Author Topic: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.  (Read 848 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Genesis alludes to quite a bit of time passing before the Eve and the talking snake thing and describes the perfect garden, so theologically speaking, was the garden of Eden heaven? Why did Adam and Eve not have to spend their waking hours praising god like they supposedly will in heaven. Why was the Garden of eden not paved with gold and jewels? Why would god have been displeased with his first "heaven" to do a great redesign for heaven 2? 
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1196
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Re: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2012, 09:18:07 AM »
The Bible doesn't give us a ton of details on Eden before getting into The Fall, but from what we have, it was not heaven.  Rather, it was like the ideal version of Earth.  Or, another way to think of it, it was like the opening scenes in a disaster movie before the disaster hits.
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2012, 03:35:59 PM »
Yes, I know it wasn't the same, but the question is begged, why was it not the same? Unless god planned it to fail, then it should have been a perfect place, a perfect creation. A better place was not alluded to at this time. God supposedly strolled the garden of Eden and with Adam either full time or as a frequent visitor, but if he really preferred a heaven with unending everlasting praises by humans, why didn't he create this in the first place? Why was god so dense?
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1196
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Re: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2012, 07:19:12 PM »
It appears that, for some reason or another, in order for it to be a complete creation it required free will.  Perhaps the denseness would have been making Eden a place where breaking the rules wasn't possible.
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline Bereft_of_Faith

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 919
  • Darwins +39/-2
Re: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.
« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2012, 01:52:34 AM »
Yes, I know it wasn't the same, but the question is begged, why was it not the same? Unless god planned it to fail, then it should have been a perfect place, a perfect creation. A better place was not alluded to at this time. God supposedly strolled the garden of Eden and with Adam either full time or as a frequent visitor, but if he really preferred a heaven with unending everlasting praises by humans, why didn't he create this in the first place? Why was god so dense?

Possible bible context answer:  God walked around the earthly garden when it was perfect.  After the fall, it wasn't fit for his feet, nor were our eyes fit to see him.  He was pissed.

Atheist answer: It seems that the more primitive notions of god(s) put him on a mountain top, in the ark, or in the temple rather than in a heaven.  Heaven seems to have been elaborated upon and expanded by later theology; principally xian.   Genesis was an early story adapted from an even earlier story, so a more earthly god was not unusual. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the god-praising all day long thing was from Revelation ('Holy holy holy')??, which I think is unsupported by the rest of the bible (it's been a while, sorry)

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2718
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2012, 04:13:05 AM »
It appears that, for some reason or another, in order for it to be a complete creation it required free will.  Perhaps the denseness would have been making Eden a place where breaking the rules wasn't possible.

If it required "free will" (a term not used in the OT), then why did God tell them not to eat of it? Shouldn't God have given them the option and truth, and explained free will, so we could all understand it from a QM perspective?

The tree was for knowledge of good and evil, not for making humans have free will. Adam and Eve had the perfect free will to walk around butt-naked, which is a sin.

The story of Eden is a Just-So story, to explain why humans know good from evil. It's totally wrong, because most intelligent mammals seem to know good and evil, without eating from magic trees. Hey, but Genesis is wrong about so many things, who's counting?

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6698
  • Darwins +533/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2012, 06:52:58 AM »
Genesis alludes to quite a bit of time passing before the Eve and the talking snake thing and describes the perfect garden, so theologically speaking, was the garden of Eden heaven?
No. As with other creation myths, Genesis only attempt to explain the present human condition on earth. How mankind came about, why there are bad things in the world, why we have to work, why there are men and women; basically, why things are the way they are.
Quote
Why did Adam and Eve not have to spend their waking hours praising god like they supposedly will in heaven.
The garden was Paradise and they were immortal and they were in the presence of God. They were also uneducated. There is little to suggest that Adam was anything more than a puppet.

Quote
Why was the Garden of Eden not paved with gold and jewels?
What use would they have been? Adam and Eve had everything.

The idea of cool, lush gardens are a very common theme in Middle Eastern folk tales. This is obviously in contrast to the hot, dry and harsh environment in that area. It creates in the mind of the desert-dwelling, Bronze-Age nomad listener a Utopia beyond his wildest dreams.
Quote
Why would god have been displeased with his first "heaven" to do a great redesign for heaven 2?
The case had changed. A paradise on earth cannot be the same as a paradise in heaven. The earthly paradise is comprised of earthly things; the heavenly one can have anything.

Genesis is a story of Paradise Lost through our own folly. (see the poem by Milton) Yes, it is not a particularly good story when you examine it, but neither is “Goldilocks and The Three Bears” which requires you to believe that bears speak, live in houses and have all the trappings that humans have.

Both have their part in teaching primitive people a lesson of some sort. It is merely unfortunate that some people take Genesis seriously and not in the same way as any other folk tale. (They do this despite

For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision [i.e., the Jews]: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. Titus 1:10-14)
« Last Edit: June 24, 2012, 06:55:59 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2012, 09:38:26 AM »

The garden was Paradise and they were immortal and they were in the presence of God.

The comments so far have been true enough but are a bit off my intended topic, which is that if god made Paradise #1, the garden of Eden and then makes Paradise #2 Heaven, then why did he not use the same architectural plans? Were either imperfect? I would much much rather die and go to the garden of Eden than the Heaven described in the new testament. Wouldn't you also rather go to Eden than heaven?
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1196
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Re: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2012, 11:43:34 AM »
If it required "free will" (a term not used in the OT), then why did God tell them not to eat of it? Shouldn't God have given them the option and truth, and explained free will, so we could all understand it from a QM perspective?
QM perspective?

God told them not to eat the fruit so that they would have the option to disobey.  If the choice was not there, how could there be free will?

Quote
The tree was for knowledge of good and evil, not for making humans have free will.
Exercising their free will is what gave Adam and Even the knowledge of good and evil.

Quote
It's totally wrong, because most intelligent mammals seem to know good and evil, without eating from magic trees. Hey, but Genesis is wrong about so many things, who's counting?
Do they?  Animals can follow rules, but I don't know that they place a value on them.
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2111
  • Darwins +132/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.
« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2012, 12:19:19 PM »
Exercising their free will is what gave Adam and Even the knowledge of good and evil.

Mooby, is it still free will if God knows what choice his plan has designed for them to make?
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1196
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Re: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2012, 01:55:06 PM »
Yes.  I do not subscribe to the notion that prior knowledge of an action forces that action to happen.  Consequently, I do not consider theological fatalism to be a valid criticism.
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2111
  • Darwins +132/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2012, 03:04:14 PM »
Yes.  I do not subscribe to the notion that prior knowledge of an action forces that action to happen.  Consequently, I do not consider theological fatalism to be a valid criticism.

If we're talking about the deist's god then I agree with you. But I don't think the Judeo-Christian god can escape the paradox of free will. Perhaps we can discuss it in a more appropriate thread.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1196
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Re: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.
« Reply #12 on: June 24, 2012, 04:48:47 PM »
Be my guest.
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2718
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.
« Reply #13 on: June 25, 2012, 04:21:00 AM »
God told them not to eat the fruit so that they would have the option to disobey.  If the choice was not there, how could there be free will?

They had free will, prior to being told not to eat the fruit.

"and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:"
"wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

They could have chosen not to subdue the Earth, and they could have chosen cannibalism. They could have chosen to eat from the tree of knowledge, without being told not to. The fact that they chose to eat the fruit, after being told not to, shows that they already had free will, but did not realise that disobeying God was evil.

I have the free will to stomp my feet on the ground, and it requires no knowledge of good and evil. Adam could have buggered Eve, but not known that it was evil, until after he ate from the tree.

God did not want them to eat the fruit, because he told them not to. The Bible tells me so.

Quote
Exercising their free will is what gave Adam and Even the knowledge of good and evil.

No. Eating from a tree that God put there, is what did it.

Quote
Do they?  Animals can follow rules, but I don't know that they place a value on them.

Yes. Orcas, chimps and dolphins can be complete bastards, and they know they are being bastards. Any idea that humans have some unique knowledge of "good and evil" is chauvinism, and you have to prove that animals don't know good and evil, not just say so. The burden of proof is on you, to show that humans are unique in this way. Our knowledge of animal behaviour is changing all the time, so make sure you include data from studies in 2030.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1196
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Re: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.
« Reply #14 on: June 25, 2012, 09:08:03 AM »
"and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:"
"wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

They could have chosen not to subdue the Earth, and they could have chosen cannibalism. They could have chosen to eat from the tree of knowledge, without being told not to. The fact that they chose to eat the fruit, after being told not to, shows that they already had free will, but did not realise that disobeying God was evil.
How does it show the latter?

And yes, they could have chosen to disobey those commands, though it's also important to note that those commands are part of a different, less ancient creation story.

Quote
God did not want them to eat the fruit, because he told them not to. The Bible tells me so.
In which verse does it state that God didn't want it?

Quote
Orcas, chimps and dolphins can be complete bastards, and they know they are being bastards.
Do you mean that they understand morality in terms of good and evil, or are they acting according to social rules, or something else?

Quote
Any idea that humans have some unique knowledge of "good and evil" is chauvinism
Questioning something rather than blindly accepting it is aggressive and fanatical?  Awha?

Quote
you have to prove that animals don't
You're asking me to prove a negative?

Quote
The burden of proof is on you, to show that humans are unique in this way.
No sir.  You made the claim that animals have Property X.  The burden of proof is on you to prove your own assertion.  I replied with "do they?" and "I don't know," which are very low burden assertions.

The fact that you have to (even jokingly) appeal to nonexistent knowledge shows that you have your burden backwards: if your side is still gathering evidence to show it is true, and that evidence will show my side false, then your side has the burden because that is the side where evidence makes the largest difference.

I don't think I've seen a more classic example of shifting the burden of proof than your post.
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2718
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.
« Reply #15 on: June 25, 2012, 11:29:19 AM »
And yes, they could have chosen to disobey those commands, though it's also important to note that those commands are part of a different, less ancient creation story.

Oh. Sorry for mixing up my creation stories. (I knew I was doing that at the time.) Here was I, thinking that anything written in Genesis could be quoted as truth. You (I assume) are arguing that Genesis is truth, otherwise, I don't know why you bother typing.

Quote
In which verse does it state that God didn't want it?

2:17; where he specifically says "don't", and issues a death threat. We are entering new territory here, where God puts down laws, and wants us to transgress them.

Quote
Do you mean that they understand morality in terms of good and evil, or are they acting according to social rules, or something else?

I mean that human philosophers can't even consistently define what "good and evil" is, but when it comes to animals, certain people know that animals can't tell the difference, because they didn't eat from a magic tree. Actually, I don't think the bible writers put much thought into animals. They thought that insects had 4 legs, and never studied Bonobos and Merecats in great detail.

Quote
Questioning something rather than blindly accepting it is aggressive and fanatical?  Awha?

Not following you, here.

Quote
You're asking me to prove a negative?

Well, yes, you have to, because I can see when animals can tell good and evil, but you will, for the sake of winning your argument about a magic tree, pretend that it's not really them having a rudimentary sense of "good and evil", but something else. So, when a dog trashes my sofa, and then runs away and cringes in the corner, you will say "that's training", or "being submissive to a master"... you won't admit that the dog has learned, in exactly the same way that children do, that trashing things, or being aggressive is bad. When Bonobos start having sex when their anxiety levels rise, you won't admit that Bonobos don't like confrontation, and need to always be at peace with their brothers (Matt 5:23), because they have morality... you'll come up with something else.

You have to prove "a negative", which as you put it, may be impossible. Many Christians come in here, and say that morals come from God, but in order to prove that is true, they really have to demonstrate that morals could not have come from man, or anywhere else. They have to do this, because God will not sign a note for them. How would you go about proving that, since we are the ones writing the moral books? It's not my fault, if the things Christians want to prove are impossible to prove.

Quote
Quote
The burden of proof is on you, to show that humans are unique in this way.
No sir.  You made the claim that animals have Property X.  The burden of proof is on you to prove your own assertion.  I replied with "do they?" and "I don't know," which are very low burden assertions.

If I changed my mind about who needs to show proof, it doesn't let you off the hook. You spotted it because I changed my mind. Are you really going to admit that animals can see good and evil, or will you just keep arguing? The burden of proof is for Christians to show that animals don't have "free will", and can't tell the difference between "good and evil". (Both these concepts are badly defined, and perhaps meaningless in the case of free will, which you seemed to be conflating.) If knowledge of good and evil is just a product of intelligence, and evolved social behaviour in animals, then it's got nothing to do with eating magic fruit.

Quote
The fact that you have to (even jokingly) appeal to nonexistent knowledge shows that you have your burden backwards:

Newer animal behaviour studies are showing that there were idiotic assumptions in earlier studies, which falsely evaluated the minds of animals. I may want to appeal to more advanced knowledge of animal psychology, to prove my first assertion*, but that does not mean that Christians don't have the burden to prove the opposite. There is ample evidence in current studies that animals have a well developed sense of what is right and wrong, and certainly "free will" as much as we have, but perhaps not enough evidence to convince someone who wants to argue that Noah put ALL the animals onto the ark.

(*This is unprovable anyway, since Christians think they own the concept of good and evil; will never define what good and evil is, or will move the goal posts.)

Quote
if your side is still gathering evidence to show it is true, and that evidence will show my side false, then your side has the burden because that is the side where evidence makes the largest difference.

Exactly how much evidence do you want? Even one example of moral behaviour (to my satisfaction) in a pig or bonobo shows that animals know good and evil, without a magic tree. Genesis is written in a way that says there was no knowledge of good and evil (in humans), prior to eating the magic fruit. Perhaps I'm jumping the gun, and animals were created with knowledge of good and evil, and free will, and humans were created retarded. My initial assumption was that animals could be a control group, to compare whether humans were given knowledge of good and evil from a magic tree, however, I seem to have given you a way out, that you would not have thought of. Perhaps you should give me a -1 again, and claim to have won the argument.

Quote
I don't think I've seen a more classic example of shifting the burden of proof than your post.

I shifted it to where it should be, in all pointless arguments.

You seem to have realized that you were conflating "free will" with knowledge of "good and evil", because you didn't follow up on it.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1196
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Re: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.
« Reply #16 on: June 25, 2012, 06:36:46 PM »
Oh. Sorry for mixing up my creation stories. (I knew I was doing that at the time.) Here was I, thinking that anything written in Genesis could be quoted as truth. You (I assume) are arguing that Genesis is truth, otherwise, I don't know why you bother typing.
You'll see that I addressed them as such, but also felt it was relevant to point out that they are not part of the creation story in Genesis 2-3, and consequently are not addressed in that story.  Why did you intentionally bring up something that you knew at the time wasn't relevant?  Was it intended as a red herring?

The OP is about the theological implications of Adam and Eve, not the historiography.  Are you intentionally trying to distract me from the thread topic?

Quote
2:17; where he specifically says "don't", and issues a death threat. We are entering new territory here, where God puts down laws, and wants us to transgress them.
The story simply gives us a command and consequence.  We can conclude neither that He wanted us to or didn't want us to transgress the command.  The only thing we can conclude is that God gave Adam and Eve the option.

