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?

[TRANSPONDER]

No, you are avoiding. Genesis 3:7 states that "then their eyes were opened". Before eating of this fruit, they were not. Why would God hold them accountable if they lacked having 'open eyes'?

Um, usually the shame/guilt comes AFTER (analogous with their eyes being open after they disobeyed God) you've committed the act of which you are now shameful and guilty about.

I don't see why you feel as if you are letting this big cat out of bag with some groundbreaking discovery in Genesis.

Making a big fuss out of absolutely NOTHING, is what you continue to do.

Right, because no one I know believes in Thor. I'm challenging the belief(s), for which I am not in agreement with, in this debate forum.

No one was talking about (nor cares about) Thor.

Reread what I said.

As i understand it, human morality holds that, if a person without the ability to understand what they were doing was wrong is not retrospectively punished for what they did when they didn't understand.

Like slavery, if humans know how to judge justly in those matters (in time, at least) then the god who gave such morality to us should know as much or better. Anything else is an unjust god.

[POI]

I don't see why you feel as if you are letting this big cat out of bag with some groundbreaking discovery in Genesis.

Making a big fuss out of absolutely NOTHING, is what you continue to do.

I never claimed this topic is some 'groundbreaking discovery'. Nor, am I making a 'fuss'. This is a debate forum, and I'm here to raise topics which do not jive. This topic, in particular, is to present the illogic of this so-called god you believe in.

1) Adam/Eve's (true knowledge/regret) came after the eating of "the fruit". There 'eyes were open' only after eating "the fruit". Hence, god punishes them for something for which they were not yet "knowing" about.
2) God punishes all mankind, (with birth pain, etc), and not just the individuals who committed the unwanted act.
3) God, being (omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent) already knows what is going to happen and carries it out anyways.

Basically, this god sets the stage in which he alone decided to create, in which he alone makes rules for, and he already knows how these agents are going to fail his test anyways. He then carries out the punishment in which he already knows he's going to inflict before he decided to create the scenario in the first place.

No one was talking about (nor cares about) Thor.

I already responded to this. If there was a large Thor following, which surrounded me and others, and I found illogic in its belief, I'd prolly raise it here too.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #261]

I agree.. I think.

[SiNcE_1985]

I don't see why you feel as if you are letting this big cat out of bag with some groundbreaking discovery in Genesis.

Making a big fuss out of absolutely NOTHING, is what you continue to do.

I never claimed this topic is some 'groundbreaking discovery'. Nor, am I making a 'fuss'. This is a debate forum, and I'm here to raise topics which do not jive. This topic, in particular, is to present the illogic of this so-called god you believe in.

Nothing illogical about it.

1) Adam/Eve's (true knowledge/regret) came after the eating of "the fruit". There 'eyes were open' only after eating "the fruit". Hence, god punishes them for something for which they were not yet "knowing" about.

I already addressed this.

Repeating your accusations (without addressing my response) will not change my original response.

2) God punishes all mankind, (with birth pain, etc), and not just the individuals who committed the unwanted act.

3) God, being (omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent) already knows what is going to happen and carries it out anyways.

Basically, this god sets the stage in which he alone decided to create, in which he alone makes rules for, and he already knows how these agents are going to fail his test anyways. He then carries out the punishment in which he already knows he's going to inflict before he decided to create the scenario in the first place.

I do not know how to harmonize God's divine omniscient with human free will and/or predestination.

It is the toughest question, as far as I'm concerned, in Christian theology...and admittedly, I've yet to see a satisfactory answer.

So, I don't know.

But, as far as #2 is concerned..whether it started with Adam/Eve or not, it would have been only a matter of time before other humans disobeyed God in some form or fashion...so God could either begin the curse with Adam and Eve, or begin it with other subsequent human creations.

Either way, disobedience was coming.

Not a matter of if, but when.

I already responded to this. If there was a large Thor following, which surrounded me and others, and I found illogic in its belief, I'd prolly raise it here too.

Still missed the point.

[POI]

It is the toughest question, as far as I'm concerned, in Christian theology...and admittedly, I've yet to see a satisfactory answer. So, I don't know.

This is why the thread is here.

But, as far as #2 is concerned..whether it started with Adam/Eve or not, it would have been only a matter of time before other humans disobeyed God in some form or fashion...so God could either begin the curse with Adam and Eve, or begin it with other subsequent human creations.

