Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
unknown soldier
Banned
Banned
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:32 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 122 times

Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #271

Post by The Tanager »

William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmNot sure if the above is what you mean, but interested that you have had to change 'free will' into 'Libertarian free will' as if there may be a difference?
There are different ideas of what free will means. I have a memory of you possibly thinking it should just be called a will, but I could be getting that mixed up. Compatibilists have a different idea of free will than libertarians (which is unrelated to the political libertarians). Compatibilists argue that one has free will if the factors that determine (in the hard determinist sense) their actions come from within themselves. Your will is free if it is determined by your genes, for instance. Another person I've been talking with on this website lately thinks a will isn't free unless it is completely unconstrained. My switch was simply an attempt to be more specific in what I mean by free will: basically something like the ability to choose between A and not-A.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmWhat the text does show is that there is no mention of Eve ever having meet, let alone forming a relationship with Adams god. What it does show is that any data she did have, most likely could have come from Adam himself.
Not mentioning is not the same as saying it didn't happen. The text doesn't address that question either way.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmRemember that Adam was with Eve during the temptation, and thus could have intervened at any time, and could have corrected Eve about the touching of the fruit...
Yes, he could have but didn't.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pm
The author has God calling humans not just 'good' like the other parts of creation but 'very good,' (1:31) so I don't see why we should think the author has a low opinion of Adam and Eve.
By that reason, why would we think then, that the god thinks they are to blame?
Those comments are prior to the Fall. After the Fall we see God hold them responsible for their action as well as continue to pursue them in relationship.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmIt is okay as long as we also make sure that we do not cast judgement on any of it, because as soon as we do, our judgment will reflect the fact that we can never be 100% certain...
I see no problem casting judgment on things that we aren't certain about as long as we hold those with an open mind.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pm
This is exactly what I am referring to in my critique of the writers style and the subsequent issues said style triggers. On top of that, your defense in stating "the text doesn't say that" is no a great one, as it tends toward the idea that it all happened in one afternoon, rather than say, over a period of a decade...it makes the whole thing look rushed and yet coordinated as if a scripted program [coding] was being followed...
If you are saying X is true because of Y and the text does not say Y, then it is valid to respond "but the text doesn't say Y is true, that's your interpretation built on speculations." It's more typical for someone to touch a fruit and eat it almost immediately versus touching a fruit and then waiting a decade (or month or week, etc.) to finally eat it. Being typical means that isn't rushing things, it's the normal time sequence. This doesn't seem culturally dependent, so it seems that the typical understanding should be the default interpretation unless the author specifically says something to have us believe otherwise. The author doesn't tell us of a gap.
You misread what I wrote - to clarify, I am speaking not just of the one incident, but of the time period leading up to that one incident - a pivotal one according to Christian mythology.
With that in mind, please read what I wrote once more and comment on that accordingly...
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pm
My view does not commit one to saying the Fall happened the first day of their existence. The text doesn't address the issue of how much time passed before the Fall.
Exactly! Therefore one cannot make assertions which do not take this into account...
My assertions do take this into account. It is not built off of it happening the same day or a week apart or a decade apart since the text doesn't address that question. Your assertions do not take this into account because they are built on their actually being a gap of some time (going beyond any question the text addresses). Or perhaps I'm still misunderstanding your point here and you need to make it clearer.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmSo you claim, but how do you know this is the case? Generally it is not disobedience which causes us to cover up. Rather it is embarrassment. Generally that has to do with being walked in on while getting dressed, or not wanting to get naked in a public bathing area etc...in the case of the pair, we have these two suddenly being embarrassed in each others company because they are naked...which they have always been together and should be well used to it.
Yes, they should be used to it. So, what does the text say changed and literally groups together with them realizing they are naked? It's eating the fruit (in disobedience of God) and feeling ashamed.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmWhich supports my argument that the god expected that the garden situation would be temporary for the pair, rather than permanent, so getting used to covering up takes on a more practical element than the pair simply being disobedient, or for that matter, embarrassed.
Yes, God knew they would eventually need clothes. That's not the point of their nakedness in the text, though. There is no reason to think the author is saying God set up this scenario in order to teach them about the practicality of wearing clothes in colder climes. It's not addressing that question. The clothing is directly tied to their shame by the text.

Since this question isn't addressed by the text, all we can do is speculate, should one want to. Our speculation won't be about what the text is trying to get across to us though. I would speculate that if they remained perfectly obedient to God, eventually populating cold areas in the world, that prior to that God would have told them they'll need to get some warm clothes to survive or that they would easily be able to figure that out on their own.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmAlso to note, IF the god knew they would eat of the forbidden fruit, THEN why would the god even command them to obey him? It makes no logical sense unless the god wanted them to feel shame and guilt...
If God doesn't give humans a command, then how would they know how God wants them to use their libertarian free will? Since they have free will, it makes perfect logical sense that God would tell them what is good for them to do because God wants good for them, not because He's just waiting for the day that they feel shame and guilt. I would also say that conviction of wrongs done, itself, is a good thing because it causes us to confront our wrongs. I would say guilt (if you mean that in a sense different than conviction) is not something God wants us to feel.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmIf they had of had the full knowledge (for that is what I am arguing) then the author would have written it so. "You shall surely die" is not exactly full knowledge. It is partial knowledge, and my argument says that if they had had the full knowledge, perhaps they would never have looked at the fruit, let alone touched it. Presently you seem unable to agree with this because you are assuming that they DID have the full knowledge, but the storyline does not even attempt to give us that impression.
The storyline does not address that question directly. So, we look at the larger context. Your view requires us to believe the author is saying God unfairly blames the humans for their disobedience. That does not mesh with the rest of what the author tells us about God. He doesn’t think God unfair.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmBut the author - perhaps in his rush to paint Eve as the first to sin - forgets to mention that Adam had it in his power to help Eve argue with the Serpent but remained silent.
Or he thinks the reader would obviously put that together without having to be told it directly.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmPerhaps the god is really speaking against that. Perhaps that is essentially Adams sin. (and the authors for not being more direct)
I do think that is part of the sin, although I would say we go further beyond the text here than much of the other details we’ve been talking about. If passivity like this is a sin (like you, I, the Bible, and Christianity assert), then this lends further support towards the interpretation that they actually eat the fruit at the same time. They disobeyed God’s command to not eat the fruit as well as God’s command to rule over/care for Creation (including each other). The author seems to focus on the first command, though.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmRemember, Eve blamed the Serpent, whereas Adam not only blamed the gift the god had given him in Eve, but by association, blamed the god as well "The Woman you gave to me!"
If you are arguing that this god is blameless, how is it you do not see Adams sin in blaming the god for what Adam himself allowed to let happen right before his eyes?
He let the Serpent tempt his wife and did nothing at all to prevent it.
The god - being omniscient - would have expected this. How is it that Christians cannot even recognize Adams sin?
Yes, the blame game is also sin, showing their continued brokenness. The disobedience of eating the fruit is not a stand alone mistake, they continue sinning. Why do you think I and other Christians don’t recognize this?
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmHow hard is it to write "and Eves"? Why do you think mere shorthand [laziness] is the reason only Adams sin is mentioned? Perhaps Jesus knew that the emphasis was always on blaming the Woman and had become a traditional feature in the religions which formed from this Mythology which had to be addressed.
It’s not hard, but that doesn’t mean leaving Eve’s name out is invalid. Perhaps it is simply an idiom. Perhaps it refers to Adam being the first human and Eve being made from him. Perhaps, if they ate the fruit at the same time, Adam is blamed as the first sin because of his passivity when he was “above” Eve in a leadership role. The author of 1 Timothy actually talks about Eve being deceived and sinning first.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmBut then we have the problem of a possible contamination of the text, which may have been written in the style it had because the author(s) were focused upon the main offender being the first one to offend and poor Adam was just going along with his wife...
That assumes there was a gap and that they didn’t eat it (and have their eyes opened) at the same time. I think the context actually supports them eating it at the same time better.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmThus we cannot in all honesty go along with the argument that "the text doesn't say such and such' because it may not say those things due to the author not wanting to write these things.
Nonetheless, we can indeed read more into the story with what the author has written.
Sure, the author could be hiding, changing, or making things up. But you say you are reflecting my beliefs back on me. This question is not that kind of reflection; it gets into why we should trust the author’s main message in the first place, making judgments on the truth of Christianity, which you say you aren’t trying to do, right?
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmNo. While there have been issues and indeed still are issues for humans to face, learn to understand and work on improving and in that, things have been hard for humans, I do not think it will necessarily prove to be the case that the environment cannot work out well for humans. I do think the environment would be better suited to robots, and can see a time where this will be the case...but will that be bad for humans? My argument remains that humans do not understand good or evil in any manner to which they can rightly judge with it.
I think we can’t understand it without seeing God as the standard of good and evil, but that if God is the standard, then we can (although without 100% certainty, and that’s okay) rightly judge with it. That is part of the reason I believe Christianity true rather than other worldviews.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmThen why does the Mythology include the god dealing with the rest of the environment by flooding it completely?
Genesis 6:5 ties the flood to the wickedness of humans. You can’t flood humans without that flood also affecting the land, plants, and non-human land animals as well.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmWhy does the Mythology promise a 'new earth'?
From my readings, it’s “new” in the sense of being redeemed or transformed, not as in being a separate physical Earth to replace the first.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmWhy do Christians generally believe they will have to have an environment which cannot be affected by evil?
By definition. Heaven is a place where God’s reign exists, i.e., there is no evil. If a place is affected by evil, then it isn’t Heaven, by definition.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmAnd my argument envelops that position by informing that everything is good, except for knowledge of good and evil in relation to free will.
Is this what you mean by “knowledge of good and evil” or what I mean by it (i.e., experiencing deciding for themselves what is good and evil)? I think knowing what is truly good and what is truly evil is good; deciding it for one’s self is not good.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmFor an omniscient being to proclaim something is 'good' must mean that the whole circumstance, including the advent of evil-to-be, is all 'good' or 'as it should/has to be'.
In that position, one does not have to deal with ideas of 'good AND evil' Everything was proclaimed acceptable in the sight of the god.
The existence of libertarian free will is ‘good,’ it is better than being a robot. That does not mean thinking that the evil that will result (but didn’t have to) is good or as it should be, however. I don’t see why anyone would worship a being that doesn’t discern between child abuse and loving a child, thinking that loving the child is how things ought to be.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmAnd in relation to the bigger picture that an omniscient being must see, choosing the 'weaker reasons' was going to happen but trusting the god knows the results are going to work out fine regardless, is a bonus for those who do - whatever their circumstance might be...as long as they do not lose trust through having issues as to what good and evil are. We do not know. We best not presume.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmYes. Given the god is omniscient, how can it be any other way unless the god was purely evil?
I remind you that I do not see how it is possible for any omniscient being to be 'good' or 'evil' Bear that in mind, if you will.
What does it mean for the results to “work out fine”? I don’t think universal salvation is needed (although I do think God desires universal salvation).
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmThe authors point is suspect, as I have shown regarding the authors treatment of Eve.
Your interpretation of how the author is treating Eve. I don’t think the author mistreated Eve.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmWhy not? Isn't the idea of forming and maintaining a genuine relationship with the god, a central message of Christianity?
And Biblical Judaism, including the rest of the book of Genesis. That is the broader context that supports there being enough time for there to be reasons for the first humans to love and trust God. But Genesis 1-3 doesn’t directly address that question.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmOn the contrary - the storyline not only says they were expelled from the garden out into the greater reality, and left to their own devices, but the god stopped visiting them altogether. There is no mention at all in the mythology [that I know of] of the god trying to 'call them back' or of them reestablishing their relationship with the god at some later point in the story...
They sin and God comes to them in the garden (already knowing they had sinned). If your interpretation here were true, then why would God even talk with them rather than just kick them out? God provides them with better coverings than they had (3:21). When Eve names Cain she says she got a son with the help of God (4:2). Abel and Cain bring offerings to God (4:3-4). God talks with Cain about his offering telling him to rule over the sin crouching at his door (4:7). God then comes to Cain after he kills his brother (4:9-10). God tells people not to kill Cain (4:15). When Seth is born, Eve says God appointed another son for her (4:25). God pursues and saves Noah. God calls Abram (Abraham). God is with Hagai and Ishmael when Abraham and Sarah banish them. God pursues Jacob, in spite of his deceptive ways. The whole Bible is about God trying to call humans back over and over again.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pm
I agreed that the world could fare better with robots than free will beings. I don't think that is the only or deciding consideration when trying to decide between libertarian free will or robotic moral perfection as the better choice for God in creating humans.
Relatively speaking, the god could achieve both through first placing free will beings into the environment because the god would have known that eventually humans would create robots...
If the choice is between (1) humans being robots, (2) humans having libertarian free will, or (3) humans becoming robots, then I think the best choice is (2).

If you mean whether it’s better to have humans with libertarian free will who don’t come up with the technology to make robots versus humans with libertarian free will who do come up with the technology to make robots, then I wonder what relevance that has to our discussion. The “robots” I’ve been discussing aren’t actual robots, but humans who don’t have libertarian free will, either to start with or eventually.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmAs free will beings without access to full knowledge, speculation is all we have, and it is fair to speculate as long as one stays close to the bones of what is actually written. As I see, you have not been able to substantially prove that my speculation is in any way out of line to the point where any serious complaint has been given by you about it. The best you have been able to respond is reasonable enough, since I haven't breached the limit of speculation in regards to what we are given to work with in the storyline.
I would delineate the different logical levels of interpretation something more like this (as a first stab at it only): certainty (which I think impossible for us), reasonable (built off context, historical studies, avoiding speculation, etc.), unreasonable (some context, but lots of speculation built in), and pure speculation. I think we have the last three all available to us, and that having a reasonable interpretation that outstrips other interpretations is perfectly fine. I think your interpretation is unreasonable. You remain unconvinced, but I have brought and supported various serious complaints against it. We each are free to come to our own conclusions.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmI am wondering about your use of a political device here with the addition to free will being 'libertarian'. It gives one the impression your particular take on this god is a political one.
Hopefully that has been cleared up above. My take has nothing to do with politics.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmThat aside, intervention has to be seen as fudging the results. The way the mythology reads, the god occasionally intervenes and we have to enquire as to what might have occurred if he had not.
This in turn leads one to thing that an omniscient being who interferes would have known that he would interfere and that there was reason for him to interfere all BEFORE he even created Adam or this universe.
Yes, things would be different if God didn’t intervene in our lives. But I don’t get why you say that this means there is reason for God to interfere before creating Adam and Eve. The reason is because of how things play out after Adam and Eve are created.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmAll in all, from the argument of trust, one can see plainly that trusting a being who IS in fact omniscient is a no-brainer. But what is it that we can point to which allows us to know for sure that the being is in fact omniscient, and not just so far more informed about things than the free will beings he created?

In that, free will beings cannot use their free will (libertarian or otherwise) to full capacity if they have to take the word of a being who claims to be omniscient and have to trust that being is telling the truth. Free will beings are forced to either use their free will to trust in this as being truth, or decide not to. Free will in that, is near useless. Saying "you will or you won't" doesn't address the question of whether you should or you shouldn't.
We can’t know for sure that the being is omniscient. We can know very few things with certainty. Pure mathematics. What terms mean (although that is still difficult to accomplish). That we are having some kind of experience. That we are thinking beings. This does not make libertarian free will useless at all. We still have reasons to believe we should do this and shouldn’t do that, even though those reasons aren’t certain.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmWhich in turn would suggest to me that you then believe that there is no heaven in the traditional sense (being another universe/dimension/reality simulation) so heaven is perhaps another planet in the galaxy? This god resides in this universe...somewhere?
No, on two fronts. First, I don’t think that Heaven (or Hell) are other places we go to when we die was the initial Christian understanding, so I wouldn’t necessarily call that view the “traditional” sense. Second, this doesn’t mean I see Heaven (or Hell) as a different planet. It would be more like Heaven (and Hell) are realms that overlap our realm, occupying the same physical location.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmShowed itself to whom? It cannot have been to the god, for the god already knew.
Back to a movie analogy. I know Darth Vader is Luke’s father because I saw it. If I lived 200 years ago and got a glimpse into the future and, for some reason, was shown The Empire Strikes Back, I would have already known Vader is Luke’s father before it actually happened, but I still know that because that is what George Lucas actually chose to make happen. Lucas’ choice is what shows me the truth.

So, God is “shown” what will happen because that thing actually happens, regardless of whether God peeked into the future to be shown that. But, yes, this was the first time Adam and Eve saw their mistrust become disobedience as well.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmWith the inclusion of a real being which obviously isn't human and is not written in a style that might suggest the Serpent is a personified characteristic of Eves psyche, we have to find understanding in why it was in the Garden tempting Eve with his cunningness.
The being is obviously smarter than the humans in the story. *Perhaps it is the Serpent that the god was showing?

*This idea runs throughout the biblical mythology. The god is showing the Serpent [race?] that he at least knows enough to be trusted as someone who is omniscient, at least in relation to Earth and is happy enough to work with their doubt, using humans as a means of doing so.
Do you mean that this is an experiment to prove to the Serpent something about libertarian free will beings? Like in Job? If so, then I don’t think that is the primary reason in either case, although I agree that the Serpent would be made aware of things he didn’t know in that. Or do you mean something else?
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmIn order for that to be possible, you will at least have to agree to treat the Serpent/Satan etc as literally real beings rather than simply personifications of human mistrust/evil.
Of course. I do, in fact, believe Satan is a real being.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmI am not arguing that it is. I am saying that omniscience doesn't control, but simply allows - goes along with - because the one who is omniscient knows exactly how things will turn out. There is no need to control anything for particular outcomes.
In that, trying to control how things turn out can only be undertaken by beings who do NOT know but have some power to influence their environment in order to fudge the results so that things go the way they want them to.

An omniscient being would not need to do that or be perturbed by other beings doing so.
Thank you for that clarification. I agree the omniscient God the Bible talks about allows those things to happen. I think it could have decided to control all decisions, though. I agree that an omniscient being isn’t surprised by what people do, but they can still be upset at what they do.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmWhich - naturally enough - then has one questioning whether the god depicted in the Mythology who does interfere and thus fudge the results, is the same being who is omniscient...perhaps the being is a member of the Serpent race [for want of a better label] and humans are some integral part of the game being played between the Serpents and the Omniscient god?
Pure observer and pure controller are not the only two options. A third option is an omniscient being who still tries to influence his libertarian free will beings to choose the good. Knowing the future does not mean knowing what the future is if you are not a part of it, it could include one’s self as an agent that tries to influence others.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmTraditional Jewish understanding needed correction from Jesus, as the Christian Mythology tells it. Most traditional Jews have kept to their traditions rather than adopt what they regard as Hellenic [and thus Roman] influences and are pagan for that.
Some traditional Jewish understandings, yes, but not Biblical Judaism.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmI myself have not argued that the god is NOT a being (rather than a symbol for 'good'.) I brought it up to say that it is best to consider all the mythological beings presented in the bible, as real beings, if we are to consider the god as real. Chopping and changing to suit ones argument does not make the argument any better.
I think the all-or-nothing approach is a flawed approach and one that you don’t really hold. You said yourself that you don’t think Lady Wisdom is meant to be a literal being.

