolution, or indeed archaeology, and geology), you dismiss all of criminal forensics or indeed crash site investigations.

I'll say again, cosmic origins only leads to a 'don't know'. Same with origin of life. It does not lead to a god. You only think it does because of the Bible. But the Bible claims are themselves open to criticism and in fact when tested in a laboratory, fall short. Snakes and Donkeys do not talk; sheep do not genetically chance because of what sticks you put in the water, people do not heal or rise from the dead because of saying prayers and some magical process.

If science fails, then the Bible fails even more. The idea of a first man is unscientific . And the Bible claim for the name carries no weight. Other creation myths may have their own first humans names. It proves nothing.

Your idea that Satan is behind the evolutionary process is..interesting. You mean that God did not intend us to turn out as we did? Then couldn't God have stopped it? This whole idea of the world's problems being blamed on Satan requires that God stand by and just let it happen. Yet they still expect God to be
there, doing stuff as 'evidence' that their beliefs are real.

None of this God -apologetics makes any sense, rational, practical or evidential.

Rhetoric? I quote those words from a scientist.

I only dismiss scientist's theories that dismissed God.

As for life, we know that it has this what I may call digital database (mind) that produces language. For me, it is the only one capable to construct language. The Biblical explanation for me is that "In the beginning was the Word, Logos. The Logos could utter words for creation, unlike evolution that the origin of intelligent human owes it to mindless matter.

I do believe in science. What I do not agree are those theories that replace God.

It is a matter of choice, God honor our choices either to chose Him or not, or to be theist or non-theist.
I believe most atheist were educated on Christian schools and were even allowed to propagate their belief in universities. God created Adam sinless, but he chose to sin cause of his love to Eve. Fallen generation follows, meaning men are naturally sinful and Jesus sacrifice led us to chose the hope He is giving or not.

As for me, evolution's rationality comes from irrationality that mind comes from the mindless matter.

So you quoted a scientist, but he was talking about Rhetoric, not science. Do you suggest that everything a scientist says has to be science? And your dismissal of anything (science or not) that conflicts with your Godfaith is the ultimate in illogical argument.

The evidence is that DNA created life ( by replicating) and eventually reaction became instinct, instinct became reaction input, reaction became problem solving and advanced problem solving in animals became reasoning. Nothing magical about it. Logos 'Word') has nothing to do with it other than an easy invention of a big invisible human made everything by saying "Do it". Evolution theory has a mechanism and evidence, no matter how you dismiss it through illogical preference, as I already said.

As to the rest what you believe doesn't matter. What you can validate matters. So far you have produced nothing but faithclaims and false arguments. Carry on you are doing a great job for rational and evidence - based atheism.

The belief of some scientists that science is the only source of truth, is that a scientific idea? Is it rhetoric?
So you mean to say and believe that scientist Hawking's some statements in his The Grand Design book is not science?
For me putting God first over men (scientists) is the most conceivable argument.

So you accept you are a product of the mindless matter?

You says, evolution theory has a mechanism and evidence. May I know what's the evidence of the origin of life?

As you say before, science still lack of evidence specially the origin of cosmos. Can you stand beyond reasonable doubt base on legal aspect?

It is hardly Rhetoric but may be a philosophical (logical) point , but evidence - based. What, I can argue is known to be so on science evidence versus what on evidence of religious claims? That science has the proven track record in finding out how stuff works (and religious claims failing) in not rhetoric but a validated situation.

So far as I know what hawking argues is science, just as much as Einstein in argued his theory (based on mathematics) and Newton his. What is wrong with that, other than you don't want to credit a universe from nothing without a god doing it? You say it is most conceivable argument. Of course it is the easiest to imagine, like a flat earth with a dome over it, but that doesn't make it right.

We are made from mindless matter, unless you want to say that biochemical think. We are put together (grow) and we Work. What else? The origin of life is of course theoretical (hypothesis) but that is not the case with evolution, which has evidence that religions can only long for but do not have.

