No it bloody doesn’t mate. It means, as you keeping forcing me to say, that they ought to be believed. — AJJ

It would help if you provided the original claim in context, but despite the request to do so early on, you have not, unfortunately, done so. And so, all we have to go on is what you have presented. It is a simple if-then claim - if not this then not that. Now you may claim it means something else, and perhaps Clark meant or said something different, but based on what you have presented there is not reason to believe he did.

As stated, it does not say we ought to believe facts. If says that if there are no facts then there is nothing we ought to believe. One major flaw with this is the jump from objective values to facts. As has been stated repeatedly by various participants, that we ought to believe something is not a statement of objective value. Even if we accept that one ought to believe objective facts, it does not follow that this is an objective value.

In order to see this, suppose that all those who agree that we ought to believe objective facts are wrong. If you object that they can't be wrong, an appeal to objective values does not demonstrate that they are wrong. The demonstration that they are wrong is based on a) the contraction of accepting a fact and not believing it - if one accepts it as a fact then one believes it, and if one does not believe it then one does not accept it as a fact it, or b) the practical consequences of not believing the facts of the matter - if you do not accept that the ice is too thin to skate on you risk falling through. Practical consequences are not objective values. If there is some third option that demonstrates that accepting facts is an objective value you have not presented it, even if you have unflaggingly repeated it. Neither logic nor practical consequences are objective values.

Come on now, it’s not “being believed” that is necessary, it’s that they ought to be believed. — AJJ

Come on now, when you or Clark say:

If there are no objective values then there are no facts ( — AJJ

that makes facts contingent upon belief. You may want to revise his/your claim but either make it clear that you are revising it, or stick with what was said and defend it. You already backed away from defending it on page one:

Facts don’t depend on whether or not we believe them — AJJ

And so, if facts do not depend on whether or not we believe them then how can it be that if there are no objective values then there are no facts?

And I contend facts do exist, which means they ought to be believed if that is indeed a necessary part of their existence. — AJJ

What is it that you contend and what is it that Clark contends? Is your OP a statement in his words or yours?

Is the claim that facts ought to be believed a fact? I have asked this question before.

In what sense is being believed a necessary part of the existence of facts? Can something exist without its necessary parts? According to what you say, in the case of facts, it seems they can; and so, in what sense is believing them a necessary part of their existence if their existence does not depend on them? They ought to be believed implies that they are not necessarily believed, and so, being believed is not a necessary part of their existence.

It’s not that they don’t exist if they’re not believed. Everyone could stop believing facts and they’d still exist. It’s that they can’t exist without the necessary factor that they ought to be believed. — AJJ

What cannot exist does not exist.

The problem, as I see it, is that we cannot disentangle ontology and epistemology. All ontological claims are grounded in some particular epistemology, but all epistemology is grounded in ontology. Ontology in the former sense refers to what we say (logue) regarding what is (ontos), and in the later sense to what is. In other words, without something there would be nothing to say and, of course, no one to say it, but what we say is not what is, it reflects our current knowledge and understanding regarding what is.

The claim that there are :

... only consistent human 'interactions' with an aspect of the world ... — fresco

asserts that there are humans, a world, aspects of that world, and interactions between humans and aspects of the world. They could not interact if they did not in some way exist.

The question then is what are they? The answer is, we do not know. Whether an electron is a "thing" or "object" that exists independent of us is an epistemological question. How one answers the epistemological question determines the ontology, in the sense of what we say, of the electron.

Is the question of the ontology of an electron the same or different than the question of the ontology of, say, the moon? Is the interactions between humans and aspects of the world of the same kind or different in the case of electrons and the moon? Would the moon exist without some form of interaction with humans? Is the aspect of the world of the same kind in the case of the moon and an electron?

Yeah. But that’s not to say that the very existence of facts is determined by our beliefs, but that a necessary part of what they are is that they ought to be believed. — AJJ

But that is not what he says. Or perhaps it is not what he actually says but what you say he says. In either case, the statement is:

If there are no objective values then there are no facts (since there’s nothing that we ought to believe). — AJJ

If a necessary part of what facts are is that they ought be believed, then if this necessary part does not exist, if they are not believed, then they do not exist.