And I’m not chopping and changing to suit my argument. That would mean I’m taking a stand that the Serpent was one or the other, while God is not. I’ve been saying my argument is the same regardless of the answer to this question about the serpent.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmI am speaking to real world examples one might point to, which clearly show the differences and undoubtedly prove the one is better than the other.
Why do you think those exist? Any situation can fit the libertarian free will narrative as well as the hard determinism narrative.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmAre we to trust the text for its lack therein, or the ominscient god being for his ultimate knowledge? Obviously the bible and no book and not even all the information of Earth is ultimate knowledge.
Lacking addressing every question we can think of is not a reason to mistrust the message of the text.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmThe text supports my particular views simply because, as you agree, it is possible and thus enough to investigate. I think I have shown this to be the case already.
Possibility is not enough to support one’s view as true. Investigate it, sure. You have helped me investigate it and I have found it very unreasonable. You disagree.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6608 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #272

Post by brunumb »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Jan 08, 2021 2:47 pm That's speculation. Speculation that assumes the author thinks God punishes Adam for something He shouldn't punish Adam for. That is why this speculation should be rejected.
Everything about the Eden story concerning what Adam and Eve knew/thought or God's motivations and responses is speculation. People happily fill in countless details that are not there in the narrative in order to shore up what they already believe.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #273

Post by William »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Jan 08, 2021 2:47 pm
Sorry, I missed this post when I responded last:
No problem
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmI am referring to Adam, not the reader. Adam was not fully informed.
That's speculation. Speculation that assumes the author thinks God punishes Adam for something He shouldn't punish Adam for. That is why this speculation should be rejected.
As there is no evidence given to show the author is not speculating, I am entitled to speculate on speculation. My speculation cannot be rejected on the grounds you offer as argument.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pm
Their relationship with God is broken as shown by them hiding. It's proper to shorthand that as death.
I don't see why it is 'proper' at all. It may be just a tool Christians use in that way in an attempt to cloud the fact by using particular [and otherwise unnecessary) interpretation.
No, not just later Christians. The Hebrew culture (from which the author comes) talks about spiritual life and death as well. The author of Genesis clearly has a high opinion of God and does not think God got something wrong. God says they would die. What happens as a result? They hide from God and they become mortal. This isn't an unnecessary interpretation but the one that sticks closest to the text.
According to the text their immortality depends upon access to a tree bearing fruit which will grant them this. So no, they cannot have been created with the default setting "Immortal"

They hid from each other first. Hiding from a voice walking in the garden is just a symptom of that. They would hide from their own shadows just the same, if they could.

William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmThe assumption that they were created immortal works against the main strain of your argument. You believe. [correct me if need be]

1: The were created with free will
2: The god knew that they would choose to eat the forbidden fruit

Therefore, why would the god create them immortal?
Their mortality is a result of their action, not a result of God knowing what their action would be.
Their mortality was the result of the way they were created. Their immortality depended upon having access to the fruit of the tree of life.
If God did what you are saying, then humans would get the wrong idea.
?
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pm
It's proper to shorthand that as death. I prefer the author show the meaning of the word through the story rather than define words and then show those definitions at work in the story, but your way would be just as valid; it just isn't the necessary way to do it.
If it isn't necessary, how [in your view] can it be valid?
I don't understand why you think those are mutually exclusive. There are multiple ways for me to get to my parents' house from my own. All of them are valid. None of them are the necessary way to get there.
So why is my way invalid if it still gets me to my parents house? [analogically speaking]
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmYou interpret the writer as referring to a 'spiritual' death, because they do not actually die immediately (or for a long time afterward as the story unfolds) as the better answer than simply admitting that the god chose not to fully inform them as to these details.
Why not just accept that the gods choice not to fully inform the pair, was the way it happened rather than elaborate with unnecessary interpretation?
Because I think we should stick closer to the text than that. The text does not show God choosing not to fully inform them; that's not the way it happened (according to the author).

The author could be speculating. Indeed, the stories did not start off in writing or print. They were shared around campfires. As such they would not have been subjected to the style of 'to the point' or 'the main points' - they would have been elaborate and entertaining...The author obviously took many of those stories and compiled them into a point by point writing and his bias could well have been such that speculation was the result. The author may have been writing about his idea of The Creator based upon a mix of stories and personal bias [speculation].
You may think the author is wrong, but that's not interpreting the author; it's disagreeing with the author.
I am entitled to disagree with the authors understanding of The Creator in relation to ANY writing which claims to know The Creator. I am not dependent upon ANY writing to tell me who The Creator actually is and how I must see The Creator. I can disagree with the author on those grounds.
What happens very soon after them eating it? They are hiding from God. Why are they hiding from God? They are ashamed because of their nakedness which is directly tied to them eating the fruit, i.e., their disobedience. That is clearly talking about a brokenness in their relationship to God.
Their relationship with the god is presented in a style which has no depth of meaning and elaboration. It clearly paints the picture that the relationship was shallow at best, and that is why the relationship ended as it did.
I appreciate that the author is not saying that in so many words, but nonetheless it is obvious that the author is projecting his own assumptions and relationship with this idea of a god - into a far older - much more ancient tradition which occurred around primitive campfires humans constructed for such purpose (among other reasons).
Spiritual separation is the focus of Genesis moving forward. The next story is Cain and Abel. Then evil builds up to the point that God brings a flood. Then Noah gets drunk and his son sins against him. The rest of the Bible talks about people spiritually separated from God doing evil things and looks forward to the Messiah setting things right. Then the New Testament says the Messiah came and is setting things right.
All which are natural outcomes of the start of the story, because it has to follow suit. Humans around the campfires were discussing these ideas about the nature of The Creator and the Garden Story became the most popular one because it seemed to explain the situation humans were then in.
The reason for this is because humans believed that they MUST be going through some kind of punishment for SOMETHING they had done, to be placed into the situation they were experiencing.
In that light, the stories made perfect enough sense to be written in a point by point manner as people started to take the stories seriously (as immovable fact rather than temporary fiction)
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmFrom the gods perspective, being omniscient makes determinism true.
Absolutely not. Knowing what will happen (omniscience) is not the same as making it happen in that way (determinism).
Potatoes - Potatoes.

So being the passenger is not the same as being the driver...knowing what will happen before you create it to be able to happen is one step further than simply knowing it will happen and not creating the means in which it can happen.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmThe god would have known the choice Adam would make and created the perfect situation where Adam could be seen by the observer for what Adam really was, as a free will creature he was created to be.
Adam could be seen as the free will creature he was created to be by Adam not eating the fruit as well. God didn't orchestrate the situation for Adam to fail, if that is what you mean. God put Adam in a situation for Adam to exercise his free will.
I haven't argued otherwise. What I am arguing is that the god would have seen what Adam was as a free will being before actually creating Adam. So it cannot be that the god wanted to see for himself what Adam would do. The god already knew what Adam would do.
So if the god did this to show someone that, whoever that was couldn't have been omniscient themselves. They had to see what would happen if the god created a free will being and placed that being into a situation where that being was able to use his free will.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmThe point you appear to be missing/avoiding, is that the god knew the outcome of creating this free will being. From the perspective of omniscience there was not 'probability' but only certainty. The Serpent is relevant in that regard. A necessary component.
Sure there is certainty, but that isn't determinism. Only if determinism were true would the serpent (or some other being or temptation) be a necessary component.
Then, since the story includes the Serpent, then the Serpent has to be seen as a necessary element.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmLook at it this way;
In the story of Jesus, we are informed that he;

1: Is an individual with free will
2: Was tempted by another being [perhaps of the Serpent family]
3: Used his free will to choose NOT to accept the temptation.

In both cases, the god already knew the outcome. Would you argue that the being tempting Jesus was a "personification of temptation" (like Lady Wisdom of wisdom) or a real entity who was a necessary component?
In both Adam and Eve's case and Jesus' case, I have no problem thinking the being physically showed up.
In any case, to the pair (who we are not told are surprised by the presence of the Serpent - they do seem comfortable enough in the Serpents presence to be engaging with the creature which allows one to presume they had previous interaction with the Serpent and we also know that Adam must have named the Serpent a "Serpent" because that was one of his tasks the god gave him to do.)
In the other case, to Jesus, who was by himself with no other human witnesses and also seemed unsurprised by the presence of the creature.
I do think Genesis and the Gospels are different kinds of literature, which means the being could have physically shown up in one and not the other, but it could have physically shown up in both or simply been a voice in the heads of each human. And by being a voice in their heads, I'm not even saying that an actual Satan isn't the one tempting them. I don't see how it matters.
In the case of Jesus - if it were just a 'voice in the head' rather than a real being, and in the style of 'mother wisdom' we would have to admit the possibility that - as with Eve and the Serpent being a product of her own psyche - so with Jesus...which creates another pathway of thought regarding Jesus which could be investigated...
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmIn reading that myself, I think 'choice' is not the best word to use. How can a being who knows everything, possibly have choice? [Other than to create an illusion for itself where it did have the ability to choose]
A being absolutely can have a choice. God knows people will sin if He creates libertarian free will creatures. He still has the choice of whether to create libertarian free will creatures or not. He's not forced to create them.
That being the case, his choice was to create Adam with free will and place Adam in the garden even knowing that Adam would choose to betray Eve [and by association - the god]
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmIf the environment was perfect for Adam to be placed there, then there must have been something about Adam [whom the god created], which had the god place Adam there. I am referring to the confinement this particular universe provides.

Confined within a garden, confined upon a planet, confined within a planetary system, confined within a galaxy confined within a universe. Many layers of confinement for free will beings to exist within.
Adam is a physical being with libertarian free will. Yes, physical beings need a physical environment. Free will beings need opportunities to make choices. I haven't said differently. Are you saying something more than that?
Yes I am. Within the physical environment was something outside of Adam which was necessary in order that Adam could be shown for what he was. Free will beings will always choose that which they require to show them something about themselves.
The god might have been showing others [perhaps the Serpents?] who were observing the whole experiment, but the god must have already been aware of what the result would be.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmThis tells me that free will beings [in relation to your own position on the matter] are not something which can be created perfectly but require [as part of the recipe to create them] a good 'baking' in the oven of confinement - specifically on the planet Earth.

In that, I am speaking to the logical conclusion one must draw from the Christian [indeed- the Middle Eastern -] Mythologies. It is a process. Adam may have been created with free will, but that was only the default setting...everything else was set up to tease that into something plausible.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Yes, humans can't have libertarian free will and be created as morally perfect (i.e., they can't be determined to make the right choice every time). Yes, they need opportunities to make choices to trust God or decide for themselves what is good and evil. If they make choices to decide for themselves and God still wants to try to get them to the point where they will decide to trust in Him and rejoin the loving community of Heaven, then they need further time in this environment. Is that equivalent to the good 'baking' you are talking about? If so, then free will isn't the default setting to be teased into something else, but remains throughout the whole process.
Yes it is the baking I am referring to. I did not imply that free will was to be teased into something else. It is just a setting - the emphasis on the coding necessary to create an actual free will being. This circles back to my other points regarding the lack of any real difference between 'robots' and 'free will' as both require, not only the correct environment in which to be placed, but also the correct programming in which to 'be' either. Both require programs.

Free will is a program which is designed like a key...once used to unlock that which free will is programed to unlock, then free will automatically takes on the appearance of transforming itself - it is not so much changing as it is evolving. Which of course is practically speaking exactly what evolving is doing - changing....but even so the default is always an aspect of that whole process.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pm
Omniscience and free will are not contradictory. You can know everything and still not cause everything to happen the way it did. I know everything that happens in the Star Wars movies; I didn't make those things happen.
But we are not talking about your capabilities as a created being. We are speaking of the capabilities of a non-created being who knows everything AND creates things like the universe.
IF the god did not create Adam or this universe, THEN I could accept your argument that the god didn't makes those things happen.
Otherwise, not only did the god make these things happen, but the god had no choice BUT to make those things happen. This, because, otherwise the god is simply an observer, able to watch but not the one who created that which is being watched. Enter the Omnipotent argument Christianity also labels their god with.
To keep my analogy going, God would be like the movie studio exec that allows the movie to be made. Humans are the movie producers and actors. So, they are making things happen in different ways. Omnipotence does not exclude using one's power to allow other beings to make real decisions that decide the outcomes.
The Creator - I will refer to as []...[] is not only the movie studio exec that allows the movie to be made but also the director, the actors and the stage the action is happening on. [] experiences all simultaneously in the role of [] but in the role of all the others, [] experiences the movies parts - from the construction of mines in order to dig out the ingredients necessary to even make the movie, as it were...the whole shebang!
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pm
God does have free will.
Why would an omniscient being have need for such an attribute?
They aren't mutually exclusive; they talk about different issues. The better question, I think, is how could an omnipotent being not have free will? What would be determining their actions?
[] determines the actions of [] upon the stage [] created for that purpose. If not for the stage, then there would be no need for [] to have free will. We don't require free will to watch something unfold the way we already know it will unfold. In that I am saying free will is an unnecessary attribute to attach to a being who is regarded as omniscient.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmPractically everything can be called a 'sub category' of free will, including hate. An omniscient god would - by the very nature of omniscience - partake of ALL states of community. In that, one should be able to find an [THE] omniscient being regardless of the community one is involved with.
Yes, hate is a sub-category of libertarian free will just like love. But beings with libertarian free will don't have to choose both love and hate; they could choose all love or all hate. An God with libertarian free will would not have to partake of both love and hate, if that is what you meant. Omniscience wouldn't change that.
A god with only this type of free will you have injected into your argument, cannot also be omniscient and omnipresent.
One can argue then, that such a god as this is the preference as a creator-type of certain individual types, rather than the omni-god being the preference. Which Creator-type are you arguing for? Omni or non-omni?
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmIf one is going to integrate ones self [awareness] with said omniscient being - through exercising ones free will - one would have to surrender said free will in order to accomplish that...said another way;
If one is going to partake of the loving community with said omniscient being - through exercising ones free will - one would have to surrender said free will in order to accomplish that.
I don't understand why you think this is the case. Why would we need to surrender our libertarian free will?
Because one cannot have a deep relationship with [] an omniscient being if one does not trust the being is omniscient. What use is free will in that circumstance?
If one trusts the outcome is perfect, then one accepts that the whole story from start to conclusion is also perfect. Right and wrong become redundant positions. Good and bad become meaningless conditions.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmMy point is that these [apparent] different states are not so different really. A robot which is programmed to behave good and then evolves self consciousness which then has it thinking it that it actually wants to continue being good has reprogramed itself.
I may be misunderstanding you. Are you saying the robot thinks it has libertarian free will, but actually doesn't? And the "reprogramming" is them gaining the thought that they have libertarian free will since God didn't program that thought in them to begin with? Something else?
More to my point, the robot evolves free will from the state of not knowing it had it...so it evolves a sense of self awareness, and understanding that its behavior is a program it has been following. In observing the nature of its program, the robot become aware of the [possible] nature of its creator/programmer. In observing its behavior its uses its free will to continue behaving in the way it was programmed to behave but does so of its own free will, which evolved from its programming.

In that sense, the programs themselves are designed to go in that direction and eventually gift the robot with self awareness.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmFree will beings [humans] who are not programed at all, also program themselves as a matter of having to do so BECAUSE of their environment.
So, the placement of free will beings into the confinement of an environment which they are not free within, has the affect of shaping said being in relation to the free will that they have, and that shaping has to do with programming. The programming is still an act of free will, but moves toward 'states' where the individual feels comfortable with, as long as those programs are protected.
This doesn't make sense to me. You are saying they are beings with free will, but they are not free. What do you mean by "not free" here, since it can't be that they don't have libertarian free will?
They are not free because they are contained within an environment. They have the ability to operate their WILL, but ONLY in relation to the environment they are contained within.
They cannot will gravity to stop working, for example. Their will is not free to do that. What they can do is work with the environment to achieve ways of simulating lack of gravity and even travel to places where gravity no longer has the same affect on them as in other places...

Which is to say that there is a ton of latitude but limitations nonetheless. All very necessary in order for being with will to exercise said will within confined environment.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmAny external or internal data flow which the individual is subjected to which might be a perceived threat to preferred programming, is blocked by the individual. Either way, this equates to robots with free will
The way I understand those terms, you logically cannot be a robot with libertarian free will. That would be like saying you can be a married bachelor.
It is possible that a robot could develop self awareness and therefore a will.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pm
We can't move to that position.
We can if we are as you claim - free will beings.
No, we can't. We start at the position of being morally neutral (which I understand as never having made a moral choice). As soon as we make a moral choice (for good or evil) then we are no longer morally neutral, but either morally perfect or morally imperfect. Once we have made one choice we can logically never return to the position of never having made a moral choice.
Even so, what I was suggesting is that we can - as beings with will - choose to see things through the lens of the morally neutral position
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pm
That would be like asking us to play baseball, yet never bat.
Unless one sees that even observing a game is participating in said game.
But having libertarian free will means necessarily playing in the game, taking at bats, not just observing.
Which is what I have been arguing. No stage no play. It doesn't matter if one has free will or not, if one has no stage in which to play on.
Just as one can be a being WITH free will and simply observe the game. Being a batter in the game requires one also be in the position of observer and observed. There is no differentiation which is really actually 'different'.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pm
Morally neutral means never making a moral choice (i.e., God creates us but we haven't faced a moral choice yet). Once we make the first moral choice, then we are either morally perfect or morally imperfect. If we were to never make a moral choice, then we don't have free will. This brings us back to the question of whether it is better to have free will or be robots.
Understandably so.
But this appears to counter your belief that the sin was in making the choice not to trust the gods wisdom, which was that if we stopped being morally neutral, we would surely die.

This, because, while Adam was created with the capacity to function as a free will being, without having any choice, he might as well just be a robot.
No, God doesn't say (the equivalent of) we would die if we stop being morally neutral. God says (the equivalent of) we would die if we become morally imperfect. Adam and Eve could have stopped being morally neutral and become (and forever remained) morally perfect and not have died.
As long as the tree of life was accessible. They had no internal mechanism in which to achieve immortality. They were not created immortal, as the mythology clearly indicates.
So if one were morally neutral AND had access to the tree of life, [be immortal] that would be acceptable.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmMy argument in relation to that is the critique that Adam was not really a free will being UNTIL he had the opportunity to make that choice. Until that time, he was effectively a robot.
A robot in the sense of never having faced a moral choice, yes. But I've been talking about humans being robots in the sense of being determined in their moral choices. Those are different concepts.
Whereas I have been speaking to the idea that without the environment, beings with the ability to freely choose have nothing to choose and that is why Adam was placed in his specific situation, as per the mythology.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pm
Perhaps how you understand those terms, but not how I understand them.
The point of my critique of your terms is to offer a more accurate alternative to be rationally considered.
You have only stated that a "being" is an "environment" without any support for this being true. I would gladly consider your reasoning if you gave it.
Take the human being. Now address the science regarding the human form. We see that the form is literally an environment for a whole assortment of life-forms scurrying around doing what they do in their robotic manner.
In the same way we can view the planet - a form which is an environment for a whole assortment of life-forms scurrying around doing what they do in their robotic manner.

Mirror mirror - you have been given two example where a "being" is also an "environment"
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmOne is a free will being isn't one? If one is not afforded the opportunity to think about this in another way - a better way might not be found. Assuming Christian Mythology is the best way is one thing. When Christian Mythology is presented which can be sensibly critiqued, an opportunity presents itself to Christians [and others] to elevate their thinking in relation to their free will and move forward and past redundant beliefs.