Abiogenesis has at least an (unproven) hypothetical mechanism. Complex molecules of biochemicals just have toi replicate (DNA) and you have Life. The rest is evolution.

What has theism? A big invisible human waves a magic wand. That is not the mose credible hypothesis, is it? Never mind which 'god' did it.

I'll get back to you on cosmic origins. Have an Urgent date

Cosmic origins. Bottom line here is - if I were to concede a probability of an intelligent creator, which one? Shiva? Allah? Chronos? It still gets you nowhere.

However. on 'Legal' aspect, I suspect you mean logical. And there the logic is nobody has an explanation, so it is Unexplained: "We don't know", and that means neither side (God or not) has a case. It does NOT, NOT, mean that the god claim remains the default theory.

So the legal (logical) theist case fails on two counts. Now I won't disrespect you by pointing up infinite regression arguments which are nothing to do with it, but look at the gap for god with legs, which is to say the intellectual incredulity of 'something from nothing', which is understandable and persuasive, but is actually a fallacy to use as an argument 'appeal to incredulity' or 'That makes no sense to me, so It cannot be true'. And to appeal to what we are used to seeing on earth no more means it cannot have happened any more than the fact that people do not rise from the dead today does not mean that it cannot have happened to Jesus.

Even aside from that (and I am not counting it as a third fail ) the question of a Force that created the stuff that made the event that made the universe that made the Life that made the humans that made the community that built the house that Jack lived in demands the question of where that originating force came from. It is not legitimate to make a faithclaim that 'God is eternal, He never needed to be created'. So an uncreated complex being that never needed to be created itself, and with superior mind and abilities as well. This is intellectual incredulity and Something from nothing would actually make more sense. And that God - apologists would simply reject that knejerk is no argument at all.

Which is the point, that intellectual credulity requires that is nothing can exist without being created and nothing can exist without something to create it, nothing has to produce something, simply because Nothing is the only thing that does not need to be created.

On logical basis alone that would answer the most serious problems to an intelligent creator. So on a 'legal' basis 'something from nothing' would be the preferred unproven hypothesis. But there is even evidence to support it. A box of Nothing produced virtual particles. Now, the apologists said it wasn't "Really" nothing . But that doesn't matter What matters is that it is Nothing enough that it doesn't need to be created, at least, not beyond intellectual credulity.

So there, I'd say, the Theist argument loses it's third swing and, like the failed president said 'Three strikes and you're out'.

Darwin's theory has a mechanism, evidence, unguided and mindless evolution process.
May we put our baby in an experiment where we can actually see them, study, observe, analyze and therefore conclude. The baby grow same as Darwin's subjects of his theory.
Babies become toddler, did your toddler know what is food and what is not without your guidance?
Did your kid know how to write his name without guidance?
I've heard many incidents that toddlers pick things like coins, marbles etc and had swallowed them, that become an emergency situation.
God guided and inform His creation what their foods are. For me, that is the most conceivable and believable beginning of human existence.

You've said, "do you suggest that everything a scientist says has to be science"? So you are doubting scientists statements I believe including those you've mentioned.

You says, "we are made from mindless matter". So your mindless/unguided toddlers could swallow coins, marbles and etc.

Abiogenesis still unproven.

Magic Wand? Our God is omnipotent who guide and cares to let His creation know what their foods are.
Atheists unguided children might get choke to things by believing scientists theories.

May I just reverse that and say your position is the argument from personal credulity. That rationality
comes from irrationality that mind comes from matter.

The unguided, mindless force can produce a very sophisticated fine-tuned things, I don't believe that.
Built a house without a plan that your mind imagined. What is the result? Failure'
As saying goes, "If you fail to plan, you planned to fail".

My point also is, that the Intelligent Designer can create anything out from nothing, He need not being created because He is an un-created God. The eternal Logos, who is behind of all planned very sophisticated and fine-tuned creations.

Well, that is your personal credulity to those scientists that replaces God's truth to their theories.
There are scientists that remains their faith in God.

