A Fatal Flaw in the Story of Eden

[+Sherapy]

Still playing with the tired strawman.

well it may apply if i was arguing with A Mulder etc etc.. Son but i am intending to say it can help alot if one understands the posit of the beleiver ...but A+ for effort son... way to go on the philososphy reference...

[IamsSon]

I to was perplexed on manythings .. the key is learning the liingo of religion.. such as a wrathful diety who kils and maims and floods for no reason or doles out 7 times the revenge/punishment for not knowing something is demonstrating unconditional love and that free will does mean either do this or else etc etc..........

well it may apply if i was arguing with A Mulder etc etc.. Son but i am intending to say it can help alot if one understands the posit of the beleiver ...but A+ for effort son... way to go on the philososphy reference...

You don't have to be arguing with someone in order to use a strawman. F- for misdirection.

[+Sherapy]

You don't have to be arguing with someone in order to use a strawman. F- for misdirection.

Son, a strawman is making a claim that is not in dispute or a claim that has not been made......

A mulder claimed that free will is an illusion because how can one be of free will if its an either do this or else proposition.....not to mention that it flows with the thread and is very relative to the op....nowhere is it addressed more closely then the adam and eve lore.... 'they used their r free will to eat the apple " etc etc....therefore justifying gods response...etc etc...

in fact its a good pull on both mine and mulders part...i was reading all AM posts and felt they are sound and relevant....if i had said how about those lakers then okay call a straw man ....

Edited July 15, 2008 by Supra Sheri

[IamsSon]

Son, a strawman is making a claim that is not in dispute or a claim that has not been made......

A mulder claimed that free will is an illusion because how can one be of free will if its an either do this or else proposition.....not to mention that it flows with the thread and is very relative to the op....nowhere is it addressed more closely then the adam and eve lore.... 'they used their r free will to eat the apple " etc etc....therefore justifying gods response...etc etc...

in fact its a good pull on both mine and mulders part...i was reading all AM posts and felt they are sound and relevant....if i had said how about those lakers then okay call a straw man ....

Both you and Mulder are arguing from the point that God condemns people for not believing in Him. Based on the context of this conversation we are talking about god as described in the Bible and about sin as described in the Bible, and since the Bible does not teach that you are condemned for not believing in God, but for not trusting God, so you are supporting a straw man and then basing the whole free will point on it.

[+Sherapy]

Both you and Mulder are arguing from the point that God condemns people for not believing in Him. Based on the context of this conversation we are talking about god as described in the Bible and about sin as described in the Bible, and since the Bible does not teach that you are condemned for not believing in God, but for not trusting God, so you are supporting a straw man and then basing the whole free will point on it.

its our counter son. ..... ...... this is perfectly acceptable in informal argumntation... the op and the section it is in is all supportive of the counter........

this is argumentation .....this is what we are doing...there is no straw man ..the counter is supported by the op and the flow of the thread....

Edited July 15, 2008 by Supra Sheri

[IamsSon]

its our counter son. ..... ...... this is perfectly acceptable in informal argumntation... the op and the section it is in is all supportive of the counter........

this is argumentation .....this is what we are doing...there is no straw man ..the counter is supported by the op and the flow of the thread....

It's a counter based on an unreal issue, therefore a straw man.

[Lt_Ripley]

here's the biggest flaw of them all. People who think Adam and Eve existed ! It's a throw back story to hunters and gatherers vs agriculture.

http://ldolphin.org/eden/

[Agent. Mulder]

Why do you guys keep using this straw man? Are you so unwilling to admit that you have committed acts and have had thoughts that you KNOW are not good? The Bible doesn't teach that you go to hell for not believing in God, in fact, it teaches something quite different:

...straw man? what are you talking about? its not a straw man. its the truth. thats ALL i read on the one thread in this forum once, which Really made me question that whole freewill BS. it didnt make any sense.

and no. who said i was unwillingly to admit ive done 'bad things'? we All have. no ones perfect. and thats because IMO, a perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing being didnt create us. thats why we have flaws.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Agent. Mulder

[Mr Walker]

See next post. Something went badly wrong with my editing process

Edited July 16, 2008 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

God never intended that adam and eve would sin. He never knew they would sin. Such knowledge is impossible to even god, once he gave humans free will. God knew and understood all the potentialities. He could se that adam and eve might disobey, and the consequences of this. He could also se that they might not, and all the potentialities flowing from that. He gave them a command(rule) and explained the physical consequences. It is by no means clear that adam and eve did not know right from wrong.

