Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

DBowling wrote:
OK... let's see how Genesis uses this type of language just one chapter later to see if Genesis 3:20 is really claiming that Eve was the genetic progenitor of all humans.

In Genesis 4:20 Jabal is referred to as the "father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock".
Does this mean that Jabal is the genetic progenitor of all those who dwell in tents and have livestock?

In Genesis 4:21 Jubal is referred to as the "father of all those who play the lyre and pipe".
Does this mean that Jubal is the genetic progenitor of all those who play the lyre and pipe?

Understand that it is unlikely that any of Jabal's or Jubal's descendants survived Noah's Flood and Genesis was written after the Flood, so within the context of Genesis 3 and 4 this type of language ("father of...", "mother of...") cannot be be limited to meaning "genetic progenitor of...".

Add to that the fact that Eve doesn't mean that either.
Eve means "life" or living". (Chavvah)
From a root word that means to "show" or "declare" or to "breathe".

Still, the passage is petty explicit and states that the writer believed that Eve was the mother of all the living.
Even if the writer meant it only symbolically, he still meant that she was, in some way, the mother of all living humans.

That's a good point.
It's one thing to denonstrate that "father of..." and "mother of..." does not necessarily mean "genetic progenitor of..." within the context of Genesis 3-4.
The question I didn't address was what does "mother of all living" mean then.

First let's look at the context of Adam and Eve in the Garden in Genesis 2-3.
The Garden is the place where God has chosen to dwell on the earth after he created and populated the earth in Genesis 1.
God has chosen the historical Adam and Eve to dwell in His presence in the Garden.
I believe this establishes Adam and Eve as achetypal representatives of mankind in the presence of God in the Garden.

I believe their names describe their representative roles.
Adam means "mankind", therefore Adam was the archetypal representative of all mankind before God in the Garden.
Eve means "giver of life" (love that name... we named our daughter Eve), therefore Eve was the archetypal representative of all women/mothers before God in the Garden.
Their relationship was also archetypal of God's design for the fundamental building block of human culture... marriage and the family.

In Christ

Adam and Eve are not allegories. Fiction perhaps or entirely real but not allegorical human archetypes.

Why NOT have Adam and Eve Being the actual 1st people that God created? After all People // you and I // had to have an original set of parents. People have always given birth to the next generation. We've been given an approximate time-line --- combining the really Long life spans given Before the flood and the much shorter After wards -- isn't the More important aspect of this the Fact that God DID the creating of people and the animal world as separate creative acts? That animals did not gradually develop into people.
Are we going to give God the power to do that or not? The power to 'resurrect from the dead' or not?

Wouldn't it just be easier to accept that the bible has been falsified and move on? Can't any of you see that science has refuted the literal Adam & Eve and the texts just won't allow for anything else? These, along with evolution, have probably been the two biggest reasons why I left christianity. There are many others but these two were big. You all know that if Adam didn't exist then there is no sin and no need for a saviour. The "evil" that we see in there world in not evil, just our natural instincts for survival. Christians need to accept that the bible is no longer tenable and live your lives for yourselves. You are waisting time arguing about something that's not real and no longer matters.

JLAfan2001 wrote:Wouldn't it just be easier to accept that the bible has been falsified and move on? Can't any of you see that science has refuted the literal Adam & Eve and the texts just won't allow for anything else? These, along with evolution, have probably been the two biggest reasons why I left christianity. There are many others but these two were big. You all know that if Adam didn't exist then there is no sin and no need for a saviour. The "evil" that we see in there world in not evil, just our natural instincts for survival. Christians need to accept that the bible is no longer tenable and live your lives for yourselves. You are waisting time arguing about something that's not real and no longer matters.

So murder and rape are not evil? They`re natural instincts for survival?

crochet1949 wrote:Why NOT have Adam and Eve Being the actual 1st people that God created? After all People // you and I // had to have an original set of parents. People have always given birth to the next generation. We've been given an approximate time-line --- combining the really Long life spans given Before the flood and the much shorter After wards -- isn't the More important aspect of this the Fact that God DID the creating of people and the animal world as separate creative acts? That animals did not gradually develop into people.
Are we going to give God the power to do that or not? The power to 'resurrect from the dead' or not?

Why not say the flood is fiction, allegory, literal, half true, or anything else a person fancies?

Why not say that God really did send a flood that killed all but on the ark.

I mean, an all powerful god could have done that.

Why not say that all animal or plant species began as a single pair?

Why not say anything you like, call it true, and say that God couldda done it?

I can think of at least one good reason.

JLAfan2001 wrote:Wouldn't it just be easier to accept that the bible has been falsified and move on? Can't any of you see that science has refuted the literal Adam & Eve and the texts just won't allow for anything else? These, along with evolution, have probably been the two biggest reasons why I left christianity. There are many others but these two were big. You all know that if Adam didn't exist then there is no sin and no need for a saviour. The "evil" that we see in there world in not evil, just our natural instincts for survival. Christians need to accept that the bible is no longer tenable and live your lives for yourselves. You are waisting time arguing about something that's not real and no longer matters.