Quote
Quote
Questioning something rather than blindly accepting it is aggressive and fanatical?  Awha?

Not following you, here.
You stated that any idea contrary to your unsubstantiated (therefore, blind from my point of view) claim that animals know the difference between good and evil is chauvinism.  Chauvinism is an aggressive or fanatical devotion to one's own team.

Quote
You have to prove "a negative", which as you put it, may be impossible. Many Christians come in here, and say that morals come from God, but in order to prove that is true, they really have to demonstrate that morals could not have come from man, or anywhere else. They have to do this, because God will not sign a note for them. How would you go about proving that, since we are the ones writing the moral books? It's not my fault, if the things Christians want to prove are impossible to prove.
I didn't barge in here trying to prove anything.  You made a claim, I asked if it was true.  Here is nearly identical dialogue using something sillier:

You: "I have a billion quarters in my pocket."
Me: "Do you?  I don't know that pockets that size could hold a billion quarters!"
You: "The burden of proof is on you to show that my pockets can't hold a billion quarters!"
Me: "No sir.  You made the claim that you have a billion quarters.  I simply asked if it's true.  It is not my burden to prove you don't have the quarters, or that your pockets couldn't hold that many quarters--it is your burden to prove your original claim."

Now, it's up to you to prove your own claims.  I'm not going to do your legwork for you.

Quote
Are you really going to admit that animals can see good and evil
I have seen no evidence of it.  Therefore, I see no reason to accept it.

Quote
(Both these concepts are badly defined, and perhaps meaningless in the case of free will, which you seemed to be conflating.)
This may make it more difficult for you to prove your claim, then.

Quote
Exactly how much evidence do you want?
I'd like to see a study that shows animals are capable of higher order moral reasoning.  Something roughly equivalent to Kohlberg's postconventional levels, autonomous phase reasoning, or some similar indicator that animals are capable of judging acts on a good/evil axis rather than on an acceptable/unacceptable axis.

Quote
You seem to have realized that you were conflating "free will" with knowledge of "good and evil", because you didn't follow up on it.
No, I consider them two different things.  I just haven't deemed it relevant to make a distinction, as I've barely commented on either of them.  You'll note that the only real comment I've made about either of them is when I stated I reject theological fatalism (which is about free will.)  Otherwise, I am just mentioning them as they are relevant to the story.

Now, do you have a point, or are you going to continue to run around making wild claims about who has the burden of proof and what I'm conflating?  I don't mind responding to your questions, but if it's all the same to you I'd rather skip your theatrics and get down to your core criticisms.
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6698
  • Darwins +533/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.
« Reply #17 on: June 26, 2012, 01:17:54 PM »
Yes.  I do not subscribe to the notion that prior knowledge of an action forces that action to happen.  Consequently, I do not consider theological fatalism to be a valid criticism.
How would that work? I know your future but you do not enact it? So what did I know?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6698
  • Darwins +533/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.
« Reply #18 on: June 26, 2012, 01:52:52 PM »

Quote
2:17; where he specifically says "don't", and issues a death threat. We are entering new territory here, where God puts down laws, and wants us to transgress them.
The story simply gives us a command and consequence.  We can conclude neither that He wanted us to or didn't want us to transgress the command.  .
Your statement seems to contradict an absolute fact stated by the deity who is, apparently, truthful. A deity who might be able to make himself clear in a language that Adam understood and that we may understand today.

Here is what God said:
Ge:2:16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Ge:2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


Now, what part of that is giving you difficulty?
Quote
The only thing we can conclude is that God gave Adam and Eve the option
Your conclusion is not supported by the facts and seems to diverge wildly from reality. Can you see the verb "command" in the verse?

Can you see that "option" is the wrong word?  An option is what I get when I survey the dessert menu. A command backed by a death threat...? Is that "an option"? No.

When your father said to you, "Clean that mess up or I'll tan your hide!" (or similar words, did you perhaps reply, "Could you repeat those options?" Of course you did not.