In fact the evidence suggests they did. What they did not have until they ate of the tree was Knowledge(about good and evil) Before this they could not really have a knowledge of evil because it did not exist in the garden. They had a knowledge of what was good because thats how they lived but only in gaining an appreciation of evil could they understand the relative value of good, and thus just what it was they had sacrificed.

Certainly humanity gained some material and spiritual strengths from this knowledge of all things good and evil, but because a knowledge and understanding of evil actually allowed the physical presence of evil to occur and humans to act with evil intent, we also lost a lot. The two things we lost most were immortality, and the physical/spiritual, one ness/communication which connected us to god.

Gods intent was for humanity to grow slowly in the material knowledge of the world, including things that can be used for both good and evil purposes(otherwise there was no point having the tree of knowledge as part of the garden in the first place)

We were meant to learn spiritual wisdom to match that physical knowledge so that we while we develped an understanding of good and evil we remained wise enough to make positive/life affiming choices always for good and not for evil.

Once we made our choice god was forced to respond with a number of initial measures to do what he could for his creations safety. First he removed the source of our immortality, so we did not become like gods ourselves, then he put us out into the real world wher our actions would not harm the garden it self. Then he created a set of laws and principles which allowed humans with free will and a knowledge of good an evil, some clear guidelines for harm minimisation.

If we followed these rules(while no longer sinless peole) we would still have a society which was safe well ordered and protected the weaker and more vulnerable members. the rule s gave guidelines on everythin from respecting the source of wisdom at the time Your elders) to what food was safest to eat.

It also built in a set of rules about remembering god and what would happen if you forgot him and moved away from those guidelines. The rest of the bible carries on the story from gods temptation to wipe out life on earth and start again, to plan B where jesus sacrificed himself to buy back our original disobedience and allow every human on earth the ability to start agai both their relationship with god and their chance for an immortal life. This time rather than just 2 people being responsible for the choice, every one of us through an act of faith and free will is responsible for their own ultimate destiny. .

God wishes/hopes that everyone would avail themselves of the offer, but in his heart, from experience, knows that relatively few will.

What he doesnot/cannot know, until the day you die is whether you will accept his offer. Again he can see all possibilities, but which timeline will soldify int reality is uncertain until the moment it happens.

Another possible scenario exists if god(as he posssibly does) exists outside the linear space time continuum, In other words his consciousnessis spread not just through all space but all time, so that in the begginning of time, he sees til the end of time.In which case he sees all the threads of time, with the ones that come to physical fruition sparkling as gold(metaphorically speaking) G

In either scenario god is capable of and sometimes chooses to, intervene at a personal or national level and change events from one thread to another for his own purpose. Usually this is to benefit people even if they do not appreciate that.

However, each case is an abridgement of the basic rule of free choice, so physical intervention is rare, and must have some specific purpose. Such purposes, historically, have been to save specific people and to provide warnings or illustrations to people and societies.

God might have prevented the original choice by adam and eve, but perhaps only by removing their ability to act freely. Only he could see the results of this. Personally i think he did the rightthing becuase while we hacve free will, multiple potentialiies for lfe and the future exist. Once free will is removed only one preordained future is possible. in that future humans cannever grow and develop through the exercise of choice. They can never fully appreciate what true good and evil are and so they can never grow wise enough to freely chose one from the other.

In the end we will come to the destination god planned for us, but we will have arrived at it by a much harsher and deadlier process than he had hoped.

[Cadetak]

God never intended that adam and eve would sin. He never knew they would sin. Such knowledge is impossible to even god, once he gave humans free will. God knew and understood all the potentialities. He could se that adam and eve might disobey, and the consequences of this. He could also se that they might not, and all the potentialities flowing from that. He gave them a command(rule) and explained the physical consequences. It is by no means clear that adam and eve did not know right from wrong.