The idea is rather that the values are a fact — Terrapin Station

Right, but to be more precise, the claim is not simply that it is a fact that there are values but a fact that there are objective values.

I have asked AJJ whether it is a fact that we ought to believe, which is to say, whether "we ought to believe" is an objective value.

Clark is attempting to collapse the fact/value distinction.

It’s not that our beliefs determine facts. It’s that facts are necessarily things that ought to be believed, but not that what they are is determined by beliefs. — AJJ

You are equivocating. It is not, according to Clark, that what the facts are that is determined by beliefs but rather that they are at all is determined by beliefs, for as he says:

If there are no objective values then there are no facts — AJJ

By objective values he means things we ought to believe. If there are not things we ought to believe then there are no objective values and therefore no facts.

You seem to think the argument is that beliefs determine facts. This is not the argument. — AJJ

The premise of the argument is that if there no objective values there would be no facts. The claim is that without the former there cannot be the latter. This is a determinate relation.

That’s precisely what is under discussion mate. You can’t just assert your own view and expect that to convince anyone. — AJJ

You have not understood the problem of Moore's paradox. It is not axiological but logical. That is not simply my view. If you think this is not correct then identify the value judgment that is contained in it.

It can be clearly demonstrated that facts are not dependent on beliefs. Otherwise the claim that one ought to believe facts makes no sense. It can also be clearly demonstrated that the acceptance of facts is independent of judgments of value. People starve whether I believe it or like it or not.

Is the claim that we ought to believe facts a belief or a fact? Beliefs may or may not be true, but a fact cannot be false, otherwise it would not be a fact even though it may be believed to be a fact. But whether it is a fact or not cannot be determined by belief, otherwise it would both be a fact and not a fact since some might accept it as a fact and others not.

It may be a fact that it is raining and a fact that I do not believe that it is raining, but to assert both at the same time is absurd.
— Fooloso4

That is absurd, but I don’t see what bearing this has on the OP argument. It seems to me that if you asserted both those things you’d simply be lying about at least one. — AJJ

The point is, once again, that it has nothing to do with "objective values" and what one "ought to believe". The problem is not axiological but logical. Facts are not a matter of what we "ought to believe". What we ought to believe is not a matter of fact.

See "Moore's Paradox": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_paradox

It is not a matter of value, that is, what one ought to believe, but of logical contradiction. If I say: "It is raining but I do not believe it is raining" then do I accept the assertion that it is raining, that is, do I accept it as a matter of fact? Doesn't the assertion that I do not believe it mean that I do not believe it is a fact that it is raining? If, however, I accept it as a matter of fact that it is raining, then what does it mean to assert that I do not believe it, if not that I do not accept it as a matter of fact? It may be a fact that it is raining and a fact that I do not believe that it is raining, but to assert both at the same time is absurd.

[Note: "I do not not believe it" as it is used here does not mean that one believes it but finds it hard to believe.]

At least your "argument" is getting briefer.

Ohh! So it’s not a sound argument. It doesn’t hold water as a philosophical argument. Right, my mistake everyone, I had no idea this was so simple. — AJJ

You have moved further and further away from philosophical engagement. It's that simple.

It should be noted that you have not provided anything that ought to be believed, no facts or objective values, that connect God and religion and reality. You have not shown that the claim that believing facts is a value, objective or otherwise. It really is so simple.

Aye, well maybe it is true mate, but don’t worry about it. No one is going to force you to be a Christian. — AJJ

That is not the point. You said:

It seems to me to be a sound reason to believe in objective values: — AJJ

It it not a matter of whether I or anyone else is being forced to be a Christian. It is a question about whether his argument is sound. It's not. I suppose that those who already believe what he is claiming believe that one ought to believe it but it does not hold water as a philosophical argument.

AJJ, what you are ignoring is that this is nothing more than Christian apologetics. What is most problematic is not the claim that we ought to believe the facts or what is true but Clark's claims as to what the facts are. He is claiming we ought to believe what he believes because it is based on facts and is true.

The character of Socrates as depicted by Plato is not always consistent with the historical personage of Socrates. — Merkwurdichliebe

Right, I am referring here to Plato's depiction of Socrates, "made young and beautiful" (Second Letter). The Socrates depicted in the other two main sources, Xenophon and Aristophanes, is not historical either. But we should keep in mind Aristotle's claim that poetry is more philosophical than history.