Either way, disobedience was coming.

Not a matter of if, but when.

Not if god would have placed "the tree" where they would never would have find it.

[SiNcE_1985]

It is the toughest question, as far as I'm concerned, in Christian theology...and admittedly, I've yet to see a satisfactory answer. So, I don't know.

This is why the thread is here.

Um, no.

At first, your critique had nothing to do with God's foreknowledge of Adam/Eve's actions.

You were initially making a fuss about the fairness of God punishing them (us) based on their lack of knowledge.

Once I addressed your concerns with ease, now you move the goalpost to God's foreknowledge, human free will, and predestination...which is a toughy.

Probably one of the very few tuffies in the atheists repertoire.

Not if god would have placed "the tree" where they would never would have find it.

Impossible.

The tree may as well be synonymous with any arbitrary good option / bad option selection.

[POI]

Um, no. At first, your critique had nothing to do with God's foreknowledge of Adam/Eve's actions. You were initially making a fuss about the fairness of God punishing them (us) based on their lack of knowledge. Once I addressed your concerns with ease, now you move the goalpost to God's foreknowledge, human free will, and predestination...which is a toughy.

Haha! I did no such thing. It's just clear that you either will continue not to get it, and/or, state you have 'addressed it'. "Addressing it", as opposed to refuting it, are not one in the same, sorry. At this point, I have just decided to move on because it is like exchanging with a wall. Skeptics continue to bring this topic up because it is an obvious one for which the side of the theists don't have a rebuttal.

Probably one of the very few tuffies in the atheists repertoire.

Yes. This one too.

Impossible.

But with god, all things are possible. Maybe we should just ignore or "spin" this one too.

[Capbook]

I emphasize toddlers cause they are the ones that needs guidance. Infant / newborn - Just born Baby - Hasn't been alive for long Toddler - 1-2-3 yrs Child - 3-12 years old Teen - 13-19 years old Adult - 20-60 years old.
You mentioned, "get taught what to stick in their mouths and what not". At least now you accept that teach/guidance indeed needed to a growing toddler. In contrast to atheist stand on unguided evolution. Creator God informed/guided His creations what are foods to them, so the theist parents likewise.

This is what you've said, "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." Root word educate defined as provide or pay for instruction for. So there's another that give instruction/guidance. Again in contrast to atheism unguided evolution.

So which is more preferable belief? unproven Abiogenesis or the proven Jesus.
"Tacitus was a historian and politician of ancient Rome. He wrote extensively about many subjects. The writings of Tacitus on Jesus also exist. Many scholars point to the writings as proof Jesus existed". Atheist are just always in denial about it.

Atheist Alan Sandage then believe that there is sense of purpose of life, that atheism does not have.
And hope that atheism does not know.

Even when small percentage of scientists are theist, it proves that evolution is not a 100% acceptable science.
God fearing population is 5.6B while non-religious, agnostics, atheism combined 1B something.

It seems that understanding the Bible leads away from non-followers of God to believers of God. Sandage included.

So can we stop this ploy of digging up long dead scientists who were non believers of God, that their rationality
comes from irrationality that minds comes from mindless matter.

Atheist John Gray says, "Modern humanism is the faith that through science humankind can know the truth- and to be free. But if Darwin's theory of natural selection is true this is impossible. The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth".

If you will permit, I'll just take the response as the previous post was getting long.
Yes, teaching is needed for everyone, toddlers or adults. We never stop learning. From each other, not from a god.

So why should we accept an analogy that there is a big invisible parent or mentor telling us what is the thing to do, when there is no decent shred of evidence for it, it isn't necessary as we learn by experience, and - most damning - we disagree about things all the time?


You confuse unguided evolution with conscious teaching. Conditions dictate what survives (and passes on that experience in DNA carried instinct) and formalised teaching, especially as we can see critters being taught by their elders and learning by experience. That social conventions are more complex that pack or tribe behaviour does not make it something different that has to come from a god, especially since - as I said - we come to different conclusions about the same basics. Different human thinking about common basic evolved instincts.

Again what you believe is irrelevant. What support can you make for what you believe?

I'll take Abiogenesis over the Jesus because evolution is as proven as any Reasonable person could require and the unproven abiogenesis has indirect support and a mechanism and method.

