The Mud-Man & His Rib-Woman

StuartJ · Post by **StuartJ** » Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:46 pm

Yahweh Elohim (Kurios Theos/Lord God) in contradiction of Genesis 1, created a human male from mud, as the first living creature (not the last).

After failing to find a suitable good helper for the mud-man by creating animals from mud, the not-so-omniscient mythological Jewish deity then created the planet's first human female from one of the mud-man's ribs.

Can this be put up against evolutionary science?

Inigo Montoya · Post by **Inigo Montoya** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:04 pm

How about just offering a rational reason to think a god created the first man from the dirt, and the first woman from his rib.

StuartJ · Post by **StuartJ** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:34 pm

[Replying to post 30 by bluethread]

Any tiny scrap of independently verifiable evidence of any sort at all will do.

Then you can put it up against the good old-fashioned hard evidence of evolution and make any sort of comparison you wish.

These discussions ALWAYS duck and dodge and weave and blow smoke and obfuscate.

The one thing they don't do is offer evidence that the biblical Yahweh - or any other version of "God" - is anything more than an imaginary character in an ethnic creation myth.

If there was evidence, it would be the first thing dropped on the table.

I suggest there is none.

I suggest that certain people of faith know fine well there is none ....

William · Post by **William** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:30 pm

[Replying to post 32 by StuartJ]

The one thing they don't do is offer evidence that the biblical Yahweh - or any other version of "God" - is anything more than an imaginary character in an ethnic creation myth.

If there was evidence, it would be the first thing dropped on the table.

I suggest there is none.

I suggest that certain people of faith know fine well there is none ....

Metaphysics is outside the ability of scientific scrutiny. I think all consciousness is evidence of GOD (so obviously another 'version of GOD' as an idea) and that ethnic myth is largely just that. Some take things more literally in relation to the myths, and by all accounts - Christian faith generally requires the figurative be taken literally.

Inigo Montoya · Post by **Inigo Montoya** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:56 pm

[Replying to post 33 by William]

Yes, but you also use "God" as a synonym for consciousness. So when you say consciousness is evidence of God, all you're really saying is consciousness is evidence of consciousness, or God is evidence of God. While there's little doubt consciousness is a thing, I'm no closer to understanding the leap to "God" apart from renaming it.

The lasting power of the god hypothesis rests solely on our inability to disprove it, not in the theist's ability to demonstrate it. Mind you it would help a ton if any two people actually agreed on what a god was, but I guess that's me being picky.

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:32 pm

Inigo Montoya wrote: How about just offering a rational reason to think a god created the first man from the dirt, and the first woman from his rib.

The human body is composed the same mateials one finds in dirt. Regarding the rib story, as I have said repeatedly, this is not a scientific record. If you do not wish to believe it actually occured, that is fine. If it did happen, it would be nearly impossible to prove scientifically anyway, because it is an isolated incident. The problem is the OP insists that all Christians should verify every detail of the Scriptures scientifically. That is like requiring all Shakespearian Scholars to verify every detail of Julius Caesar scientifically. That is not the purpose of the text, nor is it possible.

Inigo Montoya · Post by **Inigo Montoya** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:57 pm

[Replying to post 35 by bluethread]

Then if it's not the purpose of the text, nor verifiable, there's little rational reason to assume it actually occurred. In other words, why do you (assuming you do) believe a god created man from the dirt if that wasn't the intent of the story and is, as you say, unverifiable?

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:32 pm

StuartJ wrote: [Replying to post 30 by bluethread]

Any tiny scrap of independently verifiable evidence of any sort at all will do.

Then you can put it up against the good old-fashioned hard evidence of evolution and make any sort of comparison you wish.

However, you did not present it that way in the OP. All you asked was, "Can this be put up against evolutionary science?" Then we had to go through a game of twenty questions to determine that what you meant was whether a literal interpretation of the creation story can be verified scientifically. Apart from this being an agenda driven thread, I can not see any reason why you were so reluctant to simply state that outright.

These discussions ALWAYS duck and dodge and weave and blow smoke and obfuscate.

The one thing they don't do is offer evidence that the biblical Yahweh - or any other version of "God" - is anything more than an imaginary character in an ethnic creation myth.