In fact the evidence suggests they did. What they did not have until they ate of the tree was Knowledge(about good and evil) Before this they could not really have a knowledge of evil because it did not exist in the garden. They had a knowledge of what was good because thats how they lived but only in gaining an appreciation of evil could they understand the relative value of good, and thus just what it was they had sacrificed.

Certainly humanity gained some material and spiritual strengths from this knowledge of all things good and evil, but because a knowledge and understanding of evil actually allowed the physical presence of evil to occur and humans to act with evil intent, we also lost a lot. The two things we lost most were immortality, and the physical/spiritual, one ness/communication which connected us to god.

Gods intent was for humanity to grow slowly in the material knowledge of the world, including things that can be used for both good and evil purposes(otherwise there was no point having the tree of knowledge as part of the garden in the first place)

We were meant to learn spiritual wisdom to match that physical knowledge so that we while we develped an understanding of good and evil we remained wise enough to make positive/life affiming choices always for good and not for evil.

Once we made our choice god was forced to respond with a number of initial measures to do what he could for his creations safety. First he removed the source of our immortality, so we did not become like gods ourselves, then he put us out into the real world wher our actions would not harm the garden it self. Then he created a set of laws and principles which allowed humans with free will and a knowledge of good an evil, some clear guidelines for harm minimisation.

If we followed these rules(while no longer sinless peole) we would still have a society which was safe well ordered and protected the weaker and more vulnerable members. the rule s gave guidelines on everythin from respecting the source of wisdom at the time Your elders) to what food was safest to eat.

It also built in a set of rules about remembering god and what would happen if you forgot him and moved away from those guidelines. The rest of the bible carries on the story from gods temptation to wipe out life on earth and start again, to plan B where jesus sacrificed himself to buy back our original disobedience and allow every human on earth the ability to start agai both their relationship with god and their chance for an immortal life. This time rather than just 2 people being responsible for the choice, every one of us through an act of faith and free will is responsible for their own ultimate destiny. .

God wishes/hopes that everyone would avail themselves of the offer, but in his heart, from experience, knows that relatively few will.

What he doesnot/cannot know, until the day you die is whether you will accept his offer. Again he can see all possibilities, but which timeline will soldify int reality is uncertain until the moment it happens.

Another possible scenario exists if god(as he posssibly does) exists outside the linear space time continuum, In other words his consciousnessis spread not just through all space but all time, so that in the begginning of time, he sees til the end of time.In which case he sees all the threads of time, with the ones that come to physical fruition sparkling as gold(metaphorically speaking) G

In either scenario god is capable of and sometimes chooses to, intervene at a personal or national level and change events from one thread to another for his own purpose. Usually this is to benefit people even if they do not appreciate that.

However, each case is an abridgement of the basic rule of free choice, so physical intervention is rare, and must have some specific purpose. Such purposes, historically, have been to save specific people and to provide warnings or illustrations to people and societies.

God might have prevented the original choice by adam and eve, but perhaps only by removing their ability to act freely. Only he could see the results of this. Personally i think he did the rightthing becuase while we hacve free will, multiple potentialiies for lfe and the future exist. Once free will is removed only one preordained future is possible. in that future humans cannever grow and develop through the exercise of choice. They can never fully appreciate what true good and evil are and so they can never grow wise enough to freely chose one from the other.

In the end we will come to the destination god planned for us, but we will have arrived at it by a much harsher and deadlier process than he had hoped.

So God isn't all knowing then?

[TheKnight]

Well I think it's fair to say that Adam and Eve were far from perfect, and perfection is an inconceivable term to begin with. Don't you think God could have just taught them in the garden, in a more happy and fun way? What he did was unjust, and admitted by you a setup. It just doesn't seem godly of him. God could have just made them perfect to begin with, and if they were perfect, whether or not they would have fallen down and gotten back up along the way make no difference at all. It doesn't make sense.

By the way, what would the motivation of a perfect being like God be to do anything at all. He's perfect. The only thing that could motivate a perfect being to do something is if he was imperfect about something. Everything we do is in a constant strive to get closer to our idea of perfection. In perfection there is no motivation. Ugh, off topic.