There is nothing 'proven' about Jesus but contradictory claims in an old book full of errors and a religion that spread like dozens of others.

Tacitus is perhaps the best evidence for a historic Jesus executed by Pilate. I have no doubt that is true. It is the transformation of this failed messiah into a sort of god - figure and religion that I do not accept. The contradictions in the resurrection convince me totally that it is an invented claim without reality.

Atheists do not sell false hope based on a fear of dying so far as i can see, We sell reason and evidence, and I can tell you and Prof. Sanwidge that an atheist who understands and accepts reality and the finite life, finds human values more rewarding that the false ones sold by religions. Sometime, we might talk about 'The atheist afterlife' IF, if there is one, we all get it (as a natural thing) and no one religion is selling entry tickets.

Understanding of the Bible equally raises doubts, I can quote for instance Rachel Slick (daughter of Matt Slick, q.v) who, when she tried to argue the Bible to atheists, became atheist. This happens often when Believers can no longer lie to themselves. Which also often happens. I have seen believers deny what the Bible actually says, rather than have any doubt and question.

The Pew study showed that half scientists are atheist. Of those many are theist but not religious. And again others may be religious but accept evolution.

Prof. Tyson gave a talk where he claimed 15% of scientists were Theists. 40% PEW said I recall. 15% Tyson says. Either way, this does not make a case that scientists generally are theists who reject evolution. And evolution (though a ditch to die in for Christian fundamentalism, it seems) is not even relevant as if it was true, one can still be a god -believer and if false, it does not mean that God is the default answer.

I am more than happy to drop the argument you started of trying to claim science for their side, and even the argument from gaps for a god (consciousness, life and cosmic origins) does not get you to a particular religion. However, I still maintain that evolution -theory and the evidence we have supports a natural.materialist hypothesis for the way things work, than a god, name your own.

What John Gray said (supposing it is correct in context) is wrong. He is right that evolution does not lead to truth; it leads to survival, hopefully. It is science that has the track record of discovering truth and religions do not.

Yes I had a quick look. I suspect it is easy to quote this political philosopher out of context, and his views are argued about anyway. It is all about what humans do, and think and that is always arguable. It has nothing useful to say about the reality of evolution - theory.

You've said, "Yes, teaching is needed for everyone, toddlers or adults. We never stop learning. From each other, not from a god. God guided/teaches His creations of what they are to eat. Unlike atheists stand on unguided evolution. Human's consciousness and freewill though makes man violates God's guidance, its a choice. In contrast to atheism's' view, whom never knew when does human consciousness arise.

Rational Intelligibility of the universe for me is a proof or evidence of God's existence. Throw a pail of marbles in your floor and see their unguided directions, could the law of gravity create a design? Or Hawking's freak accident makes the universe what it is today?

Rational mind is behind to all teachings and guidance, thus how mindless, unguided evolution results to intelligent humans? Not so believable, compare to God who created man into His image. Conscious from the beginning of creation while in atheism, consciousness still a mystery when that arise.

Louis Pasteur disproved the abiogenesis theory experimentally.
While you say, "Tacitus is perhaps the best evidence for a historic Jesus executed by Pilate. I have no doubt that
is true". As you accepted Jesus' existence, I may presume that Jesus may have teachings during His lifetime.

Of course atheism won't sell what is the purpose of life and hope. I believe you don't also know what is the meaning of life?

Lee Strobel states he was an atheist author when he began investigating the biblical claims about Jesus Christ after his wife's conversion. Prompted by the results of his investigation, he became a Christian at the age of 29.
We believe our God is all knowing (omniscient) who knows who are His.

Yes, there are theist scientist even in small percentage, it just proves that evolution is not 100% science.

Maybe because of the loopholes of scientists lack of evidence of evolution, it might leads to the purpose, meaning of life that may lead someone to the hope God offered to those who believe in Him.

You says, "It is science that has the track record of discovering truth". And will be the only source of truth? Which is not a scientific idea.

[TRANSPONDER]

I emphasize toddlers cause they are the ones that needs guidance. Infant / newborn - Just born Baby - Hasn't been alive for long Toddler - 1-2-3 yrs Child - 3-12 years old Teen - 13-19 years old Adult - 20-60 years old.
You mentioned, "get taught what to stick in their mouths and what not". At least now you accept that teach/guidance indeed needed to a growing toddler. In contrast to atheist stand on unguided evolution. Creator God informed/guided His creations what are foods to them, so the theist parents likewise.

