Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

[unknown soldier]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Clownboat]

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

So, of these two:

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

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

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

It doesn't appear that you can show that you have been corrupted or that some Satan or voice is trying to corrupt you... or the rest of us for that matter.
Therefore, until you can show said corruption, I will assume you are a regular human being with strengths and weaknesses that you are likely assigning as corruption when there is none.

As to my view of humanity:
My view of humanity is higher as I'm not assigning a corruption that cannot be shown to be a real thing. If you could just show that this corruption is real or if you could show this corrupting force, then I would need to ammend my thinking.

I don't see any reason to amend my thinking at this time.
Be well!

[The Tanager]

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

I cannot be sure. I try my best and always remain open-minded. I try to often use words like "I think..." or "it seems to me that..." to convey this. I join topics mainly for challenging my own thoughts on these issues, knowing that perhaps I've been blinded to something. I don't want to believe something untrue.

[The Tanager]

It doesn't appear that you can show that you have been corrupted or that some Satan or voice is trying to corrupt you... or the rest of us for that matter.
Therefore, until you can show said corruption, I will assume you are a regular human being with strengths and weaknesses that you are likely assigning as corruption when there is none.

I do think showing corruption to be true is very hard to do but so is showing there is no corruption. The default position would be agnosticism. I have been responding to critiques that take Christian views on this issue as true to point out other possible flaws. I have no burden to prove humans are corrupted in my response to those critiques.

If you want to push this as a critique of Christianity right now, then you are making a positive claim and you have the burden to show there is reason to believe there is no corruption or, as brunumb's quote in your signature says, "what is the purpose of your arguments?"

If you are simply wondering why I think there is corruption rather than being an agnostic, then I'll gladly have that conversation with you when this thread ends because a lot is going on in this thread. I'll make the positive claim, you won't have to make any claim that there is no corruption, and I'll carry the burden.

As to my view of humanity:
My view of humanity is higher as I'm not assigning a corruption that cannot be shown to be a real thing. If you could just show that this corruption is real or if you could show this corrupting force, then I would need to ammend my thinking.

I don't see any reason to amend my thinking at this time.
Be well!

I agree that non-corrupted libertarian free will humans would be higher than corrupted libertarian free will humans, but I think Jesus is the only non-corrupted libertarian free will human right now. I do think others will join those ranks eventually (and because of Jesus).

But, more importantly, that is not the issue I was talking about that you critiqued me on. That issue was whether corrupted libertarian free will humans or morally robotic humans is the "higher" view. Do you agree with me there or do you think morally robotic humans is the higher view?

Be well, too.

[The Tanager]

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

What do you mean? That disobedience was a part of them, as though they were destined to fail and couldn't have chosen otherwise? That this story is just revealing that to them? Something else?

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

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

That's a bunch of speculation on questions the text doesn't address. If Adam relayed the message, if Adam added the detail. The text does not give any indication that God was leaving Eve out on a limb there. What the text does show is that Eve as had the knowledge that God said eating of it would bring death and she knows what death is (it's not some random sound she doesn't understand the meaning of).

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

The author shouldn't have to directly say that. It is clear that the author has a high view of God. It is silly to assume the author is saying God got it wrong, thinking they would immediately, physically die when they wouldn't. The story speaks of (and Genesis continues to show) people spiritually separated from God and His desires and that humans are mortal.

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

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

What do you see as the difference between these two? Are you making a point about them having less than 100% certainty? Something else?

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

The text doesn't say that, it's built on a number of your speculations all being true. No pause between touching and eating the fruit is mentioned. She picks it and eats it and gives one to Adam. There isn't even a necessary pause between Eve eating it and Adam eating it.

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

Spiritual separation was immediate. They eat it, their eyes are opened, they cover themselves and hide from God. Mortality, through not having access to the tree of life, also comes quickly, although actual death will take awhile. There is no good reason to think they didn't have enough knowledge of what kind of "death" God was talking about.

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

Yes, (I never said it was relevant).

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

Why the bad connotations of 'prison,' though? The humans bear the ultimate responsibility for their choice, not the place, not the serpent.

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

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

That is what I am saying.

You are agreeing with me that the text doesn't present them as having adequate reason to mistrust God? I thought you were saying they might have had adequate reason to.

Why? Why does one have to be 'better' than the other? Would it not depend on circumstance?

Could you give me a couple of the circumstances so that I better understand what you mean here?

I think it more appropriate in this particular environment (The Universe, but Earth specifically) that robots are the better option than beings of flesh and blood. It make more logical sense, the robots won't experience harm but only harmony, so in that way it is 'better'.

But that just pushes the question back to whether robotic harmony or libertarian free will harmony (and the possible disharmony between some) is better, which is another way to ask whether robotic moral perfection or libertarian free will is better.

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

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

This does not mean that love does not intervene. God's role makes it so that this kind of intervention destroys free will which destroys any ability for those beings to love at all. Destroying beings' ability to love is not a loving act. Parents aren't destroying their kids ability to love, so it is loving for them to intervene.

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

I don't know why you think I seem to be saying God had no desire for the pair to trust Him. I am saying that I don't believe God set the whole thing up to see if they would trust Him or not. God does desire that they trust Him. He does 'require' them to trust Him in the sense of they can't be in the loving community (i.e., Heaven) without trusting Him (those two things are different sides of the same coin, they are two ways to say the same thing, Heaven isn't an add-on reward for trusting God). Sin occurs when they go against what God desires for them and is indicative that they are deciding for themselves what is good/evil rather than looking to and trusting God on that (i.e., indicative that they aren't in the loving community or are fighting fully coming into that community).

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

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

?

You seemed to be saying that they were mistrusting God and then a new opportunity came along for them to put that previous mistrust into action. I'm saying their mistrust arose in the opportunity itself. Perhaps it's just a semantical difference.

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

Those two things go together. Eating the fruit opens their eyes to their nakedness (3:7). God also connects them by those two questions. Noticing their nakedness is a sign that they ate it. The answer to the second is an answer to the first as well.

Good. That is what you think went down. However, the story-teller(s) deemed it necessary to place this Serpent being into the storyline as an animate intelligent object in which Eve could and did interact with.

The author of Proverbs speaks of Lady Wisdom, which is a personification of wisdom, not meant to be taken as a literal animate being. The author of Genesis could be doing the same. Or the author could think the serpent literally was there and did those things. Either way, the main message is the same and the points I'm making aren't changed.

To say that the Serpent is not a necessary (in that way) component of the story (from a book which is traditionally regarded as "inspired by the god" no less) because it so obviously implicates the god in ways which give the appearance the god is not as good as Christians believe, is simply a matter of convenience rather than any honest attempt to get to the nitty gritty of the matter. Taking away from the word is no less dangerous than adding to it.