He knew nothing. He was not a skeptic, he was absolutely ignorant. — Merkwurdichliebe

I agree he was a skeptic, although not in the modern sense of skepticism. True to his reputation for irony, he claims to know that he does not know, which is not the same as absolute ignorance.

And through his method, he discovered these men did not know what they believed themselves to know. — Merkwurdichliebe

Someone who knows nothing would not possess the skill needed to reveal the ignorance of others or to persuade the likes of Plato and Xenophon to learn from him. Plato's Socrates acknowledges the craftsmen's knowledge of their crafts. He also refers to the physician's knowledge, the ship captain's knowledge, and others who possess some form of knowledge. The problem is, being knowledgeable about one thing they wrongly believe they are knowledgeable about all others. Xenophon's Socrates also recognizes those who possess some form of knowledge.

But he never assented to a knowledge of the forms, that was a Platonic fabrication. — Merkwurdichliebe

The point of the passages I cited from the Republic is that he does not assent to knowledge of the Forms. It is not a Platonic fabrication, but an assumption the less than careful reader is led to. It should also be pointed out that in the Theaetetus, the dialogue devoted to the question of knowledge, there is no mention of the Forms.

In fact, "The Republic" is entirely Platonic, not Socratic. — Merkwurdichliebe

At one time, a great deal of effort was exerted attempting to distinguish Plato from Socrates. There are probably a few around who still try to identify the historical Socrates, but we simply do not have the evidence to do so. The problem is compounded by the fact that Plato never speaks in his own name in the dialogues. In the Seventh Letter he states:

But thus much I can certainly declare concerning all these writers, or prospective writers, who claim to know the subjects which I seriously study, whether as hearers of mine or of other teachers, or from their own discoveries; it is impossible, in my judgement at least, that these men should understand anything about this subject. There does not exist, nor will there ever exist, any treatise of mine dealing therewith. For it does not at all admit of verbal expression like other studies (341c)

Socrates came to reject the notion that "man is the measure of all things". — Merkwurdichliebe

We do not know this. If we look at Plato's dialogues, however, and after all the discussion is about Plato, things are not as simple as they may appear to be on the surface. If we do not have knowledge of the truth and must rely on opinion, then man is the measure. This does not mean that whatever man says is true but rather that in the absence of the truth as the measure we are left with what Socrates calls in Plato's Phaedo his "second sailing", that is, his reliance on speech. This is skeptical in a double sense. The Greek term 'skepsis' means both to inquire and to doubt. His reliance on speech is not an acceptance of whatever is said, but an inquiry or examination of it. It is sometimes referred to as zetetic skepticism. It is the method of dialectic.

Whose idea was it to separate children, and then neglect to track them? No one could be that stupid and immoral — tim wood

I do not know the extent of Trump's involvement. What is clear is that he believes that problems can and should be resolved by a show of force. This is the same strategy he uses when it comes to foreign relations. He seems to have little concern for details. Let someone else do the dirty work.

As to whether or not someone could be that stupid and immoral, it was done. How much was callous and deliberate and how much was negligence and incompetence I don't know. I think Trump believed that this or some other tactic of fear, pain, and intimidation, together would his wall, would put an end to the immigration problem. He prefers acting to thinking, and has surrounded himself with people who will act first and ask no questions. If there is a master plan, this is the extent of it.

Trump's presidency is a call to arms for those who grasp the nature of the danger he represents. — tim wood

The problem is how to end his presidency without causing irreparable damage to the office itself.

It starts with federal judges and The Supreme Court blocking attacks on the legal side. — tim wood

Unfortunately, he has appointed two Supreme Court justices and a significant number of federal judges. Although some will oppose him, he has managed to hijack the Republican Party and has closely aligned himself with conservatism; and so, they may be more willing to overlook his abuses then rule against him. In addition, the playbook of both Trump and conservative activists is to appeal everything they can to the Supreme Court. One would think there must be a tipping point, but with each step Trump takes that point recedes further away. If the courts do rule against him he will do everything he can to destroy them.