This is what you've said, "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." Root word educate defined as provide or pay for instruction for. So there's another that give instruction/guidance. Again in contrast to atheism unguided evolution.

So which is more preferable belief? unproven Abiogenesis or the proven Jesus.
"Tacitus was a historian and politician of ancient Rome. He wrote extensively about many subjects. The writings of Tacitus on Jesus also exist. Many scholars point to the writings as proof Jesus existed". Atheist are just always in denial about it.

Atheist Alan Sandage then believe that there is sense of purpose of life, that atheism does not have.
And hope that atheism does not know.

Even when small percentage of scientists are theist, it proves that evolution is not a 100% acceptable science.
God fearing population is 5.6B while non-religious, agnostics, atheism combined 1B something.

It seems that understanding the Bible leads away from non-followers of God to believers of God. Sandage included.

So can we stop this ploy of digging up long dead scientists who were non believers of God, that their rationality
comes from irrationality that minds comes from mindless matter.

Atheist John Gray says, "Modern humanism is the faith that through science humankind can know the truth- and to be free. But if Darwin's theory of natural selection is true this is impossible. The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth".

If you will permit, I'll just take the response as the previous post was getting long.
Yes, teaching is needed for everyone, toddlers or adults. We never stop learning. From each other, not from a god.

So why should we accept an analogy that there is a big invisible parent or mentor telling us what is the thing to do, when there is no decent shred of evidence for it, it isn't necessary as we learn by experience, and - most damning - we disagree about things all the time?


You confuse unguided evolution with conscious teaching. Conditions dictate what survives (and passes on that experience in DNA carried instinct) and formalised teaching, especially as we can see critters being taught by their elders and learning by experience. That social conventions are more complex that pack or tribe behaviour does not make it something different that has to come from a god, especially since - as I said - we come to different conclusions about the same basics. Different human thinking about common basic evolved instincts.

Again what you believe is irrelevant. What support can you make for what you believe?

I'll take Abiogenesis over the Jesus because evolution is as proven as any Reasonable person could require and the unproven abiogenesis has indirect support and a mechanism and method.

There is nothing 'proven' about Jesus but contradictory claims in an old book full of errors and a religion that spread like dozens of others.

Tacitus is perhaps the best evidence for a historic Jesus executed by Pilate. I have no doubt that is true. It is the transformation of this failed messiah into a sort of god - figure and religion that I do not accept. The contradictions in the resurrection convince me totally that it is an invented claim without reality.

Atheists do not sell false hope based on a fear of dying so far as i can see, We sell reason and evidence, and I can tell you and Prof. Sanwidge that an atheist who understands and accepts reality and the finite life, finds human values more rewarding that the false ones sold by religions. Sometime, we might talk about 'The atheist afterlife' IF, if there is one, we all get it (as a natural thing) and no one religion is selling entry tickets.

Understanding of the Bible equally raises doubts, I can quote for instance Rachel Slick (daughter of Matt Slick, q.v) who, when she tried to argue the Bible to atheists, became atheist. This happens often when Believers can no longer lie to themselves. Which also often happens. I have seen believers deny what the Bible actually says, rather than have any doubt and question.

The Pew study showed that half scientists are atheist. Of those many are theist but not religious. And again others may be religious but accept evolution.

Prof. Tyson gave a talk where he claimed 15% of scientists were Theists. 40% PEW said I recall. 15% Tyson says. Either way, this does not make a case that scientists generally are theists who reject evolution. And evolution (though a ditch to die in for Christian fundamentalism, it seems) is not even relevant as if it was true, one can still be a god -believer and if false, it does not mean that God is the default answer.

I am more than happy to drop the argument you started of trying to claim science for their side, and even the argument from gaps for a god (consciousness, life and cosmic origins) does not get you to a particular religion. However, I still maintain that evolution -theory and the evidence we have supports a natural.materialist hypothesis for the way things work, than a god, name your own.

What John Gray said (supposing it is correct in context) is wrong. He is right that evolution does not lead to truth; it leads to survival, hopefully. It is science that has the track record of discovering truth and religions do not.

Yes I had a quick look. I suspect it is easy to quote this political philosopher out of context, and his views are argued about anyway. It is all about what humans do, and think and that is always arguable. It has nothing useful to say about the reality of evolution - theory.

