Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

[unknown soldier]

If there's one issue that keeps apologists busy, it's the issue of unanswered prayer. Skeptics often point out that the hungry children who pray for food often die of starvation. If God exists, then why don't we see better results from prayer? Christian apologist Kyle Butt answers this question on pages 229-244 of A Christian's Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism. He explains that effective prayer must conform to the following:

1. Prayer must be "in the name of Jesus." That is, prayer must be in accord with Jesus' teachings and authority.
2. It is necessary for prayer to be in accord with God's will. God has a way of doing things that no prayer can change.
3. The person praying must believe she will receive what she requests. Otherwise, she won't receive what she requests!
4. The person praying must be a righteous person. So all you sinners, forget it!
5. Prayer won't work if the petitioner prays with selfish desires.
6. Persistence in prayer is important. One or two prayers might not be enough.

I'm eager to read what other members here have to say about these guidelines, but allow me to start out saying that if 1 is true, then anybody who is not a Christian won't benefit from prayer. I wonder if those non-Christians see that their prayers aren't doing any good.

Guideline 2 seems odd. It's like God saying: "I'll do anything you ask as long as I want to do it."

I'd say that 3 can result in a "snowball effect" which is to say that if a doubter's doubt can lead to a prayer not being answered, then the doubter might doubt even more!

Regarding 4, it seems to me that sinners need answered prayer more than the righteous.

Guideline 5 also seems odd because if you're petitioning God for something you want or need, then you are thinking of yourself, and what's wrong with that?

Finally, 6 doesn't explain why God can't just grant the petition with one prayer request, and neither does it tell us how many prayers it takes to succeed. Could it be that the person praying is praying for something that in time she'll get whether she prays or not?

[William]

It is not my argument that it is. I did not bring free will or morals into the argument. You did. You have yet to explain why.

Actually unknown soldier first brought up free will, claiming a Biblical passage went against it. Then unknown soldier said free will is used as an excuse to get God off the hook with evil. I explained how I thought it wasn't. Then unknown soldier had more critiques and I responded to them. Then other people made critiques of what I was saying, eventually you. Everything I have said is in response to critiques made against Christianity, usually that Christianity is inconsistent, not that some element is untrue. My responses have (rightly so) been of a defensive manor in that way.

Semantics. The main point is that Christian Mythology includes the notion of free will, and you as a Christian believe in that notion. The notion is being critiqued by myself and others. As I requested - You can start by explaining how humans knew about moral choice before they had the ability to know good from evil. Surely logic has it that knowledge of good and evil have to develop first before morals can be understood.

In spite of what you said to Tam, your argument here does seem to take a particular interpretation of what the tree of knowledge of good and evil is.

I am open to hear any interpretation of that mythology if it is at least sensible enough that it can withstand any critique.

The humans didn't know good from evil until they ate of the fruit. Adam and Eve know what God says is good to do: don't eat the fruit.

As I pointed out to Tam, it is the ONLY way in which to create beings of free will...who will actually act that out in order that the results can be studied...so without the fabled couple eating the fruit, they would not have been able to react as if they knew the consequences of free will. They would still be - as you refer to that state - "Robots".

So I can ascertain from that reasoning, that the god proposed by Christian Mythology requires that this happens. It may be considered 'evil' not do what this god commands, but if they hadn't of done it, they would not know that. So your statement that they knew what god says is 'good' swings against that mythology. Otherwise the tree would have been named "The Tree of the knowledge of evil" (since the pair of freshly created humans somehow already know what good is.)

Eve decides to eat it anyway because she saw it was good for food, that it was a delight to her eyes, and the tree might make her wise (without having to trust God and in direct contradiction to trusting God), three things she determined to be 'good,' and she went with what she deemed 'good' rather than what God deemed 'good.' Contextually, she is choosing for herself what is 'good' for her to do rather than trusting omniscient wisdom's idea of what is good for her to do.

So what is it that this god really wants? Robots or free will creatures? He obviously cannot have both and according to your interpretation of the mythology Eve making her own decision based upon what she thinks of as 'good' even though she obviously cannot possibly know what either good or evil is until she experiences both for herself.
According to your argument, her experience with this god before that fateful event has given her some knowledge of what is good, but how can she understand that if there is no counterpart in which she can experience the difference? And without that, how can she truly be a creature with actual free will?

How is "trusting omniscient wisdom's idea of what is good for her to do" going to make her a real person rather than simply a robot?

The choice is to either gift a being free will, giving them the possibility of experiencing love, or to enslave their will, giving them no possibility of experiencing love but making it so they cannot commit evil either. What do you think the better choice and why?

In relation to me in this real world situation, I myself have no judgement to make on the mythology. My task is simply to critique points you and other Christians make in defense of all of your combined interpretations of the mythology.

In that, - alongside how I interpret the idea of a Creator in relation to my real world experience, I see the whole mythology as a scientific experiment conducted by a creator-imaged as somewhat emotionally attached to his creation, desperately wanting it to work and sometimes frustrated with the results.

He wants his creation to recognize him whilst being within the creation he has set up to make this possible.

I would have to say that such a creator-type as this god, today, should be pretty pleased with the results of the experiment, all said and done...if indeed this world is the way he planned it to be for us.

Despite all its warts, an ape-man has been shown how to reach for the stars and get there...pretty impressive...

We've got to get clear in how you are using these terms 'perfect' and 'imperfect'.

I only use the terms as a mirror off of those who use the terms. I have no use for the terms in any other capacity as I do not judge what is 'perfect' and 'imperfect' because I see nothing in the Creation which clearly points to either as actual real things.

I am certainly happy for us to drop such notions, but suppose it is polite and useful to continue making mention of them as long as you are doing so.

The question is, am I reflecting back at you what how you are using these terms 'perfect' and 'imperfect'?

If you think I am am not, and feel such ideas have merit and thus should be included in argument, feel free to clarify.

The only way I can agree with your statement above is if we take 'imperfect' to simply mean "not morally perfect (in its prescriptive sense).

We don't require the distraction of semantics to muddy our talks, do we?
In the simplest of terms, if one sees an imperfection (as clearly you do) and writes of it as such, the other (in this case me) reflects that back to you for further clarification.

If "not morally perfect" is something you find to be imperfect, then I can go along with that to flesh it out.

In the mean time, I will continue to understand the mythology of free will shows even with free will, we are still imperfect. ("Imperfect" as measured by those who believe in the mythology and defend it.)

I said: "The main point being that clearly the mythology itself shows us an idea of a Creator who either isn't perfect OR is (perhaps) perfect and purposefully created imperfect beings. The mythology itself leans toward the idea that this being created the imperfect on purpose."

You replied;

So, in the third sense of 'imperfect' above, yes, Christianity says God purposefully created imperfect beings.

Not sure at this point this signals headway...we live in hope...

William wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 10:27 pm

He may be perfect in the sense that he was more than capable of doing so...the question might then be "should he have done so?" and for that answer one needs to uncover his purpose.
The claim being that the Christian Bible mythology does the job of uncovering his purpose...nothing of any substance in 2000 years of Christian occupation clearly shows us that Christianity is doing that job...

I am not sure what you mean in the second part.

The list is too long for me to bother informing you. I am slightly puzzled in a curious way by your seeming lack of ability to succinctly critique the history of Christendom...but never to mind...others may benefit from my words...

As to whether God should have done so, I think that creating 'imperfect' (third sense above) creatures is a better thing for a Creator to do then to create morally perfect (in the second sense above) beings because the latter aren't personal beings with the ability to love while the former is, and personal beings with the ability to love are better than having robots in spite of the evils that may occur.

I was wondering yesterday when thinking on our conversation, as to how you may view animals - are they robots, or do they have free will or perhaps somewhere in between...do animals naturally (robotically) love The Creator and indeed, does this christian idea of god require that they do or do not...and if not, what makes the human animal so much more remarkable to this god that he has to have humans love him for who (and indeed what) he is?

You appear to understand my view of heaven and hell as neutral places, which they are not. Heaven, by definition, is those places which have no corruption in it. Hell, by definition, is those places which have corruption. Without this distinction, then we just have one realm that is full of corruption, i.e., simply a Hell and no Heaven for eternity.

They are mythological places believed to be real. (They cannot be real until they are experienced.) They are neutral to each other in that neither can affect the other (with good or with evil) - your idea suggests that evil is stronger than good, and unless evil is separated from good, everything will eventually become evil.
That seems like a huge assumption on your part...and in relation to your idea of god, shows a being who is frightened of evil to the point that he believes he can be infected by it...so the whole operation (your gods purpose) is to rid himself of that threat.
To me that comes across as clearly a human idea that has been given undeserved/unmerited divine status...with no accompanying evidence... just wordy claims...

I write this because observing the creation I cannot identify anything therein which shows me a Creator scared of (his) own shadow...except when observing human-kind, who have been known to jump at such things....

William wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 10:27 pm

If humans were created as morally perfect, then they would not be as good ('perfect') as they could have been created. Having free will is better than being morally perfect robots.

This produces an image of a Creator who is not satisfied with his creations because they are all simply robots and cannot love him of their own free will, so he sets about creating an environment [science] where he can produce creatures with free will.

That is not the image because it assumes the Creator first made robots and then beings with free will, which I have not claimed. I spoke of the choice between the two.

Do you not think it sensible that your god first created robots and found nothing to fulfill his need (to be loved by his creation) so he created free will critters to compensate?
The question to then ask is "What difference would it make if the god has never created robots?" Perhaps the answer you provide might give us clarity...

Where does the text show a surprised God?

What text? I only write of Christian mythology in the only way it can be mentioned - generally. To do anything else with the script is to immerse oneself in the distracting web of different Christian interpretations.

If I take into account that the god was sorry for creating all this and sought to wipe the slate clean only to be surprised that one human being (Noah) offered potential and so continued on with the experiment, am I to be chastised for reading too much into that? If so, then we can agree together that this god cannot be surprised and knows exactly what is going to happen. No changing horses mid-stream...can he be surprised or not?

Interference isn't necessarily "hurrying things along".

It can be though, don't you agree?

William wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 10:27 pm

In interfering - perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not - he tampered with the results so couldn't trust that those who personally witnessed him actually loved him for who he was/is or because they feared what would happen to them if they did not love him.

Where does the text show this? God is presented in the Bible as knowing our deepest thoughts. Or where is the logical argument that this is the only logical interpretation one could have?

So we are going with the idea of a god who can never be surprised?

I am using science to critic the imagery the text provides. The text tells us that on occasion the god interfered in human goings on for the specific purpose of changing the course of history - the storyline as it were - to better suit his agenda...in scientific terms this equates to the scientist fudging the results. That is the critique of the text.

Why would anyone expect the text to 'show' anything other than what is plainly recorded in said text?

Where does the text show this? You seem to be reading that into the text instead of out of it.

The text itself isn't everything. It is simply a part of everything else. One has to step out of it in order to get the best vantage in which to observe it as it is, in its place. It may appear to you that I am "reading things into the text which are not there" when what I am actually doing is seeing the text for what it is saying, in relation to the wider reality the text is involved within.

[The Tanager]

As I requested - You can start by explaining how humans knew about moral choice before they had the ability to know good from evil. Surely logic has it that knowledge of good and evil have to develop first before morals can be understood.

I did respond to that. I rejected your assumption that humans didn't have the ability to know good from evil, according to the text.

As I pointed out to Tam, it is the ONLY way in which to create beings of free will...who will actually act that out in order that the results can be studied...so without the fabled couple eating the fruit, they would not have been able to react as if they knew the consequences of free will. They would still be - as you refer to that state - "Robots".

You don't move from being a 'robot' to being a creature with free will once you've made the wrong choice. You are either in one state or the other regardless of any choices you've actually been faced with.

So I can ascertain from that reasoning, that the god proposed by Christian Mythology requires that this happens. It may be considered 'evil' not do what this god commands, but if they hadn't of done it, they would not know that. So your statement that they knew what god says is 'good' swings against that mythology. Otherwise the tree would have been named "The Tree of the knowledge of evil" (since the pair of freshly created humans somehow already know what good is.)

Nothing I've said requires God requiring them to eat the fruit. Evil is the opposite of good. You know one and you know the other. They already knew what both good and evil were. They hadn't experienced making an evil choice yet. Their first experience of choosing for themselves what is good and evil is why the tree is named that.

