> All those things have been answered.

That's what I'm showing you: they have NOT been answered. People speculate that all religious expression has its roots in supersititious fear, but there is no evidence of that. It's just people trying to marginalize religious as the opiate of the masses. But there's no evidence to that effect.

> It is hard for people to accept that there is no one there looking out for your well being beyond time and space,

As I would contend that it's hard for people such as yourself to accept that there *is* someone looking out for your well being.

> You can't go by intuition

I don't. I go by logic, evidence, science, and experience.

> Remember arguments are not evidence

I don't make that mistake. Nor should you.

> the Bible is a collection of stories written down decades after Jesus ( just because it says it's true doesn't make it true in all aspects

The Old Testament was written long before Jesus. The New Testament was written a mere decades after Jesus, which is phenomenal in the ancient world. Most other ancients works we have were written centuries after the fact.

> just because it says it's true doesn't make it true in all aspects

Agreed. I would never argue this, just as I would never argue that arguments stand as evidence or that intuitions make something true. Don't put on me all these caricatures and stereotypes you harbor.

> I get that there are historical evidence for events but the details in those events may very well be false ( i.e. Jesus dying vs Jesus resurrection).

The evidence leads us to regard them as true. We can discuss this if you want.

> I was a Christian for many years. I actually took a deep dive Into my faith to get a further biblical foundation. That lead me to a painful process of deconversion and to atheism.

I'm sorry that your deep dive seem to lead you to a false conclusion and consequent withdrawal from the truth. We can keep talking about any of it that you want.

> I wish you luck in you journey

And you in yours. I'd be glad to talk to you about anything anytime. Just let me know.

Look bud. All those things have been answered. I am not trying to dodge these questions it's just that theists will not accept any of them. The answers are hard to grasp intuitively and are nuanced. Christians have to ability to change the goal posts when their belief systems is challenged and develop new philosophical arguments that no one centuries ago would every be able to dream up ( see William Lane Craigs view on genesis or the other several interpretation of genesis which is the most foundational part of Christianity). It is hard for people to accept that there is no one there looking out for your well being beyond time and space, that when you die you die, that the universe as we experience it is a set of purposeless constants where simplicity can develop complexity and that we are the results of this. You can't go by intuition becaue time after time it has been proven an ineffective way of seeing the world. You asked why can the trust "the reliability of your thinking". We only can in our day to to because we have evolved to and when it comes to places where we can't rely on our thinking we have a scientific method that has proven a million times over to be reliable.

Remember arguments are not evidence, the Bible is a collection of stories written down decades after Jesus ( just because it says it's true doesn't make it true in all aspects). I get that there are historical evidence for events but the details in those events may very well be false ( i.e. Jesus dying vs Jesus resurrection).

I was a Christian for many years. I actually took a deep dive Into my faith to get a further biblical foundation. That lead me to a painful process of deconversion and to atheism. I wish you luck in you journey

> There is then a further discussion to be had on why an omnipotent god would need to use that, but that’s outside the scope of this discussion I think.

God wouldn't need that, but it was helpful to us. As we've been talking here, sometimes analogies, tangibles, and physical symbols help us to understand things. So maybe God authorized a temple for our benefit.

> That’s definitely a better way to look at genesis and it makes more sense, but it still runs into problems with not matching observable science.

That's seem an odd conclusion to me. If the Genesis account is telling us WHY God created the universe (to reveal Himself), then how does that not match with observable science? I don't get what you're thinking. The Bible tells us why, science tells us how, and they both dovetail with each other. For instance, science can theorize how the universe came to be (the Big Bang), but it can't begin to tell us why that happened (teleology). The Bible tells us why, but doesn't try to tell us how. I don't understand how that's a "not matching."

> I’ll be honest, a lot of your last section went over my head. I want truth, so if the genesis account isn’t intended to convey truth then I don’t see what use it is other than as history or literature.

Let me try again. Genesis 1 is about God taking what was already there (Gn. 1.2) and making something out of it—ordering it for his purposes. Think of this analogy: You move into a house that already there, and you make something out of it. You move in all your stuff and organize it and make it your home. So that's what God did. He took the universe as it was and He organized it to make it His home. Does that help?

> so if the genesis account isn’t intended to convey truth

So the Genesis account is intended to convey truth. God made the cosmos functional, just as we move into a house and make it functional for our purposes.

> you say Adam had “moral awareness” and that made him culpable for his “immoral” actions, right?