You've said, "Yes, teaching is needed for everyone, toddlers or adults. We never stop learning. From each other, not from a god. God guided/teaches His creations of what they are to eat. Unlike atheists stand on unguided evolution. Human's consciousness and freewill though makes man violates God's guidance, its a choice. In contrast to atheism's' view, whom never knew when does human consciousness arise.

Rational Intelligibility of the universe for me is a proof or evidence of God's existence. Throw a pail of marbles in your floor and see their unguided directions, could the law of gravity create a design? Or Hawking's freak accident makes the universe what it is today?

Rational mind is behind to all teachings and guidance, thus how mindless, unguided evolution results to intelligent humans? Not so believable, compare to God who created man into His image. Conscious from the beginning of creation while in atheism, consciousness still a mystery when that arise.

Louis Pasteur disproved the abiogenesis theory experimentally.
While you say, "Tacitus is perhaps the best evidence for a historic Jesus executed by Pilate. I have no doubt that
is true". As you accepted Jesus' existence, I may presume that Jesus may have teachings during His lifetime.

Of course atheism won't sell what is the purpose of life and hope. I believe you don't also know what is the meaning of life?

Lee Strobel states he was an atheist author when he began investigating the biblical claims about Jesus Christ after his wife's conversion. Prompted by the results of his investigation, he became a Christian at the age of 29.
We believe our God is all knowing (omniscient) who knows who are His.

Yes, there are theist scientist even in small percentage, it just proves that evolution is not 100% science.

Maybe because of the loopholes of scientists lack of evidence of evolution, it might leads to the purpose, meaning of life that may lead someone to the hope God offered to those who believe in Him.

You says, "It is science that has the track record of discovering truth". And will be the only source of truth? Which is not a scientific idea.

We do have an explanation of how consciousness arises. Through evolution. It is seen even in animals, and mans' behaviour resembles theirs. You may blame mans' disobedience for doing what we call wrong (falling short of our own ideals) but if animals are the same, that is how God made them - or evolution. Evolution is not moral, but it is real. I would rather try to deal with the hand nature dealt us (as we did with natural limitations) than to ascribe it all to a 'Perfect' god and then try to blame why it isn't perfect on man.

Rational intelligibility or Order; essentially ID. Evolution (chemical evolution) explains this just as biological evolution explains complex working of bioforms. What works, works; what doesn't, goes extinct. What doesn't work with matter doesn't survive. Paley's watchmaker argument also mistakes natural working complexity for design. It isn't.
Again, evolution does explain how life, consciousness and reason arose. There is no need to use a god (name your own) as an easy dismissal of the question. I have never heard that Pasteur disproved abiogenesis. He may have disproved spontaneous creation, which is no more abiogenesis theory than dogs from cats is evolution - theory. Please explain how, if I am wrong.

General discussion now, I see it often happens - 'well what about this next atheist - stumper, then?' Ok. There is No really unquestionable support for a historical Jesus in Tacitus, Josephus or anywhere else. Not even in Paul, 100%. Yet i go with the more credible theory that Paul knew the disciples who knew Jesus, and an invented story would never have had him crucified, unless he was. And thus I credit Tacitus, even if he was only reciting what the Christians claimed, not what he knew.

But I am convinced that Jesus was nothing like the Jesus of the gospels, but was a failed messiah, not a resurrected god. I can see this turning into a discussion of its' own. But the Gabriel stone, IF the reading of a three day resurrection for Simon the rebel while Jesus was still learning his letters is correct, underpins the terminal contradictions of the resurrection - story as an invented claim. Slam. Dunk.

Lee Strobel is a fraud. His 'investigation' as I read it consisted only of apologetics of Bible apologists and not a single doubt and question that any Bible critic would have had. I have them, I shall post them, if we get onto debating the gospel Jesus.

"Yes, there are theist scientist even in small percentage, it just proves that evolution is not 100% science." My Dude, that was a mere verbal trick. Evolution is 100% science. It just proves that a percentage of scientists can compartmentalise reason and Faith in their heads. The name escapes me, but there is a geology scientist who is a creationist. When he writes geology papers, he uses geological data; when he talks creationism, he uses creationist figures.

