Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sparky,

Someone here want to ridicule Adam and Eve??.

Er, no. Any ridicule would be directed at people daft enough to think there actually was an Adam & Eve.

The rest of your post fails accordingly.

PS Your notion of "God" as a Charterered Surveyor is rather sweet though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the I Lost So I’m Sulking-ist,

This from someone who wants to talk about Adam and Eve apparently with a straight face?

Blimey.

No, that’s not the point at all. This “God” of yours could have “warned them” of anything “He” liked – regardless of any response at all to that warning, the answer would have appeared to them though to be a good one if “all they knew was good”. There could have been no bad answer if they had no concept of "bad". That's the point.

Wrong again for the reason I just explained and you keep avoiding.

I “worked it out” before you did (or have). Do let me know when you figure out where you’ve gone wrong this time though.

Hillside My aim was to refute the unjustified assertion that God set Adam and Eve up for a fall..and I have.
Myth it may be but these stories have a point. I do not ,may I remind you buy into your Bronze Age goat herder idea which is of course appeal to modernity.

To recap the myth is about breach of trust and wanting it all. Not God setting mankind up for a moral fall. We do that ourselves.

Happy turdpolishing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Revisonist,

Hillside My aim was to refute the unjustified assertion that God set Adam and Eve up for a fall..and I have….

…not.

If this “God” of yours so rigged the game that all A&E “knew about was good” as you put it, then of course they would have been set up. There was no action they could have taken that would have seemed to them not to have a good outcome.

Myth it may be but these stories have a point. I do not ,may I remind you buy into your Bronze Age goat herder idea which is of course appeal to modernity.

Actually, it’s iron-age and it’s not just “my idea” – it’s statement of fact that countless creation myths come from long ago. It’s also a statement of fact by the way that evidence obtained since falsifies them. 

To recap the myth is about breach of trust and wanting it all.

Then the myth contradicts itself in its premises for the reason I keep explaining and you keep ignoring. Just repeating your mistake in response doesn’t change that.

Not God setting mankind up for a moral fall. We do that ourselves.

Not if you follow the “logic” of the story we don’t – or at least A&E didn’t. With no consequences other than good ones from any decision they may have made, this “God” of yours can’t then blame them for not making the decision he’d have preferred. As Bertrand Russell once famously said when asked how he’d answer for his atheism if ever he appeared at the pearly gates: “Not enough evidence”. 

Happy turdpolishing.

Good to know that you’re happy in your work. Jesus would be proud of you.

Or not.

[SusanDoris]

ippy, bluehillside, Vlad, Susan, 

Someone here want to ridicule Adam and Eve??...because, if you do you are ridiculing Almighty God ...

I certainly ridicule any God, or gods, etc since there is zero evidence for their existence.

...first...as well as every Christian, every Jew and of course, Jesus Christ, himself.

I do not ridicule the people who have been conned or indoctrinated into a 100% faith belief that there is such a thing as God/god/s. They are human beings with imagination which would be better directed to understanding themselves rather than giving any credit for anything to a myth, a product of someone's imagination.

We all struggle with this Biblical account ...

No - you are quite wrong there!It is a story, a narrative, composed from the infinite capabilities of the human brain.

...but it seems to me that science and Biblical teaching can come together on this point if we have an open mind...

In your case, it is an open mind where lots of rubbish gets in and is not rejected because of the lack  of critical thinking!!

....and the beauty of an open mind is that it is very healthy indeed, which causes concern when you realise just how closed-minded people can be. The innocent child has an open mind ...

Into which millions of religious adults, however lovingly meant, pour faith beliefs totally without objective evidence. In the world of Science, the information given by parents can be checked and seen to be true or false.

...and in their innocence they become a little like Adam and Eve. They obey what their parents tell them and Adam and Eve should have too. Our genetic sciences are still very new to us scientifically, but not to an all knowing God.