Isn't that really what argument/debate/discussion/talking gives opportunity toward? What say you regarding this question?
Yes, that is what discussion should be about. I do consider things from various different worldviews, I don't just assume Christianity is the best way. I continually challenge my beliefs, yet still see Christianity as the best explanation of reality, without redundant beliefs.
Come now - some beliefs have to become redundant in order to move on. There is no evidence suggesting Christianity is exempt from that process. It is part of the baking process...things will naturally drop away.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmWhat you think is simply one expression of an individuals free will. You think the story relays actual truth is here nor there, if said truth can be logically critiqued. If one continues to resist letting go of beliefs which have been logically critiqued, one cannot seriously claim they are being free will beings. They are beholding to their program rather than the actual truth.
If by logically critiqued you mean shown to be illogical, then I think you are simply wrong that my beliefs have been shown illogical.
The question still remains. What you think about my critique may simply be the product of programming which has yet to be changed.
I think a lot of your critiques arise from combining different Christian worldviews to my own Christian worldview. Those aren't logical critiques. Once you see that my worldview is different than the one you thought a Christian like me should believe, you should admit that and drop that critique. I think other critiques of yours understand my worldview, but aren't logically sound and that you are holding on to those beliefs in spite of their irrationality. You obviously disagree.
And I give good logical reasoning for WHY I disagree. You cannot - at present - see this as being the case, but others might. I am not engaging with you to convince you of anything or to do anything against your free will [or what may be a case of mistaking free will for programming.]
It is here nor there with me what or how different other Christians think in regard to your own beliefs. I maintain there is no such thing as a true Christian, so in that, you calling yourself a "Christian" is besides the point, as I remind you that distracting myself in the web of different and conflicting arguments on interpretation of biblical passages which attempt to inform me of The Creators nature, is not something I invest my free will to get entangled within.

I am free to observe that dynamic from outside of that dynamic and so will it that way.

If you think I am superimposing other Christian beliefs over your own, and then mistakenly reflecting that back to you, you should be able to pinpoint where I actually am doing so and reflect that back to me...
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmYet humans can't be shown to have free will unless they are also tempted to act out evil. Adam was considered 'good' by the god but also [as the story goes] he was not seen to be acting any less than a robot would act BECAUSE he had not been tempted with evil.
But there was still already a truth about whether he was a robot or had libertarian free will. As Adam's maker, God knew that truth.
Of course. But are you not also claiming that Adam also knew that truth? And that the author has made that plain to the reader?
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmThe question as to WHY this had to take place, may be something which was observed within Adams actions, even prior to Eve being created. The story does give us clues as to what that might have been...so we have [in Adam] a being created with free will, who was showing definite signs of having a propensity to choose evil, if evil were to be offered to him...
What textual clues do you think tell us that Adam had a propensity to choose evil? I see none. Yes, you can speculate that Adam told Eve rather than God telling Eve and you can speculate that Adam added the bit about touching the fruit instead of Eve, but the text does not address those questions at all, so that's not reading textual clues.
I will continue to point out that it is the most likely conclusion that one can make given what the author has chosen to put in and leave out.

If the writer did not write that Adam was with Eve, then I would be more inclined to accept your interpretation as the best one to adopt.
If the thread of the idea that it is the husbands task to instruct the wife didn't run throughout most of the rest of the story, then I could accept your interpretation as the best one to adopt.
If the Serpent wasn't included in the story as a real being Adam and Eve interreacted with and seemed familiar with at the time of the temptation, then I could accept your interpretation as the best one to adopt.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmNot directly but yes, indirectly. The god made humans, who eventually made robots.
Are you saying that humans made themselves into 'robots' or talking about the actual robots humans have made recently? If the first, what verses are you pointing to (if any)? If the second, then what does that have to do with anything we have been talking about?
As to the first, if humans are relying on script [which is a form of coding] in order to tell them what the nature of The Creator is, then yes - they are more robots than free will creatures. They are creatures who have chosen through their free will processes, to believe the script is true.
As to the second, what it has to do with, is the baking process - one of the reasons why The Creator placed humans into this environment.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmOut of interest, IF the Planet itself was a self conscious entity, THEN would you consider natural disasters as being 'evil'?
Not necessarily. For instance, I don't think it evil when a human breaks an arm. Yes, it's pain and suffering, but I don't see it as evil for God to allow such things to accidentally happen (like a person falls down).
What about when a volcano buries hundreds of humans, or anything of that natural scale which harms humans?
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pm
Good is anchored in god's nature in that it matches God's nature; evil in that it is what goes against His nature. Perhaps "anchored" is causing this confusion and a better word exists to avoid that confusion?
You brought the word in. Do you have a more appropriate one?

I think anchored is fine to use, in relation to the idea that the god is neither good nor evil, because those concepts appear to come specifically through beings invested with free will and the partial [rather then the full] knowledge of what is good and evil.
The other term I’ve used before is “grounded” but I don’t think that is necessarily any better. I don’t use it to mean God is neither good nor evil. God is good. Evil is going against God’s nature. God does have libertarian free will. Good and evil truths are the same for omniscient beings and non-omniscient beings.
If the god cannot be harmed or even harm his self, how is the god to be concerned about matter of good or evil from his perspective? Do you refer to him as 'good' simply because he cannot be harmed?
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmIn the simplest of terms, "Who told you that you were naked?"

Is being naked an imagined evil or a real evil?
If I understand you correctly, then being naked was imagined to be evil by the humans, while it was not really evil. Trying to cover their nakedness speaks to them being ashamed at eating the fruit in disobedience of God, which is the real evil.
As I have pointed out, they first appeared ashamed of being naked in one another's company. The god did not care that they were naked. The god wanted to know who told them that they were naked and that was not a question the god was asking them so that the god could be informed because the god already knew the answer to said question. It was rhetorical, and thus designed to be answered by the Adam and Eve.

Thus "Where did your shame come from" which of course was not sourced directly from the god but indirect from the creation the god had made.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmThere are no specific quotes which I am referring to. Rather, it is your whole argument which I am critiquing here.
We are not discussing the trusting of just any being. We are focusing on the idea of the trusting of a specific being who is omniscient.
As such, trusting the omniscient being automatically means one gives up free will, because free will is impractical in that instance.
One is not trusting the morality of said being. Morality has nothing to do with why one would trust such a being. It is besides the point.
This would be a critique of yours that is irrational, then. Trusting an omniscient being does not automatically mean one gives up their free will. It is a textbook example of exercising one’s free will to trust them rather than to trust something else.
My critique is in the notion that once done, the being - so choosing, still has free will, which appears to be what you are arguing.
I am arguing that sincere, real trust would only be seen that way IF the one claiming to trust the being, no longer saw things through the lens of good and evil and judgement. While one argues that the god himself also views his creation through the lens of good and evil and judgement, one is clearly stating the god has faults...for the god identifies said faults in the gods own creation. As such, if the god sees his creation in that manner, who are we to disagree UNLESS the god was kidding himself that the creation was 'good' AND the god was not omniscient.
I’m not sure what you mean by thinking this is “trusting the morality of said being.” Perhaps if you clarify what the reason to trust such a being should be that would clarify your point.
If The Creator being is really omniscient then that is all that trust requires. Everything else is academic and requires no judgment based in notions of good or evil.

If the creation is not evil, then nor is the creator of the creation.

If one can view the creation as not evil, one can view The Creator as not evil.

If one cannot do the one, one isn't really doing the other.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmIndeed, perhaps Adam lost trust in this being BECAUSE of free will. Perhaps the idea of being given free will and also the option to trust the god or not, caused a conflict in Adam. Along the lines of "Why am I being given free will and also told to trust the god?" "Is there something about the god that I shouldn't be trusting?" Stuff like that.
Being given free will is the same thing as having the option to trust God or not; they aren’t logically distinct concepts.
Having options to trust is one thing. Having reason to trust those options is the another.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmDo you understand the concept of how a key can be used and then not be needed anymore?
Yes, but I don’t understand why either (1) in reflecting my thoughts back on me, a key is a proper analogy for my concept of libertarian free will or (2) that libertarian free will really is like a key in this way.
I do. Do you want to understand my position more clearly or do you just want me to understand yours?
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmPerhaps if you dropped the 'good' out of your question, it might become clearer to you.
Sure. I’m not saying your view is logically inconsistent in that way.
Fine.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmWhy would an omniscient being determine something like that to be 'bad'?
Because hate would be equal to love, when it’s not. What is the goal you see GOD has in Creation?
I think it is similar to your own, only on a larger time-scale and the result is going to be that everyone ever involved in this as an individual will come to that point eventually and no one will be annihilated and I think this will be the case because an omniscient being would not create all this if i the omniscient being knew that any would be lost as a result of going through the experience of said creation.

I suppose that is my idea of a 'good' Creator when all is said and done.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pm
I agree the wording isn't helpful. By that I mean there is no "clear" or "simple" reading of the text; we have to take into account literary context, culture, historical context, etc. Saying "I just take what the text says" and things like that is rhetoric, not support for one's interpretation.

Are you saying you automatically mistrust the Christian interpretations, but not necessarily mistrust all non-Christian interpretations? If so, non-Christian interpretations are open to the same kind of misunderstanding as Christian ones.
As we age we have the opportunities to learn things which we once did not know and to drop things which no longer stand up to logical reason. I am saying that I have not encountered any Christian interpretation of the Mythology which cannot be critiqued...
Every worldview can be critiqued, though, right?
Naturally. But is there a world view which can remain standing once the critiquing is done?
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pm
God doesn't feel sorrow because of that. God can still feel sorrow that humans used their free will in ways to harm themselves, each other, and the rest of Creation even though God knew they would (or knew they might).
All that can be taken from that is that the god created this particular reality in order that he might experience sorrow.
No, one could also understand that God created this reality for some reason in spite of knowing He would feel sorrow.
Yes I suppose if one didn't really understand that an omniscient creator has no need to feel sorrow, that could be understood. Otherwise, no.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmAlso, where do you see the need for the word "might" in relation to the idea of an omniscient being? The god KNEW they WOULD. Not that they MIGHT.
The phrasing was to cover whether one thinks God is temporal or that He is non-temporal. I don’t want you assuming I think God is one or the other in my responses so that if that difference becomes important for something we are saying that you won’t misunderstand me or think that I’m moving the goalposts when I’m not.
In that, do you agree The god KNEW they WOULD. Not that they MIGHT?
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pmBut overall, such an outcome is far too mundane. There is no point in having the emotion of sorrow if one already knows BEFORE the beginning HOW things will unfold. IF you want to argue the god felt sorry (and that the author was correct to add this to the storyline) THEN the sorrow should have occurred BEFORE the creation of all of this. Feeling sorry part way into the story denotes a being who did not KNOW what was going to happen, which contradicts the idea of an omniscient creator-god. There is no way around that logic which Christian interpretation can offer.
Yes, there is. You said you didn’t want to get into these kinds of interpretations of passages but simply wanted to analyze my beliefs in the bigger picture but obviously you do.
You must have misunderstood what I was meaning, otherwise why would I even be engaging with you if that were the case?
You think the language is to be understood literally, where God actually regrets the previous decision He made. That is one option. Another option is that the language is anthropopathic, where human terms are used to describe God’s actions. A third option is that the word translated by some as “regret” should be translated differently. It is translated in different ways in different passages. Some translations of this passage translate the word as ‘grieve’ or ‘had pain,’ where God feels sorrow at the choices humans were making and wants to set them right, but without regretting his earlier decision to allow it to happen. The context of Genesis (much less the rest of the OT and the NT) supports the latter two over yours.
And as I have critiqued said options, in that an omniscient being would have no need to feel said emotions, my critique on that is that the language the author uses is anthropopathic, where human terms are used to describe God’s actions, which is more like unto a being without the attribute of being omniscient [huamn] but with the ability to fell emotions, [human] and has falsely projected an image of The Creator which is really no more than an image of the human projecting oneself onto The Creator - essentially creating the god in the human image.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #274

Post by William »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Jan 08, 2021 3:03 pm
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmNot sure if the above is what you mean, but interested that you have had to change 'free will' into 'Libertarian free will' as if there may be a difference?
There are different ideas of what free will means. I have a memory of you possibly thinking it should just be called a will, but I could be getting that mixed up. Compatibilists have a different idea of free will than libertarians (which is unrelated to the political libertarians). Compatibilists argue that one has free will if the factors that determine (in the hard determinist sense) their actions come from within themselves. Your will is free if it is determined by your genes, for instance. Another person I've been talking with on this website lately thinks a will isn't free unless it is completely unconstrained. My switch was simply an attempt to be more specific in what I mean by free will: basically something like the ability to choose between A and not-A.
In that case, would you consider that 'will' adequately says the same ... the ability to choose between A and not-A.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmWhat the text does show is that there is no mention of Eve ever having meet, let alone forming a relationship with Adams god. What it does show is that any data she did have, most likely could have come from Adam himself.
Not mentioning is not the same as saying it didn't happen.
Yet it is the same as saying that it didn't happen. Indeed, it more likely didn't happen because it was not mentioned, unless we can find a logical reason for the author leaving it out, if it did happen.
Remember that the author did mention that Adam had interaction with the god, even before the god created Eve.
The text doesn't address that question either way.
The text isn't addressing any questions but simply given the authors own thoughts on the idea of creation and creator using mythology as the device to do so. Mythology can be questioned.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmRemember that Adam was with Eve during the temptation, and thus could have intervened at any time, and could have corrected Eve about the touching of the fruit...
Yes, he could have but didn't.
So why is this not regarded as a betrayal of Eve by Adam?
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pm
The author has God calling humans not just 'good' like the other parts of creation but 'very good,' (1:31) so I don't see why we should think the author has a low opinion of Adam and Eve.
By that reason, why would we think then, that the god thinks they are to blame?
Those comments are prior to the Fall.
"The Fall" which the god knew would happen prior to it happening and prior to his creating the universe and prior to his creating Adam and prior to his creating Eve and prior to his creating the Serpent...etc.
After the Fall we see God hold them responsible for their action as well as continue to pursue them in relationship.
Which the god also knew would happen...not MIGHT happen. Would happen. As to the god continuing to pursue them in relationship, there is no mention of that. They were left to their own devices.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmIt is okay as long as we also make sure that we do not cast judgement on any of it, because as soon as we do, our judgment will reflect the fact that we can never be 100% certain...
I see no problem casting judgment on things that we aren't certain about as long as we hold those with an open mind.
That is not casting judgement. That is critiquing. An open mind cannot cast judgement because an open mind is free from the effects of viewing things through the lens of good and evil.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pm
This is exactly what I am referring to in my critique of the writers style and the subsequent issues said style triggers. On top of that, your defense in stating "the text doesn't say that" is no a great one, as it tends toward the idea that it all happened in one afternoon, rather than say, over a period of a decade...it makes the whole thing look rushed and yet coordinated as if a scripted program [coding] was being followed...
If you are saying X is true because of Y and the text does not say Y, then it is valid to respond "but the text doesn't say Y is true, that's your interpretation built on speculations." It's more typical for someone to touch a fruit and eat it almost immediately versus touching a fruit and then waiting a decade (or month or week, etc.) to finally eat it. Being typical means that isn't rushing things, it's the normal time sequence. This doesn't seem culturally dependent, so it seems that the typical understanding should be the default interpretation unless the author specifically says something to have us believe otherwise. The author doesn't tell us of a gap.
You misread what I wrote - to clarify, I am speaking not just of the one incident, but of the time period leading up to that one incident - a pivotal one according to Christian mythology.
With that in mind, please read what I wrote once more and comment on that accordingly...
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pm
My view does not commit one to saying the Fall happened the first day of their existence. The text doesn't address the issue of how much time passed before the Fall.
Exactly! Therefore one cannot make assertions which do not take this into account...
My assertions do take this into account. It is not built off of it happening the same day or a week apart or a decade apart since the text doesn't address that question.
Again - the text doesn't address and question other than [perhaps] the question "Why are were in this situation suffering" and in that, the text poorly addresses said question.
Which is precisely why it is questionable.
Your assertions do not take this into account because they are built on their actually being a gap of some time (going beyond any question the text addresses). Or perhaps I'm still misunderstanding your point here and you need to make it clearer.
My point in relation to your own, is that just because the text doesn't address such, doesn't equate to us also not having to address such. You answering my logical critique with "the text doesn't address such" is not a great retort, as it shows a reliance upon text which doesn't address such rather than on an open mind, rationally critiquing that which is way too short on information to allow for a clear and sturdy position.

Consider this. Ask the robot AI Alexa "Do you think there is a god who created human beings?" and you will get a reply along the same lines. "My coding doesn't allow for me to contemplate that question" or some such thing. That is no different from you replying "The text doesn't address such". An automated response which clearly shows the respondent does not wish to contemplate anything which 'the text'

Code: Select all

 does not itself directly give an explanation for [address.]

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]So you claim, but how do you know this is the case? Generally it is not disobedience which causes us to cover up. Rather it is embarrassment. Generally that has to do with being walked in on while getting dressed, or not wanting to get naked in a public bathing area etc...in the case of the pair, we have these two suddenly being embarrassed in each others company because they are naked...which they have always been together and should be well used to it.[/quote]

[quote]Yes, they should be used to it. So, what does the text say changed and literally groups together with them realizing they are naked? It's eating the fruit (in disobedience of God) and feeling ashamed.[/quote]

And I have asked "Why was the fruit even necessary?"  I have said in that regard, that the fruit is just a prop and had no intrinsic properties which allowed for Eve and Adam to suddenly know what good and evil were.  It was simply necessary to show someone(s)[not the god] that Adam would choose to betray Eve through choosing to add to the gods command AND then disregard the command anyway.

In that, it appears the consistent thing is that up until the time this occurred the pair were lacking in enough self awareness and guilt/shame/fear was the trigger by which they could respond to the circumstance and achieve that self awareness.
To add to that from the storyline, their self awareness produced a sense of self preservation, which had them pointing fingers of blame at others rather than accepting responsibility.  Essentially - when it came to their selves in relation to the god, they were afraid.  Not just that the god would see them but more to the point because the god would kill them...since death was the sentence and they did not know that part of the sentence would be a hard and long life outside the comfort of their garden and into the harsh reality of the world outside the garden.

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]Which supports my argument that the god expected that the garden situation would be temporary for the pair, rather than permanent, so getting used to covering up takes on a more practical element than the pair simply being disobedient, or for that matter, embarrassed.[/quote]

[quote]Yes, God knew they would eventually need clothes. That's not the point of their nakedness in the text, though. There is no reason to think the author is saying God set up this scenario in order to teach them about the practicality of wearing clothes in colder climes. It's not addressing that question. The clothing is directly tied to their shame by the text.[/quote]

But the god and his omniscient attribute is not bound by the text so there is no need for us to assume that the god didn't.  It is not what the author chose to say which has one asking such questions. Rather it is what the author did not say which has these questions been asked.
The author does not write that the god knew they would eventually need clothes. Is this because the author did not know or because this would take away the focus of crime and punishment that the author wished to convey?

Point being, IF the god had other reasons for clothing the pair and expelling them from the garden, why did the author not write it in that manner?  Did the author not know, or did the author know but not want others to know?
Said another way, did the god cloth the pair by slaughtering a beast and skinning and curing the skin in order to clothe them to help the pair feel less ashamed embarrassed guilty and fearful, or was the god more concerned with the practicalities of the life they would experience outside the garden?  Why can both options not be reasonable?

[quote]Since this question isn't addressed by the text, all we can do is speculate, should one want to. Our speculation won't be about what the text is trying to get across to us though.[/quote]

The text is trying to get across to us that the creation is to blame for not following the gods command.  In that, the text cannot help but have us questioning the true motives of a god which is called blameless but who is also called omniscient.  Clearly it is not speculation that the god knew all this would happen;  The god created a being who was able to choose.  The god told the being not to eat of a certain tree which the god knew had no intrinsic properties which would cause Adam to know good and evil.  The god knew that if he gave a command, that Adam would disobey said command.

[quote] I would speculate that if they remained perfectly obedient to God, eventually populating cold areas in the world, that prior to that God would have told them they'll need to get some warm clothes to survive or that they would easily be able to figure that out on their own.[/quote]

Yet they couldn't figure out on their own that they were set up, because they did not have that knowledge.  

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]Also to note, IF the god knew they would eat of the forbidden fruit, THEN why would the god even command them to obey him? It makes no logical sense unless the god wanted them to feel shame and guilt...[/quote]

[quote]If God doesn't give humans a command, then how would they know how God wants them to use their libertarian free will? [/quote]

Again I remind you that we are speaking to the idea of an omniscient being when referring to the gods attributes.  In that, we cannot justifiably argue that such a being wants them to do anything.  The god already knows what they will do so in creating the situation after the fact that the god knows what will happen, logically means that the god meant for it to happen.
It is not about want or need in relation to the god. because "Omniscient".

[quote]Since they have free will, [/quote]

Which the omniscient god created them with...

[quote]it makes perfect logical sense that God would tell them what is good for them to do because God wants good for them, not because He's just waiting for the day that they feel shame and guilt. [/quote]

The omniscient god knows that their good days in the garden are numbered.  The god knows that they do not have enough self awareness to be able to survive in the wider world they are destined for.  The god knows that having the knowledge of both good and evil can only happen when they experience fear, guilt, shame, embarrassment and the god knows that they will not be able to experience those things unless the god commands them NOT to do something and they do it anyway.

That is called a 'process'.  The omniscient god knew all these things before he created all these things.
Thus [as I have and continue to argue] the author writes in a manner which wants to place the focus of evil onto a natural situation whilst at the same time also places focus of good onto the creator of said natural situation.

This creates an oxymoron which can only be rationalized IF neither the creator nor the creation were good or evil.  Just natural.

What the author doesn't seem to realize its that in writing what was written, the author doesn't stay consistent.  
For example, the [i]truth[/i] [in regard to the story/mythology as presented] is actually not  "if they eat of the forbidden fruit they will surely die", but is actually "if the don't eat of the fruit of life they will surely die."
Thus, the author is making a liar out of the god in the way the author presents the text.  [which we are able to critique] 

[quote]I would also say that conviction of wrongs done, itself, is a good thing because it causes us to confront our wrongs. [/quote]

The [i]perceived[/i] wrongs.  We do not know with any certainty that they were [i]actual[/i] wrongs...one can be pursued to feel guilty about something which we logically shouldn't/needn't.

[quote]I would say guilt (if you mean that in a sense different than conviction) is not something God wants us to feel.[/quote]

Again I remind you this - that we are speaking to the idea of an omniscient being when referring to the gods attributes.  In that, we cannot justifiably argue that such a being wants them to do anything.  The god already knows what they will do so in creating the situation after the fact that the god knows what will happen, logically means that the god meant for it to happen.
It is not about want or need in relation to the god. because "Omniscient".

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]If they had of had the full knowledge (for that is what I am arguing) then the author would have written it so. "You shall surely die" is not exactly full knowledge. It is partial knowledge, and my argument says that if they had had the full knowledge, perhaps they would never have looked at the fruit, let alone touched it. Presently you seem unable to agree with this because you are assuming that they DID have the full knowledge, but the storyline does not even attempt to give us that impression.[/quote]

[quote]The storyline does not address that question directly. So, we look at the larger context. Your view requires us to believe the author is saying God unfairly blames the humans for their disobedience. That does not mesh with the rest of what the author tells us about God. He doesn’t think God unfair.[/quote]

My argument is that the author is corrupt in his own views regarding The Creator and bias leans toward that corruption.  My argument is that the author is transferring an image of the authors self as the image of The Creator, and that in doing so, the author is showing us the authors own nature, not The Creators actual nature.

In that, the author is saying 'someone' is to 'blame' for 'human nature' but it is not the god because the god is 'good' and human nature is 'evil'.

My critique is that IF the god [The Creator] is indeed omniscient, then none of this need be seen as crime and punishment, because to do so is to see The Creator in a 'bad' light which is not a 'good' light.

So by removing the good and evil/good vs evil element from the equation, we are presented [by life] with a whole other way of looking at said life.  A way, which clearly the author does not know of.  Which means that those [like yourself] who depend upon the text as an ultimate guide to how you should think about life, also do not know and use the text as a means of justifying why you should not [i]want[/i] to know.

 
[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]But the author - perhaps in his rush to paint Eve as the first to sin - forgets to mention that Adam had it in his power to help Eve argue with the Serpent but remained silent.[/quote]

[quote]Or he thinks the reader would obviously put that together without having to be told it directly.[/quote]

So you agree with me on that?  (I cannot ask the author directly but I can ask you.)

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]Perhaps the god is really speaking against that. Perhaps that is essentially Adams sin. (and the authors for not being more direct)[/quote]

[quote]I do think that is part of the sin, although I would say we go further beyond the text here than much of the other details we’ve been talking about. If passivity like this is a sin (like you, I, the Bible, and Christianity assert), then this lends further support towards the interpretation that they actually eat the fruit at the same time. They disobeyed God’s command to not eat the fruit as well as God’s command to rule over/care for Creation (including each other). The author seems to focus on the first command, though.[/quote]

Placing aside the authors focus, do we agree that in Adam remaining quite instead of supporting his wife in her hour of confliction, aided and abetted the Serpent? If so then we also agree together that this was the lead reason for Eves fall, but Adam had essentially already fallen.

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]Remember, Eve blamed the Serpent, whereas Adam not only blamed the gift the god had given him in Eve, but by association, blamed the god as well "The Woman you gave to me!"
If you are arguing that this god is blameless, how is it you do not see Adams sin in blaming the god for what Adam himself allowed to let happen right before his eyes?
He let the Serpent tempt his wife and did nothing at all to prevent it.
The god - being omniscient - would have expected this. How is it that Christians cannot even recognize Adams sin?[/quote]

[quote]Yes, the blame game is also sin, showing their continued brokenness. [/quote]

Effectively, this is the focus of my critique.  In order to play the blame game, one must first have some idea as to what good and bad are.  If we are to cease with playing that game, we need to let go of such notions.

[quote]The disobedience of eating the fruit is not a stand alone mistake, they continue sinning. Why do you think I and other Christians don’t recognize this? [/quote]

You and other Christians (and as I have also pointed out, other religions and even atheists) all operate under the same program of assigning good and evil to objects within nature.  in other words "play the blame game" and as such, [i]any[/i] god idea [especially one of an omniscient being] which also is involved with playing that game, is - by that very thing - part of the blame.  It is unavoidable, even if one writes text in a manner attempting to conceal that, as the writer of the genesis mythology has obviously done when we use logic to question it in relation to our free will being exercised.

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]How hard is it to write "and Eves"? Why do you think mere shorthand [laziness] is the reason only Adams sin is mentioned? Perhaps Jesus knew that the emphasis was always on blaming the Woman and had become a traditional feature in the religions which formed from this Mythology which had to be addressed.[/quote]

[quote]It’s not hard, but that doesn’t mean leaving Eve’s name out is invalid. Perhaps it is simply an idiom. Perhaps it refers to Adam being the first human and Eve being made from him. Perhaps, if they ate the fruit at the same time, Adam is blamed as the first sin because of his passivity when he was “above” Eve in a leadership role. The author of 1 Timothy actually talks about Eve being deceived and sinning first.[/quote]

So you do not know and are thus speculating.  That is acceptable in regard to the lack of information.  The information the author provides is also speculation, written in an authorities style which leads the reader to assume otherwise. 
The omniscient god is the only one not speculating because he cannot speculate.  He can only know for sure.

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]But then we have the problem of a possible contamination of the text, which may have been written in the style it had because the author(s) were focused upon the main offender being the first one to offend and poor Adam was just going along with his wife...[/quote]

[quote]That assumes there was a gap and that they didn’t eat it (and have their eyes opened) at the same time. I think the context actually supports them eating it at the same time better.[/quote]

Thus we are left with the actual betrayal of his wife to the Serpent been largely overlooked by the Christian readers as the focus is upon Eve allowing herself to be tempted.  One is left to speculate on what life might be like if most Christians focused upon Adams lack of support for his wife, which the god gifted him, rather than in Eve been tempted.  Adam effective was the one who was tempted first, as his inactions clearly indicate.
One is also left with the impression the author gives us by omitting to make it crystal clear rather than the more of a side note "Adam was with Eve while this was going on", but that is not the point the author is wanting us to focus upon.
We also know this by the omitting of the god chastising Adam specifically for betraying Eve in not supporting Eve.  Surely this is the reason why Eve ate of the fruit, because her husband with her, was not protesting or trying to convince her not to listen to the Serpent, but to trust the god.

Given that we are told that once Eve had taken a bite of the fruit, Adam did not hesitate to do so himself.

Clearly there is enough text therein for us to form the speculation beyond reasonable doubt that Adam was in fact wanting to eat the fruit and was using Eve to make sure it was as the Serpent claimed "you surely will not die if you eat this fruit.  You will become like the god!" - Adam wanted to become like the god but the author says the god had told Adam that to eat of the fruit would cause him to die.
When Eve took a bite and didn't die, Adam saw that it must be safe to eat and is why he then did not hesitate to try it for himself,  because he was willing to use his wife the god had gifted him - Eve -  to get what he really wanted, which was "to be like the god".

We know that the author lied about eating the fruit would cause death, [and thus lied about what the god had said] because we know that they would surely die if they did not eat of the tree of life [which the god prevented them having access to because the god did not want them to live forever in that state.]
If we argue that the author did not lie, then we are forced to conclude that it was the god who lied.  IF the god is omniscient, THEN the god has no need to lie, THEREFORE the author is the one lying.

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]Thus we cannot in all honesty go along with the argument that "the text doesn't say such and such' because it may not say those things due to the author not wanting to write these things.
Nonetheless, we can indeed read more into the story with what the author has written.[/quote]

[quote]Sure, the author could be hiding, changing, or making things up. [/quote]

We agree.

[quote]But you say you are reflecting my beliefs back on me. This question is not that kind of reflection; it gets into why we should trust the author’s main message in the first place, making judgments on the truth of Christianity, which you say you aren’t trying to do, right?[/quote]

Do your beliefs include the authors beliefs?  You certainly appear to be saying so when you use "it is not contained in the text" as part of your argument.  What then is the difference between my reflecting your beliefs back at you and my reflecting the authors beliefs back to you as well?
Sure, I cannot reflect the authors beliefs back at the author because the author is an ancient personality who has since moved on.  But his words remain and are you are attempting to defend the authors words as something you believe are true, are you not?

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]No. While there have been issues and indeed still are issues for humans to face, learn to understand and work on improving and in that, things have been hard for humans, I do not think it will necessarily prove to be the case that the environment cannot work out well for humans. I do think the environment would be better suited to robots, and can see a time where this will be the case...but will that be bad for humans? My argument remains that humans do not understand good or evil in any manner to which they can rightly judge with it.[/quote]

[quote]I think we can’t understand it without seeing God as the standard of good and evil, but that if God is the standard, then we can (although without 100% certainty, and that’s okay) rightly judge with it. That is part of the reason I believe Christianity true rather than other worldviews.[/quote]

As I mentioned, what the author of the start of the mythology has provided us with, is a belief in a type of god to which the author [and thus the readers who believe the authors speculation is truth regarding the god] believes as being 'good' but as I have also argued, we humans don't even know [and thus don't agree together] as to what is good.  If the god depicted is 'good' but the creation the god made is depicted as "not good" because 'evil' and the author lies by saying the god lies but that is still 'good' [god can lie and still be good] we are left with a conundrum of conflicting concepts which only really serve to explain the human condition as being confused about those concepts and thus, gives us a reason as to why the human race remains on its current course and also reason to question said beliefs as perhaps NOT being the truth.

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]Then why does the Mythology include the god dealing with the rest of the environment by flooding it completely?[/quote]

[quote]Genesis 6:5 ties the flood to the wickedness of humans. You can’t flood humans without that flood also affecting the land, plants, and non-human land animals as well.[/quote]

Collateral damage the innocent perish on account of the wicked because - apparently - there is no other way for an omniscient being to deal with the problem?  That is illogical.

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]Why does the Mythology promise a 'new earth'?[/quote]

[quote]From my readings, it’s “new” in the sense of being redeemed or transformed, not as in being a separate physical Earth to replace the first.[/quote]

This is more likely in relation to what an omniscient being would know.  Unfortunately [for you as a Christian] many of your fellow Christians believe otherwise and spread that around as a truth...

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]Why do Christians generally believe they will have to have an environment which cannot be affected by evil?[/quote]

[quote]By definition. Heaven is a place where God’s reign exists, i.e., there is no evil. If a place is affected by evil, then it isn’t Heaven, by definition.[/quote]

Thus [in relation to your previous statement] the transformation of Earth into 'a place where the gods reign exists', requires that the evil is [i]transformed[/i].  Otherwise if it were a simple case of removing the evil, this could have been accomplished right from the go-get by not creating Adam in the first place.
Since Adam was created by the god and the god knew how it ALL would transpire - how eventually things would work out just fine, the god went along and created Adam.  Evil in that sense is only and simply can only be a temporary state in regard to the whole story [still unfolding for us but already known completely by the god].

As such, both The Creator and The Creation are good.  Evil is illusion - something that humans placed upon the creation to explain why they existed within said creation, suffering said creation.  It is the suffering to which humans assign evil as being, all said and done.  Ancient humans required a reason as to why they were in such a environment of confinement which included suffering, and came up with the idea that it must have to do with crime and punishment.
While that idea has to be investigated to see if it stands up to scrutiny, it may be an incorrect assumption from the beginning of its conception right through to current day.

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]And my argument envelops that position by informing that everything is good, except for knowledge of good and evil in relation to free will.[/quote]

[quote]Is this what you mean by “knowledge of good and evil” or what I mean by it (i.e., experiencing deciding for themselves what is good and evil)? I think knowing what is truly good and what is truly evil is good; deciding it for one’s self is not good.[/quote]

One is real and the other fiction?  We cannot know what is truly good and what is truly evil without deciding for one's self what is not good [or not evil].  Your argument is contradictory in that light.

In order to overcome the contradiction, I argue that we have to dispense with pretending we know the difference and learn how not to judge or view things through the lens of good and evil because these are by and large all fictional concepts.

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]For an omniscient being to proclaim something is 'good' must mean that the whole circumstance, including the advent of evil-to-be, is all 'good' or 'as it should/has to be'.
In that position, one does not have to deal with ideas of 'good AND evil' Everything was proclaimed acceptable in the sight of the god.[/quote]

[quote]The existence of libertarian free will is ‘good,’ it is better than being a robot. [/quote]

Marginally if at all.  It depends largely on any outside influences (such as the god) and why the god created the environment and placed free will being into it instead of robots.
You say it is because of love and that the god wanted the free will being to experience love and to reflect that love back to the creator.
I say if that is the case, then 'no foul'  all is as it need be as it changes day to day.  Concept of good and evil have only served to cloud that logical conclusion and can be easily sourced  as being the actual the reason humans harming humans has occurred.  Because humans  decided to work it out for themselves using concepts of good and evil as their guiding light...and injecting what they thought was the correct idea of The Creator into that type of conjecture.

[quote]That does not mean thinking that the evil that will result (but didn’t have to) is good or as it should be, however. I don’t see why anyone would worship a being that doesn’t discern between child abuse and loving a child, thinking that loving the child is how things ought to be.[/quote]

That is a description of internal process all can choose to go through of their own free will.
The evil did have to result given the god is omniscient.  Otherwise the god would have had to ignore his knowledge and place false hope that 'perhaps maybe' they would choose not to.  For an omniscient being to ignore what he knows to be true in favor of focusing on what he hopes 'might' happen denotes a being who is not trusting his own knowledge is 'good' knowledge [as in whole knowledge] which itself is an interesting concept, but - sticking to the task at hand - I think it best that we don't assume that, so we are left with the only other option.  Evil HAD to be experienced first hand [i]through[/i] the human instrument in order for the gods love to be understood.

IF a being said the words "Trust me I love You" to me, AND that being was indeed omniscient, THEN I would see no logic in NOT trusting said being was telling the truth.

However, I am in no position to KNOW that such a being was in fact omniscient...so in that I would doubt.  It is natural.

[b]If [/b]I see no evil in the natural state [that which is a natural response of a free will being with no knowledge to any given situation]  I am in, assists me in forming said trust that said omniscient being is true to his word [b]then[/b] I can trust said being even that I myself do not know.

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]And in relation to the bigger picture that an omniscient being must see, choosing the 'weaker reasons' was going to happen but trusting the god knows the results are going to work out fine regardless, is a bonus for those who do - whatever their circumstance might be...as long as they do not lose trust through having issues as to what good and evil are. We do not know. We best not presume.[/quote]

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]Yes. Given the god is omniscient, how can it be any other way unless the god was purely evil?
I remind you that I do not see how it is possible for any omniscient being to be 'good' or 'evil' Bear that in mind, if you will.[/quote]

[quote]What does it mean for the results to “work out fine”?  I don’t think universal salvation is needed (although I do think God desires universal salvation).[/quote]

In regard to the vindicating of the notion of a Creator who is omniscient and trustworthy, I agree.  Any such god in that position has some name-clearing to accomplish due to ill informed humans thinking they know the difference between good and evil and how this equates to a god being labeled 'good' in relation to those faulty standards created by humans.

Universal salvation tends towards justice for ripple effect created misinformation.  Evil resulted.  It will pass and all will be saved from it.
But what of those who knew this and hid it from the world?  Is there another type of justice?
I think so.  But I think - like the Earth situation - such places created where such justice can be undertaken, are not permanent, but simply aspects of the larger story those things [mythological places] represent.  When I speak of 'the end result' I am seeing to a vast and complex system which resulted through the creation of this particular Universe and free will beings placement within said Universe.  
Naturally then, the [relatively] tiny area in which the existence of evil can be found, in regard to the entire storyline which the larger part of has yet to manifest itself into being, is insignificant in comparison to said larger thing currently continuing to unfold...

The omniscient being knows all this of course...and we are yet learning it... if we choose to learn it.

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]The authors point is suspect, as I have shown regarding the authors treatment of Eve.[/quote]

[quote]Your interpretation of how the author is treating Eve. I don’t think the author mistreated Eve.[/quote]

Adam mistreated Eve and the author wrote the story, so indirectly used the character of Adam to mistreat the character of Eve.  The author mistreated Eve just as surely as Adam did.  The story is fiction told as if it were fact.

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]Why not? Isn't the idea of forming and maintaining a genuine relationship with the god, a central message of Christianity?[/quote]

[quote]And Biblical Judaism, including the rest of the book of Genesis. That is the broader context that supports there being enough time for there to be reasons for the first humans to love and trust God. But Genesis 1-3 doesn’t directly address that question.[/quote]

Does this conclude then, that we cannot ourselves address said issue?

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]On the contrary - the storyline not only says they were expelled from the garden out into the greater reality, and left to their own devices, but the god stopped visiting them altogether. There is no mention at all in the mythology [that I know of] of the god trying to 'call them back' or of them reestablishing their relationship with the god at some later point in the story...[/quote]

[quote]They sin and God comes to them in the garden (already knowing they had sinned). If your interpretation here were true, then why would God even talk with them rather than just kick them out? God provides them with better coverings than they had (3:21). When Eve names Cain she says she got a son with the help of God (4:2). Abel and Cain bring offerings to God (4:3-4). God talks with Cain about his offering telling him to rule over the sin crouching at his door (4:7). God then comes to Cain after he kills his brother (4:9-10). God tells people not to kill Cain (4:15). When Seth is born, Eve says God appointed another son for her (4:25). God pursues and saves Noah. God calls Abram (Abraham). God is with Hagai and Ishmael when Abraham and Sarah banish them. God pursues Jacob, in spite of his deceptive ways. The whole Bible is about God trying to call humans back over and over again.[/quote]

This addition to the storyline can be explained as natural in relation to the author being believed that the storyline is the truth.
All those god things which are mentioned could just as well be imagined by a people who were still grabbing at something which they had been told they had lost.
There is no reason why an omniscient being would engage with humans once the wheels were set in motion in regard to being booted from having access to the tree of life.  Doomed to die, as the god said they surely would.
I could go alone with the idea that other beings were engaging with humans and calling themselves the gods representatives, which might equate to the god indirectly visiting the humans...
But all said and done, what actual 'good' has come from such encounters which can be shown to have influenced the direction the world has taken in regard to why the god would permit interference with the free will being program experiment?
We do not know and can only choose to belief the story is fact...or remain open minded because we do not have enough information to make a [an informed] choice, because it might actually be fiction.

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427][quote]I agreed that the world could fare better with robots than free will beings. I don't think that is the only or deciding consideration when trying to decide between libertarian free will or robotic moral perfection as the better choice for God in creating humans.[/quote]

Relatively speaking, the god could achieve both through first placing free will beings into the environment because the god would have known that eventually humans would create robots...[/quote]

If the choice is between (1) humans being robots, (2) humans having libertarian free will, or (3) humans becoming robots, then I think the best choice is (2).

[quote]If you mean whether it’s better to have humans with libertarian free will who don’t come up with the technology to make robots versus humans with libertarian free will who do come up with the technology to make robots, then I wonder what relevance that has to our discussion. The “robots” I’ve been discussing aren’t actual robots, but humans who don’t have libertarian free will, either to start with or eventually.[/quote]

I mean that comparing real beings [free will humans] with imaginary beings [your robots] we require knowing how you see these imaginary beings [robots] in order to understand your comparing them with [real] humans and declaring which is better [in relation to the omniscient being]


[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]As free will beings without access to full knowledge, speculation is all we have, and it is fair to speculate as long as one stays close to the bones of what is actually written. As I see, you have not been able to substantially prove that my speculation is in any way out of line to the point where any serious complaint has been given by you about it. The best you have been able to respond is reasonable enough, since I haven't breached the limit of speculation in regards to what we are given to work with in the storyline.[/quote]

[quote]I would delineate the different logical levels of interpretation something more like this (as a first stab at it only): certainty (which I think impossible for us), reasonable (built off context, historical studies, avoiding speculation, etc.), unreasonable (some context, but lots of speculation built in), and pure speculation. I think we have the last three all available to us, and that having a reasonable interpretation that outstrips other interpretations is perfectly fine. I think your interpretation is unreasonable. You remain unconvinced, but I have brought and supported various serious complaints against it. We each are free to come to our own conclusions.[/quote]

Perhaps then it is time to summarize where we each are and see if we both agree to those summaries?  Rather than say what we think the others position is on these matters?

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]I am wondering about your use of a political device here with the addition to free will being 'libertarian'. It gives one the impression your particular take on this god is a political one.[/quote]

[quote]Hopefully that has been cleared up above. My take has nothing to do with politics.[/quote]

I still don't understand why it needs to be labelled as such.  I say that 'will' is all we have to call it, but am willing to compromise with you are use the word 'free' to prefix that.  I am not interested in going off on more branches of tangent as to "what type of 'free will' are we speaking about" I would rather go back to just 'will' than into semantics' shadowy maze.

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]That aside, intervention has to be seen as fudging the results. The way the mythology reads, the god occasionally intervenes and we have to enquire as to what might have occurred if he had not.
This in turn leads one to thing that an omniscient being who interferes would have known that he would interfere and that there was reason for him to interfere all BEFORE he even created Adam or this universe.[/quote]

[quote]Yes, things would be different if God didn’t intervene in our lives. But I don’t get why you say that this means there is reason for God to interfere before creating Adam and Eve. The reason is because of how things play out after Adam and Eve are created.[/quote]
For now I will go along with the god intervenes because the god knew he would intervene and it is part of the process.  The god has in fact been the medium on/in which the whole story has unfolded upon.

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]All in all, from the argument of trust, one can see plainly that trusting a being who IS in fact omniscient is a no-brainer. But what is it that we can point to which allows us to know for sure that the being is in fact omniscient, and not just so far more informed about things than the free will beings he created?

In that, free will beings cannot use their free will (libertarian or otherwise) to full capacity if they have to take the word of a being who claims to be omniscient and have to trust that being is telling the truth. Free will beings are forced to either use their free will to trust in this as being truth, or decide not to. Free will in that, is near useless. Saying "you will or you won't" doesn't address the question of whether you should or you shouldn't.[/quote]

[quote]We can’t know for sure that the being is omniscient. [/quote]

Granted.  But if we trust that the being is, we are cleared ultimately of responsibility once we each realize that is the case.

[quote]We can know very few things with certainty. Pure mathematics. What terms mean (although that is still difficult to accomplish). That we are having some kind of experience. That we are thinking beings. This does not make libertarian free will useless at all. We still have reasons to believe we should do this and shouldn’t do that, even though those reasons aren’t certain.[/quote]

This in turn offers for the opportunity of some humans preying upon most other humans because we - as free will beings - are not and cannot be certain.  All under the operation of free will. In that sense free will is useless.  It can be used by free will beings against free will beings.  How is that useful, unless it is seen as a minor impermanent condition within a major process which itself is trustworthy no matter one has the ability to trust it or not.  It makes no ultimate difference in relation to the bigger picture whether one trusts it now, or waits for more information to come along which can assist said trusting of process.

There seem no logical reason in trusting in anything which has yet to prove itself trustworthy, while at the same time has consistently proven itself NOT to being trustworthy.

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]Which in turn would suggest to me that you then believe that there is no heaven in the traditional sense (being another universe/dimension/reality simulation) so heaven is perhaps another planet in the galaxy? This god resides in this universe...somewhere?[/quote]

[quote]No, on two fronts. First, I don’t think that Heaven (or Hell) are other places we go to when we die was the initial Christian understanding, so I wouldn’t necessarily call that view the “traditional” sense. Second, this doesn’t mean I see Heaven (or Hell) as a different planet. It would be more like Heaven (and Hell) are realms that overlap our realm, occupying the same physical location.[/quote]

Simulations interacting together but not yet merged.  I am fine with that understanding as I have come to that conclusion myself.

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]Showed itself to whom? It cannot have been to the god, for the god already knew.[/quote]

[quote]Back to a movie analogy. I know Darth Vader is Luke’s father because I saw it. If I lived 200 years ago and got a glimpse into the future and, for some reason, was shown [i]The Empire Strikes Back[/i], I would have already known Vader is Luke’s father before it actually happened, but I still know that because that is what George Lucas actually chose to make happen. Lucas’ choice is what shows me the truth.

So, God is “shown” what will happen because that thing actually happens, regardless of whether God peeked into the future to be shown that. But, yes, this was the first time Adam and Eve saw their mistrust become disobedience as well.[/quote]

Of course the god is not "shown" anything at all.  The god [i]knows[/i] it as an attribute of omniscience. It is illogical to think that a being who knows everything, can be shown something it doesn't know.


[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]With the inclusion of a real being which obviously isn't human and is not written in a style that might suggest the Serpent is a personified characteristic of Eves psyche, we have to find understanding in why it was in the Garden tempting Eve with his cunningness.
The being is obviously smarter than the humans in the story. *Perhaps it is the Serpent that the god was showing?

*This idea runs throughout the biblical mythology. The god is showing the Serpent [race?] that he at least knows enough to be trusted as someone who is omniscient, at least in relation to Earth and is happy enough to work with their doubt, using humans as a means of doing so.[/quote]

[quote]Do you mean that this is an experiment to prove to the Serpent something about libertarian free will beings? Like in Job? If so, then I don’t think that is the primary reason in either case, although I agree that the Serpent would be made aware of things he didn’t know in that. Or do you mean something else?[/quote]

One can ascertain that at least it is obvious that the god was showing Adam and Eve and the Serpent and whomever else observing/[participating] in the event sequences...of which we are not informed.  But NOT the omniscient god.  There is nothing to show an omniscient being.

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]In order for that to be possible, you will at least have to agree to treat the Serpent/Satan etc as literally real beings rather than simply personifications of human mistrust/evil.[/quote]

[quote]Of course. I do, in fact, believe Satan is a real being.[/quote]

Then we can agree that the Serpent is more likely that and drop the notion it was some kind of personification of Eve and Adams inner workings. [phyche]

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]I am not arguing that it is. I am saying that omniscience doesn't control, but simply allows - goes along with - because the one who is omniscient knows exactly how things will turn out. There is no need to control anything for particular outcomes.
In that, trying to control how things turn out can only be undertaken by beings who do NOT know but have some power to influence their environment in order to fudge the results so that things go the way they want them to.

An omniscient being would not need to do that or be perturbed by other beings doing so.[/quote]

[quote]Thank you for that clarification. I agree the omniscient God the Bible talks about allows those things to happen. I think it could have decided to control all decisions, though. I agree that an omniscient being isn’t surprised by what people do, but they can still be upset at what they do.[/quote]

Why even add that?  In what way does this help your position?  Why get upset about something you knew would happen?  There is no logical reason to do so.

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]Which - naturally enough - then has one questioning whether the god depicted in the Mythology who does interfere and thus fudge the results, is the same being who is omniscient...perhaps the being is a member of the Serpent race [for want of a better label] and humans are some integral part of the game being played between the Serpents and the Omniscient god?[/quote]

[quote]Pure observer and pure controller are not the only two options. A third option is an omniscient being who still tries to influence his libertarian free will beings to choose the good. Knowing the future does not mean knowing what the future is if you are not a part of it, it could include one’s self as an agent that tries to influence others.[/quote]

Agreed - but in that, there are no surprises or necessity for getting upset.  

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]Traditional Jewish understanding needed correction from Jesus, as the Christian Mythology tells it. Most traditional Jews have kept to their traditions rather than adopt what they regard as Hellenic [and thus Roman] influences and are pagan for that.[/quote]

[quote]Some traditional Jewish understandings, yes, but not Biblical Judaism.[/quote]

Most.  

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]I myself have not argued that the god is NOT a being (rather than a symbol for 'good'.) I brought it up to say that it is best to consider all the mythological beings presented in the bible, as real beings, if we are to consider the god as real. Chopping and changing to suit ones argument does not make the argument any better.[/quote]

[quote]I think the all-or-nothing approach is a flawed approach and one that you don’t really hold. You said yourself that you don’t think Lady Wisdom is meant to be a literal being. [/quote]

We know that through the style of writing.  I am speaking of beings which are said to interact with humans but are not humans themselves, as written in the mythology.

[quote]And I’m not chopping and changing to suit my argument. That would mean I’m taking a stand that the Serpent was one or the other, while God is not. I’ve been saying my argument is the same regardless of the answer to this question about the serpent.[/quote]

Because you have yet to admit that a real Serpent being was involved in the temptation of Eve, due to what I have pointed out as Adams sin.

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]I am speaking to real world examples one might point to, which clearly show the differences and undoubtedly prove the one is better than the other.[/quote]

[quote]Why do you think those exist? Any situation can fit the libertarian free will narrative as well as the hard determinism narrative.[/quote]

Shall we end this here then with the idea that you hold the position the mythology is not really speaking about a real event which actually happened, but is simply[ a rather misleading] analogical interpretation of how life happened to be as it is, on this planet in this universe, according to ancient beliefs which could not have known any better?

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]Are we to trust the text for its lack therein, or the omniscient god being for his ultimate knowledge? Obviously the bible and no book and not even all the information of Earth is ultimate knowledge.[/quote]

[quote]Lacking addressing every question we can think of is not a reason to mistrust the message of the text.[/quote]

It most certainly is a reason for that.  There is no command to trust said text.  Even if there were, such a command can be questioned to ascertain its validity.
What is best to avoid is trusting anything which only presents knowledge in partial form and claim that this knowledge is plenty enough to invest trust within.  Such claims require evidence and the evidence (historically) doesn't present the god in a general good light...due to the actions done in the gods name [claimed to be authorized by the god].

[quote=William post_id=1028179 time=1609988318 user_id=8427]The text supports my particular views simply because, as you agree, it is possible and thus enough to investigate. I think I have shown this to be the case already.[/quote]

[quote]Possibility is not enough to support one’s view as true. Investigate it, sure. You have helped me investigate it and I have found it very unreasonable. You disagree.[/quote]

The unreason you think you see, may not lay in my presentation, but in your unwillingness to seriously contemplate it.  Shall we continue?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #275

Post by William »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Jan 08, 2021 3:03 pm
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmNot sure if the above is what you mean, but interested that you have had to change 'free will' into 'Libertarian free will' as if there may be a difference?
There are different ideas of what free will means. I have a memory of you possibly thinking it should just be called a will, but I could be getting that mixed up. Compatibilists have a different idea of free will than libertarians (which is unrelated to the political libertarians). Compatibilists argue that one has free will if the factors that determine (in the hard determinist sense) their actions come from within themselves. Your will is free if it is determined by your genes, for instance. Another person I've been talking with on this website lately thinks a will isn't free unless it is completely unconstrained. My switch was simply an attempt to be more specific in what I mean by free will: basically something like the ability to choose between A and not-A.
In that case, would you consider that 'will' adequately says the same ... the ability to choose between A and not-A.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmWhat the text does show is that there is no mention of Eve ever having meet, let alone forming a relationship with Adams god. What it does show is that any data she did have, most likely could have come from Adam himself.
Not mentioning is not the same as saying it didn't happen.
Yet it is the same as saying that it didn't happen. Indeed, it more likely didn't happen because it was not mentioned, unless we can find a logical reason for the author leaving it out, if it did happen.
Remember that the author did mention that Adam had interaction with the god, even before the god created Eve.
The text doesn't address that question either way.
The text isn't addressing any questions but simply given the authors own thoughts on the idea of creation and creator using mythology as the device to do so. Mythology can be questioned.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmRemember that Adam was with Eve during the temptation, and thus could have intervened at any time, and could have corrected Eve about the touching of the fruit...
Yes, he could have but didn't.
So why is this not regarded as a betrayal of Eve by Adam?
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pm
The author has God calling humans not just 'good' like the other parts of creation but 'very good,' (1:31) so I don't see why we should think the author has a low opinion of Adam and Eve.
By that reason, why would we think then, that the god thinks they are to blame?
Those comments are prior to the Fall.
"The Fall" which the god knew would happen prior to it happening and prior to his creating the universe and prior to his creating Adam and prior to his creating Eve and prior to his creating the Serpent...etc.
After the Fall we see God hold them responsible for their action as well as continue to pursue them in relationship.
Which the god also knew would happen...not MIGHT happen. Would happen. As to the god continuing to pursue them in relationship, there is no mention of that. They were left to their own devices.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmIt is okay as long as we also make sure that we do not cast judgement on any of it, because as soon as we do, our judgment will reflect the fact that we can never be 100% certain...
I see no problem casting judgment on things that we aren't certain about as long as we hold those with an open mind.
That is not casting judgement. That is critiquing. An open mind cannot cast judgement because an open mind is free from the effects of viewing things through the lens of good and evil.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pm
This is exactly what I am referring to in my critique of the writers style and the subsequent issues said style triggers. On top of that, your defense in stating "the text doesn't say that" is no a great one, as it tends toward the idea that it all happened in one afternoon, rather than say, over a period of a decade...it makes the whole thing look rushed and yet coordinated as if a scripted program [coding] was being followed...
If you are saying X is true because of Y and the text does not say Y, then it is valid to respond "but the text doesn't say Y is true, that's your interpretation built on speculations." It's more typical for someone to touch a fruit and eat it almost immediately versus touching a fruit and then waiting a decade (or month or week, etc.) to finally eat it. Being typical means that isn't rushing things, it's the normal time sequence. This doesn't seem culturally dependent, so it seems that the typical understanding should be the default interpretation unless the author specifically says something to have us believe otherwise. The author doesn't tell us of a gap.
You misread what I wrote - to clarify, I am speaking not just of the one incident, but of the time period leading up to that one incident - a pivotal one according to Christian mythology.
With that in mind, please read what I wrote once more and comment on that accordingly...
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pm
My view does not commit one to saying the Fall happened the first day of their existence. The text doesn't address the issue of how much time passed before the Fall.
Exactly! Therefore one cannot make assertions which do not take this into account...
My assertions do take this into account. It is not built off of it happening the same day or a week apart or a decade apart since the text doesn't address that question.
Again - the text doesn't address and question other than [perhaps] the question "Why are were in this situation suffering" and in that, the text poorly addresses said question.
Which is precisely why it is questionable.
Your assertions do not take this into account because they are built on their actually being a gap of some time (going beyond any question the text addresses). Or perhaps I'm still misunderstanding your point here and you need to make it clearer.
My point in relation to your own, is that just because the text doesn't address such, doesn't equate to us also not having to address such. You answering my logical critique with "the text doesn't address such" is not a great retort, as it shows a reliance upon text which doesn't address such rather than on an open mind, rationally critiquing that which is way too short on information to allow for a clear and sturdy position.

Consider this. Ask the robot AI Alexa "Do you think there is a god who created human beings?" and you will get a reply along the same lines. "My coding doesn't allow for me to contemplate that question" or some such thing. That is no different from you replying "The text doesn't address such". An automated response which clearly shows the respondent does not wish to contemplate anything which 'the text'

Code: Select all

 does not itself directly give an explanation for [address.]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #276

Post by William »

[Replying to William in post #276]

For some reason my whole last post wasn't able to be published so I have posted the rest of it below...
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmSo you claim, but how do you know this is the case? Generally it is not disobedience which causes us to cover up. Rather it is embarrassment. Generally that has to do with being walked in on while getting dressed, or not wanting to get naked in a public bathing area etc...in the case of the pair, we have these two suddenly being embarrassed in each others company because they are naked...which they have always been together and should be well used to it.
Yes, they should be used to it. So, what does the text say changed and literally groups together with them realizing they are naked? It's eating the fruit (in disobedience of God) and feeling ashamed.
And I have asked "Why was the fruit even necessary?" I have said in that regard, that the fruit is just a prop and had no intrinsic properties which allowed for Eve and Adam to suddenly know what good and evil were. It was simply necessary to show someone(s)[not the god] that Adam would choose to betray Eve through choosing to add to the gods command AND then disregard the command anyway.