So what is it that this god really wants? Robots or free will creatures? He obviously cannot have both and according to your interpretation of the mythology Eve making her own decision based upon what she thinks of as 'good' even though she obviously cannot possibly know what either good or evil is until she experiences both for herself.
According to your argument, her experience with this god before that fateful event has given her some knowledge of what is good, but how can she understand that if there is no counterpart in which she can experience the difference? And without that, how can she truly be a creature with actual free will?

Why do you think we can't know good or evil until we experience both? I know child abuse is bad without having abused a child or being abused myself. Free will does not require the experience of both good and evil actions.

How is "trusting omniscient wisdom's idea of what is good for her to do" going to make her a real person rather than simply a robot?

Robots can't choose. Trusting someone is a choice. The act of trusting does not transform them into a person; it simply shows what is already true (as would mistrusting).

The choice is to either gift a being free will, giving them the possibility of experiencing love, or to enslave their will, giving them no possibility of experiencing love but making it so they cannot commit evil either. What do you think the better choice and why?

In relation to me in this real world situation, I myself have no judgement to make on the mythology. My task is simply to critique points you and other Christians make in defense of all of your combined interpretations of the mythology.

I'm asking you to follow out the critique process. The choice is either to gift a being free will, giving them the possibility of experiencing love or to enslave their will, giving them no possibility of experiencing love but making it so they cannot commit evil either. I think the better choice includes love because that is real freedom, real personality while the robotic option, in spite of its lack of evil, has no real personality. If you think my view still worth critiquing, then why am I wrong?

We don't require the distraction of semantics to muddy our talks, do we?
In the simplest of terms, if one sees an imperfection (as clearly you do) and writes of it as such, the other (in this case me) reflects that back to you for further clarification.

If "not morally perfect" is something you find to be imperfect, then I can go along with that to flesh it out.

I do not think "not morally perfect" is an imperfection. I don't think humans were made imperfect. I don't see having free will as an imperfection. So, I clearly do not see an imperfection, using my terms. So, now what?

I said I could use "imperfect" in a sense I don't normally and then agree that humans were made "imperfect" in that way. I did that because you seemed to think my mythology commits me to thinking humans are imperfect in spite of what I actually believe.

I was wondering yesterday when thinking on our conversation, as to how you may view animals - are they robots, or do they have free will or perhaps somewhere in between...do animals naturally (robotically) love The Creator and indeed, does this christian idea of god require that they do or do not...and if not, what makes the human animal so much more remarkable to this god that he has to have humans love him for who (and indeed what) he is?

Animals are non-moral beings.

They are mythological places believed to be real. (They cannot be real until they are experienced.) They are neutral to each other in that neither can affect the other (with good or with evil) - your idea suggests that evil is stronger than good, and unless evil is separated from good, everything will eventually become evil.
That seems like a huge assumption on your part...and in relation to your idea of god, shows a being who is frightened of evil to the point that he believes he can be infected by it...so the whole operation (your gods purpose) is to rid himself of that threat.
To me that comes across as clearly a human idea that has been given undeserved/unmerited divine status...with no accompanying evidence... just wordy claims...

I write this because observing the creation I cannot identify anything therein which shows me a Creator scared of (his) own shadow...except when observing human-kind, who have been known to jump at such things....

That is not what my idea suggests at all. I do not think evil is stronger than good. My idea suggests that good and evil must logically be separate things. They can't come together and exist in the same place. It's logically impossible. God is not frightened of evil. He can't be infected by it. He's not trying to rid Himself of that. He's trying to redeem evil into good.

Do you not think it sensible that your god first created robots and found nothing to fulfill his need (to be loved by his creation) so he created free will critters to compensate?

No, it's not sensible. God is omniscient. He would know what creating robots would produce without experimentation.

What text? I only write of Christian mythology in the only way it can be mentioned - generally. To do anything else with the script is to immerse oneself in the distracting web of different Christian interpretations.

Christianity cannot be discussed generally in that sense. You aren't writing of it generally in that sense. You are using specific interpretation(s) of Christianity in your critiques of what I say, many interpretations that I do not hold (putting you in danger of critiquing strawmen). Now, maybe I should hold a different interpretation from the text, but I don't. The question becomes what you take as a your task here: to argue what my Christian interpretation should be or to critique my Christianity based on what my interpretation is. I'm fine with either.

My reading of the Bible is that God is not surprised, even when a surface reading of a story like Noah seems to contradict that. Do you want to discuss the Noah story or focus on the bigger picture of my "Christian mythology"?

My reading of the Bible is that God doesn't occasionally interfere for the purpose of changing the course of history to better suit his agenda. Do you want to talk about a specific text that you think shows otherwise, so you can learn why I disagree or focus on the bigger picture of my Christian mythology, free will and all that?

Interference isn't necessarily "hurrying things along".

It can be though, don't you agree?

Yes.

[Clownboat]

Satan isn't necessary as a corrupting influence. Without Satan, some other voice would try to corrupt us and we use our voice to corrupt others regardless.

Is there a way for you to demonstrate to us that you in fact have been corrupted by a Satan (or some other voice)?

Perhaps you have, but is it fair to then project your corruptness on to the rest of humanity? I don't find that fair myself. What if you and select others are the only ones corrupted? If a person is corrupt, they should own it and do what they can to better themselves. Blaming it on a Satan or other voices is to not take responsibility and is a seemingly uneeded crutch.

You appear too ready to not blame humans as though they have no ability to overcome outside influences;

This is very odd to me since you are the one blaming a Satan and 'other voices'.

I have a higher picture of humanity than that appears to present.

This claim is hard to swallow with all your corruption claims.

[The Tanager]

Satan isn't necessary as a corrupting influence. Without Satan, some other voice would try to corrupt us and we use our voice to corrupt others regardless.

Is there a way for you to demonstrate to us that you in fact have been corrupted by a Satan (or some other voice)?

Perhaps you have, but is it fair to then project your corruptness on to the rest of humanity? I don't find that fair myself. What if you and select others are the only ones corrupted? If a person is corrupt, they should own it and do what they can to better themselves. Blaming it on a Satan or other voices is to not take responsibility and is a seemingly uneeded crutch.

I have continually talked about it being our human responsibility in this thread. Others are saying that my worldview is inconsistent with that and that God would be to blame if my worldview were true. After what you quoted of my post I immediately said: "Still, we aren't forced to listen to the corrupting voices..." That's the complete opposite of blaming it on Satan or other voices. We should own our choices because they are ours.

Whether you agree with my assessment of the extent of human corruption or not is up to you, I'm not trying to prove it true. I'm defending my worldview against specific critiques, ones that have accepted certain Christian teachings as true and then tried to show contradictions within the teachings themselves. I don't like having too many conversations going on at once, but would love to return to this issue later with you, if you would still wish.

You appear too ready to not blame humans as though they have no ability to overcome outside influences;

This is very odd to me since you are the one blaming a Satan and 'other voices'.

Do you still think I am blaming Satan and 'other voices'? I actually did, and believe, the complete opposite.

I have a higher picture of humanity than that appears to present.

This claim is hard to swallow with all your corruption claims.

So, of these two:

1. Humans have no control over their actions, but are rather determined to act in specific ways because of outside influences.

2. Humans have control over their actions in the midst of outside influences.

You think (1) is a higher picture of humanity than (2)? Or vice versa?

[William]

As I requested - You can start by explaining how humans knew about moral choice before they had the ability to know good from evil. Surely logic has it that knowledge of good and evil have to develop first before morals can be understood.

I did respond to that. I rejected your assumption that humans didn't have the ability to know good from evil, according to the text.

According to the text, there was a fruit of a tree which gave the pair the ability to know good and evil. Are you saying that the text is telling us that the pair already knew good and evil and the tree was simply a prop?

As I pointed out to Tam, it is the ONLY way in which to create beings of free will...who will actually act that out in order that the results can be studied...so without the fabled couple eating the fruit, they would not have been able to react as if they knew the consequences of free will. They would still be - as you refer to that state - "Robots".

You don't move from being a 'robot' to being a creature with free will once you've made the wrong choice. You are either in one state or the other regardless of any choices you've actually been faced with.

Again, one has to wonder then how the forbidden fruit or the tempting serpent had anything to do with the process. In regard to the serpent, do you think that it too was a creature with free will?

So I can ascertain from that reasoning, that the god proposed by Christian Mythology requires that this happens. It may be considered 'evil' not do what this god commands, but if they hadn't of done it, they would not know that. So your statement that they knew what god says is 'good' swings against that mythology. Otherwise the tree would have been named "The Tree of the knowledge of evil" (since the pair of freshly created humans somehow already know what good is.)

Nothing I've said requires God requiring them to eat the fruit.

Nothing you've said explains how free will creatures are going to know the difference without experiencing those differences for themselves.

Evil is the opposite of good. You know one and you know the other.

Therefore it was not the fruit of the forbidden tree which gave them any knowledge of either. They were created that way in the first place.

They already knew what both good and evil were. They hadn't experienced making an evil choice yet. Their first experience of choosing for themselves what is good and evil is why the tree is named that.

So yes - it certainly appears to be that you are arguing the fruit of the tree itself was simply a prop used to tempt out any evil that was within them.
The script however, does not convey any such thing as you propose in your argument. You accused me of reading things into the script but it appears you are doing so yourself.

So what is it that this god really wants? Robots or free will creatures? He obviously cannot have both and according to your interpretation of the mythology Eve making her own decision based upon what she thinks of as 'good' even though she obviously cannot possibly know what either good or evil is until she experiences both for herself.
According to your argument, her experience with this god before that fateful event has given her some knowledge of what is good, but how can she understand that if there is no counterpart in which she can experience the difference? And without that, how can she truly be a creature with actual free will?

Why do you think we can't know good or evil until we experience both? I know child abuse is bad without having abused a child or being abused myself. Free will does not require the experience of both good and evil actions.

Is this a case of child abuse? Why is it that religious folk argue minor mistakes in the same breath as they argue heinous crimes?
I would argue that your knowledge of the evil of child abuse comes from your exposure over time to the subject rather than something you intuitive know to be wrong and that if you had been brought up in a different culture where knowledge of the problems of such abuse went unrecognized, you would have a different opinion.

Point being, one acquires knowledge which one is not born with...and the text regarding the mythology clearly speaks to that...

How is "trusting omniscient wisdom's idea of what is good for her to do" going to make her a real person rather than simply a robot?

Robots can't choose. Trusting someone is a choice. The act of trusting does not transform them into a person; it simply shows what is already true (as would mistrusting).

I think your knowledge of what being a robot is like is limited by your knowledge of what having free will is like. You cliam that the god wanted free will creatures to trust him seems at odds with the story. Trust him to do what exactly? To place them into a situation where there was a chance they would fail to trust him? Apparently that is what happened, and clearly in today's world, anyone placing their children purposefully in the way of harm - just to test their ability to trust you - would be considered child abuse. Why is it that you defend this god and blame the children for making poor choices when placed within a situation whereby they actually needed to be coxed into making said poor choices?

The choice is to either gift a being free will, giving them the possibility of experiencing love, or to enslave their will, giving them no possibility of experiencing love but making it so they cannot commit evil either. What do you think the better choice and why?

In relation to me in this real world situation, I myself have no judgement to make on the mythology. My task is simply to critique points you and other Christians make in defense of all of your combined interpretations of the mythology.

I'm asking you to follow out the critique process. The choice is either to gift a being free will, giving them the possibility of experiencing love or to enslave their will, giving them no possibility of experiencing love but making it so they cannot commit evil either. I think the better choice includes love because that is real freedom, real personality while the robotic option, in spite of its lack of evil, has no real personality. If you think my view still worth critiquing, then why am I wrong?

I am not critiquing whether you are right or wrong - and I would suggest that you do not take it personally when I critique the storyline and different interpretations Christians have about it.
From what I can gather of your own interpretation, you have very distinct ideas of what robots are and wish to use this to try and make your overall argument appear rational.
My own view is that robots are far more suited to this environment than free will beings could ever be and I think a robot could be programmed to act in a nurturing manner which could be seen as loving.
Therefore, I naturally wonder why humans were created if robots are obviously better suited to said environment, following your arguments concerning this.
In that, it appears you are arguing the god had some void in which he wanted filled -because he lacked free will critters which could potentially love him regardless of what position he paced them in...which seem to be rather unrealistic request.

