> If you must, then you don't have a choice.

Oh brother. I take you to an ice cream store, where they have soft serve: vanilla, chocolate, or blended. I say, "Pick one. You can have whichever of the three you want." Your contention is that because I am forcing you to pick one, you don't really have a valid choice. That's pure out nonsense.

> If I give you a choice between giving me your money and dying, is it a real choice?

It depends if it's a whimsical choice, or the true options at hand. If it's the genuine options in the event, it is a real choice. If it's someone's power play, mockery, or threat, then not really. The story of Aron Ralston of "127 Hours" fame who in real life had to choose between cutting off his own arm with a penknife or to risk dying trapped is an example. "Well, is that a real choice?" you may scoff. Yeah, sometimes it is.

> God made them, but he didn't make them to fail

No contradiction unless you are inserting some presuppositions. If I make a piece of "flawless" cut crystal, it's susceptible to breakage, but I didn't make it to break. I made it to be beautiful, despite its inherent fragility.

> let's believe your entire myth as if it were true. Let's imagine all that happened, really happened. Why would it affect a child being born NOW?

Because humans are born in a state of separation from the life of God. They are spiritually dead, and all the goodness and religion in the world won't help them secure true life—life in union with God.

> That's why God didn't force anything,

You said they must choose to love him. If you must, then you don't have a choice. If I give you a choice between giving me your money and dying, is it a real choice?

> God made them, but he didn't make them to fail

Please read this sentence over to yourself, several times if necessary, and see if you can spot the contradiction.

> A poor baby born in Afghanistan today is in the same spiritual position...

Really? Stop and think about it. From the moment of birth, everyone around that baby proceeds on the assumption and makes it clear to that baby that her eternal salvation depends on NOT believing it, just as your parents assured you that your salvation depends on believing it. And you think you're in the same position?

But that's not my point. OK, let's believe your entire myth as if it were true. Let's imagine all that happened, really happened. Why would it affect a child being born NOW?

It depends what you mean by "science". One meaning is that "science" is simply knowledge; the other meaning is that science is the study of the natural world. If the former, then history, math, theology, metaphysics, and philosophy are all "science". If the latter, then they are not.

If science means knowledge, then "we can only know things by scientific means" is just tautological. But if science means a particular type of knowledge procured in a particular way, then we need to stick to that meaning.

If we go with the former meaning (science is knowledge), then of course history, archaeology, psychology, etc., are all sciences, as are theology, philosophy and metaphysics. If we go with the latter meaning, they are not.

> Actually, yes they do, to the extent that they are in any way reliable.

For instance, history. First of all, it's not the study of the natural world, so it's not science. Secondly, science is concerned with reproducible phenomena that can be studied under control conditions and give confirmatory results. Observational science requires multiple repeatable examples of the phenomenon or specimen under consideration. But history is concerned with unique events in the past that cannot be repeated. There is no reproducibility or predictability in such matters. So also in many other fields, such as jurisprudence, economics, and politics, as I m mentioned. The legal system's approach to decision-making is very different from science's. So also economics. There is an absence of an opportunity for truly reproducible tests or observations, and the impossibility of isolating the different components of economic systems. Economics, therefore, is a discipline qualitatively different from science. Politics also is in complete contradiction of what scientists look for in nature. Instead of consistency and predictability as in science, we give mathematical values to public opinion and make probability prognoses.

> Evidence of our thoughts and emotions betrays that we are more than just material objects.

Rationalists such as Plato, Descartes, Spinoza et al. hold that many things can be known by reason alone and that sensory experiences were highly questionable. Empiricists, as I'm sure you know, say the opposite, that sense experience is the principal or unique source of our ideas. What seems obvious, though, is that our thoughts and feelings are distinguishable from our physical presence. I can be with someone else and use every empirical tool in my kit to make observations, but I cannot by such means know their mental state. Mental states, while interlocked with physical states, are distinct from them. Even in death, something is gone though the body obviously still lingers.

> Our sense of self (and perception of self, not just in thought, but as an entity) gives evidence that we have a conception of an immaterial self.

Several philosophers have argued the position that certain types of knowledge may be validated entirely by reason. Psychologists such as Erik Erikson also speak of a sense of self distinct from our physical bodies. Freud also spoke of the human psyche with its rational ego, its moral components, and a sense of self, both conscious and sub-conscious.

> Yes, we know that you think that. Now can you defend your opinion?

Geneticists who have been involved in cloning experiments verify that cloning a biological specimen will not guarantee an exact psychological replica of the original. We might well clone Abraham Lincoln, but with no assumption that we'd end up with the Abraham Lincoln we know from history.

> Actually, that makes no rational sense whatsoever.

Actually, what is most obvious to me is that you have offered no evidence of your own. I would be pleased to hear your opinion and a defense of it.