Allan Sandage widely regarded as one of the fathers of modern astronomy discovered quazars said, "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos there has to be some organizing principle, God to me is a mystery but it is the explanation for the miracle of existence".

It seems your argument is not fine-tuned.

It seems your argument fails because, if instinct was god - given, why are babies eating marbles? Because instinct is not perfect.

cue 'blame the Fall'.

The evolutionary process is mindless , and experimental, which is why we had extinctions. Yet instincts are there which is why a kid knows to put food in its mouth at all. But in mammals there is an educating process. Cubs have to learn to hunt. All that cute play is instinctive practicing of survival skills. Man, or I suspect, woman, rather has to do the experimental work of seeing which foods to eat and which make the tribe sick. I think they invented farming too. And pottery, weaving and clothing, face paint, personal hygiene and how to make a strong man weep with one snappy remark.

Social and technical evolution has been as experimental as biological, and no sign of a god anywhere, because it is so hit and miss and imperfect. It is discovery rather than revelation.

Abiogenesis is not the final one shot win for Theism you apparently think it is. It has a mechanism and indirect evidence, so is the more probable theory as a god has just about none, and you won't even know which god it is, right?

Also your appeal to (selected) authority is not finely tuned. There are indeed some scientists you can find who credit a god (name your own) behind all the wonders of nature. Well, I can understand that, but while I would respect their views on astronomy, how does that make them an authority on logic, apologetics or anything else out of the field? The logic is that fine tuning arguments are arguable and Complexity and size is not evidence for a god, and this Prof. Sandage is no more an authority than I am on god -apologetics.

Appeal to the wonders of nature is as false an argument as appeal to one of the Theist scientists (and never mind the ones who aren't) as though they were some Authority on matters out of their field.

You are running out of arguments, fine - tuned or not.

Ps. I looked up Alan Sandage and in article read this "despite his atheistic stance, he felt drawn to read and study the Bible. Allan told us that for 35 years he had been studying the Bible, off and on, and had finally become convinced that it’s true. He had decided to become a follower of Jesus Christ, acknowledging that God would have to help him live as a Christian."

It looks (never mind the evasiveness) like personal preference, just as I was drawn to Buddhism (I could have become one, but its' logic fell down). 'Which god' never bothered his at all it seems and, as i find so often the case, atheists (as he says he was) who convert turn out to be doing it for reasons other than evidence or reason.

[SiNcE_1985]

I produce the (why), where needed, in all arenas.

You would have something IF I stated I have a 'policy' which states I cannot produce the (why) in my exchanges in this arena. But I do, all the time, as needed, as you have also acknowledged.

Yet, I remain unaware of your position as it relates to this question.

I just feel the short video -- (explaining the why), in this particular exchange, cuts to the heart or core of the matter rather than to always provide text responses. It's a 55 second video. If I regurgitate the scenario, I would have to furnish a text wall. And people no likey.

I feel you.

But, my policy is my policy.

The founder of this arena has no problem furnishing videos, where he feels they are appropriate. Maybe it's time to augment your own "policy". No one is forcing you to participate here. If you do not like the "policies" here, no one is twisting your arm. But, if you say you are not going to engage them, fine. But do not give snarking responses, in it's place. tisk tisk.

I will ease up on the condescension.

You can help by not saying stuff which begs it.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #229]

Ironically enough, you just made a statement, in another thread, which attests to the video's point. You stated:

"God doesn't hold anyone accountable for things they cannot control." Great. This is the point of the video. It is then illogical to instead hold Adam/Eve accountable, being they had no God-given 'moral compass'.

Define what you mean by moral compass, because it is apparent that your definition differs from the Bibles.

And I will also point out that your definition is irrelevant, because only the Bible's definition matters and not that of skeptics/critics living some 5,000 years after the fact.

Further, "Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” Luke 23:34

Does this mean Jesus disagrees with his dad?

No. Forgiveness means you get a get out of jail free card.

Something of which you should be thankful for, considering you (in general) deserve deaths and all.