Is it Important to Have Knowledge of G&E?

[William]

Linked Topic: The Knowledge of Good and Evil

From the Thread Topic: Questions for those who believe in free will

Replying to The Tanager in post #132] Discussion between The Tanager and William:

All in all it appears to me to be that you believe "free" will is about moral considerations, which are built from human concepts [how the individual defines/accepts the definitions of nature] rather than the nature of nature [because nature is not bound by moral considerations.]
The definitions created this way bring about moral awareness which would otherwise be absent and are largely done through some supernatural authority outside of nature [because nature has no morals] and thus deities are created to compensate, and morals are forced into nature through that means.

I think free will is primarily about moral considerations built from our human nature given to us by the Creator. Not all of nature is moral but I think humans are naturally so.

If that is the case and your thinking is correct, then we need to identify why "not all of nature is moral but humans are naturally moral" - I will create another thread on that question.

It appears to me that with the premise;

"Free will is primarily about moral considerations built from our human nature given to us by the Creator."

that free will therefore comes after the acquiring of KGE.

IF the premise is true THEN the story that humans acquired KGE through disobeying a command not to eat the fruit which is credited with giving humans such knowledge, must be false.

This because, in order to have "moral considerations" one has to have that "knowledge of good and evil", and thus IF The Creator built this knowledge into the nature of the human instrument [as a given] THEN there is no requirement for any "Forbidden fruit" to be the object/means through which KGE was obtained, as it was already implanted with the natural human condition by The Creator.

Q: Is the argument above logically sound?

[William]

[Replying to myth-one.com in post #58]

I'm not the sharpest tack in the box, and I must admit that I generally do not understand your posts.

It is a step in a better direction that you acknowledge this rather than attempt to project that onto me, as you did in Post#51 when you wrote;

Perhaps that was too much for you to digest at one time.

Somehow, you are now off on the tangent that somebody images God as a "He". That is, a male.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

That is the first mention of the god-entoty of the story referred to in the masculine.

Is this not the same story where you are taking your bullets points from? I purposefully wrote the word "He" [in the ""] to denote that it is implied but not specifically a matter of fact that the creator-entity of the biblical story is thought of in the masculine... [even that it is referred to as "God" which is the masculine of "Goddess"] - so it is not a tangent and we need not discuss this further if we acknowledge together that this is the same entity we are examining, re the story.

Here are my bullet points again, again. They have to do with the creation and purpose of mankind and the importance of the tree of knowledge, etc:

I have already made comment regarding your bullets points and have shown these to being something which is very explainable to the modern mind which understands rudimentary physics and space travel.

Your bullet points speak of some type of Terraforming Technology which can be achieved by an advanced biological-based specie, who are [as we ourselves are] part of the Universe rather than Creator(s) of the Universe.
You have yet to acknowledge my rebuttal regarding this, and my impression of your mental ability to connect the dots and understand what I have written re your bullet points is that you are indeed 'sharp enough' to do so...but appear hesitant all the same.

Which one is faulty (as you have claimed they are previously) according to the scriptures, and why are they out of "synch" with the universe?

Thanks in advance.

It may be that I have mistakenly read in bullet point [1] , you refer to "God" you are referring to "The Creator of this Universe".

But if that is indeed what you are saying, then I have already explained why this image is a false one.

The biblical creation account gives us 3 main images of this entity called "God".
1: The entity called "God" created the whole universe
2: The entity called "God" was only at first known by Humans, to being a voice in the garden.
3: The entity called "God" eventually came out from hiding to present an image [not described in the story-line] to the pair after they had eaten the forbidden fruit.

[For your convenience I replaced "He" with "The entity called "God"" so as to assist you with not being distracted].

[Purple Knight]

...... explain it cogently and consistently. If you can then I'm all for going with your interpretation and addressing that instead.