We don't require the distraction of semantics to muddy our talks, do we?
In the simplest of terms, if one sees an imperfection (as clearly you do) and writes of it as such, the other (in this case me) reflects that back to you for further clarification.

If "not morally perfect" is something you find to be imperfect, then I can go along with that to flesh it out.

I do not think "not morally perfect" is an imperfection. I don't think humans were made imperfect. I don't see having free will as an imperfection. So, I clearly do not see an imperfection, using my terms. So, now what?

If you think "not morally perfect" is NOT an imperfection and humans were made perfect, then this leads one to think that your argument is that humans were made perfect except they were not morally perfect, which appears to be a contradiction.
Either humans were created perfect or they were not, but mixing things up only muddies the waters. You want your cake and to eat it too?
To be clear, which argument are you going with. Humans were made perfect or not? Presently you seem to be arguing that 'yes they were made perfect although they were not morally perfect".

I said I could use "imperfect" in a sense I don't normally and then agree that humans were made "imperfect" in that way. I did that because you seemed to think my mythology commits me to thinking humans are imperfect in spite of what I actually believe.

What you actually believe is of no particular interest to me unless it shows your willingness to contradict said beliefs in order to try and make them rational things to believe in. Either humans were created perfectly or they were not.
If they were not, then they were purposefully created imperfect. The god in question wasn't concerned with creating perfect robots but rather imperfect beings which he could then (somehow) watch become prefect when they used their free will to love him with. That appears to be the essence of your argument.

I was wondering yesterday when thinking on our conversation, as to how you may view animals - are they robots, or do they have free will or perhaps somewhere in between...do animals naturally (robotically) love The Creator and indeed, does this christian idea of god require that they do or do not...and if not, what makes the human animal so much more remarkable to this god that he has to have humans love him for who (and indeed what) he is?

Animals are non-moral beings.

What does that mean in context of your argument? Are "non-moral beings" 'robots'? It appears to me that if you believe humans are different from animals because we are "moral beings" then one could argue that moral beings are less intuitively natural in terms of how they interact with their environment. Clearly humans are the only 'animal' which use their abilities to act out against their enviroment even to the point of destroying said environment rather than nurturing it.
Are you arguing that 'moral beings' are the reason for this being the case?

They are mythological places believed to be real. (They cannot be real until they are experienced.) They are neutral to each other in that neither can affect the other (with good or with evil) - your idea suggests that evil is stronger than good, and unless evil is separated from good, everything will eventually become evil.
That seems like a huge assumption on your part...and in relation to your idea of god, shows a being who is frightened of evil to the point that he believes he can be infected by it...so the whole operation (your gods purpose) is to rid himself of that threat.
To me that comes across as clearly a human idea that has been given undeserved/unmerited divine status...with no accompanying evidence... just wordy claims...

I write this because observing the creation I cannot identify anything therein which shows me a Creator scared of (his) own shadow...except when observing human-kind, who have been known to jump at such things....

That is not what my idea suggests at all. I do not think evil is stronger than good. My idea suggests that good and evil must logically be separate things.

And yet here we exist within an environment where BOTH co-exist. So does your argument include the illogical choice of this god to place these separate things together?

They can't come together and exist in the same place. It's logically impossible. God is not frightened of evil. He can't be infected by it. He's not trying to rid Himself of that. He's trying to redeem evil into good.

This then suggests that the god was trying to use good to influence evil to choose to become good...which itself changes the reasons you have been giving in relation to the mythology. How can one change evil into good when so obviously the story is teaching how influential evil is over the minds of free will beings?

Do you not think it sensible that your god first created robots and found nothing to fulfill his need (to be loved by his creation) so he created free will critters to compensate?

No, it's not sensible. God is omniscient. He would know what creating robots would produce without experimentation.

And yet the storyline clearly shows that the god needed experimentation in relation to creating free will beings - his omniscience didn't appear to reach into that mystery OR he knew exactly what would occur and decided to give it a go anyway...

What text? I only write of Christian mythology in the only way it can be mentioned - generally. To do anything else with the script is to immerse oneself in the distracting web of different Christian interpretations.

Christianity cannot be discussed generally in that sense.

Apparently Christians generally disagree with that assessment, otherwise why are there so many of them trying to engage us with their particular differing interpretations as being the TRUE interpretation to follow?

You aren't writing of it generally in that sense. You are using specific interpretation(s) of Christianity in your critiques of what I say, many interpretations that I do not hold (putting you in danger of critiquing strawmen). Now, maybe I should hold a different interpretation from the text, but I don't. The question becomes what you take as a your task here: to argue what my Christian interpretation should be or to critique my Christianity based on what my interpretation is. I'm fine with either.

I am surprised you have not noticed that I am specifically critiquing your particular interpretation as it unfolds - as you clarify (as you must) - as it is becoming apparent that your particular beliefs move away from the general ... shall we say 'traditional' interpretations which Christianity has injected into the world over the past 2000 years...

My reading of the Bible is that God is not surprised, even when a surface reading of a story like Noah seems to contradict that. Do you want to discuss the Noah story or focus on the bigger picture of my "Christian mythology"?

I am fine with going along with your idea that the god can never be surprised, and any "surface reading" which suggests otherwise is merely a writers error.

My reading of the Bible is that God doesn't occasionally interfere for the purpose of changing the course of history to better suit his agenda. Do you want to talk about a specific text that you think shows otherwise, so you can learn why I disagree or focus on the bigger picture of my Christian mythology, free will and all that?

As I have noted, there is literal no good reason to get caught up in the individual webs of interpretations. If you believe this god has no agenda and does not interfere with the experiment then I am happy to put that down to writers error rather than argue about your personal beliefs on such text. In that, I prefer to let the Christians argue with each other than involve myself in that. That is why there is the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum.

[The Tanager]

According to the text, there was a fruit of a tree which gave the pair the ability to know good and evil. Are you saying that the text is telling us that the pair already knew good and evil and the tree was simply a prop?

So yes - it certainly appears to be that you are arguing the fruit of the tree itself was simply a prop used to tempt out any evil that was within them.
The script however, does not convey any such thing as you propose in your argument. You accused me of reading things into the script but it appears you are doing so yourself.

If they didn't know what good meant, then how could Eve have seen that the fruit was "good for food" in 3:6? I think the story is clearly about them rejecting what God says is good/evil and deciding for themselves what good is. The reasons given for Eve's choice in 3:6 are (1) it looks good to eat, (2) is aesthetically pleasing, and (3) promises wisdom apart from God. The couple decides for themselves what is good. So, the name could refer to knowledge in the sense of deciding good/evil for themselves. It could also refer to their first experience of evil, knowing evil in an experiential way for the first time. The same term for knowledge is used in 4:1 to describe Adam and Eve having sex, experiencing a knowledge of the other, when they clearly intellectually knew about the other previously.

You don't move from being a 'robot' to being a creature with free will once you've made the wrong choice. You are either in one state or the other regardless of any choices you've actually been faced with.

Again, one has to wonder then how the forbidden fruit or the tempting serpent had anything to do with the process. In regard to the serpent, do you think that it too was a creature with free will?

Humans are made with free will. The tree and serpent (who I think did have free will) is an opportunity (among many others) for them to trust God or decide for themselves what is good for them to do.

Nothing you've said explains how free will creatures are going to know the difference without experiencing those differences for themselves.

Why do I need to? You made the claim that one can't know the difference without actually experiencing the difference. That is your positive claim to support. In spite of that I did share a counter example of how I know child abuse is bad without having experienced either side of it myself.

Is this a case of child abuse? Why is it that religious folk argue minor mistakes in the same breath as they argue heinous crimes?
I would argue that your knowledge of the evil of child abuse comes from your exposure over time to the subject rather than something you intuitive know to be wrong and that if you had been brought up in a different culture where knowledge of the problems of such abuse went unrecognized, you would have a different opinion.

Point being, one acquires knowledge which one is not born with...and the text regarding the mythology clearly speaks to that...

I could have used any number of examples, so don't let the heinousness of child abuse sidetrack you. I didn't say they had the intuitive knowledge of all good and evil. The text speaks about God making such-and-such and calling it good. God directly tells them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because they will die; clear implication is that to eat it would be bad. Adam and Eve know this by God telling them it. They have that knowledge, even when they start to see that the fruit is pretty, looks delicious, and might be a path to wisdom apart from listening to God. They ignore the knowledge they had.

I think your knowledge of what being a robot is like is limited by your knowledge of what having free will is like. You cliam that the god wanted free will creatures to trust him seems at odds with the story. Trust him to do what exactly? To place them into a situation where there was a chance they would fail to trust him?

Trust His (omniscient) word of what is good for them to do. It is logically impossible for God to give them free will, yet keep them from a situation where there is a chance they fail to trust Him. It's not like God has a choice to put them in that situation or not, once He gives them free will, they will necessarily come up against such situations. In those situations they can succeed or fail.

Apparently that is what happened, and clearly in today's world, anyone placing their children purposefully in the way of harm - just to test their ability to trust you - would be considered child abuse.

He is not testing their ability to trust Him. Having free will logically requires them having such opportunities or it can't be free will. They can't exist and not have such opportunities, logically speaking.

Why is it that you defend this god and blame the children for making poor choices when placed within a situation whereby they actually needed to be coxed into making said poor choices?

They didn't need the serpent's coaxing. Eve added her own coaxing to the serpent's. The serpent didn't say the fruit was good for eating and pretty.

From what I can gather of your own interpretation, you have very distinct ideas of what robots are and wish to use this to try and make your overall argument appear rational.

I don't have a full-orbed ontology of robots that I'm using to make any argument. The use of "robots" is a very specific point; it's an analogy after all.

My own view is that robots are far more suited to this environment than free will beings could ever be...

What environment are you talking about?

and I think a robot could be programmed to act in a nurturing manner which could be seen as loving.

Something being programmed to act as though they were loving is different than actually being loving. I define to love as something like: to will the good of someone or something. Anything that is programmed cannot will anything, at least not in a useful meaning of the word "will".

Therefore, I naturally wonder why humans were created if robots are obviously better suited to said environment, following your arguments concerning this.
In that, it appears you are arguing the god had some void in which he wanted filled -because he lacked free will critters which could potentially love him regardless of what position he paced them in...which seem to be rather unrealistic request.

I don't know why you think I'm arguing God has a void that we fill. I am a Trinitarian, where God Himself already has love present within the three Persons. God can eternally experience love whether other creatures were created or not. It would be good for other creatures (their own good, not that being which already exists in love) to join that community. But robots can't be a part of that community. Robots could co-exist beside them, but they wouldn't be a part of the loving community because they are incapable of truly loving (whatever their actions may look like). So, God creates beings with free will, who can become a part of that community. But, those beings, logically, are able to choose to not be a part of that community.

If you think "not morally perfect" is NOT an imperfection and humans were made perfect, then this leads one to think that your argument is that humans were made perfect except they were not morally perfect, which appears to be a contradiction.
Either humans were created perfect or they were not, but mixing things up only muddies the waters. You want your cake and to eat it too?
To be clear, which argument are you going with. Humans were made perfect or not? Presently you seem to be arguing that 'yes they were made perfect although they were not morally perfect".

I said humans were not made imperfect, which is different than saying they were made perfect. Some atheists nowadays will say they are simply not theists in using that term, not that they actually believe God does not exist. But, perhaps, you feel those examples are semantics.

I don't have a problem in saying humans were made 'perfect,' if that term is properly understood. In that sense 'perfect' means something different for a human than it does a dog, a tree, or a planet. A perfect human must either (1) have free will or (2) be prescriptively morally perfect. I think the better option is (1).

To avoid confusion perhaps I should say that humans were made 'good,' but not 'morally perfect,' where 'good' does not refer to moral 'goodness'? I'm open for using a different term if it is better.

I said I could use "imperfect" in a sense I don't normally and then agree that humans were made "imperfect" in that way. I did that because you seemed to think my mythology commits me to thinking humans are imperfect in spite of what I actually believe.

What you actually believe is of no particular interest to me unless it shows your willingness to contradict said beliefs in order to try and make them rational things to believe in. Either humans were created perfectly or they were not.
If they were not, then they were purposefully created imperfect. The god in question wasn't concerned with creating perfect robots but rather imperfect beings which he could then (somehow) watch become prefect when they used their free will to love him with. That appears to be the essence of your argument.

In that sense of 'imperfect,' yes, God created imperfect beings. In this sense, humans are neither morally perfect nor morally imperfect; they start off morally neutral because they haven't had to make any moral choices yet. They have no "batting average," metaphorically speaking; it's neither 1.000 nor .000. So, of course, in this understanding, the humans can become perfect (or imperfect).

God knows that none will bat 1.000, though. God sets about getting them to a point where they can start "getting a hit" every future at-bat, though. But, with these terms, humans will never become 'perfect,' but that's perfectly fine. That requires them trusting God at every turn. Christianity says that requires Jesus' Incarnation, death, and resurrection.

Animals are non-moral beings.

What does that mean in context of your argument? Are "non-moral beings" 'robots'?

It's irrelevant to my argument, as far as I can tell. You can be a robot and face moral decisions or be a robot and not face any moral decisions. Animals are the latter kind.

It appears to me that if you believe humans are different from animals because we are "moral beings" then one could argue that moral beings are less intuitively natural in terms of how they interact with their environment. Clearly humans are the only 'animal' which use their abilities to act out against their enviroment even to the point of destroying said environment rather than nurturing it.
Are you arguing that 'moral beings' are the reason for this being the case?

I think I understand what you are saying. Yes, I think non-human animals are instinctual in how they act. I do think many animal instincts are self-centered (for self or family group), which could cause damage to the environment and other creatures, though.

And yet here we exist within an environment where BOTH co-exist. So does your argument include the illogical choice of this god to place these separate things together?

What do you mean that they co-exist? They aren't in the same "location" at the same time. Yes, they both exist on Earth, but that doesn't mean they are not logically separate things.

This then suggests that the god was trying to use good to influence evil to choose to become good...which itself changes the reasons you have been giving in relation to the mythology. How can one change evil into good when so obviously the story is teaching how influential evil is over the minds of free will beings?

That doesn't change anything I've said. God made things 'good'. Part of them being 'good' is that they had free will (rather than be a robot). God tried to influence them and help them to choose good. They use their free will to become evil (whether influenced by others or not). God still tries to influence them and help them to choose good. His ultimate answer to helping them is Jesus.

And yet the storyline clearly shows that the god needed experimentation in relation to creating free will beings - his omniscience didn't appear to reach into that mystery OR he knew exactly what would occur and decided to give it a go anyway...

Leaving the unneccessary tangent of God's relationship to time aside, yes, He knew exactly what would occur and decided to give it a go anyway. What's the problem with that?

Christianity cannot be discussed generally in that sense.

Apparently Christians generally disagree with that assessment, otherwise why are there so many of them trying to engage us with their particular differing interpretations as being the TRUE interpretation to follow?

Emphasis mine. Maybe I don't understand your use of discussing Christianity 'generally'? General and particular are opposites to me.

I am surprised you have not noticed that I am specifically critiquing your particular interpretation as it unfolds - as you clarify (as you must) - as it is becoming apparent that your particular beliefs move away from the general ... shall we say 'traditional' interpretations which Christianity has injected into the world over the past 2000 years...

You are the one who said you were talking about Christian mythology generally, rather than dealing with the "distracting web of different Christian interpretations." I said you are critiquing a particular interpretation and that your critiques are based off of particular interpretations. I don't think my interpretations are non-traditional ones. Maybe they are the ones you are familiar with, but that is different than being "traditional" Christianity.

I am fine with going along with your idea that the god can never be surprised, and any "surface reading" which suggests otherwise is merely a writers error.

As I have noted, there is literal no good reason to get caught up in the individual webs of interpretations. If you believe this god has no agenda and does not interfere with the experiment then I am happy to put that down to writers error rather than argue about your personal beliefs on such text. In that, I prefer to let the Christians argue with each other than involve myself in that. That is why there is the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum.

First off, calling it a writer's error is just another way to say that your interpretation is correct and mine wrong. That is "getting caught up with individual webs of interpretations" while skirting your burden to support your interpretation. You say you don't want to get caught up in that, so don't.

So, for the purposes of our discussion: (1) God is not surprised and (2) to clarify, I don't think God is involved in some kind of experiment to find out information at all. I think God does have an agenda (bring free will beings into a loving community with Himself) and is constantly engaging His creatures towards that agenda.

[William]

According to the text, there was a fruit of a tree which gave the pair the ability to know good and evil. Are you saying that the text is telling us that the pair already knew good and evil and the tree was simply a prop?

So yes - it certainly appears to be that you are arguing the fruit of the tree itself was simply a prop used to tempt out any evil that was within them.
The script however, does not convey any such thing as you propose in your argument. You accused me of reading things into the script but it appears you are doing so yourself.

If they didn't know what good meant, then how could Eve have seen that the fruit was "good for food" in 3:6?

So the tree turns out to be simply an unnecessary prop written into the plot.

I think the story is clearly about them rejecting what God says is good/evil and deciding for themselves what good is. The reasons given for Eve's choice in 3:6 are (1) it looks good to eat, (2) is aesthetically pleasing, and (3) promises wisdom apart from God.

Or the story is a human explanation for why humans suffer life and then die, in relation to the idea of being created and existing within such a creation.

The couple decides for themselves what is good. So, the name could refer to knowledge in the sense of deciding good/evil for themselves. It could also refer to their first experience of evil, knowing evil in an experiential way for the first time. The same term for knowledge is used in 4:1 to describe Adam and Eve having sex, experiencing a knowledge of the other, when they clearly intellectually knew about the other previously.

The point being is that if they don't experience it they cannot know it. Certainly knowing intellectually about sex could have been achieved by simply studying the interactions of animals and understanding their own forms where similar. But that is only part of the recipe of knowing about anything.

If you want to go that way, what examples prior to this are we given in the mythology that tell us plainly that the pair had intellectual knowledge of good and evil? What in the command of the god suggests that they understood the implications of eating the fruit?
One could argue that they knew what death was by witnessing it happen to other animals, in the same way you argue that they knew about sex. But that is still incomplete knowledge.

You don't move from being a 'robot' to being a creature with free will once you've made the wrong choice. You are either in one state or the other regardless of any choices you've actually been faced with.

Again, one has to wonder then how the forbidden fruit or the tempting serpent had anything to do with the process. In regard to the serpent, do you think that it too was a creature with free will?

Humans are made with free will. The tree and serpent (who I think did have free will) is an opportunity (among many others) for them to trust God or decide for themselves what is good for them to do.

According to the mythology, Eve did not know enough. She did not know that touching the fruit was not forbidden, yet she seemed to have (wrong) knowledge that it would cause her harm. We are not informed as to how she came about this knowledge, but obviously the Serpent saw a way to tempt her, by convincing her to touch the fruit.
But even when both had touched and eaten of the fruit, they did not die - which - if the god had been telling the whole truth, they should have.

Nothing you've said explains how free will creatures are going to know the difference without experiencing those differences for themselves.

Why do I need to?

Because you made the claim that they knew the difference.

You made the claim that one can't know the difference without actually experiencing the difference. That is your positive claim to support.

Obviously nature shows us that we know no thing until we experience it. We can know things about things, but that is different, as it is incomplete knowledge.

In spite of that I did share a counter example of how I know child abuse is bad without having experienced either side of it myself.

I critiqued that claim.

Is this a case of child abuse? Why is it that religious folk argue minor mistakes in the same breath as they argue heinous crimes?
I would argue that your knowledge of the evil of child abuse comes from your exposure over time to the subject rather than something you intuitive know to be wrong and that if you had been brought up in a different culture where knowledge of the problems of such abuse went unrecognized, you would have a different opinion.

Point being, one acquires knowledge which one is not born with...and the text regarding the mythology clearly speaks to that...

I didn't say they had the intuitive knowledge of all good and evil. The text speaks about God making such-and-such and calling it good. God directly tells them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because they will die; clear implication is that to eat it would be bad. Adam and Eve know this by God telling them it.

Actually the story presents a being claiming to be their creator. They have no way of even knowing this is the truth. Your belief in this intuitive knowledge the pair possessed does not dovetail nicely into the mythology. Indeed, if they knew things intuitively, what need was there for a being claiming to be their creator to present himself to them and give them instructions regarding what to do and what not to do?
As far as what the being deems as 'good', it depends upon the purpose for what the being set the creation up to achieve. It is 'good' for the placement of other beings of limited knowledge...which of course is not necessarily good for those other beings.

They have that knowledge, even when they start to see that the fruit is pretty, looks delicious, and might be a path to wisdom apart from listening to God. They ignore the knowledge they had.

I submit that they had the choice to ignore this knowledge you claim they had because it was not something they felt could be wholly trusted. Your own argument says as much anyway. They did not wholly trust this being calling himself their creator and perhaps they had adequate reason not to.

I think your knowledge of what being a robot is like is limited by your knowledge of what having free will is like. You claim that the god wanted free will creatures to trust him seems at odds with the story. Trust him to do what exactly? To place them into a situation where there was a chance they would fail to trust him?

Trust His (omniscient) word of what is good for them to do. It is logically impossible for God to give them free will, yet keep them from a situation where there is a chance they fail to trust Him. It's not like God has a choice to put them in that situation or not, once He gives them free will, they will necessarily come up against such situations. In those situations they can succeed or fail.

It is still a form of abuse. We ourselves have come to know that if a parent exposes their children to danger, it would be no sensible defense which could let that parent off on the grounds that the child had been warned and it was the child's fault for using its free will to do something it had been told not to, even that the parent knew the dangers and placed the child in harms way. Would you argue that the parent was in the right and exhibiting love? If not, why are you arguing that this god is in the right?

Apparently that is what happened, and clearly in today's world, anyone placing their children purposefully in the way of harm - just to test their ability to trust you - would be considered child abuse.

He is not testing their ability to trust Him.

You are changing horses.... If it wasn't about trusting the god, why did you write that Eve chose not to trust omniscient wisdom's idea of what is good for her to do? Why did you write they did not trust His (omniscient) word of what is good for them to do?

Having free will logically requires them having such opportunities or it can't be free will. They can't exist and not have such opportunities, logically speaking.

But the opportunities only presented themselves when trust in the truth of this god word failed them.

Therefore it has to be equally logical that no actual 'sin' was committed. No wrong was done. It was all quite natural. If it wasn't about trusting the god then what was it about?

Why is it that you defend this god and blame the children for making poor choices when placed within a situation whereby they actually needed to be coxed into making said poor choices?

They didn't need the serpent's coaxing. Eve added her own coaxing to the serpent's. The serpent didn't say the fruit was good for eating and pretty.

If we removed the Serpent from the story, are you saying that they still would have chosen to eat the forbidden fruit? If 'yes' then why have the Serpent involved? If 'no' then it is logical to conclude that the Serpent was necessary to get them to make the poor choice.

From what I can gather of your own interpretation, you have very distinct ideas of what robots are and wish to use this to try and make your overall argument appear rational.

I don't have a full-orbed ontology of robots that I'm using to make any argument. The use of "robots" is a very specific point; it's an analogy after all.

In today's day an age we know what robots are. In that we can understand your use of the analogy in order to make the distinction. If one were to program a robot to make bad choices it would be the programmers fault. If we were to place sentient creatures into a dangerous environment and withhold full knowledge from them, and they were harmed because of their ignorant choices, it would be the fault of the creator of said environment for not making sure the creatures where fully informed.

My own view is that robots are far more suited to this environment than free will beings could ever be...

What environment are you talking about?

This Universe.

and I think a robot could be programmed to act in a nurturing manner which could be seen as loving.

Something being programmed to act as though they were loving is different than actually being loving. I define to love as something like: to will the good of someone or something. Anything that is programmed cannot will anything, at least not in a useful meaning of the word "will".

My point is that the environment is better suited to robots programmed to nurture said environment. Certainly better suited than the free will human beings this mythology has a god creating and placing in said environment.

Therefore, I naturally wonder why humans were created if robots are obviously better suited to said environment, following your arguments concerning this.
In that, it appears you are arguing the god had some void in which he wanted filled -because he lacked free will critters which could potentially love him regardless of what position he paced them in...which seem to be rather unrealistic request.

I don't know why you think I'm arguing God has a void that we fill.

Your argument naturally goes in that direction. Right from the start of our interaction you made it clear that the god created beings with free will who could use that to trust in him and love him. What other reason would the god create something other than to fill a void? The void in this regard is that no beings capable of free will existed and so they were created? If this is not what you mean then please inform me as to what the god was motivated by to do so, as otherwise I cannot see the logic of your argument.

I am a Trinitarian, where God Himself already has love present within the three Persons. God can eternally experience love whether other creatures were created or not. It would be good for other creatures (their own good, not that being which already exists in love) to join that community.

This is not logically love in action. Billions suffer on the planet in order that a tiny, tiny percentage of those might become part of a community which is solely focused upon a being claiming to have created them? The rest are consigned to an eternity of hell? That is the general consensus of Christianity. Perhaps you do not agree with that consensus? Or are you are okay with this because you see it all as a 'loving act'?

But robots can't be a part of that community. Robots could co-exist beside them, but they wouldn't be a part of the loving community because they are incapable of truly loving (whatever their actions may look like). So, God creates beings with free will, who can become a part of that community. But, those beings, logically, are able to choose to not be a part of that community.

What is it that you can actually point to and prove "This is truly loving"?

If you think "not morally perfect" is NOT an imperfection and humans were made perfect, then this leads one to think that your argument is that humans were made perfect except they were not morally perfect, which appears to be a contradiction.
Either humans were created perfect or they were not, but mixing things up only muddies the waters. You want your cake and to eat it too?
To be clear, which argument are you going with. Humans were made perfect or not? Presently you seem to be arguing that 'yes they were made perfect although they were not morally perfect".

I said humans were not made imperfect, which is different than saying they were made perfect.

How is that 'different'? Is there some state in between which is neither perfect or imperfect?

Some atheists nowadays will say they are simply not theists in using that term, not that they actually believe God does not exist. But, perhaps, you feel those examples are semantics.

No actual atheists say they believe that god(s) exist/that they exist within a creation. Agnostics can say they have no beliefs in relation to that question. Atheists are firm in regard to their position on the matter.

I don't have a problem in saying humans were made 'perfect,' if that term is properly understood. In that sense 'perfect' means something different for a human than it does a dog, a tree, or a planet. A perfect human must either (1) have free will or (2) be prescriptively morally perfect. I think the better option is (1).

To avoid confusion perhaps I should say that humans were made 'good,' but not 'morally perfect,' where 'good' does not refer to moral 'goodness'? I'm open for using a different term if it is better.

In that you would be open to saying beings can be good without them also being moral. Do you think that is the case?

I said I could use "imperfect" in a sense I don't normally and then agree that humans were made "imperfect" in that way. I did that because you seemed to think my mythology commits me to thinking humans are imperfect in spite of what I actually believe.

What you actually believe is of no particular interest to me unless it shows your willingness to contradict said beliefs in order to try and make them rational things to believe in. Either humans were created perfectly or they were not.
If they were not, then they were purposefully created imperfect. The god in question wasn't concerned with creating perfect robots but rather imperfect beings which he could then (somehow) watch become prefect when they used their free will to love him with. That appears to be the essence of your argument.

In that sense of 'imperfect,' yes, God created imperfect beings. In this sense, humans are neither morally perfect nor morally imperfect; they start off morally neutral because they haven't had to make any moral choices yet. They have no "batting average," metaphorically speaking; it's neither 1.000 nor .000. So, of course, in this understanding, the humans can become perfect (or imperfect).

In that sense, one can then take the argument that this god created imperfect beings and placed them in an imperfect environment but that the beings and the environment were perfect for each other in relation to why the god created the imperfect states of both beings and environment.

God knows that none will bat 1.000, though. God sets about getting them to a point where they can start "getting a hit" every future at-bat, though. But, with these terms, humans will never become 'perfect,' but that's perfectly fine. That requires them trusting God at every turn. Christianity says that requires Jesus' Incarnation, death, and resurrection.

As far as Christian mythology goes to explain the human condition and the environment, one could nowadays conclude that it is natural to make up stories which appear 'good' in order to explain somethings which appear 'evil' but equally natural not to actually believe those stories are real (true) but rather, are simply methods adopted to help explain what (then) was unknown. Analogies, but nothing more than that. They are meant to serve a purpose but are also meant to be abandoned as more and more actual truth surfaces through continued human interaction with and learning from the environment of nature.

Animals are non-moral beings.

What does that mean in context of your argument? Are "non-moral beings" 'robots'?

It's irrelevant to my argument, as far as I can tell. You can be a robot and face moral decisions or be a robot and not face any moral decisions. Animals are the latter kind.

So in your opinion, animals (which are not human) are robots?
Also, can you give an example of a robot that can face moral decisions?

It appears to me that if you believe humans are different from animals because we are "moral beings" then one could argue that moral beings are less intuitively natural in terms of how they interact with their environment. Clearly humans are the only 'animal' which use their abilities to act out against their environment even to the point of destroying said environment rather than nurturing it.
Are you arguing that 'moral beings' are the reason for this being the case?

I think I understand what you are saying. Yes, I think non-human animals are instinctual in how they act. I do think many animal instincts are self-centered (for self or family group), which could cause damage to the environment and other creatures, though.

Can you give some examples as to those kinds of animals? Also, it appears crystal clear to me that the nature of our environment allows for what you refer to as 'damage' as part of its overall makeup. It is not a dualistic thing (ie 'good and evil') so much as a singular thing which envelops both creativity and destruction as a part of its natural makeup.

And yet here we exist within an environment where BOTH co-exist. So does your argument include the illogical choice of this god to place these separate things together?

What do you mean that they co-exist? They aren't in the same "location" at the same time. Yes, they both exist on Earth, but that doesn't mean they are not logically separate things.

Is it logic which separate them though? It appears to me that for the most part, such concepts are anchored firmly in human emotion, which we all should appreciate is seldom connected with logic.
We also understand that what is considered 'good' for some is considered 'evil' for others, so it is in that sense that I write that these concepts do indeed co-exist if they are not judged (from a purely emotive position) but simply accepted as part of the natural order of all things in this universe.
Indeed, isn't that the way you are trying to argue for the logic of your gods own choices in relation to said creation?

This then suggests that the god was trying to use good to influence evil to choose to become good...which itself changes the reasons you have been giving in relation to the mythology. How can one change evil into good when so obviously the story is teaching how influential evil is over the minds of free will beings?

That doesn't change anything I've said. God made things 'good'. Part of them being 'good' is that they had free will (rather than be a robot). God tried to influence them and help them to choose good. They use their free will to become evil (whether influenced by others or not). God still tries to influence them and help them to choose good. His ultimate answer to helping them is Jesus.

Is Jesus really any gods 'ultimate answer'? How is it that evil was so easily able to infiltrate Christianity and be used in that way, if Jesus was the ultimate answer?
I could understand it more in terms which would have the god saying "yes I take responsibility for my part in this unfolding adventure and rectify that in Jesus - all is forgiven and no need for an eternity of hell for anyone" but that is not the general Christian message and you yourself believe that an eternal hell is the best answer this god could come up with in relation to what to do about free will creatures who chose to reject what can only be honestly referred to as unsubstantiated claims made by a variety of religious institutions over the centuries.

How is that a 'good' thing when one can figure out far better 'ultimate' ways of ensuring free will beings get to experience the actual love of a creator through the creator himself rather than through mediums claiming to speak on behalf of the creator?

And yet the storyline clearly shows that the god needed experimentation in relation to creating free will beings - his omniscience didn't appear to reach into that mystery OR he knew exactly what would occur and decided to give it a go anyway...

Leaving the unnecessary tangent of God's relationship to time aside, yes, He knew exactly what would occur and decided to give it a go anyway. What's the problem with that?

Why do you think it an 'unnecessary tangent' when logically it has to be part of the question needing answering?
As to 'what is the problem with that?' There is no problem as long as everyone gets out of it what they want to. It only becomes a problem when notions such as eternal torment and suffering become a part of that story (as per Christian mythology). One simply knows intuitively that injustice is being served should that be an actual state individuals are consigned to.

Christianity cannot be discussed generally in that sense.

Apparently Christians generally disagree with that assessment, otherwise why are there so many of them trying to engage us with their particular differing interpretations as being the TRUE interpretation to follow?

Emphasis mine. Maybe I don't understand your use of discussing Christianity 'generally'? General and particular are opposites to me.

I only write of Christian mythology in the only way it can be mentioned - generally rather than particularly. To do anything else with the script is to immerse oneself in the distracting web of different Christian interpretations.
I critique the particular where I see inconsistency, changing of horse in mid-stream (shifting goalposts) trying to have ones cake and eat it too, etc...in an individual Christians interpretations of said general script.

I am surprised you have not noticed that I am specifically critiquing your particular interpretation as it unfolds - as you clarify (as you must) - as it is becoming apparent that your particular beliefs move away from the general ... shall we say 'traditional' interpretations which Christianity has injected into the world over the past 2000 years...

You are the one who said you were talking about Christian mythology generally, rather than dealing with the "distracting web of different Christian interpretations." I said you are critiquing a particular interpretation and that your critiques are based off of particular interpretations. I don't think my interpretations are non-traditional ones. Maybe they are the ones you are familiar with, but that is different than being "traditional" Christianity.

I follow the logic that "There are no true Christians" (One true Scotsman fallacy) in relation to individuals calling themselves 'Christians' and simply deal with them as individuals. My mention of generalities occurs when I identify similar/same beliefs coming through.

I am fine with going along with your idea that the god can never be surprised, and any "surface reading" which suggests otherwise is merely a writers error.

As I have noted, there is literal no good reason to get caught up in the individual webs of interpretations. If you believe this god has no agenda and does not interfere with the experiment then I am happy to put that down to writers error rather than argue about your personal beliefs on such text. In that, I prefer to let the Christians argue with each other than involve myself in that. That is why there is the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum.

First off, calling it a writer's error is just another way to say that your interpretation is correct and mine wrong. That is "getting caught up with individual webs of interpretations" while skirting your burden to support your interpretation. You say you don't want to get caught up in that, so don't.

Let me clarify then - I am not interpreting anything but simply taking the script as it is presented. When someone has written that the god was sorry for creating free will beings (as per your free will argument) and you have written in effect that the god is never surprised, I am content to go along with you and conclude that the story is poorly worded if it gives the impression the god was surprised (and thus 'sorry') as the god cannot be 'sorry' for creating free will beings as the god cannot have been surprised by their actions.

So, for the purposes of our discussion: (1) God is not surprised and (2) to clarify, I don't think God is involved in some kind of experiment to find out information at all. I think God does have an agenda (bring free will beings into a loving community with Himself) and is constantly engaging His creatures towards that agenda.

In principle I see no problem with this, other than how badly written the mythology is as it clearly isn't that clear. I suppose that is the exact reason why there are so many Christians with differing interpretations but I reject any notion (veiled or otherwise) that it is my fault I don't understand any particular Christians personal interpretations of said mythology.

I critique as I see the holes in said mythology and respect any curtesy of clarification which the individual provides me with.

[The Tanager]

So the tree turns out to be simply an unnecessary prop written into the plot.

What do you mean? Could it have been something else that elicited the first disobedience? Yes, it's not necesssary in that sense. But there has to be something. Does that mean it wasn't actually eating fruit from a specific tree? No.

Or the story is a human explanation for why humans suffer life and then die, in relation to the idea of being created and existing within such a creation.

The story does not present itself to be taken that way, though.

The point being is that if they don't experience it they cannot know it.

Obviously nature shows us that we know no thing until we experience it. We can know things about things, but that is different, as it is incomplete knowledge.

Those are two different concepts, though. And incomplete knowledge is different, still, from not having enough knowledge. I'm not arguing they previously had 'complete' knowledge. I'm saying they had enough to know what was the good/right thing to do.

If you want to go that way, what examples prior to this are we given in the mythology that tell us plainly that the pair had intellectual knowledge of good and evil? What in the command of the god suggests that they understood the implications of eating the fruit?

3:3. Eve knows that God said they would die if they ate the fruit. That's clearly knowing the implications. The alternative would be that God basically said the equivalent of "eat the fruit and you will schnarkle." "What is schnarkle," Eve later asked Adam.

According to the mythology, Eve did not know enough. She did not know that touching the fruit was not forbidden, yet she seemed to have (wrong) knowledge that it would cause her harm. We are not informed as to how she came about this knowledge, but obviously the Serpent saw a way to tempt her, by convincing her to touch the fruit.
But even when both had touched and eaten of the fruit, they did not die - which - if the god had been telling the whole truth, they should have.

God never forbids touching the fruit, nor does He say doing so would lead to death; Eve adds that bit in 3:3. From the context of the story, the death being talked about is spiritual and becoming mortal, Adam and Eve know this, and it does happen.

Actually the story presents a being claiming to be their creator. They have no way of even knowing this is the truth.

The text doesn't say the humans doubted God was the creator; it doesn't address that question directly. It does not say they doubted God's statement about death. It shows them choosing the fruit's aesthetics, mouth-wateringness, and the chance of knowing good and evil apart from God over God's statement to not eat it and the consequence being death.

I didn't say they had the intuitive knowledge of all good and evil. The text speaks about God making such-and-such and calling it good. God directly tells them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because they will die; clear implication is that to eat it would be bad. Adam and Eve know this by God telling them it.

Your belief in this intuitive knowledge the pair possessed does not dovetail nicely into the mythology. Indeed, if they knew things intuitively, what need was there for a being claiming to be their creator to present himself to them and give them instructions regarding what to do and what not to do?

Please look again at the bolded parts above. I just said it isn't intuitive knowledge (the first bolded part) and that they knew it by God telling them (the second bolded part).

As far as what the being deems as 'good', it depends upon the purpose for what the being set the creation up to achieve. It is 'good' for the placement of other beings of limited knowledge...which of course is not necessarily good for those other beings.

I agree 'good' is relative in that way. I'm not sure what you are saying in the second part, though. What do you mean good for the placement of other beings but not good for those other beings?

I submit that they had the choice to ignore this knowledge you claim they had because it was not something they felt could be wholly trusted. Your own argument says as much anyway. They did not wholly trust this being calling himself their creator and perhaps they had adequate reason not to.

The text doesn't show that they have adequate reason to.

It is still a form of abuse. We ourselves have come to know that if a parent exposes their children to danger, it would be no sensible defense which could let that parent off on the grounds that the child had been warned and it was the child's fault for using its free will to do something it had been told not to, even that the parent knew the dangers and placed the child in harms way. Would you argue that the parent was in the right and exhibiting love? If not, why are you arguing that this god is in the right?

It comes down to whether one thinks free will is better than robotic moral perfection. The difference between God and a parent is that for God to intervene, He must do away with free will, while parents intervening in their kids life does not.

Apparently that is what happened, and clearly in today's world, anyone placing their children purposefully in the way of harm - just to test their ability to trust you - would be considered child abuse.

He is not testing their ability to trust Him.

You are changing horses.... If it wasn't about trusting the god, why did you write that Eve chose not to trust omniscient wisdom's idea of what is good for her to do? Why did you write they did not trust His (omniscient) word of what is good for them to do?

I'm not changing horses. You seemed to be saying the reason God did it was to test their ability to trust Him, like some kind of experiment God did to gain knowledge. I have continually disagreed with that, as I'm doing here. Did you mean something else?

Having free will logically requires them having such opportunities or it can't be free will. They can't exist and not have such opportunities, logically speaking.

But the opportunities only presented themselves when trust in the truth of this god word failed them.

That's two sides of the same coin. You seem to be treating these as separate things.

Therefore it has to be equally logical that no actual 'sin' was committed. No wrong was done. It was all quite natural.

How could an omniscient being logically be wrong about it being sin or not?

If we removed the Serpent from the story, are you saying that they still would have chosen to eat the forbidden fruit? If 'yes' then why have the Serpent involved? If 'no' then it is logical to conclude that the Serpent was necessary to get them to make the poor choice.

I think they had the chance to always make the right choice, with or without the serpent trying to deceive them. I think they could make the wrong choice with or without the serpent, whether it was eating the fruit or something else. The serpent is involved because the author believed it actually went down that way or as a personification of the inanimate temptation.

If we were to place sentient creatures into a dangerous environment and withhold full knowledge from them, and they were harmed because of their ignorant choices, it would be the fault of the creator of said environment for not making sure the creatures where fully informed.

That depends on what you mean by "full knowledge". They had "enough" knowledge to avoid the harm. I think that puts the fault on the creature (although the Creator is responsible for the creature having the ability to be at fault).

My point is that the environment is better suited to robots programmed to nurture said environment. Certainly better suited than the free will human beings this mythology has a god creating and placing in said environment.

Do you mean that the environment would fare better? If so, then I agree. But I think God desires a loving community of free will beings over a perfect environment and that He is making the better choice.

I don't know why you think I'm arguing God has a void that we fill.

Your argument naturally goes in that direction. Right from the start of our interaction you made it clear that the god created beings with free will who could use that to trust in him and love him. What other reason would the god create something other than to fill a void? The void in this regard is that no beings capable of free will existed and so they were created? If this is not what you mean then please inform me as to what the god was motivated by to do so, as otherwise I cannot see the logic of your argument.

God was motivated by love to include other beings in that love for their good.

This is not logically love in action. Billions suffer on the planet in order that a tiny, tiny percentage of those might become part of a community which is solely focused upon a being claiming to have created them? The rest are consigned to an eternity of hell? That is the general consensus of Christianity. Perhaps you do not agree with that consensus? Or are you are okay with this because you see it all as a 'loving act'?

If free will exists, then Hell must logically exist as a possible "destination" (whether any person ends up "there" or not). As to what happens "in" Hell, I lean towards annihilationism (for Biblical and philosophical reasons). It is not the majority view of Hell among Christians, but I think that is more for cultural reasons (although I could be wrong). Regardless of that, annihilationism is a traditional Christian understanding present from early on.

But robots can't be a part of that community. Robots could co-exist beside them, but they wouldn't be a part of the loving community because they are incapable of truly loving (whatever their actions may look like). So, God creates beings with free will, who can become a part of that community. But, those beings, logically, are able to choose to not be a part of that community.

What is it that you can actually point to and prove "This is truly loving"?

I use love to mean "willing the good of another." Using that definition, robots cannot love because they cannot will; they have their actions determined by outside factors. I think my point logically follows from this. If you don't agree with the definition, then we are simply talking about different concepts. I'm fine in changing the terminology, if you want to do that, as long as we are talking about the same concepts.

I said humans were not made imperfect, which is different than saying they were made perfect.

How is that 'different'? Is there some state in between which is neither perfect or imperfect?

Morally neutral. This approaches moral perfection/imperfection like a batting average or completion percentage (i.e., in a descriptive way).

In that you would be open to saying beings can be good without them also being moral. Do you think that is the case?

Yes, where 'good' means something different than 'moral goodness'. I'm fine using a different term as well. Perhaps humans can be 'ideal' without being morally perfect. I'm not sure what the best term to use is to avoid as many confusions as possible (and that probably depends on everyone in the conversation and the history of terms in their encounters and usage).

In that sense of 'imperfect,' yes, God created imperfect beings. In this sense, humans are neither morally perfect nor morally imperfect; they start off morally neutral because they haven't had to make any moral choices yet. They have no "batting average," metaphorically speaking; it's neither 1.000 nor .000. So, of course, in this understanding, the humans can become perfect (or imperfect).

In that sense, one can then take the argument that this god created imperfect beings and placed them in an imperfect environment but that the beings and the environment were perfect for each other in relation to why the god created the imperfect states of both beings and environment.

The environment could only be described as 'imperfect' in this sense, if it is a moral being itself. But then it really is a "being" and not an "environment". I'm definitely not making this argument (just making that clear, if it isn't).

As far as Christian mythology goes to explain the human condition and the environment, one could nowadays conclude that it is natural to make up stories which appear 'good' in order to explain somethings which appear 'evil' but equally natural not to actually believe those stories are real (true) but rather, are simply methods adopted to help explain what (then) was unknown. Analogies, but nothing more than that. They are meant to serve a purpose but are also meant to be abandoned as more and more actual truth surfaces through continued human interaction with and learning from the environment of nature.

Of course one could. Whether one should conclude this conclusion is true is another question.

So in your opinion, animals (which are not human) are robots?

Yes, robots that don't face moral decisions.

Also, can you give an example of a robot that can face moral decisions?

Perhaps "decision" isn't the best word, I don't know. Let's say the moral "decision" is to abuse a child or not. A robot that is programmed to abuse the child is "facing a moral decision," although perhaps better language could be used.

Can you give some examples as to those kinds of animals? Also, it appears crystal clear to me that the nature of our environment allows for what you refer to as 'damage' as part of its overall makeup. It is not a dualistic thing (ie 'good and evil') so much as a singular thing which envelops both creativity and destruction as a part of its natural makeup.

I'm simply thinking of things like a lion eating a zebra, or, vaguely, of some animal that may do actions which damage the environment but help them survive. Perhaps there is no such animal that inadvertently damages the environment?

I agree that damage is built into the environment. For instance, I'm not sure Earth could be habitable without the weather patterns that can bring suffering on humans. I would say that this isn't an issue of good versus evil at all, rather than being both good and evil.

Is it logic which separate them though? It appears to me that for the most part, such concepts are anchored firmly in human emotion, which we all should appreciate is seldom connected with logic.
We also understand that what is considered 'good' for some is considered 'evil' for others, so it is in that sense that I write that these concepts do indeed co-exist if they are not judged (from a purely emotive position) but simply accepted as part of the natural order of all things in this universe.
Indeed, isn't that the way you are trying to argue for the logic of your gods own choices in relation to said creation?

I don't think good and evil are anchored in human emotion (although human thoughts of what is good and evil often are), but in God's nature (a nature which is logical).

I'm not sure why you think I'm trying to argue in that way. Perhaps I've misunderstood something?

Is Jesus really any gods 'ultimate answer'? How is it that evil was so easily able to infiltrate Christianity and be used in that way, if Jesus was the ultimate answer?

I think Jesus is the ultimate answer. Evil infiltrates Christianity because Christians (just like everyone else) have free will, stubbornly holding onto their desire to determine good/evil for ourselves. Becoming like God is a process that we continually fight, yet God leads us one step at a time.

I could understand it more in terms which would have the god saying "yes I take responsibility for my part in this unfolding adventure and rectify that in Jesus - all is forgiven and no need for an eternity of hell for anyone" but that is not the general Christian message and you yourself believe that an eternal hell is the best answer this god could come up with in relation to what to do about free will creatures who chose to reject what can only be honestly referred to as unsubstantiated claims made by a variety of religious institutions over the centuries.

How is that a 'good' thing when one can figure out far better 'ultimate' ways of ensuring free will beings get to experience the actual love of a creator through the creator himself rather than through mediums claiming to speak on behalf of the creator?

What are these better ways? I'm open to considering them.

Leaving the unnecessary tangent of God's relationship to time aside, yes, He knew exactly what would occur and decided to give it a go anyway. What's the problem with that?

Why do you think it an 'unnecessary tangent' when logically it has to be part of the question needing answering?

For our purposes, I don't think it matters if God knows what will happen and chooses to go through with it or whether God makes a choice (knowing all the possibilities) and sees what happens and timelessly reacts to those happenings. If you see an affect I don't, then share and I'll share my thoughts.

First off, calling it a writer's error is just another way to say that your interpretation is correct and mine wrong. That is "getting caught up with individual webs of interpretations" while skirting your burden to support your interpretation. You say you don't want to get caught up in that, so don't.

Let me clarify then - I am not interpreting anything but simply taking the script as it is presented. When someone has written that the god was sorry for creating free will beings (as per your free will argument) and you have written in effect that the god is never surprised, I am content to go along with you and conclude that the story is poorly worded if it gives the impression the god was surprised (and thus 'sorry') as the god cannot be 'sorry' for creating free will beings as the god cannot have been surprised by their actions.

