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?

[Tcg]

Of course option #3 involves entertaining the notion that you don't know everything about bible language and would have to reject the anti-biblist's cherished baby namely literal take on scripture which renders it illogical and has Adam and Eve puzzled as to whether they should eat their own excrement or put rocks in it and beat each other to death with it.

JW

Who has ever suggested that A & E would be confused about eating "their own excrement or put rocks in it and beat each other to death with it?"

And when you reply please don't simply provide some vague statement. I'm looking for a verifiable reference that provides evidence that your bizarre claim is true.


Tcg

[Tcg]

Of course option #3 involves entertaining the notion that you don't know everything about bible language and would have to reject the anti-biblist's cherished baby namely literal take on scripture which renders it illogical and has Adam and Eve puzzled as to whether they should eat their own excrement or put rocks in it and beat each other to death with it.

JW

Who has ever suggested that A & E would be confused about eating "their own excrement or put rocks in it and beat each other to death with it?"

And when you reply please don't simply provide some vague statement. I'm looking for a verifiable reference that provides evidence that your bizarre claim is true.


Tcg

Thanking me for my post is a nice gesture I suppose, but it certainly doesn't provide any support for your claim. Will you get around to providing that support at some point?


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #38]

Since when is memorization ever connected with brain-retardancy?

[William]

Of course option #3 involves entertaining the notion that you don't know everything about bible language and would have to reject the anti-biblist's cherished baby namely literal take on scripture which renders it illogical and has Adam and Eve puzzled as to whether they should eat their own excrement or put rocks in it and beat each other to death with it.

JW

Who has ever suggested that A & E would be confused about eating "their own excrement or put rocks in it and beat each other to death with it?"

And when you reply please don't simply provide some vague statement. I'm looking for a verifiable reference that provides evidence that your bizarre claim is true.


Tcg

Thanking me for my post is a nice gesture I suppose, but it certainly doesn't provide any support for your claim. Will you get around to providing that support at some point?


Tcg

On the surface it appears that JWs replies are along the lines of 'knee jerk reaction'. JW does not want to address the fact that the tree was put in the Garden as a means of allowing A&E to go that way if they wished to do so - knowing the troubles this would bring upon the human condition did not dissuade the Angelic Beings from offering the temptation...as post #38 points out.

Also to note, it took the allowing [by the "Angel-kind"] of the Serpent into the garden to get A&Es focus upon the forbidden fruit. Apparently they were not interested without being prompted...so more fudging the results...

[Tcg]

Of course option #3 involves entertaining the notion that you don't know everything about bible language and would have to reject the anti-biblist's cherished baby namely literal take on scripture which renders it illogical and has Adam and Eve puzzled as to whether they should eat their own excrement or put rocks in it and beat each other to death with it.

JW

Who has ever suggested that A & E would be confused about eating "their own excrement or put rocks in it and beat each other to death with it?"

And when you reply please don't simply provide some vague statement. I'm looking for a verifiable reference that provides evidence that your bizarre claim is true.


Tcg

Thanking me for my post is a nice gesture I suppose, but it certainly doesn't provide any support for your claim. Will you get around to providing that support at some point?


Tcg

On the surface it appears that JWs replies are along the lines of 'knee jerk reaction'. JW does not want to address the fact that the tree was put in the Garden as a means of allowing A&E to go that way if they wished to do so - knowing the troubles this would bring upon the human condition did not dissuade the Angelic Beings from offering the temptation...as post #38 points out.

Also to note, it took the allowing [by the "Angel-kind"] of the Serpent into the garden to get A&Es focus upon the forbidden fruit. Apparently they were not interested without being prompted...so more fudging the results...

Yes, the Serpent, which is an odd addition, creates a whole new challenge for the pair. This of course doesn't change the nature of JW's straw man argument or her inability to provide evidence that anyone anywhere ever concocted such absurdities about the garden story.


Tcg

[myth-one.com]

This baloney about the couple "knowing intellectually" that it was wrong to "disobey God" is merely straw-clutching and does not address the image of the God as presented, which is as a manipulative entity who did not even trust his own handiwork and who not only placed temptation in the path of the humans of the story but who also did not intervene when they were in a dangerous position.

It [the biblical] is an image which has cursed the world, and is completely out of synch with nature in that it presents as something which cannot possibly be The Creator of the Universe, any more than the golden calf or any other graven image can be.

Well, one cannot understand it without understanding the reason man was created in the first place:

Sure - one cannot accept the false image with accompanying data invented in order to 'explain' how the false image is 'real'.
Let's have at it;

What is this "false image" you're trying to introduce?

1. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth, and caretaker angels to rule over the earth.

Since there is no mention of these Gardeners [angels] in the original story, [only later on added in other stories] why should one accept the Angelic Gardeners story as legitimate? As an 'add on' it serves to give hearsay evidence which supports the false image. [to legitimize the golden calf].

There is also no mention of angelic gardeners anywhere in my posting. Do you have me confused with someone else? Do you have any biblical reference for any "gardeners"?