If there was evidence, it would be the first thing dropped on the table.

I suggest there is none.

I suggest that certain people of faith know fine well there is none ....

Maybe, if you were clearer in your communication and were not so quick to cast aspersions on those who respond, people might be less likely to "duck and dodge and weave and blow smoke and obfuscate". I will grant you that the theory of evolution is built to align more closely with scientific evidence, because it was proposed in a scientific age. However, I think a mythopoetic account can be "put up against evolutionary science" in areas that science does not directly speak to, i.e. morality, values and conscuousness. I find that the theory of evolution does not provide adequate explanations for those things. Most attempts to do so seem to "duck and dodge and weave and blow smoke and obfuscate". Personally, I do not require science to explain such things. Though it can be helpful in providing information on modern human behavior, it is really not designed for such explanations. I find that philosophy and social constructs are much more useful in providing guidance in those areas.

William · Post by **William** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:37 pm

[Replying to post 34 by Inigo Montoya]

Yes, but you also use "God" as a synonym for consciousness. So when you say consciousness is evidence of God, all you're really saying is consciousness is evidence of consciousness, or God is evidence of God.

Yes - effectively I am saying that there is no difference.

While there's little doubt consciousness is a thing, I'm no closer to understanding the leap to "God" apart from renaming it.

Consciousness is a mystery. Some say GOD created it, others say that brains create it. I prefer the idea that it was never created. Also. consciousness is not a 'thing' which anyone can show me. We know it exists, because we are consciousness and we see consciousness working through things. It isn't about 'renaming' GOD - 'GOD' is simply a label which has many meanings = depending on the personality using the word.

All I am doing is recognizing the connection.

The lasting power of the god hypothesis rests solely on our inability to disprove it, not in the theist's ability to demonstrate it.

Well 'whatever' - is that an explanation for why such threads as this keep cropping up? An atheist demands evidence which an atheist also understands is beyond science to demonstrate or pronounce as existing?

Mind you it would help a ton if any two people actually agreed on what a god was, but I guess that's me being picky.

Whatever. Point being, the demand for evidence of GOD is fallacy re those usual generic understandings and expressions of 'what a GOD is' and even if I am correct regarding consciousness=GOD science can only observe GOD by observing consciousness, but it is still mostly a mystery.

Inigo Montoya · Post by **Inigo Montoya** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:05 pm

[Replying to post 38 by William]

Which is a long winded way of not only agreeing with me, but admitting aloud that people are organizing their lives around unverifiable mysteries. Which begs the question, What in the hell is everyone talking about, and why on Earth is it being presented as something even remotely factual?

And another thing. Asking for evidence of the god typically defended by Christians is absolutely not a fallacy when it's being presented as a real agency responsible for all things, and when its alleged commandments are an encroachment on free society.

You have said nothing apart from x is a mystery and this other word for x is a mystery, and so they are connected.

William · Post by **William** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:39 pm

[Replying to post 39 by Inigo Montoya]

Which is a long winded way of not only agreeing with me,

Well if you believe I am agreeing with you...

but admitting aloud that people are organizing their lives around unverifiable mysteries.

It works for me.

Which begs the question, What in the hell is everyone talking about, and why on Earth is it being presented as something even remotely factual?

Are you talking about the "The Mud-Man & His Rib-Woman" or about my understanding that consciousness and GOD are the same thing?

And another thing. Asking for evidence of the god typically defended by Christians is absolutely not a fallacy when it's being presented as a real agency responsible for all things, and when its alleged commandments are an encroachment on free society.

Whatever. It is easily verified that my comments had to do with the add-on in post 32 which stated;

The one thing they don't do is offer evidence that the biblical Yahweh - or any other version of "God" - is anything more than an imaginary character in an ethnic creation myth.

I am not arguing for any particular idea of GOD, but that all consciousness is GOD.

Take from that what you will.

You have said nothing apart from x is a mystery and this other word for x is a mystery, and so they are connected.

Correct.

If you want evidence for consciousness...there it is, mysterious and all.

I did point out that your assertion that consciousness was a 'thing' was erroneous, but you skipped over that.