Adam and Eve and the Apple

Your entire post can be boiled down into "if God isn't actually all knowing" and "this is what God actually meant"

If it takes a rocket scientist to decrypt God's word then it doesn't really do much good to people who lived thousands of years ago who didn't even know the world was round. These same people who didn't know the world was round also wrote the Bible. Take that for what you will.

I also want to point out this part So how do we determine what actually happened in the Bible and what didn't happen?
Does this just go back to the fall back argument of "don't take the Bible literally"?

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying, and I don't really appreciate you trying to undermind my opinion by simply generalizing it. I had to elaborate on it, so that you wouldn't make such rash analysis, which you unfortunately did anyway, so to further clarify the scenario, I'm stating your entire argument is just "God knows everything so why bother doing anything". Well, let me rephrase that "Set up scenarios that have a pre-destiny consequence". I'm saying such an assumption that he is all knowing just doesn't make sense. Creator, plausible, knows everything, nothing really backs that up. If he knew everything the human race probably wouldn't have been created with such greed, emotions would be less of a radical negative, why is their suffering just from being born. There's no..meaning to it, which lead to my assumption, or rather belief, that god didn't predetermine the results, he used temptation to see the results.

Now, was adam and eve a legitimate story? Who knows what in the bible is legitimate, some actually could be proven by todays science, but adam and eve, too me, seems like a fabricated, or more kid oriented tale with the moral of "resist temptation". I mean based on history, logical correlations, and/or cultural differences between now and then, it's pretty clear what was intended, what was exageratted, and what is plausibly the best explanation of the intentions of "why".

Which then goes back to God not being the all knowing being people believe him to be.... Which means he makes mistakes just like any human


-If he knew what would happen to Adam and Eve he's an all knowing being who toys around with his creations
-If he didn't know what would happen then he's not an all knowing being and makes mistakes just like humans do
-If it didn't actually happen then it's impossible to tell what's real and what's not in the Bible making the book nothing more than some life lessons

"God knows everything so why bother doing anything"

I'm fine with you generalizing my post like that because that's almost my point. He knew what would happen so why do it at all? If I can see into the future and know that if I buy this lottery ticket I'm not going to win, why would I buy it? God is basically the guy who buys the lottery ticket anyways.

I'm saying such an assumption that he is all knowing just doesn't make sense.

Why doesn't it make sense? Isn't this guy the creator of everything? Shouldn't he know everything? That's what I've heard at least. Are you trying to tell me he DOESN'T know everything? Which brings me back to point

-If he didn't know what would happen then he's not an all knowing being and makes mistakes just like humans do

Who knows what in the bible is legitimate,

Exactly ...... Who knows? And if we don't know, why do we have a religion on this stuff?

I remember hearing a quote before that went something like "Existence in all its form and splendor function solely on one principle, God is infallible"

Also, if we're not taking any of this stuff literally then what do we take literally? At some point there needs to be some kind of real going on for billions of people to die for the sake of this. For people to give up 10% of their hard earned money to this. For the churches to not pay taxes. For gay rights, abortion, and stem cell research to not be the center of argument that they are now. "Don't take it literally" is one of the crappiest arguments I have ever heard for something that has had such a huge impact on human life for thousands of years.

Im not being metaphorical nor am i really arguing but that is evidently moot. What i was saying is that you were and i suspect to some extent, still are, putting words in my mouth. Or treating my line of thinking like a preconceived typical notion that would come from someone you have expectations to disagree with on the subject, when those thoughts and those words actually have nothing to do with what i've said. It's very frustrating, as I have quite literally been repeating myself for several posts now and expect to do it again. Basically what i'm saying in the bit you quoted here is that you are disagreeing with things i haven't ever said and treating it like it is something i've said.

As far as I've seen I asked: "Why put the tree there?"
You answered: "It represents or gives the option of Free will

The problem is I'm asking WHY is tree necessary, why a tree of knowledge. Why was that and "Eden" the only way with no other options. You'd think a benevolent God would give more options then "choose me or suffer". Even a simple option of leaving the garden.

Or why you consider Free will can ONLY exist within this story if the tree exist. If we're freely living in the garden we still have free will.