He, apparently took a lifeless, void planet, and resurrected it. We know this because the planet was tidally locked although the evidence suggest it had all the life supporting mechanics already on board because there was darkness on the face of the watery deep....It was probably knocked out of kilter when visited by Wormwood, previously, but Almighty God had it surveyed and decided to resurrect it...hence Adam and Eve.

The whole process of preparation wouldn't take more than a week because it was all a question of spinning the planet out of its tidal lock and thereby its life supporting mechanics restarted and we are told about this, step by step, as it happened.

So...Adam and Eve were genetically perfect as Jesus was, but they decided to be persuaded to alter their genetics from pure to deformed...all by trying to scam God. This tells us how our genetic health starts to deform when we turn away from being childlike and start lying and deceiving...scamming and listening to evil...but it isn't the end of the world because Jesus taught us to use his righteous mechanics to recover by...so only the foolish will ignore him.

Oh dear, what a lot of absolute nonsense.

[NicholasMarks]

I certainly ridicule any God, or gods, etc since there is zero evidence for their existence.I do not ridicule the people who have been conned or indoctrinated into a 100% faith belief that there is such a thing as God/god/s. They are human beings with imagination which would be better directed to understanding themselves rather than giving any credit for anything to a myth, a product of someone's imagination.No - you are quite wrong there!It is a story, a narrative, composed from the infinite capabilities of the human brain. In your case, it is an open mind where lots of rubbish gets in and is not rejected because of the lack  of critical thinking!! :DInto which millions of religious adults, however lovingly meant, pour faith beliefs totally without objective evidence. In the world of Science, the information given by parents can be checked and seen to be true or false. Oh dear, what a lot of absolute nonsense.

You're not impressed then Susan. But there are so many pointers telling me that I am on the correct path...mostly from the Holy Bible. You see...you have a closed mind on the subject and I could discuss that in a big way because we all go down that road until we realise it leads us into the hands of scammers...but by then it is too late because the scammers have bled you dry and are long gone.

Almighty God...who knows everything there is to know about human behaviour tells us that by the misbehaviour of Adam and Eve sin came into the world and via sin, death. This can mean only one thing...and that is what I have latched on to...It means that the energy we waste by looking inward to deceive is the self same energy we require for our genetic health and throughout the Holy Bible this point is driven home over and over again. So...a good scientist might say to themselves...how is this possible?? and thereby uncover the clue given by adaption and evolution which is...reaching out for various needs alters the genetic code...boy...are we on to something big??...Oh, I forgot...you prefer your closed mind to righteous good-will.

   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Revisonist,

…not.

If this “God” of yours so rigged the game that all A&E “knew about was good” as you put it, then of course they would have been set up. There was no action they could have taken that would have seemed to them not to have a good outcome.

Actually, it’s iron-age and it’s not just “my idea” – it’s statement of fact that countless creation myths come from long ago. It’s also a statement of fact by the way that evidence obtained since falsifies them. 

Then the myth contradicts itself in its premises for the reason I keep explaining and you keep ignoring. Just repeating your mistake in response doesn’t change that.

Not if you follow the “logic” of the story we don’t – or at least A&E didn’t. With no consequences other than good ones from any decision they may have made, this “God” of yours can’t then blame them for not making the decision he’d have preferred. As Bertrand Russell once famously said when asked how he’d answer for his atheism if ever he appeared at the pearly gates: “Not enough evidence”. 

Good to know that you’re happy in your work. Jesus would be proud of you.

Or not.

You seem to be following a theological line which seeks to justify disbelief in Gods instruction on the grounds of scientific curiosity.

This of course is arrant nonsense since the only thing God warns humanity from is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Mankind has the whole garden or world hence the idea of Eden. The breach of trust, the disbelief which leads to disaster is of Gods warning. The reason? Complete dominion.

It is a story of morality , the failure of it , the pursuit of the experience of evil, of ego.
It is not a tale of scientific endeavour or human advance.

[Nearly Sane]

Moderator: please note posts diagnosing members as mentally ill will be removed and may lead to suspension

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Strawmanist,

You seem to be following a theological line which seeks to justify disbelief in Gods instruction on the grounds of scientific curiosity.

Blimey. Even given your position as the king of the straw man that’s a bizarre effort. I explained perfectly clearly that you cannot be accused of making a bad choice when the game has been so rigged that you have no concept of “bad”, and you distract from the problem by inventing an entirely specious argment tha no-one has even suggested.

Why? 

This of course is arrant nonsense since the only thing God warns humanity from is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Actually it would be nonsense for other reasons entirely (which is why I didn’t think it, imply it or say it), and your “since” is the fallacy of reification. 

Mankind has the whole garden or world hence the idea of Eden. The breach of trust, the disbelief which leads to disaster is of Gods warning. The reason? Complete dominion.

Thank you for that expression of your personal faith. It doesn’t detract though from the fact that, as the myth is set up, “God’s warning” would have been meaningless to people who “only knew good” because the only outcomes they could have envisaged were therefore good ones. 

It is a story of morality , the failure of it , the pursuit of the experience of evil, of ego.

Inadvertently, you may have hit on a partial truth there – the immorality of a god who set a test that the subjects could only have failed.

It is not a tale of scientific endeavour or human advance.

Has anyone suggested that it is?

[Alan Burns]

Absolute tripe, others have condemed you to a life of near fantasy, I and probably quite a few others, can only see you as an extreme example of as near to total indoctrination it's possible to get, you're a very sad case Alan.

You even try to intellectualise this idea, that's all it is an idea, of free will, why not try to intellectualise the idea of making pea soup? It would be an equally good cause and about as useful.

ippy

Dear Ippy,

I just wanted you to know that God loves you, and He would like you to invite Him into your life so that He can show you how much you are loved.

[Sebastian Toe]

Dear Ippy,

I just wanted you to know that God loves you, and He would like you to invite Him into your life so that He can show you how much you are loved.

How do you do that exactly?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Strawmanist,

Blimey. Even given your position as the king of the straw man that’s a bizarre effort. I explained perfectly clearly that you cannot be accused of making a bad choice when the game has been so rigged that you have no concept of “bad”, and you distract from the problem by inventing an entirely specious argment tha no-one has even suggested.

Why? 

Actually it would be nonsense for other reasons entirely (which is why I didn’t think it, imply it or say it), and your “since” is the fallacy of reification. 

Thank you for that expression of your personal faith. It doesn’t detract though from the fact that, as the myth is set up, “God’s warning” would have been meaningless to people who “only knew good” because the only outcomes they could have envisaged were therefore good ones. 

Inadvertently, you may have hit on a partial truth there – the immorality of a god who set a test that the subjects could only have failed.

Has anyone suggested that it is?

The Adam and Eve story is clearly not about science but morality and God.
It clearly then isn't designed to fit an atheist or moral irrealist picture/agenda and so I won't even try.
I feel that, like the creationist/literalist. the fundamental New Atheist interprets this story too literally.
That said, the story of the morality, of breach of trust and alienation fits psychological and sociological experience.
Not being literal then and in acknowledgement of evolution, Man will already have by this stage in the story, evolved awareness of  danger and as such people will realise danger and warnings of danger. This renders problems you raise concerning warnings and the response to them redundant.
Man knows, by this stage, a warning of danger. The moral choice is a different issue and constitutes both a breach of trust in God and a break with instinct. There is thus no natural impulse driving humanity to this act or divine one since God has appealed to Man's instinctive and intelligent natures to avoid moral evil.

[floo]

Dear Ippy,

I just wanted you to know that God loves you, and He would like you to invite Him into your life so that He can show you how much you are loved.

That is an assertion, without evidence, the Biblical god doesn't appear to understand the meaning of 'love'.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Thank you for that expression of your personal faith. It doesn’t detract though from the fact that, as the myth is set up, “God’s warning” would have been meaningless to people who “only knew good” because the only outcomes they could have envisaged were therefore good ones. 

BHS

It's not a fact with evidence to support it - it's your assertion or POV.

I get that you think you would not be willing to obey an instruction without knowing the possible consequences of not obeying it. I also get that you think this to be a good thing and that you think everyone thinks the same way you do.

However, that this is your personal preference/ morality does not make it the default choice for everyone else on every occasion that they are presented with a choice of obeying or disobeying. Obeying an instruction without knowing the ins and outs of why or the consequences is an example of faith.

By the way, it happens in the army - even basic training at OTC level involved getting us used to the idea of operating as a team rather than an individual, and that you and your team's lives may depend on a certain amount of faith and willingness to obey orders without question, without knowing the consequences. This can of course lead to misuse of power. Faith, morality, concepts of good and evil are complex issues and I think individual stories/ parables are not designed to cover all the complexities but just illustrate one particular aspect.

[BeRational]

BHS

It's not a fact with evidence to support it - it's your assertion or POV.

I get that you think you would not be willing to obey an instruction without knowing the possible consequences of not obeying it. I also get that you think this to be a good thing and that you think everyone thinks the same way you do.

However, that this is your personal preference/ morality does not make it the default choice for everyone else on every occasion that they are presented with a choice of obeying or disobeying. Obeying an instruction without knowing the ins and outs of why or the consequences is an example of faith.

By the way, it happens in the army - even basic training at OTC level involved getting us used to the idea of operating as a team rather than an individual, and that you and your team's lives may depend on a certain amount of faith and willingness to obey orders without question, without knowing the consequences. This can of course lead to misuse of power. Faith, morality, concepts of good and evil are complex issues and I think individual stories/ parables are not designed to cover all the complexities but just illustrate one particular aspect.

I think even in the armed forces, you would be correct in not following an illegal order.

If you were ordered to do something you know is wrong, you do not have to obey.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think even in the armed forces, you would be correct in not following an illegal order.

If you were ordered to do something you know is wrong, you do not have to obey.

Absolutely. Like I said morality and faith are complex issues.

Also faith and morality become even more complex when you do not know if the orders are genuine orders from your CO or if the orders have been changed en route, or when you don't necessarily trust the morality of the person issuing the orders or interpreting the orders. And it becomes a whole lot more complex if you have never seen or met your CO and do not know if your CO genuinely exists or if people are making up orders on behalf of a non-existent CO.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think even in the armed forces, you would be correct in not following an illegal order.

If you were ordered to do something you know is wrong, you do not have to obey.

It's then a question of legal authority and we know where that lies in a Theistic allegory.
Also you have the problem of suggesting that an order to avoid evil is wrong since not obeying it leads to wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Absolutely. Like I said morality and faith are complex issues.

Also faith and morality become even more complex when you do not know if the orders are genuine orders from your CO or if the orders have been changed en route, or when you don't necessarily trust the morality of the person issuing the orders or interpreting the orders. And it becomes a whole lot more complex if you have never seen or met your CO and do not know if your CO genuinely exists or if people are making up orders on behalf of a non-existent CO.

Great post and you do mention ''the trust thing''.
In the Adam and Eve story, in Christianity, at least. Humanity 'walks with God' prior to the alienation. So, of the truth of what you say, I would call that an excellent description of humanity's ''post Eden'' predicament. .

[Alan Burns]

That is an assertion, without evidence, the Biblical god doesn't appear to understand the meaning of 'love'.

Yet in the words of saint Paul we have this inspired definition of Love:
Love is always patient and kind; love is never jealous; love is not boastful or conceited, it is never rude or selfish, it does not take offence and is not resentful. Love takes no pleasure in other people's sins, but delights in the truth. It is always ready to forgive, to trust, to hope and to endure whatever comes. Love does not come to an end. 1 Corinthians 13:4-8
Can such wonderful human attributes be defined by the uncontrolled deterministic events of material science, or do they derive from the conscious free will of the human soul?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrelevantist,

The Adam and Eve story is clearly not about science but morality and God.
It clearly then isn't designed to fit an atheist or moral irrealist picture/agenda and so I won't even try.
I feel that, like the creationist/literalist. the fundamental New Atheist interprets this story too literally.
That said, the story of the morality, of breach of trust and alienation fits psychological and sociological experience.
Not being literal then and in acknowledgement of evolution, Man will already have by this stage in the story, evolved awareness of  danger and as such people will realise danger and warnings of danger. This renders problems you raise concerning warnings and the response to them redundant.
Man knows, by this stage, a warning of danger. The moral choice is a different issue and constitutes both a breach of trust in God and a break with instinct. There is thus no natural impulse driving humanity to this act or divine one since God has appealed to Man's instinctive and intelligent natures to avoid moral evil.

