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?

[Capbook]

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.

Not babies, I mean toddlers, they can walk and pick things and put them in their mouth thinking it is food. There were many instances it happened in our place. And it's not instinct. A psychologist says, "You've probably noticed that most things end up in your toddler's mouth at some stage. “Babies and children have a psychological desire to explore. They need to explore to learn,” says psychologist and child behaviour expert Corrine Sweet".
I would presumed that you've watched and guided your toddlers, and that is in contrast to your unguided evolution stand.

I mean toddlers not kid as you mentioned. And educating process, has been defined as a systematic, sequential, planned course of action on the part of both the teacher and learner to achieve the outcomes of teaching and learning. So, there's teaching, guiding and learning, again in contrast to unguided matter evolution.

You've said, "social and technical evolution has been as experimental as biological". Put your toddler in an experiment and see that they have a psychological desire to explore. When unguided they make mistakes.

Yes, abiogenesis is not the final one. the final evidence were from those non Christian ancient historians that confirm Jesus existence.

Argument about guidance is more conceivable logic against mindless, unguided evolution.

Because atheist Alan Sandage had seen the wonders of God's creation, the orderly organizing principle that he attributed to God. And say "Why there is something rather than nothing".
Now he is just not one of your adored atheist scientists.

Famous physicist James Clark Maxwell who discovered Electromagnetic Theory, inscribed above the door in his laboratory in Cambridge University the words, "Great are the works of the Lord studied by all who delight in them".
And that, he will now become not one of your adored scientist.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Not babies, I mean toddlers, they can walk and pick things and put them in their mouth thinking it is food. There were many instances it happened in our place. And it's not instinct. A psychologist says, "You've probably noticed that most things end up in your toddler's mouth at some stage. “Babies and children have a psychological desire to explore. They need to explore to learn,” says psychologist and child behaviour expert Corrine Sweet".
I would presumed that you've watched and guided your toddlers, and that is in contrast to your unguided evolution stand.

I mean toddlers not kid as you mentioned. And educating process, has been defined as a systematic, sequential, planned course of action on the part of both the teacher and learner to achieve the outcomes of teaching and learning. So, there's teaching, guiding and learning, again in contrast to unguided matter evolution.

You've said, "social and technical evolution has been as experimental as biological". Put your toddler in an experiment and see that they have a psychological desire to explore. When unguided they make mistakes.

Yes, abiogenesis is not the final one. the final evidence were from those non Christian ancient historians that confirm Jesus existence.

Argument about guidance is more conceivable logic against mindless, unguided evolution.

Because atheist Alan Sandage had seen the wonders of God's creation, the orderly organizing principle that he attributed to God. And say "Why there is something rather than nothing".
Now he is just not one of your adored atheist scientists.

Famous physicist James Clark Maxwell who discovered Electromagnetic Theory, inscribed above the door in his laboratory in Cambridge University the words, "Great are the works of the Lord studied by all who delight in them".
And that, he will now become not one of your adored scientist.

Never mind semantic nit - picking, babies, kids or toddlers, the time when they stick anything in their mouths is an experimental one and they learn or get taught what to stick in their mouths and what not. a god (name your own) does not tell them that instinctively. Evolved instinct only provides survival basics, like how to suckle. it does not provide Everything as a god supposedly would. Notably which is the right god and religion, which neither evolution nor the god gives us by instinct, apparently.

Also save the semantic nit - picking on what 'education' is. Parental teaching then, social and peer training and formalised school training or education. We understand (or should) what we are talking about here. And the 'god' is falling short, in either instinct or Revelation and evolution and human teaching is having to do it all, just as though there wasn't even a god there.

Your comment on Abiogenesis makes no sense. Abiogenesis is an unproven hypotheses, with an explanatory mechanism vs. a mere faithclaim. No more can be said, even by ancient writers, whether or not telling about Jesus.

So you are going to resort to picking out a few scientists who (for rather poor reasons) believe in a god or even a particular god. I already said that Sanderling had fallen into the logical trap of 'complexity = god" And which god/religion was just preference. Up to him of course, but it does not impress me nor the greater number of scientists who do not believe in a god or religion.

"Given their much lower levels of belief in God or a higher power, it is not surprising that the percentage of scientists who are unaffiliated with any religion is much higher than among the general public. Nearly half of all scientists in the 2009 Pew Research Center poll (48%) say they have no religious affiliation (meaning they describe themselves as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular), compared with only 17% of the public." (Pew research center)

It seems that understanding science leads away from religious belief, not towards it.

For numbers, you might look up 'project Steve' which soundly put to bed the propaganda that most scientists believe in god. So can we stop this ploy of digging up long dead scientists who were god - believers?

[POI]

Define what you mean by moral compass

God had yet to give them his 'moral compass'.

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.

It's quite apparent you are still missing the point.

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.

Still missing the point.... If God/Jesus can forgive people that do not know what they do, then why punish Adam/Eve when they committed something for which they did not yet know what they were doing?

[TRANSPONDER]

Yep. Really, it is the red Line of OT (alternative history) apologetics. You cannot wave a magic wand so much that the Ark, Eden, Lot or Moses becomes needless and God could have waved his magic wand and just Dunnit.

The Believer apologetic is that God has his reasons, but this does not make an argument, and such denial means that 'it is an ad hoc evolutionary process with no end -plan we we make do as we go along, and trying to pretend there is or ever was a Plan is sheer superstition', is the go -to hypothesis.

As usual it is the explanation that makes the most sense of the evidence we have that makes the case, not how far one can go in faithbased denial of reason and evidence.

[SiNcE_1985]

Define what you mean by moral compass

God had yet to give them his 'moral compass'.

I'm trying to figure out what part of "define what you mean by moral compass" you didn't understand.