Yeah.

> So what is moral awareness, and how did you reach that conclusion?

Because God has revealed Himself to humanity, they have a sense of right and wrong. They have it in general, though the example Genesis 2 gives us is that God says it's WRONG to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (meaning that it's wrong for humans to regard themselves as the source of wisdom and the ones who know best how to order things), and that it's RIGHT to let God be the center of wisdom and the source of order.

> Because as I read it Adam and Eve has were amoral before they ate the “fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” . How am I mistaken?

I'm not sure you can separate life from morality. Even in simple matters through every day, we are making moral decisions—in how we treat each other, in how we treat our environment, and in how we survive. Some children, as you know, love to smash ants, kill grasshoppers, crush spiders—you know, typical kid stuff. Such stuff has moral implications. If Adam saw an ant on the ground, did he kill it for the fun of it? Did he pick lots of fruit to eat and then waste most of it? I don't see, in practical terms, how Adam and Eve could have been amoral. What is happening in Genesis 2 is that God is revealing Himself to Adam and Eve, "training" them in moral and religious understanding, and expecting the right moral decision based on their training. They already had a moral sense; God is training it and testing it.

Yeah, no analogy is perfect but analogies are the best way for me to grasp stuff like this. I use them, but I take care not to mistake the map for the place usually.

Yeah, I find the quantum world fascinating as well

Huh, I guess the symbolism is a good reason to have a temple. Thanks for clearing that up for me. There is then a further discussion to be had on why an omnipotent god would need to use that, but that’s outside the scope of this discussion I think.

Ok, somewhere along the way I thought I remembered you claiming the Christian god’s temple was different than other contemporary temples because it was cosmos themed, but I guess I misremembered. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That’s definitely a better way to look at genesis and it makes more sense, but it still runs into problems with not matching observable science. I still don’t think it could be literally true, though here again this may be a bit much for this discussion

I’ll be honest, a lot of your last section went over my head. I want truth, so if the genesis account isn’t intended to convey truth then I don’t see what use it is other than as history or literature. I’m not sure what else I can say about that. I did have one question though: you say Adam had “moral awareness” and that made him culpable for his “immoral” actions, right? So what is moral awareness, and how did you reach that conclusion? Because as I read it Adam and Eve has were amoral before they ate the “fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” . How am I mistaken?

> My thoughts are that God is a construct made up to try to explain reality and the idea has progressed over time.

And is there any evidence of this? Just possibly the ancients (consistently across all cultures, all eras) believed for an evidentiary reason, not because they were unlearned and superstitious. Just possibly they had legitimate reasons for believing in God. My evidence for that is the Bible. What is your evidence for you perspective?

> Evolution is a non-guided process and that our human for is what we are experiencing now but will be different in the future, if we make it that far.

Evolution is so fascinating to ponder. Isn't it astounding that a non-guided process yielded so much purpose, progress, and delicately-balanced cosmological constants? And I'm curious that if evolution is a non-guided process, how can we trust that our thinking is reliable? Darwin himself said, "With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

> What are your thoughts on these matters?

My thoughts are that God is a construct made up to try to explain reality and the idea has progressed over time. Evolution is a non-guided process and that our human for is what we are experiencing now but will be different in the future, if we make it that far.

> is your god’s omnipresence like a quantum energy field ... Is that close at all?

Probably not a bad analogy, though all analogies fail eventually when pressed too hard. But on the surface, the analogy makes sense.

There are also quantum analogies to the Trinity. The first is called superposition, where subatomic particles are able to exist in two states simultaneously. Get that—that very same things existing in two separate states at the same time. The second is that of nonlocality and entanglement. The principle here is that objects in far reaches of the universe seem to "know" about each other's states, and yet these separate particles can behave as a single entity.

For another potential scientific "validation" of such possibilities, in 2017 a group of quantum scientists (University of Science and Technology of China in Shanghai) successfully teleported a photon from Earth to a satellite in orbit. It's called quantum entanglement. As far as our discussion here, quantum entanglement means that the two quantum objects share a wave function and share the same identity, even when separated. What happens to one happens to the other—wherever it exists. They are more than identical twins, the article said, "the two are one and the same." Apparently, according to the article, when they interact with matter on Earth they lose certain aspects of entanglement, but in the vacuum of space, they can extend infinitely (eternally). It's just interesting.

> But I still don’t understand the purpose of an earthly temple for a god whose temple is the entire universe.