If the serpent was meant as a personification of temptation (like Lady Wisdom of wisdom), then the author could have chosen another personification or simply directly spoken of it being a temptation. All three are valid choices. If the serpent was historical, then it still could have been a different animal or the humans could have chosen to disobey God without any other being trying to tempt them to, it just didn't historically play out that way.

The existence of temptation (whether embodied or not) does not implicate God as being "not as good as Christians believe." Free will logically requires humans to face that kind of choice. Free will is better than being a robot.

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

Perhaps you would have spelled it out more directly earlier, but the reader does not need it to be to get what "death" is being talked about because the story goes on to describe what happens as a result of their action. Their relationship with God is broken as shown by them hiding. It's proper to shorthand that as death. They also are mortal as shown by losing access to the tree of life. 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.

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

The only way it would have been zero is if determinism is true. The story presents these beings as having free will. Whether the probability went up or not with the serpent is irrelevant. Free will requires they have the chance to freely choose to disobey. The responsibility is the humans'.

My point still remains relevant. If the environment was perfect for humans to be placed there, then there must have been something about the being the god created, which had him make that choice.

You need to explain this further for me to understand your point.

On top of that, is the problem of the contradiction of an omniscient being having to make choices. Also, an omniscient being cannot have free will as everything is already known (mapped out) and he is simply going along with that - so therefore an omniscient being is more a robot than a free will individual, according to your stated understanding of the difference between robots and free-will beings.

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.

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

God does have free will. The free will beings God created can partake of the loving community only by exercising their free will, not if they stop having it. Love is a sub-category of free will, not an alternative to it.

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

Okay, that's a third option I didn't think about. God could make robots, libertarian free will beings, or robots wih the ability to evolve into libertarian free will beings. But once the robot evolved, they are basically a new creature that matches the second option. What would be the benefit of the robotic period that makes this option better than the second one?

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

We can't move to that position. That would be like asking us to play baseball, yet never bat. 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.

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

Perhaps how you understand those terms, but not how I understand them.

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

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

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

I don't think the story is made up (although I do think it is more poetically written than straight literal history) by humans. I think it relays actual truth. I don't think they are meant to be abandoned or that there are deeper truths on the issues that the Bible gives us (although there are certainly issues the Bible does not address).

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

They could be, but that means no free will. I think having free will is better than being a robot that faces moral decisions.

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

Yes, that is a better phrasing. Of course, I don't think God made robots.

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

Whether they ate it or not, I think natural disasters aren't 'evil'.

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

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?

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

I do think they are real things. I don't see how my argument contradicts that.

It appears plainly to me that you are consistently arguing that free will needs to be abandoned but you also seem to contradict this by saying god does not want robots.

I am absolutely not saying that free will needs to be abandoned. I don't understand why you are saying that I'm arguing free will needs to be abandoned. Trusting another being is not abandoning free will. What exact words are making you think I'm saying that?

My antidote for being in such a position was to be able drop the notions altogether through understanding that free will is the key which - once turned - is of no use to me anymore...it has served its purpose.

I don't understand how free will can be used and then dropped.

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

Yes, we have. I didn't think they were better ways, but I'm open to reconsidering them.

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

I don't understand why an omniscient being would think this was a good thing to do.

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

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.

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

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).

[William]

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

What do you mean? That disobedience was a part of them, as though they were destined to fail and couldn't have chosen otherwise? That this story is just revealing that to them? Something else?

Essentially yes...it can be no other way....only they [and thus we by relation to a degree] could not have been able to understand that this was what was happening. The god of course, didn't have a choice but to know as the god knows everything...

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

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

That's a bunch of speculation on questions the text doesn't address.

It is speculation I will grant you, and the text itself makes it that way in the fact that it doesn't address this. However I have kept the speculation as close to the bone of the text as possible.

If Adam relayed the message, if Adam added the detail. The text does not give any indication that God was leaving Eve out on a limb there.

Why would see this as the god leaving Eve out on a limb? The god entrusting Adam the part of instructing Eve about the god and the things the god told Adam is equal to the god leaving Eve out on a limb?

What the text does show is that Eve as had the knowledge that God said eating of it would bring death and she knows what death is (it's not some random sound she doesn't understand the meaning of).

Why do you think the pair didn't sit together one sunny day in their Garden and a nearby rabbit starts twitching on the ground and then stops moving and Eve being concerned goes to offer assistance and finds the rabbit lifeless, and then Adam explains to Eve about death and the forbidden fruit, emphasizing the importance of not eating it by adding to that, the instruction not to even touch it, or death will happen to you as it did to the rabbit?

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

The author shouldn't have to directly say that. It is clear that the author has a high view of God. It is silly to assume the author is saying God got it wrong, thinking they would immediately, physically die when they wouldn't. The story speaks of (and Genesis continues to show) people spiritually separated from God and His desires and that humans are mortal.

Perhaps the author had such a low opinion of humans in relation to his high opinion of the god, and so never thought to make an actual story out of it, but simply gave a pointed rendition of a story that cannot have been as bland and concise as the rendition implies...

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

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

What do you see as the difference between these two? Are you making a point about them having less than 100% certainty? Something else?

How could Adam have been 100% certain given the author left out the main bulk of information re the processes involved in the building of relationship between the god and Adam?

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

The text doesn't say that, it's built on a number of your speculations all being true. No pause between touching and eating the fruit is mentioned. She picks it and eats it and gives one to Adam. There isn't even a necessary pause between Eve eating it and Adam eating it.

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...

There is simply no time allowed for relationship building...either between the god and Adam or between Adam and Eve...or for that matter, between Adam and Eve and the Serpent, whom the pair must have known and conversed with - perhaps on many occasions - prior to that fateful day in the middle of the garden...

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

Spiritual separation was immediate. They eat it, their eyes are opened, they cover themselves and hide from God.

"Zip Bang Boom Wizz Pop" and done!

I'll speculate that even today most humans have no idea as to what 'spiritual' means, they are so separate from it...something about their new awareness allowed them to see that they were not just animals and they needed to cover up...yet you argue that they were created as more than just animals and already had knowledge of this being the case. Why had they not already dressed themselves, if that were the actual case
And also, would we all be naked creatures IF Adam and Eve had followed the gods instructions?

Mortality, through not having access to the tree of life, also comes quickly, although actual death will take awhile. There is no good reason to think they didn't have enough knowledge of what kind of "death" God was talking about.

Perhaps if they had of had the knowledge, they would never have looked at the fruit, let alone touched it.
Also to note, Adam wasn't handed another but given the one Eve had eaten of - she was sharing her fruit with Adam, who incidentally had been with Eve all the time Eve was being tempted by the Serpent...

eta

Also to note, the rest of the bible (specifically NT) speaks only of Adams sin.