It's quite apparent you are still missing the point.

No, it would have to be complicated for me to miss it.

It isn't.

Still missing the point.... If God/Jesus can forgive people that do not know what they do, then why punish Adam/Eve when they committed something for which they did not yet know what they were doing?

First off, just because God can do X, doesn't mean that he will do X.

Second, the premise "Adam/Eve did not get know what they were doing" is false.

Third, perhaps you should stay out of this God that you don't believe in, business.

Just saying, I try not to get involved in the affairs (asking questions or otherwise) of people/entities that dont exist.

Can't speak for others, tho.

[POI]

I'm trying to figure out what part of "define what you mean by moral compass" you didn't understand.

Your question continues to be irrelevant. See below.

First off, just because God can do X, doesn't mean that he will do X.

Then Adam/Eve are held culpable for something for which they were not yet aware of....

Second, the premise "Adam/Eve did not get know what they were doing" is false.

They were not yet aware of God's actual standard, so how would they know? God tells them to do something, but Adam/Eve did not yet know that disobeying God would be considered wrong. Why? Because they had not yet eaten from the tree of knowledge, pertaining to "good and evil". They did not yet know that disobeying a direct order from God is 'evil'. So evil in fact, that God cursed all of humanity yet to come. You know, with the painful child births and all that jazz.

Third, perhaps you should stay out of this God that you don't believe in, business.

I would if so many people did not actually believe this stuff. I mean, if we were speaking about the veracity of Thor, you may have some kind of a point. I know of virtually no one inside, or outside my circle, who believes in this particular god.

[Capbook]

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.

Not babies, I mean toddlers, they can walk and pick things and put them in their mouth thinking it is food. There were many instances it happened in our place. And it's not instinct. A psychologist says, "You've probably noticed that most things end up in your toddler's mouth at some stage. “Babies and children have a psychological desire to explore. They need to explore to learn,” says psychologist and child behaviour expert Corrine Sweet".
I would presumed that you've watched and guided your toddlers, and that is in contrast to your unguided evolution stand.

I mean toddlers not kid as you mentioned. And educating process, has been defined as a systematic, sequential, planned course of action on the part of both the teacher and learner to achieve the outcomes of teaching and learning. So, there's teaching, guiding and learning, again in contrast to unguided matter evolution.

You've said, "social and technical evolution has been as experimental as biological". Put your toddler in an experiment and see that they have a psychological desire to explore. When unguided they make mistakes.

Yes, abiogenesis is not the final one. the final evidence were from those non Christian ancient historians that confirm Jesus existence.

Argument about guidance is more conceivable logic against mindless, unguided evolution.

Because atheist Alan Sandage had seen the wonders of God's creation, the orderly organizing principle that he attributed to God. And say "Why there is something rather than nothing".
Now he is just not one of your adored atheist scientists.

Famous physicist James Clark Maxwell who discovered Electromagnetic Theory, inscribed above the door in his laboratory in Cambridge University the words, "Great are the works of the Lord studied by all who delight in them".
And that, he will now become not one of your adored scientist.

Never mind semantic nit - picking, babies, kids or toddlers, the time when they stick anything in their mouths is an experimental one and they learn or get taught what to stick in their mouths and what not. a god (name your own) does not tell them that instinctively. Evolved instinct only provides survival basics, like how to suckle. it does not provide Everything as a god supposedly would. Notably which is the right god and religion, which neither evolution nor the god gives us by instinct, apparently.

Also save the semantic nit - picking on what 'education' is. Parental teaching then, social and peer training and formalised school training or education. We understand (or should) what we are talking about here. And the 'god' is falling short, in either instinct or Revelation and evolution and human teaching is having to do it all, just as though there wasn't even a god there.

Your comment on Abiogenesis makes no sense. Abiogenesis is an unproven hypotheses, with an explanatory mechanism vs. a mere faithclaim. No more can be said, even by ancient writers, whether or not telling about Jesus.

So you are going to resort to picking out a few scientists who (for rather poor reasons) believe in a god or even a particular god. I already said that Sanderling had fallen into the logical trap of 'complexity = god" And which god/religion was just preference. Up to him of course, but it does not impress me nor the greater number of scientists who do not believe in a god or religion.

"Given their much lower levels of belief in God or a higher power, it is not surprising that the percentage of scientists who are unaffiliated with any religion is much higher than among the general public. Nearly half of all scientists in the 2009 Pew Research Center poll (48%) say they have no religious affiliation (meaning they describe themselves as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular), compared with only 17% of the public." (Pew research center)

It seems that understanding science leads away from religious belief, not towards it.

For numbers, you might look up 'project Steve' which soundly put to bed the propaganda that most scientists believe in god. So can we stop this ploy of digging up long dead scientists who were god - believers?

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".

[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.

[Clownboat]

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

Only when Christians and Muslims stop telling their children that there is a god that loves them so much as to send them to a heaven, but hates the other so much as to send them to a hell will we ever stop the violence and bloodshed caused by these religions.

Humans can choose to be a part of the problem or a part of the solution.
The division and suffering caused by most religious/god concepts is disgusting. More so for any religion that claims to be based in love.

[SiNcE_1985]

Only when Christians and Muslims stop telling their children that there is a god that loves them so much as to send them to a heaven, but hates the other so much as to send them to a hell

When it stops being true, then we (Christians) will stop telling them.

will we ever stop the violence and bloodshed caused by these religions.

When you pray for rain, you gotta deal with the mud too.

Humans can choose to be a part of the problem or a part of the solution.
The division and suffering caused by most religious/god concepts is disgusting. More so for any religion that claims to be based in love.

Love?

John 15:13

"There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends".

Sounds foolishness?

1 Corin 1:18

18 "The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction.