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?

[Purple Knight]

Q: Is the argument above logically sound?

To me, yes. But the more important bit to me is that because this is quite true:

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.

...Adam and Eve had no way of knowing that what they did was wrong. Yes, God said not to eat the apple, but for all Adam and Eve knew, obedience was evil and disobedience was good. In the modern world it is already accounted so, tyranny (and obedience to) being evil, and freedom being good, even if it's destructive freedom.

[William]

Q: Is the argument above logically sound?

To me, yes. But the more important bit to me is that because this is quite true:

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.

...Adam and Eve had no way of knowing that what they did was wrong. Yes, God said not to eat the apple, but for all Adam and Eve knew, obedience was evil and disobedience was good. In the modern world it is already accounted so, tyranny (and obedience to) being evil, and freedom being good, even if it's destructive freedom.

Q: How do I know what is morally right and what is morally wrong?

As you commented in another thread in answer to the above question;

This is the single best question in the world.

I think that this is why Christians such as The Tanager argue that morality is a natural attribute placed into the human design...in order to clearly claim that Adam and Eve knew that disobeying the command of their Creator was 'wrong' - as "they already had that knowledge of the difference between right and wrong as part of their nature and thus disobeyed of their own 'free will'"...but as the OP points outs, "then why the need for the forbidden fruit"?

[Purple Knight]

I think that this is why Christians such as The Tanager argue that morality is a natural attribute placed into the human design.

I hope they don't, because then what of the psychopath? And what of moral disagreements? Are we to believe that every time two people disagree about right and wrong, one of them is just lying about what he believes? Why would he do such a thing, since everyone's conscience says the same thing and nobody can ever be deceived...

[William]

I think that this is why Christians such as The Tanager argue that morality is a natural attribute placed into the human design.

I hope they don't, because then what of the psychopath? And what of moral disagreements? Are we to believe that every time two people disagree about right and wrong, one of them is just lying about what he believes? Why would he do such a thing, since everyone's conscience says the same thing and nobody can ever be deceived...

Well quite obviously there are differences in opinion on such questions as to what activities go into what group, and lots of grey areas.

So it is more likely that morals are really opinion-based rather than hardwired [into human nature whereby 'sin' is then seen to go against the very nature of 'who we are'] when all actions are natural from the go get - re-actions to nature itself, and when motivated by moral opinion, often are out of synch with nature [fantasy-based] for that.

[myth-one.com]

Is the argument above logically sound?

No, because your "given" is incorrect:

The Creator built this knowledge into the nature of the human instrument [as a given]

Mankind was created originally with two differences between themselves and God and the angels. These two differences are that man did not understand good from evil and man has a mortal physical body while God and the angels have immortal spiritual bodies.

They were not created with any ability to sin or any ability to choose to sin.

Definition of sin: Sin is violating the laws or commandments of God:

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: ...for sin is the transgression of the law. (I John 3:4)

However, to commit a sin, one must first recognize that the act is a sin:

To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (James 4:17)

For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. (Romans 5:13)

Thus, Adam and Eve were not born with the ability to sin, or born with any knowledge as to how to sin -- as they had no law.

So your given is flawed.

And the Lord God commanded the man saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2:16-17)

God did not suggest or recommend that man not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He commanded it! Since man was not created with the knowledge of good and evil he could not sin until God gave him this first commandment.

At this point, man has one, and only one, law or commandment: do not eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil!

Mankind was now free to choose between obeying or disobeying God's one commandment given to them.

It was the only commandment they knew, and thus the only one they could violate.

Satan saw to it that they did indeed violate this first commandment that God gave them.

When they did so -- they sinned for the first time.

[JehovahsWitness]

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 free will is "built from our human nature" how could it also only come about after a particular act? Is this not like saying a cat is a cat by nature but at the same time only becomes a cat after it is given a saucer of milk?


No I dont think your argument are logically sound.



JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

ADAM &EVE, FREE WILL and ... THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND BAD

[Purple Knight]

It was the only commandment they knew, and thus the only one they could violate.

And how were they to know that obeying God and disobeying Satan was right? Disobedience alone is not wrong. One says eat it, one says do not eat it. They have to disobey someone.

[JehovahsWitness]

It was the only commandment they knew, and thus the only one they could violate.

And how were they to know that obeying God and disobeying Satan was right?

The same way a non-psychopath instictively knows not to harm a baby. Or a sane person knows not to put their hand into a fire, by analysing previous experience, present reality and following God given internal instinct to trust those that love us.



Adam and Eve knew and had experience of their father and should logically have weighed the information that they had of God's instructions against the unproven claims of this "stranger".

To illustrate: A man is walking down the street with his arm around his wife of 30 years. A total stranger walks up to Him and without presenting any evidence tells him to leave her because she's cheating on him. Without discussing the matter with her, without thinking of her behaviour over the 30 years, without questioning this stranger's motives or identity... he believers the stranger and walks away from his marriage. Would such a decision be reasonable on the grounds that he didn't know who to believe? Which of the two did he know? If he and doubts how should he have proceeded? And why?

Love is a powerful force, some claim the strongest: ADAM and Eve at the very least should have sought out the one that had loved and cared for them their whole lives . The one that had given them everything they had (including each other) the father that they knew. Instead Eve (for the bible said Adam was not deceived) believed an unknown stranger making outrageous claims.

SHAME on them, shame on them both!



RELATED POSTS

Was it reasonable that Eve BELIEVE the snake?
viewtopic.php?p=1040358#p1040358

Who sinned first? Adam or Eve?[Gen 3:6]
viewtopic.php?p=1029137#p1029137

Would God not EXPECT his law to be broken ? ("set up To fail")
viewtopic.php?p=390066#p390066

Does Genesis indicate Adam and Eve literally had no way of grasping what the Word "good" meant?
viewtopic.php?p=1040394#p1040394

Did Adam and Eve understand the punishment (notion of death)?
viewtopic.php?p=849053#p849053

Why did Eves punishment involve increased birth pains?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 03#p801703

For more details please go to other posts related to...

.THE GARDEN OF EDEN , ORIGINAL SIN and ... THE DECEPTION OF EVE

[William]

Is the argument above logically sound?

No, because your "given" is incorrect:

It is not my 'given' - as the OP explains, a Christian [The Tanager] argued this as a given.

Christians have the established tactic of disagreeing with each other on interpreting the Bible, which itself injects a confusing array of claims - none of which are any better than the others - when scrutinized.

Only when one understands the story as something fabricated and expressed around the firesides of pre-historical human beings as an ignorant explanation for why they existed upon Earth, are we able to see through the confusion Christians have helped curse the world with.