> It's an erroneous world view to think empirical detection by physical evidence, cause-and-effect, etc. is the only source of real knowledge, and that everything else that claims the status of knowledge is just superstition, irrationality, or nonsense

Of course it is. After all, there's also math and formal logic. Other than that, I'm now aware of any reliable epistemological methods.

. There are many important beliefs, secular as well as religious, that are justified and rational, but not scientific.

Are they knowledge?

> I can certainly point to disciples such as history, math, sociology, anthropology, business management, archaeology, dietetics, psychology, and philosophy as ways we procure knowledge do not exclusively have to do with control groups, empirical reproducibility, and hard repeatable data.

Actually, yes they do, to the extent that they are in any way reliable.

>what of jurisprudence, economics, and politics?

What of them?

> Music is an excellent example.

Music is an excellent example of an aesthetic experience. Is that what your beliefs are?

> Evidence of our thoughts and emotions betrays that we are more than just material objects.

No, they're not.

> Our sense of self (and perception of self, not just in thought, but as an entity) gives evidence that we have a conception of an immaterial self.

No, it's not.

> The reliability of cognitive content gives evidence that something besides pure materialism is present in our beings.

No, it doesn't. For one thing, our cognitive content is not very reliable.

Did you find my responses unsatisfying? Maybe that's because they're pure unsupported assertions. Please take note.

> I think it's more than just experiences and memories.

Yes, we know that you think that. Now can you defend your opinion?

> What makes rational sense is that humans have been endowed by God with souls

Actually, that makes no rational sense whatsoever.

> That's the way I look at it.

OK, now can you actually debate and defend that the way you look at it is correct? You know, here in a debate forum?

Fantastic write up, thanks for putting in the time to pull all that together for us.

It's an erroneous world view to think empirical detection by physical evidence, cause-and-effect, etc. is the only source of real knowledge, and that everything else that claims the status of knowledge is just superstition, irrationality, or nonsense. There are many important beliefs, secular as well as religious, that are justified and rational, but not scientific. I can certainly point to disciples such as history, math, sociology, anthropology, business management, archaeology, dietetics, psychology, and philosophy as ways we procure knowledge do not exclusively have to do with control groups, empirical reproducibility, and hard repeatable data. And what of jurisprudence, economics, and politics? Not only is science not all the knowledge there is, but it may not even be the most important knowledge.

Music is an excellent example that science cannot represent all the knowledge there is. While I can dissect music into pitch, amplitude, frequencies, acoustics, and volume, none of the those have anything to do with what Beethoven's 5th is really about.

As far as the soul, I would contend several things:

1. Evidence of our thoughts and emotions betrays that we are more than just material objects.

2. Our sense of self (and perception of self, not just in thought, but as an entity) gives evidence that we have a conception of an immaterial self.

3. Our perceptions of truth and falseness (necessary for scientific inquiry) betray a belief that among the random and chance happenings of evolution and naturalism, content (apart from natural phenomena that we can empirically experience) has arisen that we can trust to be reliably true. (The conditional probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable, given naturalism together with the proposition that we have come to be by way of evolution, is low.) The reliability of cognitive content gives evidence that something besides pure materialism is present in our beings.

While arguments about scientific materialism can sound compelling, they are ultimately inconclusive.

I would guess that even if scientists cloned a human being—another you—it would be different than you. It wouldn't have had your experiences, your memories, and therefore not your personality. It wouldn't really be you, even though it was you. But I think it's more than just experiences and memories. I think we each have an essence that is "me".

Ultimately, philosophy and science cannot explain a lot of things: consciousness being one. We, as humans, are aware that we are aware! The existence of a non-physical part of us, isn't just a Christian belief. It's a fundamental philosophical question. Quantum physics requires consciousness, and bears witness that scientific materialism is lacking in the full explanation of reality.

What makes rational sense is that humans have been endowed by God with souls that enable us to grasp and perceive truth, to know right from wrong, to have a sense of self, and to act freely in the world as autonomous agents. "How do I know there such a thing as a soul" is a result of reasoning more than scientific experimentation.

To me, I have an awareness that I have a mind that's separate from my body, but not separate at all. I have a soul that's even different from my body, and yet I am clearly one. Yet I can argue with myself, I can correct myself, and I can even reflect on myself. People even claim to have "out of body"experiences. (I haven't had any of those. I've just had some days when I've had "out of my mind" experiences...). Evidence in me is that I'm a plurality while at the same time being a singularity. I am more than just a mind, more than just a pretty face, more than just a body, more than just a soul, and yet, hey, it's just me. All of those are the one me. That's the way I look at it.

Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bio ... e-says-yes

> This is a fascinating comment, because "souls" have nothing to do with science. They are not detectable, study-able, especially with a control group, or subject to empirical evidence, cause-and-effect, etc. You're right that souls don't have anything to do with the scientific arena.

In that case, how can you know there is such a thing?

> I agree that 'souls' are unscientific, but you seemed to be saying quite the opposite above.

Thanks for letting me clarify. My intent is to show that theology and science can live side by side. After all, truth is truth, no matter where it is. When hominids evolved (there's the science part) to the point of moral capability and moral culpability (there's an axiological statement), God invested them with a soul (there's the theological part). I don't think we need to decided between science and theology, as if we can only have one and have to choose between the two.

> I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but it requires some suspect mental gymnastics, methinks, and it seems to raise more questions than it answers. Still, I won't begrudge you that view.

Thanks. I don't think it requires any gymnastics, but that's not a bad analogy. When young children are perceived as being gifted athletically, and they seem to have the body structure and the mental discipline to respond well to training, they are separated out from the rest of the population and placed in a particular location (a gym/boarding school) where they can be trained for a particular role and function (olympic champion). in that sense (as far as the analogy will go), Adam and Eve are the same way. When it is perceived that these have evolved to the point of moral capability and culpability, they are separated out, put in a special place, and trained for a particular role and function. I think it accords well with the Bible and does not contradict what scientists are discovering about human development.

> I confess I don't know what this means.

While "soul" can be difficult to define, for the sake of our discussion I'll say it's the spiritual part of us as humans, as opposed to the mental and emotional parts (neither of which can we see either). Our soul is the part of us that connects with God in relationship. I know that's simplistic, but it's something that animals weren't given. Their moral culpability in Genesis is not just a sense of right and wrong, but a sense of right and wrong as it pertains to a relationship with God.

We can certainly talk about this more, but hopefully that starts (or continues) the dialogue.

> This is a fascinating comment, because "souls" have nothing to do with science.

Then I am somewhat confused, because you had originally said: "What makes sense, given theology and science, is that when hominids evolved to the point of moral capability and culpability, God separated two of them out from the rest, "breathed into them his breath" (invested them with a soul). . ." I agree that 'souls' are unscientific, but you seemed to be saying quite the opposite above.

> Can I insist that other hominids were devoid of souls even though they were contemporaries of A&E? I can. That's the interpretation I'm going with. It makes sense to me.

I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but it requires some suspect mental gymnastics, methinks, and it seems to raise more questions than it answers. Still, I won't begrudge you that view.

Of course, there are also Christians who believe animals have 'souls,' and if your insistence of Adam's and Eve's distinction is due to the 'breath of life,' then animals have that, too. I'm not arguing that animals do have 'souls,' but only that insofar as your interpretation is one way to do things, there are yet others as well.

> [Adam and Eve] are pulled from the hominid base as a couple who had progressed to the point where they were [morally] capable, [spiritually] capable, and so God vested them with souls.

I confess I don't know what this means. I think you're playing fast and loose with this 'soul' term, and I would really like some clarity as to just what it means, and what having one imparts on the subject in question. If Adam and Eve were moral agents (which is what I take from "morally capable"), then 'souls' seem unnecessary to grant moral culpability (for being a moral agent just is being morally culpable for one's misdeeds).

If you were to flesh out (pun intended) this 'soul' notion a bit more, I'd be interested in hearing more of your views on this.

> Yes it can because the claim is that they are the first humans

That's what I'm telling you. It's not automatically the claim; there are other possible interpretations. It's like classical physics and quantum physics, or is light a wave or a particle. There's more than one way to look at things. That's why I brushed over your other statements, because if your #1 isn't necessarily valid, # 2 & 3 aren't relevant anymore.

There's a whole school of thought growing that Genesis 1 & 2 are not about material origin, but about God assigning role and function. It is getting quite a following, and it makes a lot of sense to me. But if Gn. 1-2 are not about material origins, but about order, role, and function, it changes the whole conversation. You can't insist on a traditional interpretation to which I don't subscribe; I won't defend it.

> Original sin

Let me put it this way. "Original sin" is a theological construct, creating a term to help us understand and be able to compartmentalize why we are all born separated from God. It doesn't mean we're all evil from the day we first breathe, or that we can't do anything right no matter how we try, but that we are separated from God. "Original sin" can't be strictly biological, because the Bible teaches that Jesus was sinless, and yet was fully human and had a human mother. Some have speculated, then, that "original sin" is passed through the father, but when it comes right down to it that doesn't really make sense.