That's where the problem is. Seeing as how no human has ever been recorded as being perfect, you can't possibly know whether or not a perfect being would ever be motivated to do anything. You have all these presumptions about what perfection is or isn't as if you are an expert on what being perfect is. In essence, perfect is a highly relative and highly desired state of being. I could be perfect in my eyes and not in your eyes. God could have taught Adam and Even in the garden and made everyone perfect and made everything boring like that. However, he didn't. Why didn't He? He didn't want to do it that way. He wanted to do it the way he did it.

[Cadetak]

That's where the problem is. Seeing as how no human has ever been recorded as being perfect, you can't possibly know whether or not a perfect being would ever be motivated to do anything. You have all these presumptions about what perfection is or isn't as if you are an expert on what being perfect is. In essence, perfect is a highly relative and highly desired state of being. I could be perfect in my eyes and not in your eyes. God could have taught Adam and Even in the garden and made everyone perfect and made everything boring like that. However, he didn't. Why didn't He? He didn't want to do it that way. He wanted to do it the way he did it.

Perfection is in the eye of the beholder.

[TheKnight]

Perfection is in the eye of the beholder.

Exactly :-D

[Wootloops]

That's where the problem is. Seeing as how no human has ever been recorded as being perfect, you can't possibly know whether or not a perfect being would ever be motivated to do anything. You have all these presumptions about what perfection is or isn't as if you are an expert on what being perfect is. In essence, perfect is a highly relative and highly desired state of being. I could be perfect in my eyes and not in your eyes.

That's right, I don't know what perfection is, and in our eyes, it is all relative. But I'm not the one talking in objectivity. Many religious people believe God to be objectively perfect, and with objective perfection (IMO) there cannot be any motivation. It's the same with objective morality, there is no such thing.

God could have taught Adam and Even in the garden and made everyone perfect and made everything boring like that. However, he didn't. Why didn't He? He didn't want to do it that way. He wanted to do it the way he did it.

But it's so dumb. I could replace the Garden of Eden story with some made up thing having to do with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and you could get the same lesson out of it, and you could rationalize it in someway. There should not be any different religions, there shouldn't be any discrepancy. People care too much about their culture and their morals. You all grip on to these stories and texts so much because they supposedly give meaning to you, and fill a void in your life and supposedly society. But whether or not these things comfort you or benefit society is not important. What is important is whether or not they are true, whether or not there is in fact a God, and whether or not you and I live after death.

I just don't understand how religious people, especially ones that think about their faiths, like ones on this board can believe what they believe. I try really hard to see, and the only thing I can come up with is that they think that without their religion, there would be no morality. Even thinking like that, how can you look at places like Sweden and still believe it? Even when you have had the most profound experience that you attribute to your religion, how then can you look across the world at people who have had identical, if not more profound experiences of which they attribute to their religion and still think that you are right. You'd think that people would realize that hey, if he's feeling the same thing I am, and we believe different things, then maybe we shouldn't be so certain about what we believe. I mean come on.

No one has any evidence to confirm the truthfulness of their faiths. You should not be working downward and trying to find evidence for your religion. You should be working upwards. And I don't mean by studying all the religions and supporting texts and coming to a conclusion that you think is best. I mean real evidence, as in do some paranormal investigating and establish to the world that there is in fact an afterlife. Go upwards in that type of fashion. If there was any real evidence then we would not be believing different things. Argh, so frustrating.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Wootloops

[momentarylapseofreason]

That's right, I don't know what perfection is, and in our eyes, it is all relative. But I'm not the one talking in objectivity. Many religious people believe God to be objectively perfect, and with objective perfection (IMO) there cannot be any motivation. It's the same with objective morality, there is no such thing.

But it's so dumb. I could replace the Garden of Eden story with some made up thing having to do with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and you could get the same lesson out of it, and you could rationalize it in someway. There should not be any different religions, there shouldn't be any discrepancy. People care too much about their culture and their morals. You all grip on to these stories and texts so much because they supposedly give meaning to you, and fill a void in your life and supposedly society. But whether or not these things comfort you or benefit society is not important. What is important is whether or not they are true, whether or not there is in fact a God, and whether or not you and I live after death.