Also - As the Garden story is written in the style of focusing on points rather than specifics, in relation to works of fiction it may indeed seem fruitless to speculate, BUT since Christians claim that the Mythology is actually TRUE - I can treat it in a more specific manner than it presents...because - well frankly - for a work of non fiction it is more in the style of fiction and any speculation which enters the discussion of it could at least treat it as non-fiction, and certainly we have both been doing that already...

[William]

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

Why the bad connotations of 'prison,' though?

I am not using the word 'prison' in any way except to underline the fact of containment. I put no shadow of connotation upon that, so as long as you can agree that containment was necessary, no good or bad connotations need to be attached to that...the focus can be on why the necessity of containment...

The humans bear the ultimate responsibility for their choice, not the place, not the serpent.

According to your judgement, perhaps. According to the gods judgement, no. Each bore the responsibility for their part in the story, including the god, if Christian Mythology is to believed (re Jesus and sacrifice.) Even the rest of the immediate environment did not escape sharing the responsibility...again according to the Mythology itself....

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

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

That is what I am saying.

You are agreeing with me that the text doesn't present them as having adequate reason to mistrust God? I thought you were saying they might have had adequate reason to.

I am pointing out that the text itself is wanting, as it is poorly written from that perspective. It does not give adequate reason why Adam should or should not trust the god, but that he chose not to points to the possibility that he may have had some reason(s) not to. It leaves out far too much for anyone to get to the nitty gritty so we are forced to use what knowledge we DO have to fill said story out and see if it fits with the reality which we do know about.
In that, IF Adam knew these things about the god, THEN we would have good enough reason to believe that he and his god had formed a loving, trusting relationship with one another.
If the god would have known that Adam didn't really trust 'things' about the god - (perhaps that his god was being truthful with him) THEN the god would have known that the relationship wasn't really going to work out as the god already knew which choices Adam would make.
But all this would have been known by the god BEFORE the god even placed Adam into the confinement (this universe) and may have been the very reason the god chose to place Adam in this universe. [on this planet in that garden]
When all is said and done, it HAD to be the reason, as the god would have known the outcome of said relationship with this free will being even BEFORE the god created said being.

Why? Why does one have to be 'better' than the other? Would it not depend on circumstance?

Could you give me a couple of the circumstances so that I better understand what you mean here?

It comes down to whether one thinks free will is better than robotic moral perfection. As I have already mentioned, [and I think you tentatively agreed] this universe is better suited to robots than free will beings. I have already given reasons for thinking this.

I think it more appropriate in this particular environment (The Universe, but Earth specifically) that robots are the better option than beings of flesh and blood. It make more logical sense, the robots won't experience harm but only harmony, so in that way it is 'better'.

But that just pushes the question back to whether robotic harmony or libertarian free will harmony (and the possible disharmony between some) is better, which is another way to ask whether robotic moral perfection or libertarian free will is better.

Which of course circles back to my question to you as to why you think one should be better than the other...your answer appearing to be that in relation to the god and Adams relationship with one another, this particular environment is chosen by the god to contain Adam within. The [omniscient] god knows the answer to this question but we do not. Thus, speculation....

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

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

This does not mean that love does not intervene. God's role makes it so that this kind of intervention destroys free will which destroys any ability for those beings to love at all. Destroying beings' ability to love is not a loving act. Parents aren't destroying their kids ability to love, so it is loving for them to intervene.

I then have to ask. Are you saying that in times where this god does intervene, that it is NOT and act of love?

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

I don't know why you think I seem to be saying God had no desire for the pair to trust Him. I am saying that I don't believe God set the whole thing up to see if they would trust Him or not.

This - of course - goes against the idea that the god is omniscient. Why would the god set anything up in order to 'see' when the god knows [sees] already?

God does desire that they trust Him. He does 'require' them to trust Him in the sense of they can't be in the loving community (i.e., Heaven) without trusting Him (those two things are different sides of the same coin, they are two ways to say the same thing, Heaven isn't an add-on reward for trusting God). Sin occurs when they go against what God desires for them and is indicative that they are deciding for themselves what is good/evil rather than looking to and trusting God on that (i.e., indicative that they aren't in the loving community or are fighting fully coming into that community).

So we then have to assume by that, that Adam (not they) was placed into this environment [The universe/Earth] not because Adam was created for THIS environment, but because he didn't fit into the "heaven" environment, because he didn't trust the god.
Otherwise we are left with the alternative that the god created Adam and then placed Adam in this environment [the story says Adam was placed here not created here] because the god knew that Adam would not trust the god and thus 'heaven' would not be suitable for such a creature....but Earth would. [Assuming 'heaven' is another universe and not actually part of this universe.]

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

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

?

You seemed to be saying that they were mistrusting God and then a new opportunity came along for them to put that previous mistrust into action. I'm saying their mistrust arose in the opportunity itself. Perhaps it's just a semantical difference.

The opportunity did not 'arise' out of nothing. The environment (including tree and Serpent) were obviously necessary to bring that aspect of Adam out into the open. Without said environment how would anyone other than the god [omniscient] know about it?

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

Those two things go together. Eating the fruit opens their eyes to their nakedness (3:7). God also connects them by those two questions. Noticing their nakedness is a sign that they ate it. The answer to the second is an answer to the first as well.

We can look further into this speculation then.
We have creatures who are unaware they are naked because there is no reason to be. The reason comes along in the form of their actions once 'their eyes are open'.
Can we assume then that if human kind were trusting in the god, that we would not be wearing clothe at all?

As to 'who' told them they were naked...who do you think told them they were naked?

Good. That is what you think went down. However, the story-teller(s) deemed it necessary to place this Serpent being into the storyline as an animate intelligent object in which Eve could and did interact with.

The author of Proverbs speaks of Lady Wisdom, which is a personification of wisdom, not meant to be taken as a literal animate being. The author of Genesis could be doing the same. Or the author could think the serpent literally was there and did those things. Either way, the main message is the same and the points I'm making aren't changed.

Really? I now wonder then why you speculated it as possible.

That also leads one to wonder if indeed 'god' is also a personification of 'good' which in turn leads one to wonder if the god is not meant to be taken as a literal animate being either.

The points you are making might not change, but certainly they do change the way in which one can reflect your arguments back to you.

To say that the Serpent is not a necessary (in that way) component of the story (from a book which is traditionally regarded as "inspired by the god" no less) because it so obviously implicates the god in ways which give the appearance the god is not as good as Christians believe, is simply a matter of convenience rather than any honest attempt to get to the nitty gritty of the matter. Taking away from the word is no less dangerous than adding to it.

If the serpent was meant as a personification of temptation (like Lady Wisdom of wisdom), then the author could have chosen another personification or simply directly spoken of it being a temptation. All three are valid choices.

The most valid [choice to view it] is as it treats the Serpent as the literal being because that it is obviously how it is written to be seen as. Just as "Lady Wisdom" is most obviously being written to be seen as a personification of wisdom.

If the serpent was historical, then it still could have been a different animal or the humans could have chosen to disobey God without any other being trying to tempt them to, it just didn't historically play out that way.

IF the story is to be treated as true, and the god as omniscient, THEN it was played out exactly as it was intended to play out, and in that, the Serpent was obviously a necessary factor in the play - as an actual being rather than some inner interaction Eve was playing out (to which the author would only be speculating about anyway - and not very nicely for that) and begs the question as to whether Adam had one of these 'Serpents' chatting away inside his head as well...things get complicated when one starts to replace the idea of an actual Serpent Creature [as is obviously portrayed] with a figment of the authors imagination which has been transferred upon the character of Eve.

The existence of temptation (whether embodied or not) does not implicate God as being "not as good as Christians believe." Free will logically requires humans to face that kind of choice. Free will is better than being a robot.

So you [almost robotically] keep claiming. I am still waiting for your examples to show why this is actually the case. I would also add that it is possible the god placed Adam in an environment specifically better suited to robots because such an environments would be the best in which to show Adam playing out [externalizing] his distrust for the god.

[William]

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

Perhaps you would have spelled it out more directly earlier, but the reader does not need it to be to get what "death" is being talked about because the story goes on to describe what happens as a result of their action.

I am referring to Adam, not the reader. Adam was not fully informed.

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.

They also are mortal as shown by losing access to the tree of life.

The 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?

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?

You 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?

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

The only way it would have been zero is if determinism is true.

From the gods perspective, being omniscient makes determinism true.
The 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.

The story presents these beings as having free will. Whether the probability went up or not with the serpent is irrelevant. Free will requires they have the chance to freely choose to disobey. The responsibility is the humans'.

The 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.
Look 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?

My point still remains relevant. If the environment was perfect for humans to be placed there, then there must have been something about the being the god created, which had him make that choice.

You need to explain this further for me to understand your point.

In 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]
If 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.

This 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.

On top of that, is the problem of the contradiction of an omniscient being having to make choices. Also, an omniscient being cannot have free will as everything is already known (mapped out) and he is simply going along with that - so therefore an omniscient being is more a robot than a free will individual, according to your stated understanding of the difference between robots and free-will beings.

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.

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

God does have free will.

Why would an omniscient being have need for such an attribute?

The free will beings God created can partake of the loving community only by exercising their free will, not if they stop having it. Love is a sub-category of free will, not an alternative to it.

Practically 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.
If 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.

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

Okay, that's a third option I didn't think about. God could make robots, libertarian free will beings, or robots wih the ability to evolve into libertarian free will beings. But once the robot evolved, they are basically a new creature that matches the second option. What would be the benefit of the robotic period that makes this option better than the second one?

My 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.
Free 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.

Any 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

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

We can't move to that position.

We can if we are as you claim - free will beings.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

One 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?

I don't think the story is made up (although I do think it is more poetically written than straight literal history) by humans. I think it relays actual truth. I don't think they are meant to be abandoned or that there are deeper truths on the issues that the Bible gives us (although there are certainly issues the Bible does not address).

What 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 cliam they are being free will beings. They are beholding to their program rather than the actual truth.

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

They could be, but that means no free will. I think having free will is better than being a robot that faces moral decisions.

Yet 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.
The 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...

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

Yes, that is a better phrasing. Of course, I don't think God made robots.

Not directly but yes, indirectly. The god made humans, who eventually made robots.

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

Whether they ate it or not, I think natural disasters aren't 'evil'.

Out of interest, IF the Planet itself was a self conscious entity, THEN would you consider natural disasters as being 'evil'?

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

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.

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

I do think they are real things. I don't see how my argument contradicts that.

In the simplest of terms, "Who told you that you were naked?"

Is being naked an imagined evil or a real evil?

It appears plainly to me that you are consistently arguing that free will needs to be abandoned but you also seem to contradict this by saying god does not want robots.

I am absolutely not saying that free will needs to be abandoned. I don't understand why you are saying that I'm arguing free will needs to be abandoned. Trusting another being is not abandoning free will. What exact words are making you think I'm saying that?

There 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.

Indeed, 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.

My antidote for being in such a position was to be able drop the notions altogether through understanding that free will is the key which - once turned - is of no use to me anymore...it has served its purpose.

I don't understand how free will can be used and then dropped.

Do you understand the concept of how a key can be used and then not be needed anymore?

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

Yes, we have. I didn't think they were better ways, but I'm open to reconsidering them.

Okay.

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

I don't understand why an omniscient being would think this was a good thing to do.

Perhaps if you dropped the 'good' out of your question, it might become clearer to you.

Why would an omniscient being determine something like that to be 'bad'?

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

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 whilst I maintain a non-judgmental position in regard to the nature of The Creator and go along with the precepts Christian have attached to this god's natural attributes.

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

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.

Also, 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.

But 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.

[The Tanager]

What do you mean? That disobedience was a part of them, as though they were destined to fail and couldn't have chosen otherwise? That this story is just revealing that to them? Something else?

Essentially yes...it can be no other way....only they [and thus we by relation to a degree] could not have been able to understand that this was what was happening. The god of course, didn't have a choice but to know as the god knows everything...

It could be another way, though. Libertarian free will, which I think the whole Bible, including Genesis, presents as being true.

Why would see this as the god leaving Eve out on a limb? The god entrusting Adam the part of instructing Eve about the god and the things the god told Adam is equal to the god leaving Eve out on a limb?

Perhaps I got my idioms mixed up. I was trying to say that the text does not show Eve as having less than enough information to trust God.

Why do you think the pair didn't sit together one sunny day in their Garden and a nearby rabbit starts twitching on the ground and then stops moving and Eve being concerned goes to offer assistance and finds the rabbit lifeless, and then Adam explains to Eve about death and the forbidden fruit, emphasizing the importance of not eating it by adding to that, the instruction not to even touch it, or death will happen to you as it did to the rabbit?

At first it seemed like you were saying God shouldn't blame Adam or Eve. Now it seems like you might be saying God should blame Adam but not Eve. I just want clarification there, I'm not accusing you of anything. Regardless, the author clearly has a high view of God. Your interpretation would have the author writing/meaning that God blames (Adam and) Eve even though He shouldn't have. That doesn't make sense.

Perhaps the author had such a low opinion of humans in relation to his high opinion of the god, and so never thought to make an actual story out of it, but simply gave a pointed rendition of a story that cannot have been as bland and concise as the rendition implies...

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.

How could Adam have been 100% certain given the author left out the main bulk of information re the processes involved in the building of relationship between the god and Adam?

I don't think Adam was 100% certain. I don't think 100% certainty is possible for us and that that's okay.

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.

There is simply no time allowed for relationship building...either between the god and Adam or between Adam and Eve...or for that matter, between Adam and Eve and the Serpent, whom the pair must have known and conversed with - perhaps on many occasions - prior to that fateful day in the middle of the garden...

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.

I'll speculate that even today most humans have no idea as to what 'spiritual' means, they are so separate from it...something about their new awareness allowed them to see that they were not just animals and they needed to cover up...yet you argue that they were created as more than just animals and already had knowledge of this being the case. Why had they not already dressed themselves, if that were the actual case

As to 'who' told them they were naked...who do you think told them they were naked?

They don't cover their nakedness because they realized they are not just animals, they cover themselves because they realized they were naked. They told themselves they were naked. Now, I think it would be silly to then say that they must have been previously unaware that they had no clothes on. Realizing their nakedness must speak to something else. It is their disobedience that makes them feel ashamed at their nakedness and want to cover up.

And also, would we all be naked creatures IF Adam and Eve had followed the gods instructions?

That might also depend on the weather of where a human is located.

Perhaps if they had of had the knowledge, they would never have looked at the fruit, let alone touched it.

That assumes they didn't have the knowledge, though.

Also to note, Adam wasn't handed another but given the one Eve had eaten of - she was sharing her fruit with Adam, who incidentally had been with Eve all the time Eve was being tempted by the Serpent...

Unless you have any Hebrew language insights, 3:6 simply says she took of the tree's fruit, ate, and also gave some to her husband. It doesn't say whether it was the same fruit or not. But, yes, Adam was there all along and did nothing. God seems to me to speak against this in 3:17, where Adam listened to Eve over God.

Also to note, the rest of the bible (specifically NT) speaks only of Adams sin.

They are definitely working off the Genesis account. That is what they have access to. So, it's a shorthand way to refer to them both. Those other writings don't say Eve didn't sin.

Also - As the Garden story is written in the style of focusing on points rather than specifics, in relation to works of fiction it may indeed seem fruitless to speculate, BUT since Christians claim that the Mythology is actually TRUE - I can treat it in a more specific manner than it presents...because - well frankly - for a work of non fiction it is more in the style of fiction and any speculation which enters the discussion of it could at least treat it as non-fiction, and certainly we have both been doing that already...

I have said that both of us go beyond what the text directly says because the questions we are answering aren't directly addressed by the author. An answer that uses the context of addressed questions is more reliable than one built on speculation on questions not addressed in the text.

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

Why the bad connotations of 'prison,' though?

I am not using the word 'prison' in any way except to underline the fact of containment. I put no shadow of connotation upon that, so as long as you can agree that containment was necessary, no good or bad connotations need to be attached to that...the focus can be on why the necessity of containment...

So, are you saying it is a good place to contain humans but that this choice was unlikely to work out well for humans?

The humans bear the ultimate responsibility for their choice, not the place, not the serpent.

According to your judgement, perhaps. According to the gods judgement, no. Each bore the responsibility for their part in the story, including the god, if Christian Mythology is to believed (re Jesus and sacrifice.) Even the rest of the immediate environment did not escape sharing the responsibility...again according to the Mythology itself....

I'm not sure what you mean. God is responsible for setting up a libertarian free will system. Humans (and the serpent) are responsible for using their libertarian free will to commit evil. The environment feels the affects of that but is not responsible for anything.

You are agreeing with me that the text doesn't present them as having adequate reason to mistrust God? I thought you were saying they might have had adequate reason to.

I am pointing out that the text itself is wanting, as it is poorly written from that perspective. It does not give adequate reason why Adam should or should not trust the god, but that he chose not to points to the possibility that he may have had some reason(s) not to.

The text does give adequate reason for humans to trust God. God created everything. God created everything good. As the creator of everything, we should expect God to know what He made, i.e., be omniscient.

Libertarian free will logically requires that Adam have at least one reason to choose to obey God and at least one reason to choose to disobey God. That doesn't mean the reasons are equally strong. There is more reason to trust God than there is to mistrust and disobey. Adam and Eve choose the weaker reasons.

It leaves out far too much for anyone to get to the nitty gritty so we are forced to use what knowledge we DO have to fill said story out and see if it fits with the reality which we do know about.

It doesn't leave out what is needed for the author's point to come across. Your feeling that it's incomplete leads you to try to fill the story out so that it meets your expectations and fits with the reality you believe to be true, i.e., it leads you to read into the text your worldview or questions.

n that, IF Adam knew these things about the god, THEN we would have good enough reason to believe that he and his god had formed a loving, trusting relationship with one another.
If the god would have known that Adam didn't really trust 'things' about the god - (perhaps that his god was being truthful with him) THEN the god would have known that the relationship wasn't really going to work out as the god already knew which choices Adam would make.

We don't know how long the loving, trusting relationship lasted. I don't see any textual reason to assume that Adam and Eve were created and fell on the same day. That question isn't addressed and shouldn't be speculated on either way.

I think that when Adam and Eve hadn't rebelled yet and didn't know they were going to rebel, God knew they would. God loved them so much that He went through with it, allowed them to do it, and kept trying to call them back, whether or not they eventually ended up coming back to the trusting, loving relationship with Him or not.

But all this would have been known by the god BEFORE the god even placed Adam into the confinement (this universe) and may have been the very reason the god chose to place Adam in this universe. [on this planet in that garden]
When all is said and done, it HAD to be the reason, as the god would have known the outcome of said relationship with this free will being even BEFORE the god created said being.

I may be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that God knew humans would eventually return to the loving, trusting relationship and that this is why He put them in this universe? Something else?

It comes down to whether one thinks free will is better than robotic moral perfection. As I have already mentioned, [and I think you tentatively agreed] this universe is better suited to robots than free will beings. I have already given reasons for thinking this.

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.

Which of course circles back to my question to you as to why you think one should be better than the other...your answer appearing to be that in relation to the god and Adams relationship with one another, this particular environment is chosen by the god to contain Adam within. The [omniscient] god knows the answer to this question but we do not. Thus, speculation....

I don't think one necessarily has to be better, but I do think one is better than the other, for the reasons I've been giving. While I agree that only God knows, I do think it fine for humans to attempt to understand it, although with as little speculation as possible.

I then have to ask. Are you saying that in times where this god does intervene, that it is NOT and act of love?

No, but that is because there are different kinds of intervention and in that comment I was addressing one kind of intervention. Stopping the abuser from acting on their desire to abuse would be destroying libertarian free will. I think God doesn't intervene in this way. I think God intervenes in people's lives by giving advice, but not forcing specific decisions.

I don't know why you think I seem to be saying God had no desire for the pair to trust Him. I am saying that I don't believe God set the whole thing up to see if they would trust Him or not.

This - of course - goes against the idea that the god is omniscient. Why would the god set anything up in order to 'see' when the god knows [sees] already?

That's my point. I believe God is omniscient and didn't set anything up in order to 'see' what would happen. So, there is no contradiction, at least in that part of my worldview.

So we then have to assume by that, that Adam (not they) was placed into this environment [The universe/Earth] not because Adam was created for THIS environment, but because he didn't fit into the "heaven" environment, because he didn't trust the god.
Otherwise we are left with the alternative that the god created Adam and then placed Adam in this environment [the story says Adam was placed here not created here] because the god knew that Adam would not trust the god and thus 'heaven' would not be suitable for such a creature....but Earth would. [Assuming 'heaven' is another universe and not actually part of this universe.]

Yes, but I don't see Heaven as another universe. The environment Adam was placed in was this universe and it was Heaven until the rebellion occurred. I think Heaven and Earth "overlap" even now.

You seemed to be saying that they were mistrusting God and then a new opportunity came along for them to put that previous mistrust into action. I'm saying their mistrust arose in the opportunity itself. Perhaps it's just a semantical difference.

The opportunity did not 'arise' out of nothing. The environment (including tree and Serpent) were obviously necessary to bring that aspect of Adam out into the open. Without said environment how would anyone other than the god [omniscient] know about it?

George Washington and his men supposedly crossed the Delaware River. Let's call one of those men John Doe. It isn't necessary that John Doe crossed the river. What if Washington decided to give him a different assignment, rather than some other bloke? The tree and the serpent aren't obviously necessary. But, yes, there needed to be something by the very logical nature of what it means to have free will. So, I'm not saying the opportunity arose out of nothing. I'm saying that this opportunity was the occasion that their mistrust first showed itself.

The author of Proverbs speaks of Lady Wisdom, which is a personification of wisdom, not meant to be taken as a literal animate being. The author of Genesis could be doing the same. Or the author could think the serpent literally was there and did those things. Either way, the main message is the same and the points I'm making aren't changed.

Really? I now wonder then why you speculated it as possible.

What does "it" refer to? Personification? A literal serpent? Both are possible because authors tell stories with personifications and with literal, historical characters. That's not speculation, but just noting logical possibilities. The truth there doesn't change the point of the story, as far as I can see, and the point is what we are mainly talking about, so one's answer (if they have one) here isn't that important. If you think it changes how you should reflect my argument back to me, then explain that to me.

The most valid [choice to view it] is as it treats the Serpent as the literal being because that it is obviously how it is written to be seen as. Just as "Lady Wisdom" is most obviously being written to be seen as a personification of wisdom.

Perhaps. If you can show how the literalness of the serpent changes how you should reflect my argument back, then let's explore why you think this.

IF the story is to be treated as true, and the god as omniscient, THEN it was played out exactly as it was intended to play out, and in that, the Serpent was obviously a necessary factor in the play...

Omnsicience is not the same as controlling how things turn out.

That also leads one to wonder if indeed 'god' is also a personification of 'good' which in turn leads one to wonder if the god is not meant to be taken as a literal animate being either.

Sure, but everything must be looked at with its own evidence. I think it clear that the author of Genesis sees God as a being. God even calls His creations 'good' and doesn't call them Himself. Sure you could interpret that to fit nicely with your worldview (although you may want to use different terms), that pieces of GOD are made into the Universe, but that is clearly not the traditional Jewish understanding, which is the culture behind these texts.

So you [almost robotically] keep claiming.

That's clever. I mean that sincerely, friend.

The existence of temptation (whether embodied or not) does not implicate God as being "not as good as Christians believe." Free will logically requires humans to face that kind of choice. Free will is better than being a robot.

I am still waiting for your examples to show why this is actually the case.

I've given my reasons why I think libertarian free will is better. You've been responding to them.

I would also add that it is possible the god placed Adam in an environment specifically better suited to robots because such an environments would be the best in which to show Adam playing out [externalizing] his distrust for the god.

It's possible, but the text doesn't support that.

[William]

What do you mean? That disobedience was a part of them, as though they were destined to fail and couldn't have chosen otherwise? That this story is just revealing that to them? Something else?

Essentially yes...it can be no other way....only they [and thus we by relation to a degree] could not have been able to understand that this was what was happening. The god of course, didn't have a choice but to know as the god knows everything...

It could be another way, though. Libertarian free will, which I think the whole Bible, including Genesis, presents as being true.

Libertarianism is a family of views in political philosophy. Libertarians strongly value individual freedom and see this as justifying strong protections for individual freedom. Thus, libertarians insist that justice poses stringent limits to coercion. While people can be justifiably forced to do certain things (most obviously, to refrain from violating the rights of others) they cannot be coerced to serve the overall good of society, or even their own personal good. As a result, libertarians endorse strong rights to individual liberty and private property; defend civil liberties like equal rights for homosexuals; endorse drug decriminalization, open borders, and oppose most military interventions. [link]

Not 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?

Why would see this as the god leaving Eve out on a limb? The god entrusting Adam the part of instructing Eve about the god and the things the god told Adam is equal to the god leaving Eve out on a limb?

Perhaps I got my idioms mixed up. I was trying to say that the text does not show Eve as having less than enough information to trust God.

What 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.
Remember 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...

Why do you think the pair didn't sit together one sunny day in their Garden and a nearby rabbit starts twitching on the ground and then stops moving and Eve being concerned goes to offer assistance and finds the rabbit lifeless, and then Adam explains to Eve about death and the forbidden fruit, emphasizing the importance of not eating it by adding to that, the instruction not to even touch it, or death will happen to you as it did to the rabbit?

At first it seemed like you were saying God shouldn't blame Adam or Eve. Now it seems like you might be saying God should blame Adam but not Eve. I just want clarification there, I'm not accusing you of anything. Regardless, the author clearly has a high view of God. Your interpretation would have the author writing/meaning that God blames (Adam and) Eve even though He shouldn't have. That doesn't make sense.