It has to be more of a spiritual thing. When A&E sinned as representatives of humanity, they, and all humanity with them, became separated from God (separated from Life), and therefore "dead" in their sins. An analogy might be that if your parents gave up their citizenship and moved to another country and became citizens there, all of their offspring (theoretically forevermore) would be citizens of the new country, not of the former one. When Adam and Eve chose to renounce their citizenship in God's kingdom, so to speak, they became citizens of the kingdom of the world, and with them all their offspring. But also this: God doesn't impose punishment for all of us based on the actions of the single one. You and I disobey all on our own. We're as guilty and rebellious as they were. Don't think God is punishing you for their sin; he is punishing you for your own. We were born into a different "country", and we don't even recognize the country of our origin any more. Talk to most Americans and they'll tell you they're part Danish, Swedish, French, German, Native American, with a mix of Nigerian, but they're mostly Italian. We don't even know where we're from any more. We're American. So also here: we're born separated from God—the place of our birth, so to speak.

> If humanity as a species has advanced enough for God to notice us and give us this choice, how is it moral for God to punish us when we refuse?

Because of the kind of decision it is. It's a decision to want to not be associated with him. Let's make up a scenario, and hopefully this will be close enough to explain. You're a parent, and you raise your kid very lovingly, giving them every benefit, gift, and advantage. But there comes a time when he or she turns against you, says they hate you, they want nothing to do with you, and they slam the door on the way out of the house. You go running after them, "Don't leave. Don't leave." They refuse to come back and run away.

Let's say they get tangled up in some cesspool of humanity, and their life gets trashed by drugs, prostitution, and violence. Is it fair for them to say to Mom and Dad, "I can't believe you punished me like this. I thought you loved me. How dare you send me to the city to be raped, beaten, robbed, and drugged."

Hey, wait a minute. I didn't send you; you chose it. You left me. You rebelled and stormed away. Why am I to blame?

Now back to the Bible. God had given them every blessing and advantage, but they had their own choice to make: will I love God or will I do my own thing? They chose to do their own thing. God immediately initiated a plan to get them back. But they have to choose it.

Hell is refusing to come back. That's what it is. God invites you into a relationship with him, and if you refuse to come, then your destiny is to be separated from him. Why is God the jerk?

If I grow up in France because my great-grandparents decided to emigrate from America, that's not my fault. But you know what? I always have every chance to choose to move to America and become American. It's my right and my choice.

So also with God. You're born separated from him—we all are—, but all of us, each of us, have been invited to return. It's our choice. Anyone who wants to can come.

> Humanity was doing fine before God decided to chat with the early humans and give them this choice

And how do you know THIS? I'm guessing when it comes right down to it, you don't have anywhere near accurate enough information to make this statement.

< the fruit can't be true either

Of course it can. Suppose you and I are having words. You're ready to walk out, but I don't want you to. Not really. I lean down with my hand and draw a line in the sand between you and your car. I say, "I want you to stay, but if you cross that line and get in the car, you're telling me very clearly that you want nothing to do with me."

Listen. It's just a line in the sand that I drew with my finger (a simple piece of plain fruit). But by my words I have made that line the indicator of your choices about our relationship. The fruit was the indicator about their choices about their relationship with God. It wasn't magical, but it was profoundly significant. And it's not God's fault that they took the fruit and ate it. He didn't dare them to eat it; he gave them every reason not to.

> Clearly there was death prior to this

I agree with you. There was death in the system before Adam & Eve sinned. It's impossible to eat without killing something. The death of Romans 5 clearly has a deeper meaning.

> painful childbirth after this is also insane—it was always painful and there's not one shred of evidence that it wasn't, not for us now, not for early humans, not for apes, etc.

Of course it was always painful. Read the text before you criticize, please. Gn. 3.16 says, "I will increase your pains..." Notice that God doesn't curse Adam or Eve, but only the serpent and the ground. The increase of pain could easily be psychological. The root of the Hebrew word is often used to target mental or psychological anguish instead of physical pain. With death now the way it would be, and spiritual death, there is much greater anguish in bringing a child into the world.

> Your point #2: Adam/Eve is meant to say that early humans were perfect and then we wronged God somehow.

The text doesn't say they were perfect. You need to read more carefully. They were not guilty of sin (Rom. 5.13) until they sinned, but that doesn't mean they were perfect. Not every mistake we make is a sin (doggone it, I turned left instead of right. Or, I forgot to get the milk.). They're not sinners until the disobey God.

> #3: How can the entire human race completely disobey God when we, as a species, don't agree on anything?

We still all manage to disobey God. We are guilty, one and all. Our disagreements with each other doesn't have anything to do with our rebellion against God.

> #4: The Christian ancestors—Jews—didn't believe in the original, inherited sin.

I'm not so sure you're right about this. Try 1 Ki. 8.46; Ps. 14; Ps. 53; Ps. 143.2; Eccl. 7.20; Prov. 20.9. That's just a primer. There are more.

But I still don't think your points 2, 3 & 4 apply, just for the record.