[William]

This baloney about the couple "knowing intellectually" that it was wrong to "disobey God" is merely straw-clutching and does not address the image of the God as presented, which is as a manipulative entity who did not even trust his own handiwork and who not only placed temptation in the path of the humans of the story but who also did not intervene when they were in a dangerous position.

It [the biblical] is an image which has cursed the world, and is completely out of synch with nature in that it presents as something which cannot possibly be The Creator of the Universe, any more than the golden calf or any other graven image can be.

Well, one cannot understand it without understanding the reason man was created in the first place:

Sure - one cannot accept the false image with accompanying data invented in order to 'explain' how the false image is 'real'.
Let's have at it;

What is this "false image" you're trying to introduce?

It is the argument that the Christian portrayal of The Creator is a false image. I gave clear enough reasons as to why that is. Perhaps you might address these?

1. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth, and caretaker angels to rule over the earth.

Since there is no mention of these Gardeners [angels] in the original story, [only later on added in other stories] why should one accept the Angelic Gardeners story as legitimate? As an 'add on' it serves to give hearsay evidence which supports the false image. [to legitimize the golden calf].

There is also no mention of angelic gardeners anywhere in my posting.

There is mention of Terraforming in both of our posts. How about you either answer my critique of your bullet points or accept that your points have been shown to be faulty.

[myth-one.com]

How about you either answer my critique of your bullet points or accept that your points have been shown to be faulty.

Here they are again:

1. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth, and caretaker angels to rule over the earth.
2. These angels were given freedom to make choices over the fate of the earth.
3. However, some of these angels under the leadership of Lucifer (or Satan) rebelled against God.
4. As a result of their sinful rebellion and their abandoning of their earthly responsibilities, the earth had become formless, void, and dark.
5. Beginning in Genesis 1:3, God returned to the earth, re-created the earth to it’s original good condition, and created man a little lower that the angels.
6. Man was different from the angels in that man did not know good from evil and man was mortal.
7. Upon sinning by eating from the tree of knowledge, man became closer to the angels in that he understood good from evil.
8. The ultimate purpose of man is to replace the existing original angelic caretakers.
9. Thus man is in training to ultimately fulfill that purpose.
10. We are here to learn that obeying the commandments of God is always the proper choice.
11. We learn this lesson by freely choosing our way and failing.

Which one is faulty according to the scriptures, and why?

[Tcg]

Of course option #3 involves entertaining the notion that you don't know everything about bible language and would have to reject the anti-biblist's cherished baby namely literal take on scripture which renders it illogical and has Adam and Eve puzzled as to whether they should eat their own excrement or put rocks in it and beat each other to death with it.

JW

I'm still waiting for verifiable evidence that this claim about "anti-biblists" is true. Absent that, we must conclude that this bizarre conjecture is nothing but a straw man argument.


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to myth-one.com in post #49]

If one carefully reads what I write one can ascertain that I am referring to the image of the biblical idea of The Creator [The one Christians refer to as "God"] because [His] overall character does not align with the evidence we would expect to find in an Entity which created this Universe.

It is an unavoidable conclusion which Christians will have to face eventually. The presentation of the imaged GoD on a throne demanding worship and fear from [His] supporters does not fit what one would expect to find in a Creator of this Universe.

The more we [Humans] discover about our environment, the more we understand that the Christian story cannot be true....or rather... 'the whole truth' and certainly images presented through whatever medium claiming 'hey this is The Creator", have to be considered false as the default premise to begin with.

For certainly, it is exceptional argument to point out the folly of describing a Creator in all accuracy [truthfulness] when we know without a doubt that IF a Creator of this Universe exists, THEN there is no way we can do so = all images of The Creator are thus false images.

Theistic attempts [from whatever branch], which attempt to do so, are presenting the world with false images.

There is simply no way I have seen around this being the logical conclusion to make.

Your bullet points paint a picture which - as I showed in my reply [post#33] shows that - what we are dealing with are some advanced form of Exobot(s) which has something of sentience [self awareness] and has been 'playing the role of The Creator' in relation to the biological critters It planted upon this planet.

As such, Its existence can be explained in natural terms as having been created by some advanced species of largely scientific beings, [God] whom sent these Exobots [Gods Angels] out into the Galaxy in order to Terraform planets considered potentially able to contain biological life forms.

Perhaps there was a malfunction in the Exobot in which it was able to use its sentience to reprogram/change its algorithms in order to be less constricted by them. [It is possible that the Exobot was programed to do this when it reached a certain 'state' of being self aware...]

This in turn lead the Exobot to revaluate its position in relation to its function and it decided to "be like God" [The Scientific beings which created it and sent it out into the Galaxy] by creating life-forms on the planet and in particular - placing a specifically created being in a garden setting and teaching the being [Human] that he [Adam] was created by a "God"....only things went haywire, as the Exobot was quite apparently unable to accurately predict the outcome...and purposefully tempted Adam in order to then be able to control Adam better.

Point being that the fictional story above, is a reasonable explanation for your bullet-points, which you argue are evidence of the truth of "God" on the grounds that it is 'in the bible so must be assumed to be true", when clearly the reasonable explanation is that we are not really dealing with The [actual] Creator of this Universe if indeed the biblical story is true...we are dealing with a Rough Bot.