And yet you make no comment on my post where I did just what you requested. HERE
viewtopic.php?p=1040461#p1040461

Actually I did, but what I had to say about it was most relevant to another thread, so I posted it there. It should have given you notice I quoted you anyway. Your explanation is consistent and in addition to that I quite like it.

The only minor flaw I see (with the source you quoted, not your explanation)...

Furthermore, God’s words at Genesis 3:22 could not pertain to their now knowing what was bad by experience, for Jehovah said that they had become like him and he has not learned what is bad by doing it. (Ps 92:14, 15) .

...is that to be like something is more about the end state than how it got there. One ball-bearing may be shaped by hand, by a master crafter, and another moulded or die-cast, but they may be very like one another nonetheless

Now, you could make the case that with morality, this is specifically true, and I wouldn't dispute it if you had a good argument.

However, it is possible that God did exactly the opposite, and instead learnt what is good by doing it. He created the world, and saw that that was good. If we accept that things are either good or bad (let's just... accept neutral things as good for lack of being bad... for now) then that would still be learning by doing.

[Tcg]

But if that is indeed what you are saying, then I have already explained why this image is a false one.

The biblical creation account gives us 3 main images of this entity called "God".
1: The entity called "God" created the whole universe
2: The entity called "God" was only at first known by Humans, to being a voice in the garden.
3: The entity called "God" eventually came out from hiding to present an image [not described in the story-line] to the pair after they had eaten the forbidden fruit.

[For your convenience I replaced "He" with "The entity called "God"" so as to assist you with not being distracted].

The biblical creation account can't be used to support point number 1. It accounts for the creation of the earth, the sky, sun, moon and stars. It doesn't even account for the creation of our solar system or any planet other than earth. The universe contains a great deal more than that.


Tcg

[William]

But if that is indeed what you are saying, then I have already explained why this image is a false one.

The biblical creation account gives us 3 main images of this entity called "God".
1: The entity called "God" created the whole universe
2: The entity called "God" was only at first known by Humans, to being a voice in the garden.
3: The entity called "God" eventually came out from hiding to present an image [not described in the story-line] to the pair after they had eaten the forbidden fruit.

[For your convenience I replaced "He" with "The entity called "God"" so as to assist you with not being distracted].

The biblical creation account can't be used to support point number 1. It accounts for the creation of the earth, the sky, sun, moon and stars. It doesn't even account for the creation of our solar system or any planet other than earth. The universe contains a great deal more than that.


Tcg

The rest of the Universe is complicit. For one to claim to have created the earth, the sky, sun, moon and stars, one is by default, claiming to have created the Universe those things exist within.

This is because we know enough about the Universe to say that. Christians do not even argue that the one they call "God", did not create the whole Universe, but just those parts of it. That would be silly.

[Tcg]

But if that is indeed what you are saying, then I have already explained why this image is a false one.

The biblical creation account gives us 3 main images of this entity called "God".
1: The entity called "God" created the whole universe
2: The entity called "God" was only at first known by Humans, to being a voice in the garden.
3: The entity called "God" eventually came out from hiding to present an image [not described in the story-line] to the pair after they had eaten the forbidden fruit.

[For your convenience I replaced "He" with "The entity called "God"" so as to assist you with not being distracted].

The biblical creation account can't be used to support point number 1. It accounts for the creation of the earth, the sky, sun, moon and stars. It doesn't even account for the creation of our solar system or any planet other than earth. The universe contains a great deal more than that.


Tcg

The rest of the Universe is complicit. For one to claim to have created the earth, the sky, sun, moon and stars, one is by default, claiming to have created the Universe those things exist within.

No, it is not complicit and it does not include the universe.

This is because we know enough about the Universe to say that. Christians do not even argue that the one they call "God", did not create the whole Universe, but just those parts of it. That would be silly.

We are not discussing Christian's claims, but rather the biblical creation account. The issue is over what the one called "God" reported to have created, or rather those who reported for him, and it isn't the universe.