Loopholes in evolution (there are far more in the Christian god -claim, I assure you) do not debunk it. The Cetan sequence alone is slam dunk proof of speciation (land critter to whale) in a pretty continuous and undeniable evolutionary progression. Prove speciation once, and you prove it for all. Your effort to use the existing unknowns to pretend that evolution -theory is not adequately supported in a way that Theism can only dream of, and by a hoped - for dismissal, put back placeholder god (name your own, as I said before) is doomed to logical failure, never mind denial by the Faithful.

To repeat, science has the track record of discovering truth, or fact or the best models of reality that explain the data. Religious claims have been ever more debunked, and relies more and more on blinkered denial, including of what the Bible actually says. As one notorious example here had it, that the sun was made after not only the earth, but daylight (Genesis). If Darwin had blundered like that, his book would be in the trash.

[Capbook]

I emphasize toddlers cause they are the ones that needs guidance. Infant / newborn - Just born Baby - Hasn't been alive for long Toddler - 1-2-3 yrs Child - 3-12 years old Teen - 13-19 years old Adult - 20-60 years old.
You mentioned, "get taught what to stick in their mouths and what not". At least now you accept that teach/guidance indeed needed to a growing toddler. In contrast to atheist stand on unguided evolution. Creator God informed/guided His creations what are foods to them, so the theist parents likewise.

This is what you've said, "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." Root word educate defined as provide or pay for instruction for. So there's another that give instruction/guidance. Again in contrast to atheism unguided evolution.

So which is more preferable belief? unproven Abiogenesis or the proven Jesus.
"Tacitus was a historian and politician of ancient Rome. He wrote extensively about many subjects. The writings of Tacitus on Jesus also exist. Many scholars point to the writings as proof Jesus existed". Atheist are just always in denial about it.

Atheist Alan Sandage then believe that there is sense of purpose of life, that atheism does not have.
And hope that atheism does not know.

Even when small percentage of scientists are theist, it proves that evolution is not a 100% acceptable science.
God fearing population is 5.6B while non-religious, agnostics, atheism combined 1B something.

It seems that understanding the Bible leads away from non-followers of God to believers of God. Sandage included.

So can we stop this ploy of digging up long dead scientists who were non believers of God, that their rationality
comes from irrationality that minds comes from mindless matter.

Atheist John Gray says, "Modern humanism is the faith that through science humankind can know the truth- and to be free. But if Darwin's theory of natural selection is true this is impossible. The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth".

If you will permit, I'll just take the response as the previous post was getting long.
Yes, teaching is needed for everyone, toddlers or adults. We never stop learning. From each other, not from a god.

So why should we accept an analogy that there is a big invisible parent or mentor telling us what is the thing to do, when there is no decent shred of evidence for it, it isn't necessary as we learn by experience, and - most damning - we disagree about things all the time?


You confuse unguided evolution with conscious teaching. Conditions dictate what survives (and passes on that experience in DNA carried instinct) and formalised teaching, especially as we can see critters being taught by their elders and learning by experience. That social conventions are more complex that pack or tribe behaviour does not make it something different that has to come from a god, especially since - as I said - we come to different conclusions about the same basics. Different human thinking about common basic evolved instincts.

Again what you believe is irrelevant. What support can you make for what you believe?

I'll take Abiogenesis over the Jesus because evolution is as proven as any Reasonable person could require and the unproven abiogenesis has indirect support and a mechanism and method.

There is nothing 'proven' about Jesus but contradictory claims in an old book full of errors and a religion that spread like dozens of others.

Tacitus is perhaps the best evidence for a historic Jesus executed by Pilate. I have no doubt that is true. It is the transformation of this failed messiah into a sort of god - figure and religion that I do not accept. The contradictions in the resurrection convince me totally that it is an invented claim without reality.

Atheists do not sell false hope based on a fear of dying so far as i can see, We sell reason and evidence, and I can tell you and Prof. Sanwidge that an atheist who understands and accepts reality and the finite life, finds human values more rewarding that the false ones sold by religions. Sometime, we might talk about 'The atheist afterlife' IF, if there is one, we all get it (as a natural thing) and no one religion is selling entry tickets.

Understanding of the Bible equally raises doubts, I can quote for instance Rachel Slick (daughter of Matt Slick, q.v) who, when she tried to argue the Bible to atheists, became atheist. This happens often when Believers can no longer lie to themselves. Which also often happens. I have seen believers deny what the Bible actually says, rather than have any doubt and question.