In that, it appears the consistent thing is that up until the time this occurred the pair were lacking in enough self awareness and guilt/shame/fear was the trigger by which they could respond to the circumstance and achieve that self awareness.
To add to that from the storyline, their self awareness produced a sense of self preservation, which had them pointing fingers of blame at others rather than accepting responsibility. Essentially - when it came to their selves in relation to the god, they were afraid. Not just that the god would see them but more to the point because the god would kill them...since death was the sentence and they did not know that part of the sentence would be a hard and long life outside the comfort of their garden and into the harsh reality of the world outside the garden.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmWhich supports my argument that the god expected that the garden situation would be temporary for the pair, rather than permanent, so getting used to covering up takes on a more practical element than the pair simply being disobedient, or for that matter, embarrassed.
Yes, God knew they would eventually need clothes. That's not the point of their nakedness in the text, though. There is no reason to think the author is saying God set up this scenario in order to teach them about the practicality of wearing clothes in colder climes. It's not addressing that question. The clothing is directly tied to their shame by the text.
But the god and his omniscient attribute is not bound by the text so there is no need for us to assume that the god didn't. It is not what the author chose to say which has one asking such questions. Rather it is what the author did not say which has these questions been asked.
The author does not write that the god knew they would eventually need clothes. Is this because the author did not know or because this would take away the focus of crime and punishment that the author wished to convey?

Point being, IF the god had other reasons for clothing the pair and expelling them from the garden, why did the author not write it in that manner? Did the author not know, or did the author know but not want others to know?
Said another way, did the god cloth the pair by slaughtering a beast and skinning and curing the skin in order to clothe them to help the pair feel less ashamed embarrassed guilty and fearful, or was the god more concerned with the practicalities of the life they would experience outside the garden? Why can both options not be reasonable?
Since this question isn't addressed by the text, all we can do is speculate, should one want to. Our speculation won't be about what the text is trying to get across to us though.
The text is trying to get across to us that the creation is to blame for not following the gods command. In that, the text cannot help but have us questioning the true motives of a god which is called blameless but who is also called omniscient. Clearly it is not speculation that the god knew all this would happen; The god created a being who was able to choose. The god told the being not to eat of a certain tree which the god knew had no intrinsic properties which would cause Adam to know good and evil. The god knew that if he gave a command, that Adam would disobey said command.
I would speculate that if they remained perfectly obedient to God, eventually populating cold areas in the world, that prior to that God would have told them they'll need to get some warm clothes to survive or that they would easily be able to figure that out on their own.
Yet they couldn't figure out on their own that they were set up, because they did not have that knowledge.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmAlso to note, IF the god knew they would eat of the forbidden fruit, THEN why would the god even command them to obey him? It makes no logical sense unless the god wanted them to feel shame and guilt...
If God doesn't give humans a command, then how would they know how God wants them to use their libertarian free will?
Again I remind you that we are speaking to the idea of an omniscient being when referring to the gods attributes. In that, we cannot justifiably argue that such a being wants them to do anything. The god already knows what they will do so in creating the situation after the fact that the god knows what will happen, logically means that the god meant for it to happen.
It is not about want or need in relation to the god. because "Omniscient".
Since they have free will,
Which the omniscient god created them with...
it makes perfect logical sense that God would tell them what is good for them to do because God wants good for them, not because He's just waiting for the day that they feel shame and guilt.
The omniscient god knows that their good days in the garden are numbered. The god knows that they do not have enough self awareness to be able to survive in the wider world they are destined for. The god knows that having the knowledge of both good and evil can only happen when they experience fear, guilt, shame, embarrassment and the god knows that they will not be able to experience those things unless the god commands them NOT to do something and they do it anyway.

That is called a 'process'. The omniscient god knew all these things before he created all these things.
Thus [as I have and continue to argue] the author writes in a manner which wants to place the focus of evil onto a natural situation whilst at the same time also places focus of good onto the creator of said natural situation.

This creates an oxymoron which can only be rationalized IF neither the creator nor the creation were good or evil. Just natural.

What the author doesn't seem to realize its that in writing what was written, the author doesn't stay consistent.
For example, the truth [in regard to the story/mythology as presented] is actually not "if they eat of the forbidden fruit they will surely die", but is actually "if the don't eat of the fruit of life they will surely die."
Thus, the author is making a liar out of the god in the way the author presents the text. [which we are able to critique]
I would also say that conviction of wrongs done, itself, is a good thing because it causes us to confront our wrongs.
The perceived wrongs. We do not know with any certainty that they were actual wrongs...one can be pursued to feel guilty about something which we logically shouldn't/needn't.
I would say guilt (if you mean that in a sense different than conviction) is not something God wants us to feel.
Again I remind you this - that we are speaking to the idea of an omniscient being when referring to the gods attributes. In that, we cannot justifiably argue that such a being wants them to do anything. The god already knows what they will do so in creating the situation after the fact that the god knows what will happen, logically means that the god meant for it to happen.
It is not about want or need in relation to the god. because "Omniscient".
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmIf they had of had the full knowledge (for that is what I am arguing) then the author would have written it so. "You shall surely die" is not exactly full knowledge. It is partial knowledge, and my argument says that if they had had the full knowledge, perhaps they would never have looked at the fruit, let alone touched it. Presently you seem unable to agree with this because you are assuming that they DID have the full knowledge, but the storyline does not even attempt to give us that impression.
The storyline does not address that question directly. So, we look at the larger context. Your view requires us to believe the author is saying God unfairly blames the humans for their disobedience. That does not mesh with the rest of what the author tells us about God. He doesn’t think God unfair.
My argument is that the author is corrupt in his own views regarding The Creator and bias leans toward that corruption. My argument is that the author is transferring an image of the authors self as the image of The Creator, and that in doing so, the author is showing us the authors own nature, not The Creators actual nature.

In that, the author is saying 'someone' is to 'blame' for 'human nature' but it is not the god because the god is 'good' and human nature is 'evil'.

My critique is that IF the god [The Creator] is indeed omniscient, then none of this need be seen as crime and punishment, because to do so is to see The Creator in a 'bad' light which is not a 'good' light.

So by removing the good and evil/good vs evil element from the equation, we are presented [by life] with a whole other way of looking at said life. A way, which clearly the author does not know of. Which means that those [like yourself] who depend upon the text as an ultimate guide to how you should think about life, also do not know and use the text as a means of justifying why you should not want to know.

William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmBut the author - perhaps in his rush to paint Eve as the first to sin - forgets to mention that Adam had it in his power to help Eve argue with the Serpent but remained silent.
Or he thinks the reader would obviously put that together without having to be told it directly.
So you agree with me on that? (I cannot ask the author directly but I can ask you.)
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmPerhaps the god is really speaking against that. Perhaps that is essentially Adams sin. (and the authors for not being more direct)
I do think that is part of the sin, although I would say we go further beyond the text here than much of the other details we’ve been talking about. If passivity like this is a sin (like you, I, the Bible, and Christianity assert), then this lends further support towards the interpretation that they actually eat the fruit at the same time. They disobeyed God’s command to not eat the fruit as well as God’s command to rule over/care for Creation (including each other). The author seems to focus on the first command, though.
Placing aside the authors focus, do we agree that in Adam remaining quite instead of supporting his wife in her hour of confliction, aided and abetted the Serpent? If so then we also agree together that this was the lead reason for Eves fall, but Adam had essentially already fallen.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmRemember, Eve blamed the Serpent, whereas Adam not only blamed the gift the god had given him in Eve, but by association, blamed the god as well "The Woman you gave to me!"
If you are arguing that this god is blameless, how is it you do not see Adams sin in blaming the god for what Adam himself allowed to let happen right before his eyes?
He let the Serpent tempt his wife and did nothing at all to prevent it.
The god - being omniscient - would have expected this. How is it that Christians cannot even recognize Adams sin?
Yes, the blame game is also sin, showing their continued brokenness.
Effectively, this is the focus of my critique. In order to play the blame game, one must first have some idea as to what good and bad are. If we are to cease with playing that game, we need to let go of such notions.
The disobedience of eating the fruit is not a stand alone mistake, they continue sinning. Why do you think I and other Christians don’t recognize this?
You and other Christians (and as I have also pointed out, other religions and even atheists) all operate under the same program of assigning good and evil to objects within nature. in other words "play the blame game" and as such, any god idea [especially one of an omniscient being] which also is involved with playing that game, is - by that very thing - part of the blame. It is unavoidable, even if one writes text in a manner attempting to conceal that, as the writer of the genesis mythology has obviously done when we use logic to question it in relation to our free will being exercised.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmHow hard is it to write "and Eves"? Why do you think mere shorthand [laziness] is the reason only Adams sin is mentioned? Perhaps Jesus knew that the emphasis was always on blaming the Woman and had become a traditional feature in the religions which formed from this Mythology which had to be addressed.
It’s not hard, but that doesn’t mean leaving Eve’s name out is invalid. Perhaps it is simply an idiom. Perhaps it refers to Adam being the first human and Eve being made from him. Perhaps, if they ate the fruit at the same time, Adam is blamed as the first sin because of his passivity when he was “above” Eve in a leadership role. The author of 1 Timothy actually talks about Eve being deceived and sinning first.
So you do not know and are thus speculating. That is acceptable in regard to the lack of information. The information the author provides is also speculation, written in an authorities style which leads the reader to assume otherwise.
The omniscient god is the only one not speculating because he cannot speculate. He can only know for sure.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmBut then we have the problem of a possible contamination of the text, which may have been written in the style it had because the author(s) were focused upon the main offender being the first one to offend and poor Adam was just going along with his wife...
That assumes there was a gap and that they didn’t eat it (and have their eyes opened) at the same time. I think the context actually supports them eating it at the same time better.
Thus we are left with the actual betrayal of his wife to the Serpent been largely overlooked by the Christian readers as the focus is upon Eve allowing herself to be tempted. One is left to speculate on what life might be like if most Christians focused upon Adams lack of support for his wife, which the god gifted him, rather than in Eve been tempted. Adam effective was the one who was tempted first, as his inactions clearly indicate.
One is also left with the impression the author gives us by omitting to make it crystal clear rather than the more of a side note "Adam was with Eve while this was going on", but that is not the point the author is wanting us to focus upon.
We also know this by the omitting of the god chastising Adam specifically for betraying Eve in not supporting Eve. Surely this is the reason why Eve ate of the fruit, because her husband with her, was not protesting or trying to convince her not to listen to the Serpent, but to trust the god.

Given that we are told that once Eve had taken a bite of the fruit, Adam did not hesitate to do so himself.

Clearly there is enough text therein for us to form the speculation beyond reasonable doubt that Adam was in fact wanting to eat the fruit and was using Eve to make sure it was as the Serpent claimed "you surely will not die if you eat this fruit. You will become like the god!" - Adam wanted to become like the god but the author says the god had told Adam that to eat of the fruit would cause him to die.
When Eve took a bite and didn't die, Adam saw that it must be safe to eat and is why he then did not hesitate to try it for himself, because he was willing to use his wife the god had gifted him - Eve - to get what he really wanted, which was "to be like the god".

We know that the author lied about eating the fruit would cause death, [and thus lied about what the god had said] because we know that they would surely die if they did not eat of the tree of life [which the god prevented them having access to because the god did not want them to live forever in that state.]
If we argue that the author did not lie, then we are forced to conclude that it was the god who lied. IF the god is omniscient, THEN the god has no need to lie, THEREFORE the author is the one lying.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmThus we cannot in all honesty go along with the argument that "the text doesn't say such and such' because it may not say those things due to the author not wanting to write these things.
Nonetheless, we can indeed read more into the story with what the author has written.
Sure, the author could be hiding, changing, or making things up.
We agree.
But you say you are reflecting my beliefs back on me. This question is not that kind of reflection; it gets into why we should trust the author’s main message in the first place, making judgments on the truth of Christianity, which you say you aren’t trying to do, right?
Do your beliefs include the authors beliefs? You certainly appear to be saying so when you use "it is not contained in the text" as part of your argument. What then is the difference between my reflecting your beliefs back at you and my reflecting the authors beliefs back to you as well?
Sure, I cannot reflect the authors beliefs back at the author because the author is an ancient personality who has since moved on. But his words remain and are you are attempting to defend the authors words as something you believe are true, are you not?
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmNo. While there have been issues and indeed still are issues for humans to face, learn to understand and work on improving and in that, things have been hard for humans, I do not think it will necessarily prove to be the case that the environment cannot work out well for humans. I do think the environment would be better suited to robots, and can see a time where this will be the case...but will that be bad for humans? My argument remains that humans do not understand good or evil in any manner to which they can rightly judge with it.
I think we can’t understand it without seeing God as the standard of good and evil, but that if God is the standard, then we can (although without 100% certainty, and that’s okay) rightly judge with it. That is part of the reason I believe Christianity true rather than other worldviews.
As I mentioned, what the author of the start of the mythology has provided us with, is a belief in a type of god to which the author [and thus the readers who believe the authors speculation is truth regarding the god] believes as being 'good' but as I have also argued, we humans don't even know [and thus don't agree together] as to what is good. If the god depicted is 'good' but the creation the god made is depicted as "not good" because 'evil' and the author lies by saying the god lies but that is still 'good' [god can lie and still be good] we are left with a conundrum of conflicting concepts which only really serve to explain the human condition as being confused about those concepts and thus, gives us a reason as to why the human race remains on its current course and also reason to question said beliefs as perhaps NOT being the truth.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmThen why does the Mythology include the god dealing with the rest of the environment by flooding it completely?
Genesis 6:5 ties the flood to the wickedness of humans. You can’t flood humans without that flood also affecting the land, plants, and non-human land animals as well.
Collateral damage the innocent perish on account of the wicked because - apparently - there is no other way for an omniscient being to deal with the problem? That is illogical.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmWhy does the Mythology promise a 'new earth'?
From my readings, it’s “new” in the sense of being redeemed or transformed, not as in being a separate physical Earth to replace the first.
This is more likely in relation to what an omniscient being would know. Unfortunately [for you as a Christian] many of your fellow Christians believe otherwise and spread that around as a truth...
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmWhy do Christians generally believe they will have to have an environment which cannot be affected by evil?
By definition. Heaven is a place where God’s reign exists, i.e., there is no evil. If a place is affected by evil, then it isn’t Heaven, by definition.
Thus [in relation to your previous statement] the transformation of Earth into 'a place where the gods reign exists', requires that the evil is transformed. Otherwise if it were a simple case of removing the evil, this could have been accomplished right from the go-get by not creating Adam in the first place.
Since Adam was created by the god and the god knew how it ALL would transpire - how eventually things would work out just fine, the god went along and created Adam. Evil in that sense is only and simply can only be a temporary state in regard to the whole story [still unfolding for us but already known completely by the god].

As such, both The Creator and The Creation are good. Evil is illusion - something that humans placed upon the creation to explain why they existed within said creation, suffering said creation. It is the suffering to which humans assign evil as being, all said and done. Ancient humans required a reason as to why they were in such a environment of confinement which included suffering, and came up with the idea that it must have to do with crime and punishment.
While that idea has to be investigated to see if it stands up to scrutiny, it may be an incorrect assumption from the beginning of its conception right through to current day.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmAnd my argument envelops that position by informing that everything is good, except for knowledge of good and evil in relation to free will.
Is this what you mean by “knowledge of good and evil” or what I mean by it (i.e., experiencing deciding for themselves what is good and evil)? I think knowing what is truly good and what is truly evil is good; deciding it for one’s self is not good.
One is real and the other fiction? We cannot know what is truly good and what is truly evil without deciding for one's self what is not good [or not evil]. Your argument is contradictory in that light.

In order to overcome the contradiction, I argue that we have to dispense with pretending we know the difference and learn how not to judge or view things through the lens of good and evil because these are by and large all fictional concepts.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmFor an omniscient being to proclaim something is 'good' must mean that the whole circumstance, including the advent of evil-to-be, is all 'good' or 'as it should/has to be'.
In that position, one does not have to deal with ideas of 'good AND evil' Everything was proclaimed acceptable in the sight of the god.
The existence of libertarian free will is ‘good,’ it is better than being a robot.
Marginally if at all. It depends largely on any outside influences (such as the god) and why the god created the environment and placed free will being into it instead of robots.
You say it is because of love and that the god wanted the free will being to experience love and to reflect that love back to the creator.
I say if that is the case, then 'no foul' all is as it need be as it changes day to day. Concept of good and evil have only served to cloud that logical conclusion and can be easily sourced as being the actual the reason humans harming humans has occurred. Because humans decided to work it out for themselves using concepts of good and evil as their guiding light...and injecting what they thought was the correct idea of The Creator into that type of conjecture.
That does not mean thinking that the evil that will result (but didn’t have to) is good or as it should be, however. I don’t see why anyone would worship a being that doesn’t discern between child abuse and loving a child, thinking that loving the child is how things ought to be.
That is a description of internal process all can choose to go through of their own free will.
The evil did have to result given the god is omniscient. Otherwise the god would have had to ignore his knowledge and place false hope that 'perhaps maybe' they would choose not to. For an omniscient being to ignore what he knows to be true in favor of focusing on what he hopes 'might' happen denotes a being who is not trusting his own knowledge is 'good' knowledge [as in whole knowledge] which itself is an interesting concept, but - sticking to the task at hand - I think it best that we don't assume that, so we are left with the only other option. Evil HAD to be experienced first hand through the human instrument in order for the gods love to be understood.

IF a being said the words "Trust me I love You" to me, AND that being was indeed omniscient, THEN I would see no logic in NOT trusting said being was telling the truth.

However, I am in no position to KNOW that such a being was in fact omniscient...so in that I would doubt. It is natural.

If I see no evil in the natural state [that which is a natural response of a free will being with no knowledge to any given situation] I am in, assists me in forming said trust that said omniscient being is true to his word then I can trust said being even that I myself do not know.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmAnd in relation to the bigger picture that an omniscient being must see, choosing the 'weaker reasons' was going to happen but trusting the god knows the results are going to work out fine regardless, is a bonus for those who do - whatever their circumstance might be...as long as they do not lose trust through having issues as to what good and evil are. We do not know. We best not presume.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmYes. Given the god is omniscient, how can it be any other way unless the god was purely evil?
I remind you that I do not see how it is possible for any omniscient being to be 'good' or 'evil' Bear that in mind, if you will.
What does it mean for the results to “work out fine”? I don’t think universal salvation is needed (although I do think God desires universal salvation).
In regard to the vindicating of the notion of a Creator who is omniscient and trustworthy, I agree. Any such god in that position has some name-clearing to accomplish due to ill informed humans thinking they know the difference between good and evil and how this equates to a god being labeled 'good' in relation to those faulty standards created by humans.

Universal salvation tends towards justice for ripple effect created misinformation. Evil resulted. It will pass and all will be saved from it.
But what of those who knew this and hid it from the world? Is there another type of justice?
I think so. But I think - like the Earth situation - such places created where such justice can be undertaken, are not permanent, but simply aspects of the larger story those things [mythological places] represent. When I speak of 'the end result' I am seeing to a vast and complex system which resulted through the creation of this particular Universe and free will beings placement within said Universe.
Naturally then, the [relatively] tiny area in which the existence of evil can be found, in regard to the entire storyline which the larger part of has yet to manifest itself into being, is insignificant in comparison to said larger thing currently continuing to unfold...

