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?

[Clownboat]

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

First of all, you failed to address even one question my post. I believe you had to do this because of how it would make your faith based statements you mentioned earlier seem silly. In truth, only you know for sure as to why you failed so superbly.

Now, to address your one and only question, because that is what we do in honorable debate:
"You do accept things as true that you have no ability to prove. Example: How did life originate on this planet?"
You are once again simply mistaken. I don't know, nor does anyone else on this planet know how life originated. Since I in fact don't know, your supplied example about how I accept things as true that I have no ability to prove is false. You can correct your thinking on this matter, or stick your head in the sand.

Now to clarify one of your misconceptions:

I'm sure you feel that GOD isn't a correct answer

Then you are once again mistaken. The words GOD, god and God I find to be fairly meaningless words unless a description is provided. Therefore, I am in fact open to some GOD, god, God idea if one can be defined and suggested to be a part of our reality. Want to argue that a GOD, god, or God created the earth? I'm open to hearing why.

Now to address a claim that seems out of left field:

You enjoy telling others what they need to do; however, you seem to fall short in that regard while waiting for others to do all the research to convince you.

I'm going to pretend that these words are true and grant you this for the sake of experiment. Please inform the class as to why you make this personal comment (remember, we are even pretending that it is true). Is it just an attempt to slander me and to avoid answering the valid questions I posed? Did your emotions take over for a bit and you wanted to make this personal?

It seems to me that you don't like to have your views questioned, so you pretend that you shouldn't have to evidence the claims you make because Clownboat likes to have others do all the research for him. I don't see how one would follow from the other. Can you help me?

Your entire post has been addressed. If I missed anything, let me know and I'll get at it.

[SiNcE_1985]

The best (explanation/evidence) for human 'evil' resides upon a story told in Genesis? How so?

Before we answer the question of where objective moral values (good/evil) comes from..first, let's set some framework.

Question: are there objective moral values (OMV)?

Do they objectively exist?

Is rape objectively wrong, regardless how many humans believe it is right (appeal to consensus)...or, regardless of who say it is right (appeal to authority)?

Yes or no?

[Capbook]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question is why still continue to proclaim that?

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

[POI]

Yes or no?

Oh no! Another theist trap! It is also irrelevant. How shall I answer? I mean, if I say "no", then you do not have to justify 'morals'. If I say "yes", you're gonna ask me where 'morals' some from. Even if the God of the Bible were a thing, such a God makes no logical sense:



I now re-ask the same question. Is "the fall" an actual thing?

[SiNcE_1985]

Oh no! Another theist trap! It is also irrelevant.

It is about as relevant as your continual asking of questions about the particulars of a religion that you don't even believe in.

How shall I answer? I mean, if I say "no", then you do not have to justify 'morals'. If I say "yes", you're gonna ask me where 'morals' some from.

Yeah, exactly.

Just like anything else in life, the answer to the question (whether yay or nay) has certain implications... implications of which you are ill-prepared to deal with.

Even if the God of the Bible were a thing, such a God makes no logical sense:

Save your videos.

I now re-ask the same question. Is "the fall" an actual thing?

I made my answer very clear the first time. Yes.

Now answer my question.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question is why still continue to proclaim that?

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

[POI]

It is about as relevant as your continual asking of questions about the particulars of a religion that you don't even believe in.

Not even close. This topic is not about what is or is not 'moral'. It's about logic.

Save your videos.

Here's the pot calling the kettle black. 'Genetic fallacy" The less-than-a-minute presentation further drives home the point of this topic.

Yes.

Was his plan logical?

Now answer my question.

Answering this question has absolutely no bearing on this topic. You might as well ask me if I like ham.

[SiNcE_1985]

Not even close. This topic is not about what is or is not 'moral'. It's about logic.

I find it logical. You don't.

Such is life.

Here's the pot calling the kettle black. 'Genetic fallacy" The less-than-a-minute presentation further drives home the point of this topic.

Cool.

On judgement day, I want you to say to the Almighty..

You: Lord, I present to you; exhibit A.

*You proceed to play the video to God*.

Yeah, see how far that gets you.

Was his plan logical?

Yes.

Answering this question has absolutely no bearing on this topic. You might as well ask me if I like ham.

Well then, back to my original answer to your question.

Yes.

So, now what? What else you got?

More sensationalism?

[POI]

So, now what?

Now what? You explain why 'the fall' is logical. The video alone explains why it is not.

[SiNcE_1985]

So, now what?

Now what? You explain why 'the fall' is logical. The video alone explains why it is not.

As I keep saying; we can all post videos supporting our positions...and I'm not falling down that rabbit hole.

This is your thread and if you are gonna post it, at least articulate your stance and why you don't believe it (the fall) is logical.

You are just throwing some bs out there (this thread) just to illicit a Christian response so you can pounce on it in true atheistic skeptical fashion... which, quite frankly, is your M.O.

That aside, I engaged the topic..you called it irrelevant (which I disagree), so that's that.