We are all made of stars

This pretty little pop song by Moby contains an important underlying truth. Every atom on earth originated in the radioactive furnace of a second generation star. Stellar dust coagulated into clouds, out of which planets may be formed.

So even if Adam was created out of clay, that clay started its existence as star dust. As did we all. The only difference is that we are natural, and Adam was not.

Adam was natural. He just had a supernatural beginning.

I shall rephrase my words to satisfy your pedantry. We are all created naturally, but Adam was not: despite him being made out of natural materials and being equipped with fully functioning reproductive organs. Wait a moment, that is one thing of which I am uncertain. Did Adam have reproductive organs from the get go? Or did he acquire them only after Eve had discovered original sin? I suspect that question has been pondered long and hard by those who wish to dot all i's and cross all t's.

I would say he was created with reproductive organs. Here's a better question for Adam: Did he have a belly button?

So Yahweh creates Adam and Eve, both with reproductive organs and both with sex drives and then casts them into eternal hell fire for inventing the sin of fornication? wow

What might appear to be a navel on Adam's belly is probably an indentation caused when God jabbed him there and said "you're done".

What makes you think Adam and Eve committed fornication? Eve became Adam's wife: Genesis 2:23-25 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Also, why would you claim they are both in hell? There is only one sin that sends people to hell and it isn't related to sex.

I can accept your theory for an apparent naval. Hahahaha

I was taught, perhaps in error, that marriage required more than one of the pair simply stating "I consider myself married to you." Since, according to this legend, there was no one around to perform the marriage ceremony, no marriage took place. Sex outside of marriage meets the definition of fornication.

And if Eve did not go to hell for inventing fornication, she had little chance of avoiding that fate as was guilty of being the instigator of original sin.

I understand Adam's decision. I would also elect to spend eternity in hell with the one I loved instead of being in heaven without her.

In our modern day, there is a license to buy, a venue to reserve, a cake to order and an officiant to perform the ceremony. In ancient times this was not the format. This isn't the format even today in various cultures. With Adam and Eve we can only guess what transpired between them as the Bible gives no details. Perhaps when God presented Eve to Adam He told him she was his wife. Maybe God Himself performed a marriage ceremony for the two. What we do know is Eve was Adam's wife.

As far as original sin, that is not enough to send Eve to Hell. Again, there is only one sin that causes a person to enter eternal damnation and eating the forbidden fruit wasn't it either. I am confident both Adam and Eve are walking the street of gold hand in hand today.

It is not too much of a leap of imagination that the parents of two kids had mated before their births. A different thread claimed that the bible can be relied upon because it consists of eyewitness statements supported by numerous other eyewitness statements. The antics of Yahweh seem to have been totally unobserved and all we have is the musing of scribes over what they think happened long before they were born.

Which is why we have no detailed account of the massacre of all the other gods that used to roam the universe.

I'm sure Adam and Eve probably did have sex before their kids were born. Nothing wrong with that. God intends for married couple to enjoy the pleasures of sex.

What gods do you believe roamed the universe?

I have never been given a justified true belief for the existence of any god but since some rely on the testament of others, then we should give an equal level of credence to every account of god like beings. Otherwise one could end up saying something like belief in any god other than the one true god is a symptom of the criminally insane while believing in Yahweh shows a high level of intellect,

I'm simply taking God's claim by faith that there is no other god besides Him.
Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Isaiah 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
Isaiah 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Again, it is a matter of faith if others believe in another god. I choose to believe the God of the Bible. If someone believes their god was destroyed by my God, their god wasn't worth worship to begin with.

Isaiah seems to be confirming the aftermath of the massacre. And you have a valid point: any god that could be destroyed by a critter like Yahweh had no right to survival.

I'm interested in learning why you believe there was a massacre. My interpretation of the verses in Isaiah is there has never been another god equal to the true, living God. I don't know of any scripture that indicates another real God. I love the story of Dagon in the Bible, but even Dagon wasn't a real god with any sort of power.

I am giving other creeds as much credibility as I do the one that claims Yahweh is a kind and loving god. All those others seem to have vanished: if Yahweh got rid of them near simultaneously, that would meet my definition of a massacre.

But to be fair, the wholesale massacre of minor gods is as unlikely as Adam and Eve.

Satan is the Great Imitator. Personally, I believe every other god is an effort by Lucifer to draw attention away from the true God. So when people worship, Buddha for example, they are in fact worshipping the Devil. The same is true for every other deity thought up by man (with Satan’s prompting). The five foolish “I Will’s” of Satan reveal his desire to be worshipped like Yahweh. I don’t believe there was a massacre of any gods, but one day ol’ SlewFoot will be snatched up by Christ and cast into the Lake of Fire for all eternity. Then the one true God will reign without opposition. These are just my beliefs though.

If there was a justified true belief for the existence of Satan, ironically that would be a great leap forward for theism in general.

Otherwise he is just another variation of Santa Clause: its your dad in a costume.

No, Satan is not my father. Satan is the father of everyone who rejects Christ. I am a child of God.

Without any sort of justified true belief to prove his existence, he is very much on par with the Santa Claus legend.

Stating something a if it were a fact without any supporting evidence is no more than spreading an opinion

We have already proven that a justified true belief is only applicable to someone willing to accept the evidence. I’m convinced that no amount of evidence will ever be enough for you as long as you’re unwilling to accept the evidence already presented to you.

Anyway, you are right; what I offer is my belief.

Evidence should be based on irrefutable fact. For example, demonstrating that balsa wood floats on water is not negated by showing that ebony sinks. That ebony sinks would counter a claim that all wood floats on water.

Rejecting opinion because the evidence is based on an inference is not a question of acceptance, it is simply observing that the inference does not amount to solid evidence.

I accept that many people in many ages have worshiped one or more gods with differing traits. The evidence they presented to justify their beliefs was invariably based on inference: such as "We made a virgin sacrifice to Gor, and we had our best harvest ever. All hail Gor"

If pointing out that inference does not constitute valid evidence is seen as a rejection of the so-called evidence, so be it. But such an error in logic should not entitle anyone to wear a smug air of superiority.

If a person did not believe balsa woods floats, and did not want to believe it floats, no amount of evidence would convince him. He could claim, for example, someone had manipulated the wood in some manner to make it float. Maybe it wasn’t really “wood” to begin with. Perhaps, they may say, it wasn’t floating in water but some type of caster oil. Despite all the irrefutable “facts”, if someone was determined in their heart that balsa wood does not float, no kind of “solid” evidence will convince him. People can come up with all sorts of excuses to reject any and all evidence if that evidence doesn’t fit into their worldview.

That some people can invent excuses to deny evidence, that does not mean denying inference as evidence is always explained as being a case of someone inventing an excuse. All the evidence we have for the existence of God and of Satan is invariably of an inferential nature.

Come up with some proper evidence and we shall see where it takes us.

There are eyewitness accounts in the Bible of miracles from God. There are eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Christ. There are testimonies from people today of the changes God has made in their lives. The universe gives witness to intelligent design. But none of the evidence fits your worldview so you label it all as inference and you reject inference. So despite all the evidence you are determined to reject it all. Just as people saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead after four days and still rejected him. Jesus didn’t fit their worldview any more than He fits into yours.

The universe gives witness to intelligent design? Really? You call that evidence?

Using the bible as a source of its accuracy is circular reasoning. I am surprised you trotted that one out again.

Are there any eyewitness accounts of the resurrection that are not bible passages? I ask that as a serious question. And are there any accounts of the raising of Lazarus outside of scripture?

I am not determined to reject evidence, I am just waiting for some to turn up.