Leaving aside the various non sequiturs, longeurs etc in that none of it has any relevance at all to your basic problem - ie, if the myth is populated with a couple who "knew only good" then they knew only good. That's it. End of story. Finito. Job done. Nothing to see here, move along please. Game over. Goodnight Vienna. The fat lady has sung. The circus has left town. The cake is baked. Your troubles are now packed up in your old kit bag.

You can casuist your way around "evolved awareness of danger" guff as much as you like, but unless you want to claim that the words "knew", "only" and "good" mean something other than "knew", "only" and "good" they had no concept of "danger" and so your goose is cooked my friend.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gabriella,

Thank you for that expression of your personal faith. It doesn’t detract though from the fact that, as the myth is set up, “God’s warning” would have been meaningless to people who “only knew good” because the only outcomes they could have envisaged were therefore good ones. 

It's not a fact with evidence to support it - it's your assertion or POV.

No, it’s a fact – or, if you prefer, it’s the irrefutable logic of the story. 

I get that you think you would not be willing to obey an instruction without knowing the possible consequences of not obeying it. I also get that you think this to be a good thing and that you think everyone thinks the same way you do.

That’s not what I think. What I do think is that, if you posit a couple who “knew only good” there are no possible consequences except for good ones.   

However, that this is your personal preference/ morality does not make it the default choice for everyone else on every occasion that they are presented with a choice of obeying or disobeying. Obeying an instruction without knowing the ins and outs of why or the consequences is an example of faith.

But in the myth, obeying, not obeying, whistling Dixie while riding a unicycle, any response at all would have been a good one if good was "all they knew".

By the way, it happens in the army - even basic training at OTC level involved getting us used to the idea of operating as a team rather than an individual, and that you and your team's lives may depend on a certain amount of faith and willingness to obey orders without question, without knowing the consequences. This can of course lead to misuse of power. Faith, morality, concepts of good and evil are complex issues and I think individual stories/ parables are not designed to cover all the complexities but just illustrate one particular aspect.

Yes, but whether or not you know all the consequences you do at least have a concept that some of them could be bad – ie, “bad” is a meaningful term. Not so though for our heroes in the myth – anything at all they did would - to them – have had good consequences because “good” was all they could conceptualise.

That's why is was a rigged game - if you want to claim the premise of "knew only good", they had no opportunity to make a meaningful choice.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Absolutely. Like I said morality and faith are complex issues.

Also faith and morality become even more complex when you do not know if the orders are genuine orders from your CO or if the orders have been changed en route, or when you don't necessarily trust the morality of the person issuing the orders or interpreting the orders. And it becomes a whole lot more complex if you have never seen or met your CO and do not know if your CO genuinely exists or if people are making up orders on behalf of a non-existent CO.

Nope. There is no complexity, no trust, no concern for whether or not the CO is real. Zip. Nothing. Nada.

If you “know only good” then it looks like this:

1. Option A – answer: good

2. Option B – answer: good

3. Option C – answer: good

etc 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrelevantist,

Leaving aside the various non sequiturs, longeurs etc in that none of it has any relevance at all to your basic problem - ie, if the myth is populated with a couple who "knew only good" then they knew only good. That's it. End of story. Finito. Job done. Nothing to see here, move along please. Game over. Goodnight Vienna. The fat lady has sung. The circus has left town. The cakes is baked. Your troubles are now packed up in your old kit bag.