My argument is "Why should the god blame anyone?" As soon as the god blames anyone, he also blames himself. [by virtue of association]
We have a hint in regard to a later incident which has the storyteller informing us that the god was sorry for creating human beings (and apparent reasons for WHY the god was sorry) but my argument is that this is purely the authors opinion (biased toward the god whom the author see as blameless while seeing the humans are to be blamed)

Perhaps the author had such a low opinion of humans in relation to his high opinion of the god, and so never thought to make an actual story out of it, but simply gave a pointed rendition of a story that cannot have been as bland and concise as the rendition implies...

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?

How could Adam have been 100% certain given the author left out the main bulk of information re the processes involved in the building of relationship between the god and Adam?

I don't think Adam was 100% certain. I don't think 100% certainty is possible for us and that that's okay.

It 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...

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...

There is simply no time allowed for relationship building...either between the god and Adam or between Adam and Eve...or for that matter, between Adam and Eve and the Serpent, whom the pair must have known and conversed with - perhaps on many occasions - prior to that fateful day in the middle of the garden...

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...

I'll speculate that even today most humans have no idea as to what 'spiritual' means, they are so separate from it...something about their new awareness allowed them to see that they were not just animals and they needed to cover up...yet you argue that they were created as more than just animals and already had knowledge of this being the case. Why had they not already dressed themselves, if that were the actual case

As to 'who' told them they were naked...who do you think told them they were naked?

They don't cover their nakedness because they realized they are not just animals, they cover themselves because they realized they were naked. They told themselves they were naked. Now, I think it would be silly to then say that they must have been previously unaware that they had no clothes on. Realizing their nakedness must speak to something else. It is their disobedience that makes them feel ashamed at their nakedness and want to cover up.

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.
We are told that they used foliage for the task of covering up their nakedness from each other.
We do not even know how long after they ate of the fruit, that the god makes his entrance into the garden. It may have been immediately or it may have been a few months...

And also, would we all be naked creatures IF Adam and Eve had followed the gods instructions?

That might also depend on the weather of where a human is located.

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.
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...

Perhaps if they had of had the knowledge, they would never have looked at the fruit, let alone touched it.

That assumes they didn't have the knowledge, though.

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.

Also to note, Adam wasn't handed another but given the one Eve had eaten of - she was sharing her fruit with Adam, who incidentally had been with Eve all the time Eve was being tempted by the Serpent...

Unless you have any Hebrew language insights, 3:6 simply says she took of the tree's fruit, ate, and also gave some to her husband. It doesn't say whether it was the same fruit or not. But, yes, Adam was there all along and did nothing. God seems to me to speak against this in 3:17, where Adam listened to Eve over God.

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.
Perhaps the god is really speaking against that. Perhaps that is essentially Adams sin. (and the authors for not being more direct)
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?

Also to note, the rest of the bible (specifically NT) speaks only of Adams sin.

They are definitely working off the Genesis account. That is what they have access to. So, it's a shorthand way to refer to them both. Those other writings don't say Eve didn't sin.

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.

Also - As the Garden story is written in the style of focusing on points rather than specifics, in relation to works of fiction it may indeed seem fruitless to speculate, BUT since Christians claim that the Mythology is actually TRUE - I can treat it in a more specific manner than it presents...because - well frankly - for a work of non fiction it is more in the style of fiction and any speculation which enters the discussion of it could at least treat it as non-fiction, and certainly we have both been doing that already...

I have said that both of us go beyond what the text directly says because the questions we are answering aren't directly addressed by the author. An answer that uses the context of addressed questions is more reliable than one built on speculation on questions not addressed in the text.

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...
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.

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

Why the bad connotations of 'prison,' though?

I am not using the word 'prison' in any way except to underline the fact of containment. I put no shadow of connotation upon that, so as long as you can agree that containment was necessary, no good or bad connotations need to be attached to that...the focus can be on why the necessity of containment...

So, are you saying it is a good place to contain humans but that this choice was unlikely to work out well for humans?

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.

The humans bear the ultimate responsibility for their choice, not the place, not the serpent.

According to your judgement, perhaps. According to the gods judgement, no. Each bore the responsibility for their part in the story, including the god, if Christian Mythology is to believed (re Jesus and sacrifice.) Even the rest of the immediate environment did not escape sharing the responsibility...again according to the Mythology itself....

I'm not sure what you mean. God is responsible for setting up a libertarian free will system. Humans (and the serpent) are responsible for using their libertarian free will to commit evil. The environment feels the affects of that but is not responsible for anything.

Then why does the Mythology include the god dealing with the rest of the environment by flooding it completely?

Why does the Mythology promise a 'new earth'?

Why do Christians generally believe they will have to have an environment which cannot be affected by evil?

You are agreeing with me that the text doesn't present them as having adequate reason to mistrust God? I thought you were saying they might have had adequate reason to.

I am pointing out that the text itself is wanting, as it is poorly written from that perspective. It does not give adequate reason why Adam should or should not trust the god, but that he chose not to points to the possibility that he may have had some reason(s) not to.

The text does give adequate reason for humans to trust God. God created everything. God created everything good. As the creator of everything, we should expect God to know what He made, i.e., be omniscient.

And my argument envelops that position by informing that everything is good, except for knowledge of good and evil in relation to free will.
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.

Libertarian free will logically requires that Adam have at least one reason to choose to obey God and at least one reason to choose to disobey God. That doesn't mean the reasons are equally strong. There is more reason to trust God than there is to mistrust and disobey. Adam and Eve choose the weaker reasons.

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.

It leaves out far too much for anyone to get to the nitty gritty so we are forced to use what knowledge we DO have to fill said story out and see if it fits with the reality which we do know about.

It doesn't leave out what is needed for the author's point to come across.

The authors point is suspect, as I have shown regarding the authors treatment of Eve.

Your feeling that it's incomplete leads you to try to fill the story out so that it meets your expectations and fits with the reality you believe to be true, i.e., it leads you to read into the text your worldview or questions.

As I will continue to write, I have no vested interest in the story as something I must judge right or wrong. I am, and will continue to critique your views on the subject as long as you continue to view the story through the lenses of 'good and evil' and the subsequent judgments this invokes. [see this post for more on that.]

In that, IF Adam knew these things about the god, THEN we would have good enough reason to believe that he and his god had formed a loving, trusting relationship with one another.
If the god would have known that Adam didn't really trust 'things' about the god - (perhaps that his god was being truthful with him) THEN the god would have known that the relationship wasn't really going to work out as the god already knew which choices Adam would make.

We don't know how long the loving, trusting relationship lasted. I don't see any textual reason to assume that Adam and Eve were created and fell on the same day. That question isn't addressed and shouldn't be speculated on either way.

Why not? Isn't the idea of forming and maintaining a genuine relationship with the god, a central message of Christianity?

