Adam & Woman, the first humans, are innocent victims of a confidence trick.

You have constructed a pretty good myth yourself with the version you give of the first three chapters of Genesis. In doing so you adopt the naive approach that is taken by the normal Christian interpretation of those chapters, which is to think that they represent an account of the start of the universe and humankind in the form in which those things now appear to us. In his book, A brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking recounts an occasion on which he was attending a symposium of scientists in Rome. The then Pope gave a general audience to the scientists during which he praised their efforts to discern the secrets of the universe. He gave a warning, however. When it came to the "Big Bang", that was the activity of God in creation and, as such, had to be left to the theologians. Stephen derived a certain cynical enjoyment from that, for, on the very next day, he was to address the scientists to the effect that the "Big Bang" could not be regarded as the start of everything. Although the event itself is opaque and could not be penetrated, scientifically he could show that there was something to be observed behind the event. So neither your myth nor the Christian version of the myth fit the scientific view of the universe and humankind. As a lawyer I am not prepared to "believe" something on the hearsay of someone else, however eminent in the religious or scientific field, without examining evidence that might confirm or otherwise the validity of what was being said. Please understand what I am about to say. Evidence, however extreme or absurd it may appear at first sight, must not be cast aside as myth or anything else without examination. There is evidence of an event upon which all argument or belief must turn, for it is so "shocking" in the real sense of the word that our whole understanding of ourselves and the universe, and indeed "God" or whatever word you may chose to represent that being, must turn upon its validity or otherwise. The event is the return to life of a human who has already died, and that human is, of course, Jesus of Nazareth. There is no historical doubt today that this man really did exist and was put to death by the Roman occupation force in the Middle East of the time. The well known Christian saint, Saint Paul, puts the point quite succinctly saying that if Jesus of Nazareth has not risen from the dead then all our faith is in vain. Quite right. The trouble is that the "event' is indeed so shocking that people are not prepared to properly examine the evidence relating to it. This evidence does not just appear in the written Gospels. It is to be found in the fact of an occupation army keeping control in a hostile environment by brute force. It is to be found in the need of the Jewish religious authorities to deal with a man who was making, in their view, wild claims to be the Messiah while also casting doubt and criticism upon the then Jewish religious authorities and their way of religion. It is to be found in the need of the Roman control in Jerusalem under Pontius Pilate to keep control of a real occupation hotspot during a vast Jewish religious festival with the accompanying crowds in the city. It is to be found in the actions of the Roman Governor, the Jewish King Herod, the actions of the Jewish religious authorities and their need to avoid repressive measures by the occupation force, leading to their handling of the Governor. It is to be found in the actions and reactions of a Roman Governor who sees himself being manipulated by the very people he is supposed to control, in the composition of the execution squad under the control of a Centurion, no less, and in the behaviour of that Centurion during the events of the execution. It is to be found in the extraordinary Non-behaviour of the Jewish religious authorities when the body of Jesus has apparently disappeared, and in the extraordinary behaviour of his followers, all Jews, who put forward the apparently extraordinary claim that he had been seen alive after the burial. It is to be seen in the just as extraordinary behaviour of those Jewish followers who were prepared to cast themselves adrift, even as Jews, from their fellow Jews. I am aware that a completely separate debate could be set up around the proposition of a Resurrection that could well take up all and more of the characters allowed for debates such as this. I am not trying to persuade you, or anyone else of the validity or otherwise of that proposition. What I am saying is that the evidence surrounding the events in and around Jerusalem all those years ago can be examined - and indeed some of that evidence becomes particularly persuasive given our modern experience of occupied territories from 1939 onwards - and must not be dismissed as not being susceptible to examination because the events took place so long ago. As a lawyer who has attempted to some extent to examine that evidence, I find that it certainly cannot be dismissed out of hand, and that it has a clear connection and bearing upon the proposition that has given rise to this debate. I would certainly accept that if the return to life of Jesus of Nazareth is not a fact then I must abandon my initial proposition. On the examination of the evidence that I have undertaken, however, I have to say that the case for a Resurrection, however wild that idea might be, is very strong. In a way I am sorry to see your counter argument cast in terms of "Myth". If you look carefully at the original topic for debate you will see that it is really directed towards the prevailing Christian view that the first humans did something almost infinitely wrong, and that, as a result and without explanation as to how it might be, all humans have a fallen human nature and stand always in danger of infinite punishment. My proposition that the prevailing view simply cannot be right on the basis of the first three chapters of Genesis turns to some extent upon the third chapter. At the beginning of that chapter you will find the two humans being given information which they were not in a position to assess but which, appealing to their integrity, told them that they were falling short of their "being" as they were, and that they could be as "Gods. The Christian view is of course, that they never could be as Gods and the information was a lie. But look at the very end of the chapter. There it is said that God has put an angel with a flaming sword at the gate of Paradise lest the humans return and eat of the Tree of Life, thereby becoming as "Gods". An analogy of course, and the two humans, being purely evolutionary, could never return, but there we see the big lie now in the mouth of God. HOW COULD THAT BE. Looking at the evidence, in computer terms those first humans, working to their very own software, installed at the beginning by the one who gave them the gift of existence, were infected by a "worm" which they did not recognise and which wrecked their programme. Since the "gift" was absolute and not contingent, some action within the gift, that is within humankind, was needed to put things right. Christians call that action the "Incarnation", but the proposition up for debate suggests that their understanding of the events leading to that action is not soundly based. Forget impatience with Christians, myths and so on. See this as just a debate upon the original proposition. How do you go?