You can casuist your way around "evolved awareness of danger" guff as much as you like, but unless you want to claim that the words "knew", "only" and "good" mean something other than "knew", "only" and "good" they had no concept of "danger" and your goose is cooked my friend.   

Hillside
I have qualified any supposed error. They know only the moral good but not moral evil but they are aware of natural danger and would recognise warning. It is an open and shut case of not trusting or believing God's warning about moral evil
This is a morality tale.
You are a moral realist in the sense that you think morality is an evolved human trait and you hold the contrary view that morality is not real....
The story also tackles any proposal of protomorality or the phyletic gradualist evolution model of morality. There is no natural or unconscious slide into immorality.

I fear we are at take it or leave it time Hillside. The story is never going to fit into a moral irrealists view of morality which is the equivalent of pavement art punctuated by a pile of verbal excrement wherever the concept of morality comes up.

I think you are trying to exonerate humanity for not following instructions, that that was the right thing to do.
Humanity had instinctual aversion to danger and warning. In any event a conscious rebellion has taken place and we are living with the natural consequences of rebellion.

In other words Hillside the story fits.

Most of the problems so far are with your literalism though perhaps my argument could be refined

And so far your version doesn't fit.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Twisting in the Winderist,

I have qualified any supposed error. They know only the moral good but not moral evil but they are aware of natural danger and would recognise warning. It is an open and shut case of not trusting or believing God's warning about moral evil
This is a morality tale.
You are a moral realist in the sense that you think morality is an evolved human trait and you hold the contrary view that morality is not real....
The story also tackles any proposal of protomorality or the phyletic gradualist evolution model of morality. There is no natural or unconscious slide into immorality.

I fear we are at take it or leave it time Hillside. The story is never going to fit into a moral irrealists view of morality which is the equivalent of pavement art punctuated by a pile of verbal excrement wherever the concept of morality comes up.

I think you are trying to exonerate humanity for not following instructions, that that was the right thing to do.
Humanity had instinctual aversion to danger and warning. In any event a conscious rebellion has taken place and we are living with the natural consequences of rebellion.

In other words Hillside the story fits.

Most of the problems so far are with your literalism though perhaps my argument could be refined

And so far your version doesn't fit.

Abject stuff indeed. Yet again, here’s your problem: if you want to set the myth up such that its romantic leads “knew only good” they could not have been aware of “natural danger” at all. What would “danger” even mean to people who “knew only good”?

Deal with it or not as you wish – your endless twisting in the wind with irrelevancies, false accusations, straw men, non sequiturs, abuse of language etc helps you not a jot.

Look, I’ll even simplify it for you:

Premise 1: they “knew only good” = rigged game

Premise 2: they didn’t “know only good” after all = ability to conceptualise the choice

You choose. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Twisting in the Winderist,

Abject stuff indeed. Yet again, here’s your problem: if you want to set the myth up such that its romantic leads “knew only good” they could not have been aware of “natural danger” at all. What would “danger” even mean to people who “knew only good”?
 

You are making no distinction between natural danger and moral evil of which only man has a capability of.
Mankind knows what it is to ''walk with God'' and presumably that any natural dangers do not change that.
The point being that you can know natural dangers, even be overcome thereof and still that does not change your walk with God.
We come back to the real moral of the allegory....what does spoil the walk with God and creates alienation between people, with God and with nature is the breach of trust and the pursuit of something (evil) just on the pretext of having it.

It's a great allegory.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Twisting in the Winderist,

Abject stuff indeed. Yet again, here’s your problem: if you want to set the myth up such that its romantic leads “knew only good” they could not have been aware of “natural danger” at all. What would “danger” even mean to people who “knew only good”?

Deal with it or not as you wish – your endless twisting in the wind with irrelevancies, false accusations, straw men, non sequiturs, abuse of language etc helps you not a jot.

Look, I’ll even simplify it for you:

Premise 1: they “knew only good” = rigged game

Premise 2: they didn’t “know only good” after all = ability to conceptualise the choice

You choose.

I feel you are trying to say so much here Hillside but won't say it for fear of it being tackled and what's left doesn't make much sense.