First of all, humans engage better in a tactile/visual environment than in a purely abstract one. Secondly (and I think more importantly), there are significant symbols that can only be expressed by physical means (sacrifice and scapegoat) that made the presence of a physical temple worth the theological risk of compromise (a compromise that certainly happened, since humans are so...doggone... human. But the Temple also succeeded in expressing those theological truths that are so valuable.

> How is that progress, in what way is it better?

The symbolism matters. If I want to torture and hang an effigy of President Trump in my basement, I could do that, but it would be more effective in a public square somewhere, and even more poignant on Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.

The centrality of the Temple spoke against some popular and common polytheistic concepts in the ancient world, and Israel's unique sacrificial system to some important theology truths. There was a point to all of it.

> Even knowing what they did though, the description of the tabernacle and later temple I’ve always heard sounded nothing like it was designed to imitate even what they knew of the cosmos.

The Temple had decor of a Garden (pomegranates, almond trees, etc). In the ancient Near East, gardens were associated with deity blessings (which I can understand in the middle of such harsh desert climates). Gardens were built next to temples, and that's where people could go to meet with their gods. Solomon's temple reflected those images to speak of a place of God's presence, blessing, and mediation for His people.

> So, do you believe the genesis account of creation actually happened?

Dr. John Walton has published some perspectives on Genesis 1-2 that are making a huge impact around the Christian world ([url]https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043/ref=sr_1_1?crid=30EM809D36EII&dchild=1&keywords=john+walton+the+lost+world+of+genesis+one&qid=1601842550&sprefix=john+walton+the+los%2Caps%2C157&sr=8-1[/url]). I like his approach. What his analyses of the text have shown are that Gn. 1-2 are accounts of *functional* creation, not that of material creation. In the Bible there is no question that God is the creator of the material universe (and there are texts that teach that), but that's not what Genesis 1-2 are about. They are about how God brought order and functionality to the material universe that was there. And it is just as much a **literal** approach to the text as the traditional. Let me try to explain VERY briefly.

Gn. 1.1 is a heading, not an action. Then, if it's a text about material creation it will start with nothingness, but if it's a text about bringing order, it will start with disorder, which is what Gn. 1.2 says.

The first "day" is clearly (literally) about a [i]period[/i] of light called day, and a [i]period[/i] of light called night. It is about the sequence of day and night, evening and morning, literally. Therefore, what Day 1 is about is God ordering the universe and our lives with the function of TIME, not God creating what the physicists call "light," about which the ancients knew nothing.

Look through the whole chapter. It is about how the firmament functions to bring us weather (the firmament above and below), how the earth functions to bring forth plants for our sustenance, how the sun, moon, and stars function to order the days and seasons. We find out in day 6 the function of humans: to be fruitful and multiply, to rule the earth and subdue it. Walton contends that we have to look at the text through ancient eyes, not modern ones, and the concern of the ancients was function and order. (It was a given that the deities created the material universe.) The differences between cultures (and creation accounts) was how the universe functioned, how it was ordered, and what people were for. (There were large disagreements among the ancients about function and order; it widely separates the Bible from the surrounding mythologies.)

And on the 7th day God rested. In the ancient world when a god came to "rest" in the temple, he came to live there and engage with the people as their god. So it is not a day of disengagement, but of action and relationship.

In other words, it's a temple text, not an account of material creation. There was no temple that could be built by human hands that would be suitable for him, so God order the entire universe to function as his Temple. The earth was ordered to function as the "Holy Place," and the Garden of Eden as his "Holy of Holies". Adam and Eve were given the function of being his priest and priestess, to care for sacred space (very similar to Leviticus) and to be in relationship with God (that's what Genesis 2 is about).

> What sets YHWH apart

I would assert that the Genesis story is markedly different in nature and purpose than any of the ancient mythologies, separating it from them. Mythographies are not interested in portraying events (history), but want to show how the cosmos works and how it got that way. A myth is an attempt to explain reality from theological vantage point, and are not meant to connect those stories, as stories, with events in the real world.

It also helps to understand that ancient historiography was not meant to relate what "really happened" the way we moderns approach historiography. T.M. Bolin has shown that we are often interested in historical reconstruction, whereas the ancient Israelites were interested in truth-telling literature. Glassner says, "The Mesopotamians had no profession of historian as we understand it today, nor its methods or perspective. As they saw it, the problem was not critical assessment of sources, nor was the question, fundamentally, knowing how and in what causal sequence events considered unique had occurred. The primary task was to choose, according to a definite focus of interest, among the carefully collected data from past events, certain facts that, from that point of view, had acquired universal relevance and significance." So the Genesis story is "event-oriented, truth-telling literature," but doesn't work the same way as modern historiography does.