It's pretty simple when we both know we are talking about the Judeo-Christian God. And i'm not coming from a position of faith or belief, but one of theology. So no, you don't need to understand what god i may or may not believe in as it is not what we are talking about. I could be muslim, catholic, hindi, buddhist, taoist, etc. take your pick, but that wouldn't change where i am coming from in relation to THIS particular topic. Which is related inherently to the origin story of man from the judeo-christian line of beliefs. It's pretty clear in the topic title.

Also just a special response to this bit of text:

Sorry that's not good enough. The above conversations are getting more into what I'm talking about such as defining what it means to be omnipotent. As well you can pull bible passage after bible passage and get dozens of different types of the same God. So just saying the Juedeo Christian God is not enough of an accurate description. As well it is necessary, if we were arguing about the Greek pantheon and you saw Zeus as a sympathetic character well that would change you're views on his actions.

I disagree. Seriously what contrived idea is this? In terms of the context of the particular god we are talking about this is beyond pointless. According to the whole mythology surrounding the relevant creator, he is inherently incomparable and incomprehensible. I don't and don't have to see the comparison of a creators relationship being the same or similar to a parent/child relationship no matter who may make that comparison or think it a sound one.

There isn't one defined set of properties for the judeo Christian God. Nearly for every passage of text that says one thing about his abilities there another that says something else. Even simply arguing the logic behind God's decision requires us to give him properties: If he's *blank* then he did *blank* for *blank* reason. Hell you even just gave him properties by saying "he is inherently incomparable and incomprehensible." (which in all honesty i can pull a few passages that would say otherwise). As well you we're the one that said that scenario wouldn't work and i asked you why, if you want to consider it something that doesn't work I'd like an explanation why. A lot of denominations define God as a LITERAL father of the universe
beyond a metaphorical sense.

In the specific context of man choosing to disobey or obey god (again, with relevance to the particular topic at hand) He could only choose too options. There was no option C. As I have said before, the tree is not what is important here. It's the decision. If man were never presented with a command to obey and a choice not to, Man would never have the opportunity to live outside the will of god. If man never had the opportunity not to obey it means he never had the choice not to. That means there would be no choice. And again, No choice = No free will and well, i'm not going to reiterate the rest.

And I'm essentially asking why those we're the only two options and why you seem to think those being the two options is the only way to represent free will.

As well I'm well aware the tree isn't what is important, but that's what I'm asking about: "Why the tree?" if you can not answer that then stop responding. You're literally doing the same thing you accused me of doing and assuming i don't assume what it represents. I'm well aware of it's symbolic representation of tree but that is not my concern.

The fact that you are even arguing what is essentially the expression that A = A makes me want to just put you on my ignore list and move on. You are taking something that i am saying that is very specific to a particular thing, and expanding it beyond it's means. And even then where you go with it is just nonsensical. You are seriously raising issue with me saying that if your choices are A. or A. you only have one option and therefor no choice. I can't continue a logical discussion with someone who would really think there is room to disagree there. The entire universe is stacked against you on this one.

I supposed I argued from a philosophical sense within "A" being then end goal and i essentially said it's how we approach "A" that defines free will.

I want to eat from an apple tree(A), I have the free will to choose from which tree and which apple. Even if there are no other options in terms which fruit to eat from I still have free will in that scenario.

As I and a few others have said in the topic, the tree is not the imporant thing. The choice is. I refer to the two with some interchangability in this discussion because that is how the biblical story is. It's a tree. Pretending it's something else to illustrate the idea that it isnt about a tree is not going to get us anywhere.

Well to bad. As i said before you are accusing me of what you think I'm accusing of you of. To be perfectly blunt I know virtually everything about this story from a literal and metaphorical sense. The only thing i don't know is the question I'm asking. If you do not find it important or can not answer it then do not respond to me.

You're still focused on the wrong thing. It is not about the tree, it's about there being a choice. In the story the choice revolves around a tree if you don't like that talk to a bible.

I'm making it about the tree I'm well aware of what it represents. Once again if you can't answer me beyond "the tree isn't important" and can't grasp I'm not asking for it's metaphorical properties or it's symbolism (considering i already know that) within the story then kindly stop responding because you're wasting both of our time.

Those too things aren't quite the same. I don't think if the authory said actually environmental he meant environmental. Sure that could be part of it, but it's also undeniably humanitarian and at certain parts expressly specific towards events of religious history. The main point i was ever making here is that there is so much more to this message than "save the whales"

You do realize an environmental message can go beyond "save the whales". It can just say "we need to be responsible for our actions" and i think this is what the song says.

Which then goes back to God not being the all knowing being people believe him to be.... Which means he makes mistakes just like any human

Or any other animal/entity with the ability to think correct? I don't understand why you say "goes back too", I'm not refuting that, if anything I'm supporting that.

-If he knew what would happen to Adam and Eve he's an all knowing being who toys around with his creations

Which contradicts his teachings, or rather, claimed what his teachings are/were.

-If he didn't know what would happen then he's not an all knowing being and makes mistakes just like humans do

Refer to my scientist->germ comparison on my thoughts on that.

-If it didn't actually happen then it's impossible to tell what's real and what's not in the Bible making the book nothing more than some life lessons

The bible is a mixture of moral guidelines a long with some history. That's how I interpret it, and thats how a lot of researchers claim to look at it. Though the parting of the red sea is surprisingly not only plausible but may have had actually happened.

I'm fine with you generalizing my post like that because that's almost my point. He knew what would happen so why do it at all? If I can see into the future and know that if I buy this lottery ticket I'm not going to win, why would I buy it? God is basically the guy who buys the lottery ticket anyways.
Why doesn't it make sense? Isn't this guy the creator of everything? Shouldn't he know everything? That's what I've heard at least.

I'm sure when you were a in your earlier stages of life you thought your parents knew everything. What is too say a young culture unable to explain a lot of happenings, who weren't very educated, thought the same thing when this "god" or "higher power" was thrown in as the explanation. You and I can create a lot of things, do we know everything? No, so why should we assume that "god" just sees dark matter in a different perspective than our retina's see and was able to create based on an understanding of that? It's like saying a doctor has all the knowledge in the world because he performed one successful treatment never done before.

Are you trying to tell me he DOESN'T know everything? Which brings me back to point

-If he didn't know what would happen then he's not an all knowing being and makes mistakes just like humans do

I still don't know where I contradicted or even confronted that point.

Exactly ...... Who knows? And if we don't know, why do we have a religion on this stuff?

Faith there is more than a modernized "work now, retire later, live 20 years of my life in my own accord as my body clunks out", which in todays age, a lot of people don't even experience that. Faith there is possibly a higher justice, for those who got away with their wrongs, and a faith that someone will forgive them. We are the only creature in the world that looks up to a higher power, for answers, everything else lives off instinct, but their worlds are a lot more rash and chaotic than ours. We have a control, I can't justify religion, I can give reason's for it's existance, but I can't tell you it was the best thing to ever happen to man. What I can tell you that it was one of the key factors of holding a civilation together and allowing us to evolve pass the ignorance of "He's the answer to everything" which I chuckle, is an irony in itself.

I remember hearing a quote before that went something like "Existence in all its form and splendor function solely on one principle, God is infallible"

Also, if we're not taking any of this stuff literally then what do we take literally? At some point there needs to be some kind of real going on for billions of people to die for the sake of this. For people to give up 10% of their hard earned money to this. For the churches to not pay taxes. For gay rights, abortion, and stem cell research to not be the center of argument that they are now. "Don't take it literally" is one of the crappiest arguments I have ever heard for something that has had such a huge impact on human life for thousands of years.

The forewarning is because the bible has not changed all that much over the last thousands of years. Culture has, I'm pretty sure animal sacrifices aren't a daily routine in your neighborhood. The bible has history, accurate history is questionable, but moral messages are pretty sound.

Then I don't understand what needs discussion. Why do people believe in God? There's no logical reason to do so.

Faith there is more than a modernized "work now, retire later, live 20 years of my life in my own accord as my body clunks out", which in todays age, a lot of people don't even experience that. Faith there is possibly a higher justice, for those who got away with their wrongs, and a faith that someone will forgive them. We are the only creature in the world that looks up to a higher power, for answers, everything else lives off instinct, but their worlds are a lot more rash and chaotic than ours. We have a control, I can't justify religion, I can give reason's for it's existance, but I can't tell you it was the best thing to ever happen to man. What I can tell you that it was one of the key factors of holding a civilation together and allowing us to evolve pass the ignorance of "He's the answer to everything" which I chuckle, is an irony in itself.

If he's not the answer to everything then what is he? People treat him as the answer to everything. Sin as much as you want, you can deus ex machina your way out of hell by asking God for forgiveness.

Maybe religion did help us evolve. Maybe it did hold civilizations together. Thank you for that religion, but haven't we as a human race gone past that stage? If I think of religion as a parent that teaches me right from wrong as I grow up, doesn't that mean that later on in life (humankind) as I mature I don't need my parent (religion) any more, and I should be able to function by myself?

If I think of religion as a parent that teaches me right from wrong as I grow up, doesn't that mean that later on in life (humankind) as I mature I don't need my parent (religion) any more, and I should be able to function by myself?

We still love and cherish our parents after we've moved out on our own, and still follow the things they've taught us and respect the things they've instilled in us.

you make a good point but we aren't really hooked to our parent's hip when we get older. Remembering their teachings as we do get older is a great analogy for religion though.

No, but we do tend to stay in touch and remain connected to them.
That's the reason most people ultimately believe in a religion, not necessarily for the specifics, but for wanting to believe in something and to be connected to something.
Everyone knows their parents may not be the best, and they may not get along with them perfectly or understand them explicitly, but they're yours and most people appreciate having a parent-figure of some kind over the alternative of being orphaned.

Then I don't understand what needs discussion. Why do people believe in God? There's no logical reason to do so.

When was this ever questioned as logical? Faith isn't logic it's just belief. I merely offered my perspective and disagreed with your logic that god knows everything.

If he's not the answer to everything then what is he? People treat him as the answer to everything. Sin as much as you want, you can deus ex machina your way out of hell by asking God for forgiveness.

Creator=/=answer to everything. I can create a disease, I can create life, hell you can create life, yet our intelligence is moderately the same in a general aspect. It's funny how scientifically the biggest colllisions, black holes, circle around eachother in the same formation as an atom. Life itself evidently does have a formula, but knowing one formula is not meaning to know all of them. The reason why God forgives though who "confess" is simply another sales pitch for "acknowledge me or go to hell". Which, applying logic, sound like a human "I'm right about my beliefs, you aren't" rather than a man who created life intentionally or unintentionally and see how well they fair.

Maybe religion did help us evolve. Maybe it did hold civilizations together. Thank you for that religion, but haven't we as a human race gone past that stage? If I think of religion as a parent that teaches me right from wrong as I grow up, doesn't that mean that later on in life (humankind) as I mature I don't need my parent (religion) any more, and I should be able to function by myself?

Who's denying that? But people in poverty or just have hard times, they just want belief or faith into something. I don't use such a thing as a support, but some people do, even as form of unity, getting together ect ect. It can be used as even just a social experience, which my Aunt does. Religion doesn't make everyone suddenly ignorant, but it does bring a tad of optimism in their life. Is it worth the exchange of forever being the scapegoat of human war? Probably not, and I'm sure that wasn't god's intention either.

Well I'm glad there's someone out there who realizes that it's impossible for God to be perfect. That doesn't exactly speak for a huge chunk of people though.

Question though - Why do we need him to forgive sin?

Also, we are trying to find the formula for everything
http://bigthink.com/ideas/20121

Well I'm glad there's someone out there who realizes that it's impossible for God to be perfect. That doesn't exactly speak for a huge chunk of people though.

I believe god could possibly be an entity rather than a tangible person or planet or such.

Question though - Why do we need him to forgive sin?

I don't believe in this at all. I believe it's a gimmick in order to put more traffic in churches, back when it was instituted, to join the church for their jail out of free card. I really find it hard to believe, rather irrational that I'll spend the rest of the life in hell being burnt a live over and over again for stealing a pack of gum. Punishment I would figure would be in proportion to your "sin".

On that note, eternity is a longggg time. So wouldn't every imaginable torture in hell either get old, or our body get used to the pain. I mean pain is a warning to our brain that it's in trouble, it hurt's, its dangerous. Well you're already dead, you know this being ripped alive constantly like it was part of your breakfast. By that point I'd think your brain would be immuned to the nervs signals.

Also, we are trying to find the formula for everything
http://bigthink.com/ideas/20121

That was what I was referring too earlier.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of an illimitable superior force that reveals itself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
- Albert Einstein

If there is a God, he wouldn't have given us a brain if he didn't want us to use it. I've seen no proof for God, so I don't offer my obeisance to any known deities, but I still uphold the morals and ethics of the Judeo-Christian system of beliefs. I also know that God doesn't sanction using his name to commit atrocities and start wars.

That's just my beliefs on the issue.

Kinda funny that you see no proof of God but you clearly know that he doesn't sanction using his name to commit atrocities and start wars. If you've seen no proof of God, as you said, then how can you make such a statement about his wills and wishes?

"I see no proof that a Pink Unicorn exists, but I know for darn sure the Pink Unicorn doesn't sanction his name be used to start wars or atrocities."

Just seems like a very strange statement.

Kinda funny that you see no proof of God but you clearly know that he doesn't sanction using his name to commit atrocities and start wars. If you've seen no proof of God, as you said, then how can you make such a statement about his wills and wishes?

"I see no proof that a Pink Unicorn exists, but I know for darn sure the Pink Unicorn doesn't sanction his name be used to start wars or atrocities."

Just seems like a very strange statement.

I can see how you would interpret it that would from the syntax, but at the same time, I know you're just trying to be extra clever. The second sentence was supposed to flow from the first - I don't believe in God, but if I were to pretend that he exists, then I know that he wouldn't want anyone to commit all the crimes that have been done in his name.

Of all the things you could have picked apart, I wonder why you chose the one that's against murder and war.

In any case, you're over thinking the entire issue. The quote I posted is the point I wanted to nail home; be in reverence of the splendor of nature and drop all of these arguments. It's like a bunch of children making up a game and then arguing about the rules. You're all embarrassingly ill-equipped to argue most of these topics, anyway. To be quite frank, I've heard better theological arguments from some of the freshmen I TA in philosophy 101.

EDIT: I read some more of the responses and I feel embarrassed for some of you. Had any of you bothered to take even the most of philosophy classes you'd know about the scads of atheist and theological responses to the problems with God's omniscience. I'll cut to the point: people in support of God say that he can know all, but chooses not to, circumventing the issue (supposedly). Other philosophers have said that there can be a dichotomy at the point of incidence (of an event) where there is a binary state of knowing and not knowing that God occupies at the same time. Look it up.

Nah, I'm just an agnostic which is why I picked at that part of the argument. You seem to be a gnostic, which isn't a bad thing of course, but is completely opposite of what I believe. I'm not trying to be clever, just pointing out something which sounds strange to me. No arguments to win here as there's nothing worth winning. Man has been arguing about this for hundreds of years and I doubt it's going to end here.

I'm pretty agnostic to be honest, I'm just a fair one. I don't buy into God, but at the same time, you have to admit that there is something special about us. We're self-replicating automatons capable of deluding our perceptions to facilitate a multi-stage gestation and maturation cycle with seemingly no explicit purpose.

It all boils down to you and your mortality. We all have to come to grips with the fact that they're we're going to die and nothing we do will stop this. Religion offers a comforting answer to some universal questions (universal in size and commonality). I envy those who believe in God to some degree. They have a conviction and belief in their life that I simply don't. People need to believe in something, it's just how we are, I guess.

Kinda funny that you see no proof of God but you clearly know that he doesn't sanction using his name to commit atrocities and start wars. If you've seen no proof of God, as you said, then how can you make such a statement about his wills and wishes?

"I see no proof that a Pink Unicorn exists, but I know for darn sure the Pink Unicorn doesn't sanction his name be used to start wars or atrocities."

Just seems like a very strange statement.

I SEE WUT U DONE THUR.

It's like how asops fables actually only apply to turtles who race rabbits.

OWAIT

I SEE WUT I DONE THUR.

God told Adam and Eve not to eat the apple that contained the knowledge of good and evil, correct?

Then how would Adam and Eve know to follow the word of god if they did not yet have knowledge of good and evil? They did not know what they did was wrong, so how could god possibly expect them to follow his words?

The way I see it, knowledge does lead to certain belief, but the opposite isnt always true. When I was young for example, my mom would tell me not to do something, and lets assume I was obedient and listened. I didnt have the required knowledge to know why it was wrong and why I should not do that "something", yet, I have faith in the words of an elder. You dont tend to need knowledge to follow orders assume that it is absolute.