In principle I see no problem with this, other than how badly written the mythology is as it clearly isn't that clear. I suppose that is the exact reason why there are so many Christians with differing interpretations but I reject any notion (veiled or otherwise) that it is my fault I don't understand any particular Christians personal interpretations of said mythology.

I critique as I see the holes in said mythology and respect any curtesy of clarification which the individual provides me with.

First, that is still doing it. "Taking the script as it is presented" is rhetoric for "my interpretation is the simplest or clearest or author-intended one." Just because it is the first impression you get doesn't mean the story is poorly worded. You come from a different culture than the author (as do I) and there is danger for us reading our culture and expectations and worldview into the text when they aren't there. Errors that arise because of that isn't the author's fault. I'm fine with you critiquing holes as you see the mythology and open to clarifications, but it is your fault in claiming your impression is the clear reading of the text when you haven't accounted for the possible cultural differences.

Second, and more importantly, I didn't argue that God was sorry for creating free will beings. I have said that God was sorry that free will beings use it for evil, but in spite of that God is still not sorry He created free will beings.

[William]

So the tree turns out to be simply an unnecessary prop written into the plot.

What do you mean? Could it have been something else that elicited the first disobedience? Yes, it's not necesssary in that sense. But there has to be something. Does that mean it wasn't actually eating fruit from a specific tree? No.

No. What I mean is that it was something else already within the pair which required a trigger, to which the tree was the prop which caused that something else to become an external reaction.

Or the story is a human explanation for why humans suffer life and then die, in relation to the idea of being created and existing within such a creation.

The story does not present itself to be taken that way, though.

It is a story. Mythology presents itself through stories as real events which actually happened, but that is mythology.

The point being is that if they don't experience it they cannot know it.

Obviously nature shows us that we know no thing until we experience it. We can know things about things, but that is different, as it is incomplete knowledge.

Those are two different concepts, though. And incomplete knowledge is different, still, from not having enough knowledge. I'm not arguing they previously had 'complete' knowledge. I'm saying they had enough to know what was the good/right thing to do.

Which is why I argue in return that the fruit of the tree was simply a prop to bring out what was already in them....to reveal that. But to whom? Certainly not to the god (who knows all this about the pair already since he is omniscient)...

If you want to go that way, what examples prior to this are we given in the mythology that tell us plainly that the pair had intellectual knowledge of good and evil? What in the command of the god suggests that they understood the implications of eating the fruit?

3:3. Eve knows that God said they would die if they ate the fruit. That's clearly knowing the implications. The alternative would be that God basically said the equivalent of "eat the fruit and you will schnarkle." "What is schnarkle," Eve later asked Adam.
God never forbids touching the fruit, nor does He say doing so would lead to death; Eve adds that bit in 3:3.

2:15-18 the god took Adam (therefore from somewhere else) and placed Adam in the Garden and instructed Adam not to eat of a particular tree. After the instruction (how long after - the story does not inform us) the god created Eve as a companion. There is no mention of the god instructing Eve regarding the forbidden fruit, so we can assume that Adam was the one who informed Eve.

3:3 shows us one of two things...either Eve added to the command or Adam did when he instructed Eve regarding the command. Either way, clearly the command was added to and clearly the Serpent saw a way in which it could entice Eve because if it could get her to simply touch the fruit and no harm came to her, it would be easy enough to convince her that eating the fruit would not harm her either....
In my opinion, it is more likely Eve was repeating to the Serpent what she had been instructed by Adam regarding the fruit of the tree.

According to the mythology, Eve did not know enough. She did not know that touching the fruit was not forbidden, yet she seemed to have (wrong) knowledge that it would cause her harm. We are not informed as to how she came about this knowledge, but obviously the Serpent saw a way to tempt her, by convincing her to touch the fruit.
But even when both had touched and eaten of the fruit, they did not die - which - if the god had been telling the whole truth, they should have.

From the context of the story, the death being talked about is spiritual and becoming mortal, Adam and Eve know this, and it does happen.

It is one thing to understand the pair had knowledge of physical death processes as they would have witnessed the death of animals in their environment.
There is nothing which tells us they understood what a 'spiritual death' was about. Certainly the god is not shown to differentiate and simply said that they 'would surely die'.

Actually the story presents a being claiming to be their creator. They have no way of even knowing this is the truth.

The text doesn't say the humans doubted God was the creator; it doesn't address that question directly.

I did not claim that it did. What I wrote was that they had no way of being able to know whether that was the truth of the matter.

It does not say they doubted God's statement about death.

The story clearly shows that they did doubt. That doubt was amplified in Eve when she decided to touch the fruit and no harm (death) came to her.

It shows them choosing the fruit's aesthetics, mouth-wateringness, and the chance of knowing good and evil apart from God over God's statement to not eat it and the consequence being death.

The story clearly shows that the death the god spoke of was not going to be instantaneous, but rather, slow and drawn out with lots of suffering before that final breath...the story clearly shows that they were not fully informed as to the way in which this death would come to them but the way the god chose to word it, there was room for them to assume the death would be fairly quick.

I didn't say they had the intuitive knowledge of all good and evil. The text speaks about God making such-and-such and calling it good. God directly tells them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because they will die; clear implication is that to eat it would be bad. Adam and Eve know this by God telling them it.

Your belief in this intuitive knowledge the pair possessed does not dovetail nicely into the mythology. Indeed, if they knew things intuitively, what need was there for a being claiming to be their creator to present himself to them and give them instructions regarding what to do and what not to do?

Please look again at the bolded parts above. I just said it isn't intuitive knowledge (the first bolded part) and that they knew it by God telling them (the second bolded part).

Okay then, we can agree to drop the idea of 'intuitive knowledge' as relative to this argument?

As far as what the being deems as 'good', it depends upon the purpose for what the being set the creation up to achieve. It is 'good' for the placement of other beings of limited knowledge...which of course is not necessarily good for those other beings.

I agree 'good' is relative in that way. I'm not sure what you are saying in the second part, though. What do you mean good for the placement of other beings but not good for those other beings?

I mean that it is a good place to place the beings but not necessarily because it is going to work out good for those beings. Like prison.

I submit that they had the choice to ignore this knowledge you claim they had because it was not something they felt could be wholly trusted. Your own argument says as much anyway. They did not wholly trust this being calling himself their creator and perhaps they had adequate reason not to.

The text doesn't show that they have adequate reason to.

That is what I am saying.

It is still a form of abuse. We ourselves have come to know that if a parent exposes their children to danger, it would be no sensible defense which could let that parent off on the grounds that the child had been warned and it was the child's fault for using its free will to do something it had been told not to, even that the parent knew the dangers and placed the child in harms way. Would you argue that the parent was in the right and exhibiting love? If not, why are you arguing that this god is in the right?

It comes down to whether one thinks free will is better than robotic moral perfection.

Why? Why does one have to be 'better' than the other? Would it not depend on circumstance?
I think it more appropriate in this particular environment (The Universe, but Earth specifically) that robots are the better option than beings of flesh and blood. It make more logical sense, the robots won't experience harm but only harmony, so in that way it is 'better'.

The difference between God and a parent is that for God to intervene, He must do away with free will, while parents intervening in their kids life does not.

Interesting side note then. IF love does not intervene THEN parents (etc) who do so, are not acting from love....but as we have already agreed, the god in the story does indeed intervene, so when he does, is free will somehow suspended while that is going on?

Apparently that is what happened, and clearly in today's world, anyone placing their children purposefully in the way of harm - just to test their ability to trust you - would be considered child abuse.

He is not testing their ability to trust Him.

You are changing horses.... If it wasn't about trusting the god, why did you write that Eve chose not to trust omniscient wisdom's idea of what is good for her to do? Why did you write they did not trust His (omniscient) word of what is good for them to do?

I'm not changing horses. You seemed to be saying the reason God did it was to test their ability to trust Him, like some kind of experiment God did to gain knowledge. I have continually disagreed with that, as I'm doing here. Did you mean something else?

I am trying to follow your argument regarding 'trust'. You seem to be saying that the god had no desire for the pair to trust him while at the same time you seem to be saying that they failed to trust the god...how can the pair fail in something that the god did not require from them in the first place? How can 'sin' have occurred?

Having free will logically requires them having such opportunities or it can't be free will. They can't exist and not have such opportunities, logically speaking.

But the opportunities only presented themselves when trust in the truth of this god word failed them.

That's two sides of the same coin. You seem to be treating these as separate things.

?

Therefore it has to be equally logical that no actual 'sin' was committed. No wrong was done. It was all quite natural.

How could an omniscient being logically be wrong about it being sin or not?

The idea of sin is chronologically presented after the fact. The god himself makes no mentioned that the pair 'sinned'. What is mentioned is that the god asks them "who told you that you are naked?" and the question appears to be designed to get them to think about what the answer might be. This is followed by the rhetorical question "have you been eating the forbidden fruit"
In both cases, the god (being omniscient) would have already known the answers so the questions are for the pair to find the answer to the first question for themselves.
As it develops, we are not informed that the pair had any answer to the first question.

If we removed the Serpent from the story, are you saying that they still would have chosen to eat the forbidden fruit? If 'yes' then why have the Serpent involved? If 'no' then it is logical to conclude that the Serpent was necessary to get them to make the poor choice.

I think they had the chance to always make the right choice, with or without the serpent trying to deceive them. I think they could make the wrong choice with or without the serpent, whether it was eating the fruit or something else. The serpent is involved because the author believed it actually went down that way or as a personification of the inanimate temptation.

Good. That is what you think went down. However, the story-teller(s) deemed it necessary to place this Serpent being into the storyline as an animate intelligent object in which Eve could and did interact with. To say that the Serpent is not a necessary (in that way) component of the story (from a book which is traditionally regarded as "inspired by the god" no less) because it so obviously implicates the god in ways which give the appearance the god is not as good as Christians believe, is simply a matter of convenience rather than any honest attempt to get to the nitty gritty of the matter. Taking away from the word is no less dangerous than adding to it.

If we were to place sentient creatures into a dangerous environment and withhold full knowledge from them, and they were harmed because of their ignorant choices, it would be the fault of the creator of said environment for not making sure the creatures where fully informed.

That depends on what you mean by "full knowledge". They had "enough" knowledge to avoid the harm. I think that puts the fault on the creature (although the Creator is responsible for the creature having the ability to be at fault).

What I mean by 'full knowledge' (in relation to outcome) is simply elaboration of what would actually happen. To say "you will surely die" is not untruthful in and of itself. To say "you will surely suffer a long life and then die" is a good example of what I am meaning by being being fully informed. Having full knowledge.

Again, (and despite your thinking the Serpent may be an analogy of an inanimate temptation rather than an actual real being) the god could have warned the pair from interacting with The Serpent, as without that being, the chance of Eve focusing her attention on the tree and the fruit would have most likely been zero.

My point is that the environment is better suited to robots programmed to nurture said environment. Certainly better suited than the free will human beings this mythology has a god creating and placing in said environment.

Do you mean that the environment would fare better? If so, then I agree. But I think God desires a loving community of free will beings over a perfect environment and that He is making the better choice.

My point still remains relevant. If the environment was perfect for humans to be placed there, then there must have been something about the being the god created, which had him make that choice.
On top of that, is the problem of the contradiction of an omniscient being having to make choices. Also, an omniscient being cannot have free will as everything is already known (mapped out) and he is simply going along with that - so therefore an omniscient being is more a robot than a free will individual, according to your stated understanding of the difference between robots and free-will beings.

I don't know why you think I'm arguing God has a void that we fill.

Your argument naturally goes in that direction. Right from the start of our interaction you made it clear that the god created beings with free will who could use that to trust in him and love him. What other reason would the god create something other than to fill a void? The void in this regard is that no beings capable of free will existed and so they were created? If this is not what you mean then please inform me as to what the god was motivated by to do so, as otherwise I cannot see the logic of your argument.

God was motivated by love to include other beings in that love for their good.

How can this be so? The god is not a free will being so to make other beings who did have free will is to make something different which could ONLY partake of that love for their good IF they stopped having free will...but HAD to have free will in order to choose that transition...but inevitably the free will must transform into love.
In this I am not saying such an experiment is WRONG (evil etc). I am saying that as far as experiments go, THAT is the only way to explain this one, given the parameters Christian Mythology present to us in regard to their particular (and generally shared) idea of a god.