In other words, Walton says, "mythography has a different referent than historiography, yet is considered no less real. It may, however, be considered to pertain to a different plane of reality. ... each has a different focus in its expression of reality." I would argue that the stories of Genesis are ancient historiography as distinct from ancient mythography, with a different purpose, referent, approach, format, ideology, and literary form. That's what sets YHWH apart.

Regarding Genesis 2-3, Romans 5.12-21 and 1 Cor. 15.45-49 let us know that Adam is considered to be historical, but the Bible's primary interest in him is archetypal—representing the whole human race. (Please notice I didn't say allegorical or metaphorical.) As we go back to Genesis, we can see the archetypal elements of the narrative that clue us in to its raison d’être. The elements of the literature emphasize God’s power, desire for relationship, care, warnings, provision, and purposes. We learn of Adam’s intelligence, moral awareness (and therefore culpability), his role and function in relation to God, earth, and other humans, his mortal nature, and the spiritual choice laid before him with its consequences. The primary archetypal elements are mortality, morality, and the choice of self vs. God—elements that are essential human struggles from time immemorial to the present.

The story is not necessarily one of material origins, but one of relational origins: Human is capable of a relationship with God. Will humans choose God and the path of fellowship and life, or will they choose self and the path of separation and destruction? These paths still lie before each one of us as we determine the course of our own lives by the choices that we make.

otcha, ok. So that’s what a temple is for, and that’s why the universe is YHWH’s temple.

If I may offer an analogy, is your god’s omnipresence like a quantum energy field covering all of space (like an electron field) and his “special presence” like excitations of that field? When the electron field is excited in one spot, an electron appears seemingly from nowhere even though the field was there the entire time. That’s sorta like what i here you saying about YHWH. Is that close at all?

Fair, and I may well have misunderstood. But I still don’t understand the purpose of an earthly temple for a god whose temple is the entire universe. Why exactly would he even want one? Sorry if I’m being thick and just missing some obvious piece of information

You say your god is always progressive, but as I see it, a move from allowing people to sacrifice what they have where they are is far better and more inclusive than requiring them to sacrifice specific animals they may not have in a place that may be days away from them. How is that progress, in what way is it better?

No of course they knew celestial objects existed, I don’t dispute that. Even knowing what they did though, the description of the tabernacle and later temple I’ve always heard sounded nothing like it was designed to imitate even what they knew of the cosmos.

So, do you believe the genesis account of creation actually happened? I mean after everything you said, genesis sounds entirely mundane to me, just another myth in a line of myths that sprang up (pun intended) from those people at that time in that context. What sets YHWH apart?

(Meta-discussion: sorry that this conversation has so many points, I know that can make it difficult to engage with. I’m aware that it’s a problem and I’m gonna sit down and review some of my discussions probably tonight, hopefully I can figure out what I’m doing wrong and try to fix it)

> Are modern humans the end of this progression or are we just a phase in God's progressive plan?

There is no hint in the Bible that humans are a medial phase in the progression of God's plan. It seems that we are the focal point of it (in terms of God's image and God's plan of salvation for us).

> If we are then that seems lucky that I am the pinnacle of God's plan and if not then we are just a cog in God's plan?

The Bible never uses the word "lucky" or points toward that concept. Instead, it's God's sovereign design in accordance with His wisdom. We aren't a cog in His plan, we are instead the object of His love and grace.

> Does evolution end with us?

It's my guess that it does, as you read. We are so destructive of the Earth and of each other that I can't envision evolution having time to progress to anything else.

What are your thoughts on these matters?

[quote]Nah. Dinosaurs were always fun. They make great toys and t-shirts. Oh, and children's books. :)
Life is progressive. It moves on. Life forms come and go—it's part of the process and progress of creation. Things evolve. Species begin and end (poor passenger pigeons).
But us? We just may be the death of this planet before very much more time passes.[/quote]

Are modern humans the end of this progression or are we just a phase in God's progressive plan? If we are then that seems lucky that I am the pinnacle of God's plan and if not then we are just a cog in God's plan? Does evolution end with us?