Tcg

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #66]

I think what you are complaining about has to do with older arguments where Christians claimed the universe was created by their idea of The Creator and non-theists argued that because it wasn't stated in the bible narration that Galaxies existed, or that we actually exist in one such Galaxy, Christians couldn't argue that their God created the whole Universe.

My complaint about that argument is that "it is silly."

It is like splitting hairs. "Pointless".

But my point wasn't specific to that old argument.
I am arguing with a Christian whom believes that the Creator he calls "God", created the whole Universe - thus clearly giving us an image of a being who "created this Universe", which I am attempting to explain, has to be a false image due to that image not been in synch with the Universe.

If you want to argue specifically against the Christian claim that this "God" created the whole Universe, then 'tis best you create another thread for that purpose.

THIS thread is exploring the question as to the apparent contradiction of the command given by that biblical entity in relation to the apparent necessity for Humans to develop morality, and questioning the claim that the entity bestowed morality into Humans from the go-get.

[Tcg]

If you want to argue specifically against the Christian claim that this "God" created the whole Universe, then 'tis best you create another thread for that purpose.

Nope. I am addressing your claim in point number 1 and the fact that the biblical creation story doesn't support it. This is not based on some old argument, but rather a current reading of the text. That story does not claim that the creator created the universe. You may choose not to address that fact in the thread in which the claim was presented, but that doesn't render my objection irrelevant in the thread in which the claim was made.


Tcg

[The Tanager]

No. The story-line continues to show that the God did not want humans having this knowledge as it was declared that the humans were like "us" [the Gods] "knowing good and evil" and that they should be expelled from the garden so that they didn't have access to the fruit of the tree of life.

Yes, humans were now, for the first time, going with what they thought was good/bad in direct contradiction to what an omnipotent being knew was good/bad. God didn't want those humans to live forever, as a mercy to each other and the planet. The storyline continues to show how much evil humans did in the length they were given.

We know by the story that it was not the eating of the forbidden fruit which caused them to start dying [and eventually die] but rather it was because of being denied access to the fruit of life.

They were denied access because they are the forbidden fruit.

The 'camps' came about due to non-theist argument which questioned the sensibility of the story [which was/is the more popular {1} position], and thus camp {2} was created to [attempt] answering said questions.

Where is your evidence for this claim, that camp 2 was created in response to non-theist arguments?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #69]

Yes, humans were now, for the first time, going with what they thought was good/bad in direct contradiction to what an omnipotent being knew was good/bad.

Are you saying then that while it is good for Humans to have moral insight, the [alleged] omnipotent being knew that it would not be good for them?
The reason I ask, is because the OP is questioning this idea.

God didn't want those humans to live forever, as a mercy to each other and the planet. The storyline continues to show how much evil humans did in the length they were given.

The overly evil Human actions is only alleged by the story. Where is the supporting evidence?

The way the bible tells it, Humans were leaning into participating [primarily] in the evil knowledge acquired from partaking of the forbidden fruit. Why would that be the case?
Obviously the entity called "God" in the story could have accompanied the pair into the world and showed them how to activate the good knowledge rather than remain aloof and critical and stormy about it.

The image of this being doesn't present an overly wholesome 'parent' figure in that regard. He seemed more interested in "teaching them a lesson they won't soon forget" by having them develop fear...not a good thing to be having when leaning toward evil...

Perhaps it was worthwhile as a means of seeing what would happen...studying the results as it were. Certainly the whole creation story comes across as some advanced terraforming exercise by sentient [and highly scientific] beings. So that could answer the 'why watch and observe' question.

We know by the story that it was not the eating of the forbidden fruit which caused them to start dying [and eventually die] but rather it was because of being denied access to the fruit of life.

They were denied access because they ate the forbidden fruit.

Yes we know that Tanager. I said it better. They were denied access so that they could then die, fulfilling the warning given.
See really, if the results of the experiment were a 'fail' the most logical solution was to have them die immediately from eating the fruit.
But rather, they lived quite a significant time afterward, and were able to breed and bring more Humans into the world, thus perpetuating the problem of evil.