I just don't understand how religious people, especially ones that think about their faiths, like ones on this board can believe what they believe. I try really hard to see, and the only thing I can come up with is that they think that without their religion, there would be no morality. Even thinking like that, how can you look at places like Sweden and still believe it? Even when you have had the most profound experience that you attribute to your religion, how then can you look across the world at people who have had identical, if not more profound experiences of which they attribute to their religion and still think that you are right. You'd think that people would realize that hey, if he's feeling the same thing I am, and we believe different things, then maybe we shouldn't be so certain about what we believe. I mean come on.

No one has any evidence to confirm the truthfulness of their faiths. You should not be working downward and trying to find evidence for your religion. You should be working upwards. And I don't mean by studying all the religions and supporting texts and coming to a conclusion that you think is best. I mean real evidence, as in do some paranormal investigating and establish to the world that there is in fact an afterlife. Go upwards in that type of fashion. If there was any real evidence then we would not be believing different things. Argh, so frustrating.

[Serpentine]

The idea that there was a garden of Eden, with Eve, Adam and God is purely that, an idea.

The idea that there is good and bad is purely that, an idea.

The idea that there can be something perfect and others not perfect is purely that, an idea

The idea that you can be saved or not saved is purely that, an idea.

The idea that somehow that there is a connection between these previous ideas and the idea that is has any relevance to you is purely that, an idea.

All these ideas and all the others we might care to mention are a house of straw and this is an idea too.

So what happens when you stop having ideas??

Edited July 16, 2008 by Serpentine

[B'Elanna]

Well what God actually said was, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; ¹⁷ but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will certainly die." Genesis 2:16b-17

It wasn’t a case of don’t do it because I said so, it says “or you will certainly die”. It’s a warning, immediately they have a choice and they have the power to think either I don’t eat the fruit or I do and die. Clearly dieing is not what they wanted because they have no interest in eating the fruit at this point.

Then the serpent comes into it:

¹ Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

² The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, ³ but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

In her response, Eve adds the word “touch”. God didn’t say that, so clearly she knew the gravity of God’s command and she knew to stay away from the tree because she personally puts this prohibition on, herself. They knew the law, they could discern the law for themselves. The serpent challenges them that they would not die but be like God is, making God out to be a liar who is simply hiding the truth from them. She now had interest in eating the fruit because “you will be as God is” and “you will not surely die”, appealing to her physical and spiritual appetites (if she didn’t have these – was innocent - she just wouldn’t have touched the fruit, she had no need there was an abundance of fruit that she could have.)

Eve wasn’t just taunted by the serpent, she rebelled. She takes it upon herself to judge God’s goodness and motives, that He was not doing good by them. They could have consulted God himself (I want to be wise and yet not die, is there something you could do about this?) and yet she decided that her judgment was better than God’s divine decree - the only solution in her eyes was disobedience to God’s command. She wasn’t a pawn who had no choice, it was her deliberate choice, she had full knowledge of what she was doing, she was not set up.

[SunDogDayze]

That's right, I don't know what perfection is, and in our eyes, it is all relative. But I'm not the one talking in objectivity. Many religious people believe God to be objectively perfect, and with objective perfection (IMO) there cannot be any motivation. It's the same with objective morality, there is no such thing.

But it's so dumb. I could replace the Garden of Eden story with some made up thing having to do with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and you could get the same lesson out of it, and you could rationalize it in someway. There should not be any different religions, there shouldn't be any discrepancy. People care too much about their culture and their morals. You all grip on to these stories and texts so much because they supposedly give meaning to you, and fill a void in your life and supposedly society. But whether or not these things comfort you or benefit society is not important. What is important is whether or not they are true, whether or not there is in fact a God, and whether or not you and I live after death.

I just don't understand how religious people, especially ones that think about their faiths, like ones on this board can believe what they believe. I try really hard to see, and the only thing I can come up with is that they think that without their religion, there would be no morality. Even thinking like that, how can you look at places like Sweden and still believe it? Even when you have had the most profound experience that you attribute to your religion, how then can you look across the world at people who have had identical, if not more profound experiences of which they attribute to their religion and still think that you are right. You'd think that people would realize that hey, if he's feeling the same thing I am, and we believe different things, then maybe we shouldn't be so certain about what we believe. I mean come on.