There is no option here, there is a direct and clear command. A statement by a deity that he had the power to carry out the threat. If I said to you, "Don't touch that keyboard, or you will die!", I'm not really giving you an option, am I?

If there were any real option, we would see that God offered other options - he didn't.

I suggest that a reasonable person, given the above, would see your use of "option" as purposely chosen to deceive. You probably did not intend this, but that is certainly the way it reads.

Anyway, now we have cleared that up, tell me, do you accept that Genesis is a compilations of at least two creation myths?

 
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1196
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Re: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.
« Reply #19 on: June 27, 2012, 03:07:55 PM »
How would that work? I know your future but you do not enact it? So what did I know?
You knew my future, of course.

The problem is that there's a gap in the reasoning, and theological fatalism offers nothing to fill the gap.  It doesn't offer a mechanism for why I had to do the action; it just supposes the action had to happen because it was known in advance.

1. A knows B will do X.
2. ???
3. B does X.

Therefore, because of ???, free will doesn't exist.

I simply don't find ??? to be a very strong argument.  When ??? gets replaced by something concrete, I will reevaluate it.

Also, that criticism begins to unwind if we conceptualize possible choices as simultaneous alternate universes, as in that case omniscience may involve being able to see all universes at once, while we'd have a forced perspective of one universe.

So those are my two main objections to the criticism, which both stem from the same problem: the criticism relies on its critique being self-evident, and it's not self-evident to me, so I have no reason to accept it.


Quote
Your statement seems to contradict an absolute fact stated by the deity who is, apparently, truthful. A deity who might be able to make himself clear in a language that Adam understood and that we may understand today.

Here is what God said:
Ge:2:16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Ge:2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
The deity does not state anything about what He wants.  He states a command, and givesa consequence.  Everything outside of that is inference.

My statement would only contradict this:
Ge: 2:17.5: I do not want this to happen.


Quote
Can you see that "option" is the wrong word?  An option is what I get when I survey the dessert menu. A command backed by a death threat...? Is that "an option"? No.
I don't want this to devolve into semantics.  Adam and Eve had the ability to make a decision, or they had an option, or they had informed consent, or they had a choice, or the ability to apply reason to two or more outcomes and select one of them.


Quote
Anyway, now we have cleared that up, tell me, do you accept that Genesis is a compilations of at least two creation myths?
It's fairly well accepted among scholars that Genesis 1-2:3 is one creation story, while Genesis 2:4-3 is a second, older creation story.  I see no reason to dispute that, so yes, I accept it.  I don't know whether Genesis 4 is part of the same story or a different story with the same characters, while Genesis 5 certainly looks like a transition between these stories and Noah.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2012, 03:11:04 PM by Mooby »
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2200
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.
« Reply #20 on: June 27, 2012, 04:16:26 PM »
1. A knows B will do X.
2. ???
3. B does X.

Therefore, because of ???, free will doesn't exist.

I simply don't find ??? to be a very strong argument.  When ??? gets replaced by something concrete, I will reevaluate it.

1. A knows B will do X
2. B must do X (because B lacks free will)
3. B does X

Seems to be pretty simple, with a 100% success rate, but let's try it your way, shall we?

1. A knows B will do X
2. B may do X (because B has free will)
3. B does X

When does B not do X?


Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Online bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1427
  • Darwins +51/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the "Apple" episode.
« Reply #21 on: June 27, 2012, 05:39:59 PM »
Here's another.

1, A knows B will do X
2, B must do X  (but Mooby says B has free will, so B could do Y)
It is predetermined however that B will do X as A can see the future and knows the outcome of B's alleged choice, which of course negates B's said choice, because it isn't possible for B to choose Y.
3, B of course does X.

When is it ever possible for B to do Y.

Therefore B has no free will.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2012, 05:42:35 PM by bertatberts »
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12