The scientist "God" obviously wanted this to happen, rather than start again and design a better Species.
And when we look at where Humans are today, we can understand why...we understand science, and that is really helpful. Very helpful within this Universe.
The OP questions on how Humans could have reached this point without having morals [knowing good and evil] - without having disobeyed the one named "God".

In part it is. Once again Christian Thinking forces the issue. We have [as always] 2 main 'camps' with Christianity whereby one camp {1} accepts that A&E had no prior understanding of G&E and the other {2}, [expressed by JW & The Tanager] is that A&E did indeed have some semblance of understanding of G&E - enough as it were - to warrant being judged by the biblical God as 'guilty'.

The 'camps' came about due to non-theist argument which questioned the sensibility of the story [which was/is the more popular {1} position], and thus camp {2} was created to [attempt] answering said questions.

Where is your evidence for this claim, that camp 2 was created in response to non-theist arguments?

While it is not something which Christians acknowledge every other day, I thought it was worth mentioning as - not the only reason - but a largely neglected or overlooked reason.

Do you think I am being too generous in that?

[The Tanager]

Are you saying then that while it is good for Humans to have moral insight, the [alleged] omnipotent being knew that it would not be good for them?
The reason I ask, is because the OP is questioning this idea.

I am saying that the omnipotent being knew that giving humans free will provided them with the ability to love that they would not have otherwise and that having this ability was better than having moral perfection without it. So, while God knew bad would result, it was still better than the alternative.

The overly evil Human actions is only alleged by the story. Where is the supporting evidence?

I think history clearly shows the evil humans are capable of. As to this specific passage, a case for its truth I would ultimately rest on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, the reliability of the New Testament writings in recording Jesus' teachings, and Jesus believing in the reliability of the Tanakh.

The way the bible tells it, Humans were leaning into participating [primarily] in the evil knowledge acquired from partaking of the forbidden fruit. Why would that be the case?

It's not. The fruit did not give Adam and Eve "evil knowledge." They decided for themselves what was good and evil and then ate the fruit. Then, from this action, they realized they were naked (which it would be foolish to believe means they only then realized they didn't have clothes on) and hid from God. They experienced shame and guilt from eating the fruit. Humans then continued to choose for themselves what was good and evil, against what God knew was good and evil for them to do. Cain decides it is good to kill Abel, when it wasn't. Lamech thinks it is good to kill a man for injuring him and good to boast about it his ability to get revenge on others.

Obviously the entity called "God" in the story could have accompanied the pair into the world and showed them how to activate the good knowledge rather than remain aloof and critical and stormy about it.

The image of this being doesn't present an overly wholesome 'parent' figure in that regard. He seemed more interested in "teaching them a lesson they won't soon forget" by having them develop fear...not a good thing to be having when leaning toward evil...

Perhaps it was worthwhile as a means of seeing what would happen...studying the results as it were. Certainly the whole creation story comes across as some advanced terraforming exercise by sentient [and highly scientific] beings. So that could answer the 'why watch and observe' question.

No, the text shows God coming to them, caring for them (which includes rightful consequences for their actions), continuing to pursue them. God tenderly talks to Cain, pursuing him and still having mercy on him once Cain ignores his advice. Then the text goes into broader summary mode but still shows humans walking with God (Enoch in Gen. 5:25, Noah). Even 6:3 speaks to how God has been contending with humans for righteousness, without forcing it upon them.

See really, if the results of the experiment were a 'fail' the most logical solution was to have them die immediately from eating the fruit.

Since they didn't, this is reason to reject it was set up as an experiment.

Where is your evidence for this claim, that camp 2 was created in response to non-theist arguments?

While it is not something which Christians acknowledge every other day, I thought it was worth mentioning as - not the only reason - but a largely neglected or overlooked reason.

Do you think I am being too generous in that?

I think there is no reason to think you are right in your claim.