No one has any evidence to confirm the truthfulness of their faiths. You should not be working downward and trying to find evidence for your religion. You should be working upwards. And I don't mean by studying all the religions and supporting texts and coming to a conclusion that you think is best. I mean real evidence, as in do some paranormal investigating and establish to the world that there is in fact an afterlife. Go upwards in that type of fashion. If there was any real evidence then we would not be believing different things. Argh, so frustrating.

Best. Post. Ever.

You have won the internets.

[Mr Walker]

So God isn't all knowing then?

Given free will and a linear time line it is impossible for any entity to be all knowing although they can know all potentialities and probabilities and thus make very educated guesses.

With free will and an entity which exists outside the linear time line, it is theoretically possible that if the entity's consciousness existed from start to finishn then it would know at the start what would happen at the finish. however what it would actually be seeing would be a multiverse from its own perspective, while elements like us would only operate a long a singular timeline/thread within that multi verse

This would explain how god can see the future, change the future and send us visions of the future. The future to us is not known or fixed until it becomes our present/past. But to god it may be like looking down on a completeted tapestry of time and events, with all sorts of threads running through it and an almost limitless number of interconnecting points. He can see our whole short lives running through that tapestry, as short individual threads, and see the beginning, all the junction points/intersections, and the end of our thread, no matter where we happen to be along our thread, at that present moment of linear time.

[Mr Walker]

The idea that there was a garden of Eden, with Eve, Adam and God is purely that, an idea.

The idea that there is good and bad is purely that, an idea.

The idea that there can be something perfect and others not perfect is purely that, an idea

The idea that you can be saved or not saved is purely that, an idea.

The idea that somehow that there is a connection between these previous ideas and the idea that is has any relevance to you is purely that, an idea.

All these ideas and all the others we might care to mention are a house of straw and this is an idea too.

So what happens when you stop having ideas??

You stop being human.

[+Sherapy]

It's a counter based on an unreal issue, therefore a straw man.

Bassically you have decided this is a straw man even though its groundless is meaningless to you ....

Let me ask you this son what will happen to me (according to your beleifs) that i have not chosen to follow god...??????

[ravergirl]

I agree with I Am Son.

The fixation that people that don't believe in God have with going to hell and how unfair that is, is evident of the fear they have of the possiblity of going to hell as punishment for something-or-other suggesting that they may in fact believe in God but cannot or will not relinquish control.

on the other hand, people that Believe in God generally don't think it is unfair since they know they aren't going and therefore have no underlying fear of it.

So Believers and non-believers get stuck-in-muck at these arguements that are long since dismissed by believers which frustrates them.

Most Christians do not believe Hell is on FIRE.

[+Sherapy]

I agree with I Am Son.

The fixation that people that don't believe in God have with going to hell and how unfair that is, is evident of the fear they have of the possiblity of going to hell as punishment for something-or-other suggesting that they may in fact believe in God but cannot or will not relinquish control.

on the other hand, people that Believe in God generally don't think it is unfair since they know they aren't going and therefore have no underlying fear of it.

So Believers and non-believers get stuck-in-muck at these arguements that are long since dismissed by believers which frustrates them.

Most Christians do not believe Hell is on FIRE.

ravegirl quotes:

"The fixation that people that don't believe in God have with going to hell and how unfair that is, is evident of the fear they have of the possiblity of going to hell as punishment for something-or-other suggesting that they may in fact believe in God but cannot or will not relinquish control."

Ravegirl do you ascribe to the beleif that hell equates seperation from god eternally ???? and if you would be so kind as to explain this from the religious posit.....

[ravergirl]

ravegirl quotes:

"The fixation that people that don't believe in God have with going to hell and how unfair that is, is evident of the fear they have of the possiblity of going to hell as punishment for something-or-other suggesting that they may in fact believe in God but cannot or will not relinquish control."

Ravegirl do you ascribe to the beleif that hell equates seperation from god eternally ???? and if you would be so kind as to explain this from the religious posit.....

I was commenting on the specific comments regarding how unfair hell is. My personal belief aside because I am not posting my comment as a believer or non-believer of anything. Read the bold print. it was just an observation.