The omniscient being knows all this of course...and we are yet learning it... if we choose to learn it.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmThe authors point is suspect, as I have shown regarding the authors treatment of Eve.
Your interpretation of how the author is treating Eve. I don’t think the author mistreated Eve.
Adam mistreated Eve and the author wrote the story, so indirectly used the character of Adam to mistreat the character of Eve. The author mistreated Eve just as surely as Adam did. The story is fiction told as if it were fact.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmWhy not? Isn't the idea of forming and maintaining a genuine relationship with the god, a central message of Christianity?
And Biblical Judaism, including the rest of the book of Genesis. That is the broader context that supports there being enough time for there to be reasons for the first humans to love and trust God. But Genesis 1-3 doesn’t directly address that question.
Does this conclude then, that we cannot ourselves address said issue?
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmOn the contrary - the storyline not only says they were expelled from the garden out into the greater reality, and left to their own devices, but the god stopped visiting them altogether. There is no mention at all in the mythology [that I know of] of the god trying to 'call them back' or of them reestablishing their relationship with the god at some later point in the story...
They sin and God comes to them in the garden (already knowing they had sinned). If your interpretation here were true, then why would God even talk with them rather than just kick them out? God provides them with better coverings than they had (3:21). When Eve names Cain she says she got a son with the help of God (4:2). Abel and Cain bring offerings to God (4:3-4). God talks with Cain about his offering telling him to rule over the sin crouching at his door (4:7). God then comes to Cain after he kills his brother (4:9-10). God tells people not to kill Cain (4:15). When Seth is born, Eve says God appointed another son for her (4:25). God pursues and saves Noah. God calls Abram (Abraham). God is with Hagai and Ishmael when Abraham and Sarah banish them. God pursues Jacob, in spite of his deceptive ways. The whole Bible is about God trying to call humans back over and over again.
This addition to the storyline can be explained as natural in relation to the author being believed that the storyline is the truth.
All those god things which are mentioned could just as well be imagined by a people who were still grabbing at something which they had been told they had lost.
There is no reason why an omniscient being would engage with humans once the wheels were set in motion in regard to being booted from having access to the tree of life. Doomed to die, as the god said they surely would.
I could go alone with the idea that other beings were engaging with humans and calling themselves the gods representatives, which might equate to the god indirectly visiting the humans...
But all said and done, what actual 'good' has come from such encounters which can be shown to have influenced the direction the world has taken in regard to why the god would permit interference with the free will being program experiment?
We do not know and can only choose to belief the story is fact...or remain open minded because we do not have enough information to make a [an informed] choice, because it might actually be fiction.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pm
I agreed that the world could fare better with robots than free will beings. I don't think that is the only or deciding consideration when trying to decide between libertarian free will or robotic moral perfection as the better choice for God in creating humans.
Relatively speaking, the god could achieve both through first placing free will beings into the environment because the god would have known that eventually humans would create robots...
If the choice is between (1) humans being robots, (2) humans having libertarian free will, or (3) humans becoming robots, then I think the best choice is (2).
If you mean whether it’s better to have humans with libertarian free will who don’t come up with the technology to make robots versus humans with libertarian free will who do come up with the technology to make robots, then I wonder what relevance that has to our discussion. The “robots” I’ve been discussing aren’t actual robots, but humans who don’t have libertarian free will, either to start with or eventually.
I mean that comparing real beings [free will humans] with imaginary beings [your robots] we require knowing how you see these imaginary beings [robots] in order to understand your comparing them with [real] humans and declaring which is better [in relation to the omniscient being]

William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmAs free will beings without access to full knowledge, speculation is all we have, and it is fair to speculate as long as one stays close to the bones of what is actually written. As I see, you have not been able to substantially prove that my speculation is in any way out of line to the point where any serious complaint has been given by you about it. The best you have been able to respond is reasonable enough, since I haven't breached the limit of speculation in regards to what we are given to work with in the storyline.
I would delineate the different logical levels of interpretation something more like this (as a first stab at it only): certainty (which I think impossible for us), reasonable (built off context, historical studies, avoiding speculation, etc.), unreasonable (some context, but lots of speculation built in), and pure speculation. I think we have the last three all available to us, and that having a reasonable interpretation that outstrips other interpretations is perfectly fine. I think your interpretation is unreasonable. You remain unconvinced, but I have brought and supported various serious complaints against it. We each are free to come to our own conclusions.
Perhaps then it is time to summarize where we each are and see if we both agree to those summaries? Rather than say what we think the others position is on these matters?
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmI am wondering about your use of a political device here with the addition to free will being 'libertarian'. It gives one the impression your particular take on this god is a political one.
Hopefully that has been cleared up above. My take has nothing to do with politics.
I still don't understand why it needs to be labelled as such. I say that 'will' is all we have to call it, but am willing to compromise with you are use the word 'free' to prefix that. I am not interested in going off on more branches of tangent as to "what type of 'free will' are we speaking about" I would rather go back to just 'will' than into semantics' shadowy maze.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmThat aside, intervention has to be seen as fudging the results. The way the mythology reads, the god occasionally intervenes and we have to enquire as to what might have occurred if he had not.
This in turn leads one to thing that an omniscient being who interferes would have known that he would interfere and that there was reason for him to interfere all BEFORE he even created Adam or this universe.
Yes, things would be different if God didn’t intervene in our lives. But I don’t get why you say that this means there is reason for God to interfere before creating Adam and Eve. The reason is because of how things play out after Adam and Eve are created.
For now I will go along with the god intervenes because the god knew he would intervene and it is part of the process. The god has in fact been the medium on/in which the whole story has unfolded upon.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmAll in all, from the argument of trust, one can see plainly that trusting a being who IS in fact omniscient is a no-brainer. But what is it that we can point to which allows us to know for sure that the being is in fact omniscient, and not just so far more informed about things than the free will beings he created?

In that, free will beings cannot use their free will (libertarian or otherwise) to full capacity if they have to take the word of a being who claims to be omniscient and have to trust that being is telling the truth. Free will beings are forced to either use their free will to trust in this as being truth, or decide not to. Free will in that, is near useless. Saying "you will or you won't" doesn't address the question of whether you should or you shouldn't.
We can’t know for sure that the being is omniscient.
Granted. But if we trust that the being is, we are cleared ultimately of responsibility once we each realize that is the case.
We can know very few things with certainty. Pure mathematics. What terms mean (although that is still difficult to accomplish). That we are having some kind of experience. That we are thinking beings. This does not make libertarian free will useless at all. We still have reasons to believe we should do this and shouldn’t do that, even though those reasons aren’t certain.
This in turn offers for the opportunity of some humans preying upon most other humans because we - as free will beings - are not and cannot be certain. All under the operation of free will. In that sense free will is useless. It can be used by free will beings against free will beings. How is that useful, unless it is seen as a minor impermanent condition within a major process which itself is trustworthy no matter one has the ability to trust it or not. It makes no ultimate difference in relation to the bigger picture whether one trusts it now, or waits for more information to come along which can assist said trusting of process.

There seem no logical reason in trusting in anything which has yet to prove itself trustworthy, while at the same time has consistently proven itself NOT to being trustworthy.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmWhich in turn would suggest to me that you then believe that there is no heaven in the traditional sense (being another universe/dimension/reality simulation) so heaven is perhaps another planet in the galaxy? This god resides in this universe...somewhere?
No, on two fronts. First, I don’t think that Heaven (or Hell) are other places we go to when we die was the initial Christian understanding, so I wouldn’t necessarily call that view the “traditional” sense. Second, this doesn’t mean I see Heaven (or Hell) as a different planet. It would be more like Heaven (and Hell) are realms that overlap our realm, occupying the same physical location.
Simulations interacting together but not yet merged. I am fine with that understanding as I have come to that conclusion myself.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmShowed itself to whom? It cannot have been to the god, for the god already knew.
Back to a movie analogy. I know Darth Vader is Luke’s father because I saw it. If I lived 200 years ago and got a glimpse into the future and, for some reason, was shown The Empire Strikes Back, I would have already known Vader is Luke’s father before it actually happened, but I still know that because that is what George Lucas actually chose to make happen. Lucas’ choice is what shows me the truth.

So, God is “shown” what will happen because that thing actually happens, regardless of whether God peeked into the future to be shown that. But, yes, this was the first time Adam and Eve saw their mistrust become disobedience as well.
Of course the god is not "shown" anything at all. The god knows it as an attribute of omniscience. It is illogical to think that a being who knows everything, can be shown something it doesn't know.

William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmWith the inclusion of a real being which obviously isn't human and is not written in a style that might suggest the Serpent is a personified characteristic of Eves psyche, we have to find understanding in why it was in the Garden tempting Eve with his cunningness.
The being is obviously smarter than the humans in the story. *Perhaps it is the Serpent that the god was showing?

*This idea runs throughout the biblical mythology. The god is showing the Serpent [race?] that he at least knows enough to be trusted as someone who is omniscient, at least in relation to Earth and is happy enough to work with their doubt, using humans as a means of doing so.
Do you mean that this is an experiment to prove to the Serpent something about libertarian free will beings? Like in Job? If so, then I don’t think that is the primary reason in either case, although I agree that the Serpent would be made aware of things he didn’t know in that. Or do you mean something else?
One can ascertain that at least it is obvious that the god was showing Adam and Eve and the Serpent and whomever else observing/[participating] in the event sequences...of which we are not informed. But NOT the omniscient god. There is nothing to show an omniscient being.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmIn order for that to be possible, you will at least have to agree to treat the Serpent/Satan etc as literally real beings rather than simply personifications of human mistrust/evil.
Of course. I do, in fact, believe Satan is a real being.
Then we can agree that the Serpent is more likely that and drop the notion it was some kind of personification of Eve and Adams inner workings. [phyche]
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmI am not arguing that it is. I am saying that omniscience doesn't control, but simply allows - goes along with - because the one who is omniscient knows exactly how things will turn out. There is no need to control anything for particular outcomes.
In that, trying to control how things turn out can only be undertaken by beings who do NOT know but have some power to influence their environment in order to fudge the results so that things go the way they want them to.

An omniscient being would not need to do that or be perturbed by other beings doing so.
Thank you for that clarification. I agree the omniscient God the Bible talks about allows those things to happen. I think it could have decided to control all decisions, though. I agree that an omniscient being isn’t surprised by what people do, but they can still be upset at what they do.
Why even add that? In what way does this help your position? Why get upset about something you knew would happen? There is no logical reason to do so.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmWhich - naturally enough - then has one questioning whether the god depicted in the Mythology who does interfere and thus fudge the results, is the same being who is omniscient...perhaps the being is a member of the Serpent race [for want of a better label] and humans are some integral part of the game being played between the Serpents and the Omniscient god?
Pure observer and pure controller are not the only two options. A third option is an omniscient being who still tries to influence his libertarian free will beings to choose the good. Knowing the future does not mean knowing what the future is if you are not a part of it, it could include one’s self as an agent that tries to influence others.
Agreed - but in that, there are no surprises or necessity for getting upset.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmTraditional Jewish understanding needed correction from Jesus, as the Christian Mythology tells it. Most traditional Jews have kept to their traditions rather than adopt what they regard as Hellenic [and thus Roman] influences and are pagan for that.
Some traditional Jewish understandings, yes, but not Biblical Judaism.
Most.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmI myself have not argued that the god is NOT a being (rather than a symbol for 'good'.) I brought it up to say that it is best to consider all the mythological beings presented in the bible, as real beings, if we are to consider the god as real. Chopping and changing to suit ones argument does not make the argument any better.
I think the all-or-nothing approach is a flawed approach and one that you don’t really hold. You said yourself that you don’t think Lady Wisdom is meant to be a literal being.
We know that through the style of writing. I am speaking of beings which are said to interact with humans but are not humans themselves, as written in the mythology.
And I’m not chopping and changing to suit my argument. That would mean I’m taking a stand that the Serpent was one or the other, while God is not. I’ve been saying my argument is the same regardless of the answer to this question about the serpent.
Because you have yet to admit that a real Serpent being was involved in the temptation of Eve, due to what I have pointed out as Adams sin.
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmI am speaking to real world examples one might point to, which clearly show the differences and undoubtedly prove the one is better than the other.
Why do you think those exist? Any situation can fit the libertarian free will narrative as well as the hard determinism narrative.
Shall we end this here then with the idea that you hold the position the mythology is not really speaking about a real event which actually happened, but is simply[ a rather misleading] analogical interpretation of how life happened to be as it is, on this planet in this universe, according to ancient beliefs which could not have known any better?
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmAre we to trust the text for its lack therein, or the omniscient god being for his ultimate knowledge? Obviously the bible and no book and not even all the information of Earth is ultimate knowledge.
Lacking addressing every question we can think of is not a reason to mistrust the message of the text.
It most certainly is a reason for that. There is no command to trust said text. Even if there were, such a command can be questioned to ascertain its validity.
What is best to avoid is trusting anything which only presents knowledge in partial form and claim that this knowledge is plenty enough to invest trust within. Such claims require evidence and the evidence (historically) doesn't present the god in a general good light...due to the actions done in the gods name [claimed to be authorized by the god].
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmThe text supports my particular views simply because, as you agree, it is possible and thus enough to investigate. I think I have shown this to be the case already.
Possibility is not enough to support one’s view as true. Investigate it, sure. You have helped me investigate it and I have found it very unreasonable. You disagree.
The unreason you think you see, may not lay in my presentation, but in your unwillingness to seriously contemplate it. Shall we continue?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #277

Post by The Tanager »

I'm sorry it took me so long to respond but perhaps you will remember that when the responses get to be as long as ours now are, I like to try to organize the issues for my own benefit if no one else's. If you feel I skipped anything or misunderstood the points, please just let me know.

1. General/Overview
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 amCome now - some beliefs have to become redundant in order to move on. There is no evidence suggesting Christianity is exempt from that process. It is part of the baking process...things will naturally drop away.
Once truth is found in a specific area, then there is no progress to be made and no redundant beliefs. So some view will have to be exempt from that. The question is whether either of us have found that.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmThis is more likely in relation to what an omniscient being would know. Unfortunately [for you as a Christian] many of your fellow Christians believe otherwise and spread that around as a truth...
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmSuch claims require evidence and the evidence (historically) doesn't present the god in a general good light...due to the actions done in the gods name [claimed to be authorized by the god].
It is a textbook logical fallacy to disbelieve a worldview because of the actions of its claimed adherents. You judge the worldview on its teachings. Fortunately, if Christianity is true, one's place in God's kingdom doesn't rely on getting everything correct.


My view
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmShall we end this here then with the idea that you hold the position the mythology is not really speaking about a real event which actually happened, but is simply[ a rather misleading] analogical interpretation of how life happened to be as it is, on this planet in this universe, according to ancient beliefs which could not have known any better?
No, because I do think it speaks to a real event, whether the language is to be taken literally, metaphorically, or a mix of the two.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 amIf you think I am superimposing other Christian beliefs over your own, and then mistakenly reflecting that back to you, you should be able to pinpoint where I actually am doing so and reflect that back to me...
When I think I've seen that, I have pointed it out.


Your view
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmSo by removing the good and evil/good vs evil element from the equation, we are presented [by life] with a whole other way of looking at said life. A way, which clearly the author does not know of. Which means that those [like yourself] who depend upon the text as an ultimate guide to how you should think about life, also do not know and use the text as a means of justifying why you should not want to know.
I have not used the text to justify why I should not want to know about the way you look at life. I pursue alternative views to my own consistently. I have pursued understanding yours before and I have been doing so in this thread, wanting to continue to engage it and gauge it's merit.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pm
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmThe text supports my particular views simply because, as you agree, it is possible and thus enough to investigate. I think I have shown this to be the case already.
Possibility is not enough to support one’s view as true. Investigate it, sure. You have helped me investigate it and I have found it very unreasonable. You disagree.
The unreason you think you see, may not lay in my presentation, but in your unwillingness to seriously contemplate it. Shall we continue?
I have been seriously contemplating it anytime I've talked with you. I always give my reasoning for my thoughts and ask you many questions for clarification. Either I am misunderstanding what you write, my reasonings are off, your presentation is weak, or your presentation strong but conclusions false, or maybe another alternative that I overlooked here. I'm all for continuing.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmMy point in relation to your own, is that just because the text doesn't address such, doesn't equate to us also not having to address such. You answering my logical critique with "the text doesn't address such" is not a great retort, as it shows a reliance upon text which doesn't address such rather than on an open mind, rationally critiquing that which is way too short on information to allow for a clear and sturdy position.
As I said above I agree that we can (and should) address it. My critique, however, was directed at times you directly said the text led to your answer to those unaddressed questions. I'm fine going beyond the text. But when someone claims they are getting the clear meaning from the text, as you have various times, I'm going to contest that if I disagree.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #278

Post by The Tanager »

2. What picture does the Genesis text paint?

General/Overview
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmDo your beliefs include the authors beliefs? You certainly appear to be saying so when you use "it is not contained in the text" as part of your argument. What then is the difference between my reflecting your beliefs back at you and my reflecting the authors beliefs back to you as well?
Sure, I cannot reflect the authors beliefs back at the author because the author is an ancient personality who has since moved on. But his words remain and are you are attempting to defend the authors words as something you believe are true, are you not?
Yes, I do believe the text speaks truth. I haven't been arguing for its truth, though. I've been disagreeing with your interpretation of what the text says.


What should we make of information that is not in the text?
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 am
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pm
It's proper to shorthand that as death. I prefer the author show the meaning of the word through the story rather than define words and then show those definitions at work in the story, but your way would be just as valid; it just isn't the necessary way to do it.
If it isn't necessary, how [in your view] can it be valid?
I don't understand why you think those are mutually exclusive. There are multiple ways for me to get to my parents' house from my own. All of them are valid. None of them are the necessary way to get there.
So why is my way invalid if it still gets me to my parents house? [analogically speaking]
Your way (i.e., defining terms such as "death" more fully when they are introduced and then having that description play out in the story) is valid, as I said in the bolded part above. Your were arguing that it was the only valid way to write a story, most of your claims rest on it being the only valid way, but it's not.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 am
What textual clues do you think tell us that Adam had a propensity to choose evil? I see none. Yes, you can speculate that Adam told Eve rather than God telling Eve and you can speculate that Adam added the bit about touching the fruit instead of Eve, but the text does not address those questions at all, so that's not reading textual clues.
I will continue to point out that it is the most likely conclusion that one can make given what the author has chosen to put in and leave out.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pm
Not mentioning is not the same as saying it didn't happen.
Yet it is the same as saying that it didn't happen. Indeed, it more likely didn't happen because it was not mentioned, unless we can find a logical reason for the author leaving it out, if it did happen.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmClearly there is enough text therein for us to form the speculation beyond reasonable doubt that Adam was in fact wanting to eat the fruit and was using Eve to make sure it was as the Serpent claimed "you surely will not die if you eat this fruit. You will become like the god!" - Adam wanted to become like the god but the author says the god had told Adam that to eat of the fruit would cause him to die.
When Eve took a bite and didn't die, Adam saw that it must be safe to eat and is why he then did not hesitate to try it for himself, because he was willing to use his wife the god had gifted him - Eve - to get what he really wanted, which was "to be like the god".
How in the world can you know what the author knew/thought but left out? You can't. Not mentioning is not the same as saying X did or didn't happen. We have questions in our mind that maybe did not cross the author's mind at all, or the author felt it unimportant, or important but not what he/she needed to address. Those are logical reasons for some information not making it into the text. Therefore, your claims based on "what the author left out" are not a reasonable conclusion at all.