The Pew study showed that half scientists are atheist. Of those many are theist but not religious. And again others may be religious but accept evolution.

Prof. Tyson gave a talk where he claimed 15% of scientists were Theists. 40% PEW said I recall. 15% Tyson says. Either way, this does not make a case that scientists generally are theists who reject evolution. And evolution (though a ditch to die in for Christian fundamentalism, it seems) is not even relevant as if it was true, one can still be a god -believer and if false, it does not mean that God is the default answer.

I am more than happy to drop the argument you started of trying to claim science for their side, and even the argument from gaps for a god (consciousness, life and cosmic origins) does not get you to a particular religion. However, I still maintain that evolution -theory and the evidence we have supports a natural.materialist hypothesis for the way things work, than a god, name your own.

What John Gray said (supposing it is correct in context) is wrong. He is right that evolution does not lead to truth; it leads to survival, hopefully. It is science that has the track record of discovering truth and religions do not.

Yes I had a quick look. I suspect it is easy to quote this political philosopher out of context, and his views are argued about anyway. It is all about what humans do, and think and that is always arguable. It has nothing useful to say about the reality of evolution - theory.

You've said, "Yes, teaching is needed for everyone, toddlers or adults. We never stop learning. From each other, not from a god. God guided/teaches His creations of what they are to eat. Unlike atheists stand on unguided evolution. Human's consciousness and freewill though makes man violates God's guidance, its a choice. In contrast to atheism's' view, whom never knew when does human consciousness arise.

Rational Intelligibility of the universe for me is a proof or evidence of God's existence. Throw a pail of marbles in your floor and see their unguided directions, could the law of gravity create a design? Or Hawking's freak accident makes the universe what it is today?

Rational mind is behind to all teachings and guidance, thus how mindless, unguided evolution results to intelligent humans? Not so believable, compare to God who created man into His image. Conscious from the beginning of creation while in atheism, consciousness still a mystery when that arise.

Louis Pasteur disproved the abiogenesis theory experimentally.
While you say, "Tacitus is perhaps the best evidence for a historic Jesus executed by Pilate. I have no doubt that
is true". As you accepted Jesus' existence, I may presume that Jesus may have teachings during His lifetime.

Of course atheism won't sell what is the purpose of life and hope. I believe you don't also know what is the meaning of life?

Lee Strobel states he was an atheist author when he began investigating the biblical claims about Jesus Christ after his wife's conversion. Prompted by the results of his investigation, he became a Christian at the age of 29.
We believe our God is all knowing (omniscient) who knows who are His.

Yes, there are theist scientist even in small percentage, it just proves that evolution is not 100% science.

Maybe because of the loopholes of scientists lack of evidence of evolution, it might leads to the purpose, meaning of life that may lead someone to the hope God offered to those who believe in Him.

You says, "It is science that has the track record of discovering truth". And will be the only source of truth? Which is not a scientific idea.

We do have an explanation of how consciousness arises. Through evolution. It is seen even in animals, and mans' behaviour resembles theirs. You may blame mans' disobedience for doing what we call wrong (falling short of our own ideals) but if animals are the same, that is how God made them - or evolution. Evolution is not moral, but it is real. I would rather try to deal with the hand nature dealt us (as we did with natural limitations) than to ascribe it all to a 'Perfect' god and then try to blame why it isn't perfect on man.

Rational intelligibility or Order; essentially ID. Evolution (chemical evolution) explains this just as biological evolution explains complex working of bioforms. What works, works; what doesn't, goes extinct. What doesn't work with matter doesn't survive. Paley's watchmaker argument also mistakes natural working complexity for design. It isn't.
Again, evolution does explain how life, consciousness and reason arose. There is no need to use a god (name your own) as an easy dismissal of the question. I have never heard that Pasteur disproved abiogenesis. He may have disproved spontaneous creation, which is no more abiogenesis theory than dogs from cats is evolution - theory. Please explain how, if I am wrong.

General discussion now, I see it often happens - 'well what about this next atheist - stumper, then?' Ok. There is No really unquestionable support for a historical Jesus in Tacitus, Josephus or anywhere else. Not even in Paul, 100%. Yet i go with the more credible theory that Paul knew the disciples who knew Jesus, and an invented story would never have had him crucified, unless he was. And thus I credit Tacitus, even if he was only reciting what the Christians claimed, not what he knew.