I think that when Adam and Eve hadn't rebelled yet and didn't know they were going to rebel, God knew they would. God loved them so much that He went through with it, allowed them to do it, and kept trying to call them back, whether or not they eventually ended up coming back to the trusting, loving relationship with Him or not.

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...

But all this would have been known by the god BEFORE the god even placed Adam into the confinement (this universe) and may have been the very reason the god chose to place Adam in this universe. [on this planet in that garden]
When all is said and done, it HAD to be the reason, as the god would have known the outcome of said relationship with this free will being even BEFORE the god created said being.

I may be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that God knew humans would eventually return to the loving, trusting relationship and that this is why He put them in this universe? Something else?

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.

It comes down to whether one thinks free will is better than robotic moral perfection. As I have already mentioned, [and I think you tentatively agreed] this universe is better suited to robots than free will beings. I have already given reasons for thinking this.

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...

Which of course circles back to my question to you as to why you think one should be better than the other...your answer appearing to be that in relation to the god and Adams relationship with one another, this particular environment is chosen by the god to contain Adam within. The [omniscient] god knows the answer to this question but we do not. Thus, speculation....

I don't think one necessarily has to be better, but I do think one is better than the other, for the reasons I've been giving. While I agree that only God knows, I do think it fine for humans to attempt to understand it, although with as little speculation as possible.

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.

I then have to ask. Are you saying that in times where this god does intervene, that it is NOT and act of love?

No, but that is because there are different kinds of intervention and in that comment I was addressing one kind of intervention. Stopping the abuser from acting on their desire to abuse would be destroying libertarian free will. I think God doesn't intervene in this way. I think God intervenes in people's lives by giving advice, but not forcing specific decisions.

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.

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.

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.

I don't know why you think I seem to be saying God had no desire for the pair to trust Him. I am saying that I don't believe God set the whole thing up to see if they would trust Him or not.

This - of course - goes against the idea that the god is omniscient. Why would the god set anything up in order to 'see' when the god knows [sees] already?

That's my point. I believe God is omniscient and didn't set anything up in order to 'see' what would happen. So, there is no contradiction, at least in that part of my worldview.

Okay...

So we then have to assume by that, that Adam (not they) was placed into this environment [The universe/Earth] not because Adam was created for THIS environment, but because he didn't fit into the "heaven" environment, because he didn't trust the god.
Otherwise we are left with the alternative that the god created Adam and then placed Adam in this environment [the story says Adam was placed here not created here] because the god knew that Adam would not trust the god and thus 'heaven' would not be suitable for such a creature....but Earth would. [Assuming 'heaven' is another universe and not actually part of this universe.]

Yes, but I don't see Heaven as another universe. The environment Adam was placed in was this universe and it was Heaven until the rebellion occurred. I think Heaven and Earth "overlap" even now.

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?

You seemed to be saying that they were mistrusting God and then a new opportunity came along for them to put that previous mistrust into action. I'm saying their mistrust arose in the opportunity itself. Perhaps it's just a semantical difference.

The opportunity did not 'arise' out of nothing. The environment (including tree and Serpent) were obviously necessary to bring that aspect of Adam out into the open. Without said environment how would anyone other than the god [omniscient] know about it?

George Washington and his men supposedly crossed the Delaware River. Let's call one of those men John Doe. It isn't necessary that John Doe crossed the river. What if Washington decided to give him a different assignment, rather than some other bloke? The tree and the serpent aren't obviously necessary. But, yes, there needed to be something by the very logical nature of what it means to have free will. So, I'm not saying the opportunity arose out of nothing. I'm saying that this opportunity was the occasion that their mistrust first showed itself.

Showed itself to whom? It cannot have been to the god, for the god already knew.

The author of Proverbs speaks of Lady Wisdom, which is a personification of wisdom, not meant to be taken as a literal animate being. The author of Genesis could be doing the same. Or the author could think the serpent literally was there and did those things. Either way, the main message is the same and the points I'm making aren't changed.

Really? I now wonder then why you speculated it as possible.

What does "it" refer to? Personification? A literal serpent? Both are possible because authors tell stories with personifications and with literal, historical characters. That's not speculation, but just noting logical possibilities. The truth there doesn't change the point of the story, as far as I can see, and the point is what we are mainly talking about, so one's answer (if they have one) here isn't that important. If you think it changes how you should reflect my argument back to me, then explain that to me.

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.

The most valid [choice to view it] is as it treats the Serpent as the literal being because that it is obviously how it is written to be seen as. Just as "Lady Wisdom" is most obviously being written to be seen as a personification of wisdom.

Perhaps. If you can show how the literalness of the serpent changes how you should reflect my argument back, then let's explore why you think this.

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.

IF the story is to be treated as true, and the god as omniscient, THEN it was played out exactly as it was intended to play out, and in that, the Serpent was obviously a necessary factor in the play...

Omnsicience is not the same as controlling how things turn out.

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.

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?

That also leads one to wonder if indeed 'god' is also a personification of 'good' which in turn leads one to wonder if the god is not meant to be taken as a literal animate being either.

Sure, but everything must be looked at with its own evidence. I think it clear that the author of Genesis sees God as a being. God even calls His creations 'good' and doesn't call them Himself. Sure you could interpret that to fit nicely with your worldview (although you may want to use different terms), that pieces of GOD are made into the Universe, but that is clearly not the traditional Jewish understanding, which is the culture behind these texts.

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.
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.

So you [almost robotically] keep claiming.

That's clever. I mean that sincerely, friend.

The existence of temptation (whether embodied or not) does not implicate God as being "not as good as Christians believe." Free will logically requires humans to face that kind of choice. Free will is better than being a robot.

I am still waiting for your examples to show why this is actually the case.

I've given my reasons why I think libertarian free will is better. You've been responding to them.

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.

I would also add that it is possible the god placed Adam in an environment specifically better suited to robots because such an environments would be the best in which to show Adam playing out [externalizing] his distrust for the god.

It's possible, but the text doesn't support that.

Are 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. 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.

[The Tanager]

Sorry, I missed this post when I responded last:

I 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.

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.

The 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. If God did what you are saying, then humans would get the wrong idea.

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.

You 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). You may think the author is wrong, but that's not interpreting the author; it's disagreeing with the author. 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.

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.

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).

The 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.

The 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.

Look 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. 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 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.

If 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?

This 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.

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.

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?

Practically 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.

If 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?

My 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?

Free 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?

Any 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.

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.

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.

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.

My 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.

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.

One 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.

What 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 cliam 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. 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.

Yet 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.

The 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.

Not 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?

Out 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).

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.

In 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.

There 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.

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.

Indeed, 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.

Do 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.

Perhaps 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.

Why 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 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?

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.

Also, 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.

But 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 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.