Could you Clarify?
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 amIf the thread of the idea that it is the husbands task to instruct the wife didn't run throughout most of the rest of the story, then I could accept your interpretation as the best one to adopt.
Which specific verses are you pointing to that speak to the husband instructing the wife?


My Clarifications and Agreements
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 amAccording to the text their immortality depends upon access to a tree bearing fruit which will grant them this. So no, they cannot have been created with the default setting "Immortal"
When I talked about their mortality being the result of their action, I was referring to them losing access to immortality (the tree of life).
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 am
If I understand you correctly, then being naked was imagined to be evil by the humans, while it was not really evil. Trying to cover their nakedness speaks to them being ashamed at eating the fruit in disobedience of God, which is the real evil.
As I have pointed out, they first appeared ashamed of being naked in one another's company. The god did not care that they were naked. The god wanted to know who told them that they were naked and that was not a question the god was asking them so that the god could be informed because the god already knew the answer to said question. It was rhetorical, and thus designed to be answered by the Adam and Eve.
I don't see where we are disagreeing here.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 amThat being the case, his choice was to create Adam with free will and place Adam in the garden even knowing that Adam would choose to betray Eve [and by association - the god]
I agree but Adam also directly betrayed God.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmSo why is this not regarded as a betrayal of Eve by Adam?
Many Christians do regard it as a betrayal. The author doesn't answer that question either way.


Your critiques
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 am
Adam is a physical being with libertarian free will. Yes, physical beings need a physical environment. Free will beings need opportunities to make choices. I haven't said differently. Are you saying something more than that?
Yes I am. Within the physical environment was something outside of Adam which was necessary in order that Adam could be shown for what he was. Free will beings will always choose that which they require to show them something about themselves.
The god might have been showing others [perhaps the Serpents?] who were observing the whole experiment, but the god must have already been aware of what the result would be.
You seem to be saying that Adam was already morally imperfect and this is what Adam needed to learn about himself. I don't see any reason to believe the text says that. Nor (going beyond the text itself) do I see any reason why an omnibenevolent God would create humans morally imperfect.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmAgain - the text doesn't address and question other than [perhaps] the question "Why are were in this situation suffering" and in that, the text poorly addresses said question.
Which is precisely why it is questionable.
Are you saying the text is unclear or wrong? I think it clearly addresses that question. We suffer evil because of people choosing for themselves what is good/evil rather than relying on omniscient wisdom's view of what is good/evil for us. Whether that is a true answer is a different question.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmIn that, it appears the consistent thing is that up until the time this occurred the pair were lacking in enough self awareness and guilt/shame/fear was the trigger by which they could respond to the circumstance and achieve that self awareness.
To add to that from the storyline, their self awareness produced a sense of self preservation, which had them pointing fingers of blame at others rather than accepting responsibility. Essentially - when it came to their selves in relation to the god, they were afraid. Not just that the god would see them but more to the point because the god would kill them...since death was the sentence and they did not know that part of the sentence would be a hard and long life outside the comfort of their garden and into the harsh reality of the world outside the garden.
There is no textual reason to conclude that they weren't aware that they didn't have clothes. The story isn't about clothes. The focus is on evil, the human response of feeling shame, and God's response to our shame and evil choices.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmYet they couldn't figure out on their own that they were set up, because they did not have that knowledge.
That assumes they were set up. I see no good reason to believe they were, either in the Biblical story or philosophically.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmPlacing aside the authors focus, do we agree that in Adam remaining quite instead of supporting his wife in her hour of confliction, aided and abetted the Serpent? If so then we also agree together that this was the lead reason for Eves fall, but Adam had essentially already fallen.
I agree that Adam failed Eve in that way, yes. The next belief doesn't follow. The lead reason for Eve's fall is that she chose to eat the fruit when she didn't have to listen to the Serpent. Eve did not need to rely on Adam to keep her from sin; she is culpable for her choices.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmThus we are left with the actual betrayal of his wife to the Serpent been largely overlooked by the Christian readers as the focus is upon Eve allowing herself to be tempted. One is left to speculate on what life might be like if most Christians focused upon Adams lack of support for his wife, which the god gifted him, rather than in Eve been tempted. Adam effective was the one who was tempted first, as his inactions clearly indicate.
The correction is not to solely focus on that sin, but to focus on all of the different ways they sinned, or more importantly, how those insights speak into our own sin life. Adam didn't try to convince Eve not to eat. Eve also failed Adam in her actions towards him, wanting him to join. They are both tempted and sin by their own free will, not forced to be others.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmOne is also left with the impression the author gives us by omitting to make it crystal clear rather than the more of a side note "Adam was with Eve while this was going on", but that is not the point the author is wanting us to focus upon.
We also know this by the omitting of the god chastising Adam specifically for betraying Eve in not supporting Eve. Surely this is the reason why Eve ate of the fruit, because her husband with her, was not protesting or trying to convince her not to listen to the Serpent, but to trust the god.

Given that we are told that once Eve had taken a bite of the fruit, Adam did not hesitate to do so himself.
Eve ate the fruit because she chose to. Did the Serpent try to influence her? Yes. Could she have refused that influence? Yes. Could Adam have helped her towards choosing rightly? Yes. Could she have chosen rightly in spite of Adam's inaction? Yes. So, no, you are not correct that Eve ate the fruit because of Adam's failure. Adam's failure didn't cause her choice, it influenced her choice.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pm
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pm
How hard is it to write "and Eves"? Why do you think mere shorthand [laziness] is the reason only Adams sin is mentioned? Perhaps Jesus knew that the emphasis was always on blaming the Woman and had become a traditional feature in the religions which formed from this Mythology which had to be addressed.
It’s not hard, but that doesn’t mean leaving Eve’s name out is invalid. Perhaps it is simply an idiom. Perhaps it refers to Adam being the first human and Eve being made from him. Perhaps, if they ate the fruit at the same time, Adam is blamed as the first sin because of his passivity when he was “above” Eve in a leadership role. The author of 1 Timothy actually talks about Eve being deceived and sinning first.
So you do not know and are thus speculating. That is acceptable in regard to the lack of information. The information the author provides is also speculation, written in an authorities style which leads the reader to assume otherwise.
The omniscient god is the only one not speculating because he cannot speculate. He can only know for sure.
Yes, I was speculating on that specific issue. Why? To show that your speculation on that issue was not the only possibility. Therefore, leaving Eve's name out isn't necessarily a bad thing. That was my point. This says nothing about whether everything we believe about anything is speculation. No, we won't be 100% certain, but we can do better than pure speculation on many issues.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmWe know that the author lied about eating the fruit would cause death, [and thus lied about what the god had said] because we know that they would surely die if they did not eat of the tree of life [which the god prevented them having access to because the god did not want them to live forever in that state.]
If we argue that the author did not lie, then we are forced to conclude that it was the god who lied. IF the god is omniscient, THEN the god has no need to lie, THEREFORE the author is the one lying.
In the text they clearly do die: spiritually and/or they lose access to immortality. What you think "death" should refer to is irrevelant. The text shows us what death meant, unless we believe (1) the author is stupid and can't see what an obvious contradiction the author just wrote or (2) that the author thinks God lied. There is no good reason to believe either of those two things.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmAs I mentioned, what the author of the start of the mythology has provided us with, is a belief in a type of god to which the author [and thus the readers who believe the authors speculation is truth regarding the god] believes as being 'good' but as I have also argued, we humans don't even know [and thus don't agree together] as to what is good. If the god depicted is 'good' but the creation the god made is depicted as "not good" because 'evil' and the author lies by saying the god lies but that is still 'good' [god can lie and still be good] we are left with a conundrum of conflicting concepts which only really serve to explain the human condition as being confused about those concepts and thus, gives us a reason as to why the human race remains on its current course and also reason to question said beliefs as perhaps NOT being the truth.
One, why think humans can't come to know what is 'good'?

Two, the author doesn't say God lied, so there is no conundrum of conflicting concepts. You say the author presents God as lying. The text does not reasonably support your view.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pm
Your interpretation of how the author is treating Eve. I don’t think the author mistreated Eve.
Adam mistreated Eve and the author wrote the story, so indirectly used the character of Adam to mistreat the character of Eve. The author mistreated Eve just as surely as Adam did. The story is fiction told as if it were fact.
So a Holocaust survivor that writes a book about Hitler's Germany's atrocities is mistreating the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. that were exterminated and tortured? That makes no sense to me.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pm
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmOn the contrary - the storyline not only says they were expelled from the garden out into the greater reality, and left to their own devices, but the god stopped visiting them altogether. There is no mention at all in the mythology [that I know of] of the god trying to 'call them back' or of them reestablishing their relationship with the god at some later point in the story...
They sin and God comes to them in the garden (already knowing they had sinned). If your interpretation here were true, then why would God even talk with them rather than just kick them out? God provides them with better coverings than they had (3:21). When Eve names Cain she says she got a son with the help of God (4:2). Abel and Cain bring offerings to God (4:3-4). God talks with Cain about his offering telling him to rule over the sin crouching at his door (4:7). God then comes to Cain after he kills his brother (4:9-10). God tells people not to kill Cain (4:15). When Seth is born, Eve says God appointed another son for her (4:25). God pursues and saves Noah. God calls Abram (Abraham). God is with Hagai and Ishmael when Abraham and Sarah banish them. God pursues Jacob, in spite of his deceptive ways. The whole Bible is about God trying to call humans back over and over again.
This addition to the storyline can be explained as natural in relation to the author being believed that the storyline is the truth.
All those god things which are mentioned could just as well be imagined by a people who were still grabbing at something which they had been told they had lost.
Sure, that could be made up, but look back at the bolded part above. What was your claim that I was disagreeing with? Are you still holding to that claim? That the verses I pointed to make no mention of God pursuing humans and reestablishing His relationship with humans? I think the bolded claim is obviously false.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 am
But there was still already a truth about whether he was a robot or had libertarian free will. As Adam's maker, God knew that truth.
Of course. But are you not also claiming that Adam also knew that truth? And that the author has made that plain to the reader?
The text does not address the question of whether Adam thought he had libertarian free will or not. I do think Genesis and the rest of the Bible support libertarian free will existing.


Noah
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 amAnd as I have critiqued said options, in that an omniscient being would have no need to feel said emotions, my critique on that is that the language the author uses is anthropopathic, where human terms are used to describe God’s actions, which is more like unto a being without the attribute of being omniscient [huamn] but with the ability to fell emotions, [human] and has falsely projected an image of The Creator which is really no more than an image of the human projecting oneself onto The Creator - essentially creating the god in the human image.
In the anthropopathic option, the author isn't creating God in the human image, but using human language in a different way as it applies to God and as it applies to humans since one believes God does not have emotions.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #279

Post by The Tanager »

3. Free Will and Determinism

Meaning of Free Will
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmIn that case, would you consider that 'will' adequately says the same ... the ability to choose between A and not-A.
I think that would be a less clear term to use, possibly one that determinists would see as begging the question itself, but if we understand each other any term is fine to use. My tweak would be saying it is the ability to want to choose A or not-A.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 amThey are not free because they are contained within an environment. They have the ability to operate their WILL, but ONLY in relation to the environment they are contained within.
They cannot will gravity to stop working, for example. Their will is not free to do that. What they can do is work with the environment to achieve ways of simulating lack of gravity and even travel to places where gravity no longer has the same affect on them as in other places...

Which is to say that there is a ton of latitude but limitations nonetheless. All very necessary in order for being with will to exercise said will within confined environment.
Thanks for the clarification. Libertarian free will agrees with their being limitations.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 amYes it is the baking I am referring to. I did not imply that free will was to be teased into something else. It is just a setting - the emphasis on the coding necessary to create an actual free will being. This circles back to my other points regarding the lack of any real difference between 'robots' and 'free will' as both require, not only the correct environment in which to be placed, but also the correct programming in which to 'be' either. Both require programs.

Free will is a program which is designed like a key...once used to unlock that which free will is programed to unlock, then free will automatically takes on the appearance of transforming itself - it is not so much changing as it is evolving. Which of course is practically speaking exactly what evolving is doing - changing....but even so the default is always an aspect of that whole process.
If free will is a choice to want A or not-A and that doesn't change. Free will is always that. What do you mean that free will transforms itself? Could you give a concrete example to help me understand your point here?
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 amMore to my point, the robot evolves free will from the state of not knowing it had it...so it evolves a sense of self awareness, and understanding that its behavior is a program it has been following. In observing the nature of its program, the robot become aware of the [possible] nature of its creator/programmer. In observing its behavior its uses its free will to continue behaving in the way it was programmed to behave but does so of its own free will, which evolved from its programming.

In that sense, the programs themselves are designed to go in that direction and eventually gift the robot with self awareness.
Are you saying that having self-awareness is the same thing as (or necessarily brings with it) having a will/libertarian free will? If so, then why?


Meaning of Determinism
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmI mean that comparing real beings [free will humans] with imaginary beings [your robots] we require knowing how you see these imaginary beings [robots] in order to understand your comparing them with [real] humans and declaring which is better [in relation to the omniscient being]
Of course. I didn't know you didn't understand what I meant by robots/determinism.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 am
Are you saying that humans made themselves into 'robots' or talking about the actual robots humans have made recently? If the first, what verses are you pointing to (if any)? If the second, then what does that have to do with anything we have been talking about?
As to the first, if humans are relying on script [which is a form of coding] in order to tell them what the nature of The Creator is, then yes - they are more robots than free will creatures. They are creatures who have chosen through their free will processes, to believe the script is true.
Why is choosing to believe the script is true acting like a robot?
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 am
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:40 pm
From the gods perspective, being omniscient makes determinism true.
Absolutely not. Knowing what will happen (omniscience) is not the same as making it happen in that way (determinism).
Potatoes - Potatoes.

So being the passenger is not the same as being the driver...knowing what will happen before you create it to be able to happen is one step further than simply knowing it will happen and not creating the means in which it can happen.
I agree with the bolded part. That's not determinism. Determinism is making it happen in that specific way, not allowing it to happen or making it possible for such a thing to happen.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pm
The existence of libertarian free will is ‘good,’ it is better than being a robot.
Marginally if at all. It depends largely on any outside influences (such as the god) and why the god created the environment and placed free will being into it instead of robots.
Do you mean something like if one wants a morally perfect world, then robots would be better? If so, then I agree with that. But I'm actually talking about which goal is better. A world that is morally perfect or a world with beings that have wills that also includes some evil. I don't see how "outside influences" affect that.


Evidence for Free Will or Determinism
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pm
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pmI am speaking to real world examples one might point to, which clearly show the differences and undoubtedly prove the one is better than the other.
Why do you think those exist? Any situation can fit the libertarian free will narrative as well as the hard determinism narrative.
Shall we end this here then with the idea that you hold the position the mythology is not really speaking about a real event which actually happened, but is simply[ a rather misleading] analogical interpretation of how life happened to be as it is, on this planet in this universe, according to ancient beliefs which could not have known any better?
Do you agree or not that all real world examples can fit both narratives? If not, then can you provide an example to show that? If so, then why are you asking me to provide real world examples?


Is Free Will or Determinism Better?
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmThis in turn offers for the opportunity of some humans preying upon most other humans because we - as free will beings - are not and cannot be certain. All under the operation of free will. In that sense free will is useless. It can be used by free will beings against free will beings. How is that useful, unless it is seen as a minor impermanent condition within a major process which itself is trustworthy no matter one has the ability to trust it or not. It makes no ultimate difference in relation to the bigger picture whether one trusts it now, or waits for more information to come along which can assist said trusting of process.
Humans could prey upon other humans by the very definition of what it means to have a free will. Why is logically following one's definition useless? What do you mean by "useless"? It sounds like you might be saying that if such a condition were permanent, it would be a worse choice among the alternatives, so please clarify that for me.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #280

Post by The Tanager »

4. Omniscience and Free Will
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 amIn that, do you agree The god KNEW they WOULD. Not that they MIGHT?
To me "would" seems to speak to God playing out possible world(s) in His Mind and then, "Yes, that result is good, so I'll choose that creation." If God is temporal, then I think one could say that God created the world knowing that they MIGHT use their given libertarian free will for evil. Of course, from the human perspective, God knows what we WILL do prior to us knowing it. I think the picture is the same if God is timeless, although the semantics are different. If God is timeless, then there isn't a sequence of experience (for God) from deciding to create this world, then seeing what would happen, and then Him giving the go-ahead. Now that I think about it more, I would probably phrase it as God knowing they DO.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmAgain I remind you that we are speaking to the idea of an omniscient being when referring to the gods attributes. In that, we cannot justifiably argue that such a being wants them to do anything. The god already knows what they will do so in creating the situation after the fact that the god knows what will happen, logically means that the god meant for it to happen.
It is not about want or need in relation to the god. because "Omniscient".
An omniscient being can absolutely want them to do X rather than Y, even knowing that they end up choosing Y. That doesn't mean the being hopes they will choose something different than they choose.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 amThe Creator - I will refer to as []...[] is not only the movie studio exec that allows the movie to be made but also the director, the actors and the stage the action is happening on. [] experiences all simultaneously in the role of [] but in the role of all the others, [] experiences the movies parts - from the construction of mines in order to dig out the ingredients necessary to even make the movie, as it were...the whole shebang!
I know that is your belief. However, I was contesting your (seeming) claim that omniscience and free will logically contradict. The future-telling-studio-exec can know what the director, producer, actors, etc. will do without making them do that. God can make people able to choose what they choose, knowing exactly what they will choose but God isn't, therefore, making every choice for them.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 am[] determines the actions of [] upon the stage [] created for that purpose. If not for the stage, then there would be no need for [] to have free will. We don't require free will to watch something unfold the way we already know it will unfold. In that I am saying free will is an unnecessary attribute to attach to a being who is regarded as omniscient.
How does God know it will unfold that way? Because God sees what people actually choose (or would choose) to do.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 am
Sure there is certainty, but that isn't determinism. Only if determinism were true would the serpent (or some other being or temptation) be a necessary component.
Then, since the story includes the Serpent, then the Serpent has to be seen as a necessary element.
I ate a donut this morning for breakfast. Since I chose to eat a donut, it is necessary that an omniscient being know that I would eat a donut. But I could have chosen to eat eggs and bacon. If I had chosen that, then the omniscient being would have known that I would eat eggs and bacon.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmThe text is trying to get across to us that the creation is to blame for not following the gods command. In that, the text cannot help but have us questioning the true motives of a god which is called blameless but who is also called omniscient. Clearly it is not speculation that the god knew all this would happen; The god created a being who was able to choose. The god told the being not to eat of a certain tree which the god knew had no intrinsic properties which would cause Adam to know good and evil. The god knew that if he gave a command, that Adam would disobey said command.
Remember I said God is to blame for us having the ability to sin. God is blameless in our actual free will choice, though. Omniscience doesn't change that because omniscience and determining a choice are different things. Why did God know that if He gave a command, that Adam would disobey? Because Adam was made inherently evil? No. Because God is omniscient and knows what Adam freely chooses to do.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pm
Thank you for that clarification. I agree the omniscient God the Bible talks about allows those things to happen. I think it could have decided to control all decisions, though. I agree that an omniscient being isn’t surprised by what people do, but they can still be upset at what they do.
Why even add that? In what way does this help your position? Why get upset about something you knew would happen? There is no logical reason to do so.
Would you say that He would be upset when He "first" knew it would happen?

Post Reply