But I am convinced that Jesus was nothing like the Jesus of the gospels, but was a failed messiah, not a resurrected god. I can see this turning into a discussion of its' own. But the Gabriel stone, IF the reading of a three day resurrection for Simon the rebel while Jesus was still learning his letters is correct, underpins the terminal contradictions of the resurrection - story as an invented claim. Slam. Dunk.

Lee Strobel is a fraud. His 'investigation' as I read it consisted only of apologetics of Bible apologists and not a single doubt and question that any Bible critic would have had. I have them, I shall post them, if we get onto debating the gospel Jesus.

"Yes, there are theist scientist even in small percentage, it just proves that evolution is not 100% science." My Dude, that was a mere verbal trick. Evolution is 100% science. It just proves that a percentage of scientists can compartmentalise reason and Faith in their heads. The name escapes me, but there is a geology scientist who is a creationist. When he writes geology papers, he uses geological data; when he talks creationism, he uses creationist figures.

Loopholes in evolution (there are far more in the Christian god -claim, I assure you) do not debunk it. The Cetan sequence alone is slam dunk proof of speciation (land critter to whale) in a pretty continuous and undeniable evolutionary progression. Prove speciation once, and you prove it for all. Your effort to use the existing unknowns to pretend that evolution -theory is not adequately supported in a way that Theism can only dream of, and by a hoped - for dismissal, put back placeholder god (name your own, as I said before) is doomed to logical failure, never mind denial by the Faithful.

To repeat, science has the track record of discovering truth, or fact or the best models of reality that explain the data. Religious claims have been ever more debunked, and relies more and more on blinkered denial, including of what the Bible actually says. As one notorious example here had it, that the sun was made after not only the earth, but daylight (Genesis). If Darwin had blundered like that, his book would be in the trash.

My question was when does human consciousness arise? Not how.

What I mean is the Rational Intelligibility of the universe, cause for me is a proof or evidence of God's existence.

Pasteur’s set of experiments irrefutably disproved the theory of spontaneous generation and earned him the prestigious Alhumbert Prize from the Paris Academy of Sciences in 1862. In a subsequent lecture in 1864, Pasteur articulated “Omne vivum ex vivo” (“Life only comes from life”).https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/ ... Generation

Adduced means served as evidence of certain facts about Jesus, "Non-Christian sources used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include the c. first century Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus. From these two independent sources alone, certain facts about Jesus can be adduced: that he existed, his personal name was Jesus, he was called a messiah". (Wikipedia)

He is the Jesus of the four Gospels, it is significant that most scholars believe that Jesus was buried in a known tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea. The burial in a known tomb by Joseph of Arimathea is considered historical because the Gospels describe Joseph as a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus. And the first response by the Jewish leaders clearly admits to Jesus’ body missing from the known tomb.

Lee Strobel's written reply to: How an Atheist Fabricated a Phony Story About Me
"This self-published atheist and “religion critic” doesn’t even try to challenge the story of my conversion. The truth is absolutely as I have always reported it: I was an atheist and Yale-educated legal editor of the Chicago Tribune when my wife’s conversion to Christianity prompted me to investigate the faith for nearly two years. Ultimately, I decided the evidence was too strong to ignore, and I put my trust in Christ on November 8, 1981. Six years later, I left daily journalism to become a pastor".

The mere fact that there are scientists who doesn't believe that science is the only source of truth.
Evolution theory were from those scientists whom replaces God's truth to their only source of truth, that is not a scientific idea. Therefore it is not 100% science.

Charles Darwin may have successfully convinced the world about evolution and natural selection, but did not answer the question posed by his most famous book, ‘On the Origin of Species …’. Since the 1940s, Ernst Mayr has been one of the people who argued for this point of view, claiming that Darwin was not able to answer the question of speciation because he failed to define species properly.
But the Word of God can name the genealogy of Jesus unlike evolution I believe there are still gaps.

If modern scientific theory insists on the possibility of light coming out of empty space (in other words, without light bearing objects), it is inconsistent to criticize the biblical idea that light existed on the first day of creation without sun, moon, or stars . . . The fact that Genesis talks about light existing before the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars seem rather to be evidence of divine authorship of the Bible. (Donald Chittick, The Controversy, Portland, Oregon: Multnomah Press, 1984, p. 151).