This is not logically love in action. Billions suffer on the planet in order that a tiny, tiny percentage of those might become part of a community which is solely focused upon a being claiming to have created them? The rest are consigned to an eternity of hell? That is the general consensus of Christianity. Perhaps you do not agree with that consensus? Or are you are okay with this because you see it all as a 'loving act'?

If free will exists, then Hell must logically exist as a possible "destination" (whether any person ends up "there" or not). As to what happens "in" Hell, I lean towards annihilationism (for Biblical and philosophical reasons). It is not the majority view of Hell among Christians, but I think that is more for cultural reasons (although I could be wrong). Regardless of that, annihilationism is a traditional Christian understanding present from early on.

Understandable. Only, why wax poetic about it. Why not just say "you will suffer a long life and then die and be dead forevermore" and be done with that?

But robots can't be a part of that community. Robots could co-exist beside them, but they wouldn't be a part of the loving community because they are incapable of truly loving (whatever their actions may look like). So, God creates beings with free will, who can become a part of that community. But, those beings, logically, are able to choose to not be a part of that community.

What is it that you can actually point to and prove "This is truly loving"?

I use love to mean "willing the good of another." Using that definition, robots cannot love because they cannot will; they have their actions determined by outside factors. I think my point logically follows from this. If you don't agree with the definition, then we are simply talking about different concepts. I'm fine in changing the terminology, if you want to do that, as long as we are talking about the same concepts.

Still my question is suitable so requires an answer from you. We cannot know to what extent a robot can evolve and so why assume they cannot eventually develop self awareness and will etc...sentience.

I said humans were not made imperfect, which is different than saying they were made perfect.

How is that 'different'? Is there some state in between which is neither perfect or imperfect?

Morally neutral. This approaches moral perfection/imperfection like a batting average or completion percentage (i.e., in a descriptive way).

If the state of "morally neutral" is a real thing, should we not all move to that platform/position as the reasonable thing to do under the circumstances?

In that you would be open to saying beings can be good without them also being moral. Do you think that is the case?

Yes, where 'good' means something different than 'moral goodness'. I'm fine using a different term as well. Perhaps humans can be 'ideal' without being morally perfect. I'm not sure what the best term to use is to avoid as many confusions as possible (and that probably depends on everyone in the conversation and the history of terms in their encounters and usage).

You are simply describing the currently and continuing state of humanity. Perhaps the state of 'morally neutral' is as near to 'moral goodness/perfectly moral' as we can achieve, under the circumstances.

In that sense of 'imperfect,' yes, God created imperfect beings. In this sense, humans are neither morally perfect nor morally imperfect; they start off morally neutral because they haven't had to make any moral choices yet. They have no "batting average," metaphorically speaking; it's neither 1.000 nor .000. So, of course, in this understanding, the humans can become perfect (or imperfect).

In that sense, one can then take the argument that this god created imperfect beings and placed them in an imperfect environment but that the beings and the environment were perfect for each other in relation to why the god created the imperfect states of both beings and environment.

The environment could only be described as 'imperfect' in this sense, if it is a moral being itself. But then it really is a "being" and not an "environment". I'm definitely not making this argument (just making that clear, if it isn't).

A being is - by nature - 'an environment' so differentiating one from the other can only ever muddy the waters and may be a product/side effect of being a non-morally neutral organism...by act of free will no less...

As far as Christian mythology goes to explain the human condition and the environment, one could nowadays conclude that it is natural to make up stories which appear 'good' in order to explain somethings which appear 'evil' but equally natural not to actually believe those stories are real (true) but rather, are simply methods adopted to help explain what (then) was unknown. Analogies, but nothing more than that. They are meant to serve a purpose but are also meant to be abandoned as more and more actual truth surfaces through continued human interaction with and learning from the environment of nature.

Of course one could. Whether one should conclude this conclusion is true is another question.

Isn't that really what argument/debate/discussion/talking gives opportunity toward? What say you regarding this question?

So in your opinion, animals (which are not human) are robots?

Yes, robots that don't face moral decisions.

So why can't humans be robots designed who can face moral decisions?

Also, can you give an example of a robot that can face moral decisions?

Perhaps "decision" isn't the best word, I don't know. Let's say the moral "decision" is to abuse a child or not. A robot that is programmed to abuse the child is "facing a moral decision," although perhaps better language could be used.

If the robot has no free will programed into it, the robot is not making decision it is simply following instruction - going along with the program. There is no morality involved in the robots actions at all. If offence has occurred, then it is the programmer who indirectly used the robot to abuse the child. Why destroy the child? To put it out of its misery?

Can you give some examples as to those kinds of animals? Also, it appears crystal clear to me that the nature of our environment allows for what you refer to as 'damage' as part of its overall makeup. It is not a dualistic thing (ie 'good and evil') so much as a singular thing which envelops both creativity and destruction as a part of its natural makeup.

I'm simply thinking of things like a lion eating a zebra, or, vaguely, of some animal that may do actions which damage the environment but help them survive. Perhaps there is no such animal that inadvertently damages the environment?

A lion might damage a zebra but zebras continue. Understand that in the same light as 'culling' - it controls population and helps keep balance - all quite natural and nothing one could seriously deem as 'good' or 'evil' - certainly not 'evil'.
Inadvertently? If animals are robots they run on programs and those programs cannot be deemed anything but purposeful as indeed they prove to be.

I agree that damage is built into the environment. For instance, I'm not sure Earth could be habitable without the weather patterns that can bring suffering on humans. I would say that this isn't an issue of good versus evil at all, rather than being both good and evil.

If our garden dwelling parents had not of eaten of the forbidden fruit, would we be able to say "this isn't an issue of good versus evil at all, rather - it is neither good or evil." or at the very best - it is 'good'. Certainly not anything working against itself...even if we can be taught to see it in that light...

Is it logic which separate them though? It appears to me that for the most part, such concepts are anchored firmly in human emotion, which we all should appreciate is seldom connected with logic.
We also understand that what is considered 'good' for some is considered 'evil' for others, so it is in that sense that I write that these concepts do indeed co-exist if they are not judged (from a purely emotive position) but simply accepted as part of the natural order of all things in this universe.
Indeed, isn't that the way you are trying to argue for the logic of your gods own choices in relation to said creation?

I don't think good and evil are anchored in human emotion (although human thoughts of what is good and evil often are), but in God's nature (a nature which is logical).

That contradicts the assertion that the Christian god "is good and in him there is no evil". "Good and Evil are anchored in the god's nature", you declare?

I'm not sure why you think I'm trying to argue in that way. Perhaps I've misunderstood something?

I think you are arguing from the position that good and evil are real things rather than imagined things, but that your argument also contradicts that position...

Is Jesus really any gods 'ultimate answer'? How is it that evil was so easily able to infiltrate Christianity and be used in that way, if Jesus was the ultimate answer?

I think Jesus is the ultimate answer. Evil infiltrates Christianity because Christians (just like everyone else) have free will, stubbornly holding onto their desire to determine good/evil for ourselves. Becoming like God is a process that we continually fight, yet God leads us one step at a time.

It appears plainly to me that you are consistently arguing that free will needs to be abandoned but you also seem to contradict this by saying god does not want robots. My antidote for being in such a position was to be able drop the notions altogether through understanding that free will is the key which - once turned - is of no use to me anymore...it has served its purpose.

I could understand it more in terms which would have the god saying "yes I take responsibility for my part in this unfolding adventure and rectify that in Jesus - all is forgiven and no need for an eternity of hell for anyone" but that is not the general Christian message and you yourself believe that an eternal hell is the best answer this god could come up with in relation to what to do about free will creatures who chose to reject what can only be honestly referred to as unsubstantiated claims made by a variety of religious institutions over the centuries.

How is that a 'good' thing when one can figure out far better 'ultimate' ways of ensuring free will beings get to experience the actual love of a creator through the creator himself rather than through mediums claiming to speak on behalf of the creator?

What are these better ways? I'm open to considering them.

Well firstly I now see that you believe that 'hell' is simply short hand for "you will suffer a lifetime and then be destroyed forever" - which is a better way than the traditional belief general claimed by Christians.

Can I think of an even better ways? If memory serves me well enough, I have already discussed these in some detail with you in the past. I will think on ways in which to word that concept as succinctly as possible and along with that data which I think passes for at least circumstantial evidence which support the concept...

Leaving the unnecessary tangent of God's relationship to time aside, yes, He knew exactly what would occur and decided to give it a go anyway. What's the problem with that?

Why do you think it an 'unnecessary tangent' when logically it has to be part of the question needing answering?

For our purposes, I don't think it matters if God knows what will happen and chooses to go through with it or whether God makes a choice (knowing all the possibilities) and sees what happens and timelessly reacts to those happenings. If you see an affect I don't, then share and I'll share my thoughts.

Another possibility is that an omniscient being can also create an illusion for itself which allows it to eternally create things which appear to be new...and literally places a piece of its own awareness into those creations in order to personally experience said things as 'new' whilst at the same time not (at least initially) knowing it has done so at least not the part of itself which it places into said illusion/simulations...

First off, calling it a writer's error is just another way to say that your interpretation is correct and mine wrong. That is "getting caught up with individual webs of interpretations" while skirting your burden to support your interpretation. You say you don't want to get caught up in that, so don't.

Let me clarify then - I am not interpreting anything but simply taking the script as it is presented. When someone has written that the god was sorry for creating free will beings (as per your free will argument) and you have written in effect that the god is never surprised, I am content to go along with you and conclude that the story is poorly worded if it gives the impression the god was surprised (and thus 'sorry') as the god cannot be 'sorry' for creating free will beings as the god cannot have been surprised by their actions.

In principle I see no problem with this, other than how badly written the mythology is as it clearly isn't that clear. I suppose that is the exact reason why there are so many Christians with differing interpretations but I reject any notion (veiled or otherwise) that it is my fault I don't understand any particular Christians personal interpretations of said mythology.

I critique as I see the holes in said mythology and respect any curtesy of clarification which the individual provides me with.

First, that is still doing it. "Taking the script as it is presented" is rhetoric for "my interpretation is the simplest or clearest or author-intended one." Just because it is the first impression you get doesn't mean the story is poorly worded. You come from a different culture than the author (as do I) and there is danger for us reading our culture and expectations and worldview into the text when they aren't there. Errors that arise because of that isn't the author's fault. I'm fine with you critiquing holes as you see the mythology and open to clarifications, but it is your fault in claiming your impression is the clear reading of the text when you haven't accounted for the possible cultural differences.

But I have accounted for those...and will continue to do so. There is no fault on my part, at least none you have exampled.
I can agree that any story told is subject to the mind of the individuals interpretation but in that, if we are to discuss stories, we contend with it and have to do so in the most honest way possible in order to read as little into the actual wording as we can. (The priciple of Occam's Razor)
This is precisely why I do not trust Christianity's many differing interpretations of another cultures mythology, whilst also remembering that cultures are always stealing ideas from one another so I best avoid taking any culture too seriously while I am involved in the critiquing of its (various) belief systems reflected in their - often - poorly thought out analogies. Essentially I am being truthful in pointing out that the wording in the stories isn't helpful...

Second, and more importantly, I didn't argue that God was sorry for creating free will beings.

I didn't say specifically that you had argued that...

I have said that God was sorry that free will beings use it for evil, but in spite of that God is still not sorry He created free will beings.

My argument in return, critiques your position on the matter. How can an omniscient being ever feel the emotion of sorrow for something it simply knew would be the outcome of his own actions?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocho_(crocodile)

[brunumb]

The text doesn't say the humans doubted God was the creator; it doesn't address that question directly. It does not say they doubted God's statement about death. It shows them choosing the fruit's aesthetics, mouth-wateringness, and the chance of knowing good and evil apart from God over God's statement to not eat it and the consequence being death.

The text doesn't say a lot of things, but that doesn't stop people filling in all the gaps with their own versions of what happened and why. Naturally all of that is based on their biased opinions and preconceived ideas of what the story is supposed to say. How can you be sure that you are not doing that yourself?