Why does anyone like the idea of "the Singularity" in General Chatter Posted 14 hours ago 6 hours ago, Lord Varys said: And if there is something a Christ believing in the nonsense story of Christ's resurrection and salvation must believe that there was some kind of original sin nonsense - because if that wasn't the case then there was no point in Christ dying and resurrecting at all. In that sense, the creation story in Genesis isn't as irrelevant to Christian doctrine as most of the other books of the Hebrew Bible (nobody really cares what judge followed whom or how wicked Jezebel was) and it is intellectual dishonesty to separate the concept (original sin isn't in the Hebrew text, it is much later construction derived from Christian ideology) from the actual text - meaning that people believing in Adam and Eve are more honest than people dismissing that notion but insisting that there still must have been some kind of silly original sin nonsense (which was never the actual point/theme of the Genesis story, anyway) Again, how much Church history do you know. The idea of what constitutes “orginal sin” in the Orthodox East is very different from the idea of “Original Sin” in the Roman Catholic/Protestant West. The difference matters as in the East it is the world, not every individual human being, that is fallen. So, the creation story in Genesis doesn’t have to be taken literally for it to have impact. It can be recognized as an allegory attempting to understand and explain the origins of humanity in a story that is not 100% fact. What I find frustrating is your claim that everything in the bible has to be entirely literally true or none of it is true. That’s clearly a false dichotomy. You also claim that something must be repeatable to be true. How do you square that with Hume’s criticism of inductive reasoning (Empricism)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction From the link: The problem of induction is the philosophicalquestion of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood in the classic philosophical sense, highlighting the apparent lack of justification for: Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (e.g., the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and, therefore, all swans are white", before the discovery of black swans) or Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (e.g., that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the principle of uniformity of nature. The problem calls into question all empiricalclaims made in everyday life or through the scientific method, and, for that reason, the philosopher C. D. Broad said that "induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy." Although the problem arguably dates back to the Pyrrhonism of ancient philosophy, as well as the Carvaka school of Indian philosophy, David Hume popularized it in the mid-18th century.