The "bible has been falsified"? There is no sin?

pardon me, but this does not seem like something you are expressing very well, if you thought it trough at all, that is.

"So murder and rape are not evil? They`re natural instincts for survival?"

Yes, they are. It happens all the time in the animal kingdom. You wouldn't consider that evil. Humans are animals, nothing more. We inherited those instincts from the other animals. Just because we have the illusion of conciousness and "morality", doesn't make them real. We made them up and they have no scientific evidence to their reality. They are just preferences and preferences are irrelevant in nature.

Does that mean I would like to be murdered? Obviously not but it doesn't matter what I want. Someone has the natural right to try to kill me and I have the natural right to defend myself. Whoever wins, has the natural right to live.

"The "bible has been falsified"? There is no sin?

pardon me, but this does not seem like something you are expressing very well, if you thought it trough at all, that is."

How can this not be clear? The bible says sin came into the world through Adam. If there was no Adam then there is no sin. The bible is therefore wrong and has been falsified.

JLAfan2001 wrote:"So murder and rape are not evil? They`re natural instincts for survival?"

Yes, they are. It happens all the time in the animal kingdom. You wouldn't consider that evil. Humans are animals, nothing more. We inherited those instincts from the other animals. Just because we have the illusion of conciousness and "morality", doesn't make them real. We made them up and they have no scientific evidence to their reality. They are just preferences and preferences are irrelevant in nature.

Does that mean I would like to be murdered? Obviously not but it doesn't matter what I want. Someone has the natural right to try to kill me and I have the natural right to defend myself. Whoever wins, has the natural right to live.

Consciousness isn`t an illusion though, is it?

We are self aware, why?

JLAfan2001 wrote:"So murder and rape are not evil? They`re natural instincts for survival?"

Yes, they are. It happens all the time in the animal kingdom. You wouldn't consider that evil. Humans are animals, nothing more. We inherited those instincts from the other animals. Just because we have the illusion of conciousness and "morality", doesn't make them real. We made them up and they have no scientific evidence to their reality. They are just preferences and preferences are irrelevant in nature.

Does that mean I would like to be murdered? Obviously not but it doesn't matter what I want. Someone has the natural right to try to kill me and I have the natural right to defend myself. Whoever wins, has the natural right to live.

I think, opinion that you might be able to correct-tho I doubt it-that you do not know much about ToE, or how it applies to the real world.

"Consciousness isn`t an illusion though, is it?

We are self aware, why?"

That's the illusion. You aren't self aware. You are the brain and nothing more. How does a brain become self aware? How do atoms and nuerons think and act? It just follows the laws of chemistry and physics. It trancsend them. Unless you think the laws of nature are self aware.

JLAfan2001 wrote:"The "bible has been falsified"? There is no sin?

pardon me, but this does not seem like something you are expressing very well, if you thought it trough at all, that is."

How can this not be clear? The bible says sin came into the world through Adam. If there was no Adam then there is no sin. The bible is therefore wrong and has been falsified.

This is an example of something I dont think you have thought through.

The bible is made up of many writings of many different authors. Some of it is poetry. You propose that the poetry has been falsified? The talk of Babylon has been falsified?


You cant find a science text without error, and American high school books are terrible. So, every last thing in them has been "falsified" because you can identify some errors?

Further..whether or not "sin", (as defined, how?) "came into the world" by this means or that, whether or not one thinks it has religious meaning, sin is real enough.

Storyteller wrote:

JLAfan2001 wrote:"So murder and rape are not evil? They`re natural instincts for survival?"

Yes, they are. It happens all the time in the animal kingdom. You wouldn't consider that evil. Humans are animals, nothing more. We inherited those instincts from the other animals. Just because we have the illusion of conciousness and "morality", doesn't make them real. We made them up and they have no scientific evidence to their reality. They are just preferences and preferences are irrelevant in nature.

Does that mean I would like to be murdered? Obviously not but it doesn't matter what I want. Someone has the natural right to try to kill me and I have the natural right to defend myself. Whoever wins, has the natural right to live.

Consciousness isn`t an illusion though, is it?

We are self aware, why?

Are you self aware when you are dreaming?

"It trancsend them."

Meant to say "it can't trancsend them."

"This is an example of something I dont think you have thought through.

The bible is made up of many writings of many different authors. Some of it is poetry. You propose that the poetry has been falsified? The talk of Babylon has been falsified?


You cant find a science text without error, and American high school books are terrible. So, every last thing in them has been "falsified" because you can identify some errors?

Further..whether or not "sin", (as defined, how?) "came into the world" by this means or that, whether or not one thinks it has religious meaning, sin is real enough."

The creation story was meant to be read as historical. That's what the writers meant to convey. If the creation account is wrong, what else is wrong? How can you tell?

You're an atheist and I'm an ex-christian. Don't tell me how the bible was meant to be read or written. I probably know more about it than you do.

"Are you self aware when you are dreaming?"

Dreaming is just the brains way of building new neurons by processing the days events to build new memories