A necessary condition for the just city is the “noble lie”. Given that the city is the soul writ large, a necessary condition for the just soul is the noble lie. The one discussed explicitly in the Republic is the “myth of the metals”. There is, however, another, one that Plato cleverly presented as a mystical realization, a transcendence known only to a few - the ascent out of the cave of ignorance in the light of the Good from which one sees the truth of the Forms and the Good itself.

When Socrates tells Glaucon about the turning of the soul to what is and the image of the Good, in response to Glaucon’s exclamation: “Apollo, what a demonic excess." Socrates’ response is:

"You … are responsible for compelling me to tell my opinions about it." (509c)

Opinions! Not the truth itself as he knows it to be, or even an image of the truth, but opinions.

At 532d Glaucon says:

So tell what the character of the power of dialectic is, and, then, into exactly what forms it is e divided; and finally what are its ways. For these, as it seems, would lead at last toward that place which is for the one who reaches it a haven from the road, as it were, and an end of his journey."
To which Socrates responds:

"You will no longer be able to follow, my dear Glaucon," I said, "although there wouldn't be any lack of eagerness on my part. But you would no longer be seeing an image of what we are saying, but rather the truth itself, at least as it looks to me. Whether it is really so or not can no longer be properly insisted on. But that there is some such thing to see must be insisted on. Isn't it so?"

Why can’t Socrates insist that the truth as it looks to him is the truth? And why should seeing "some such thing" be insisted on? The answer is because he does not have knowledge of the Forms. He has not escaped the cave. What has been disguised as revelations of esoteric, mystical truths, is a noble lie, a salutary public teaching. He has banished the poets and replaced them with his own philosophical poetry, new images on the cave wall.

What I cannot figure out is who is masterminding Trump's behaviour. — tim wood

The stable genius is at best of average intelligence but he has a knack for promoting his own self-interests. To this end he has aligned himself with Fundamentalist Evangelical leaders, big business capitalists, and anti-government idealists (many of whom are Evangelicals or billionaire capitalists or both). Although they have some common interests, I do not think there is a mastermind.

The acceptance of facts has nothing to do with values, objective or otherwise. It is comment sense or prudential reasoning.

But that is not the apologist game Clark is playing. He wants us to believe that Christian values are objective values and ought to be believed because they are based on facts.

Nietzsche said he is a complete skeptic when it comes to Plato. He actually means something quite different than may appear at first glance. Both Nietzsche and Plato have been widely misunderstood and this comment helps shed light on Nietzsche’s perspicacious reading of Plato and at the same time on how we are to read Nietzsche. Nietzsche the skeptic teaches us to read skeptically, esoterically, to read between the lines, to make connections, and not take things at face value.

Nietzsche says he is a complete skeptic when it comes to Plato because both he and Plato are skeptics. We are accustomed to thinking of Socrates as a skeptic (“I know that I do not know”) but do not think of Plato as a skeptic because of his talk of Forms. We assume that Plato knows the Forms or at least defends a “theory of Forms”. Nietzsche is skeptical of this. He thinks that Plato was a skeptic, that he too knew he did not know. Laurence Lampert’s “Nietzsche and Modern Times” discusses how Montaigne, Bacon, Descartes, and Nietzsche all read Plato as a skeptic. There is a growing number of prominent scholars of Plato who now read him in this way as well.

If there are no objective values then there are no facts (since there’s nothing that we ought to believe). — AJJ

What is the relation of facts to values and beliefs?

It is a fact that I am sitting on my deck typing this on my laptop. I do not hold objective values (another fact) but that does not change the fact that I am sitting here typing this. I can think of no reason why you ought to believe that fact and see no value one way or another whether you accept that fact. Whatever your values are, whether you consider them to be objective or subjective, that does not change the fact that I am doing what I said I am doing.

Facts, factual claims, and claims regarding what I ought to believe are three different things. Since facts do not depend on whether of not I believe them, and since there are countless facts I may never know anything about, the claim that I ought to believe them is questionable. Factual claims may be false and so it is a questionable claim that I ought to believe them. And since we cannot always discern the difference between facts and factual claims, the claim that we ought to believe is problematic, as is often the case when with religious and moral claims dressed up not simply as factual claims but as facts.

To borrow a phrase from Nietzsche, if I were to attempt continue trying to have a reasonable argument with you would be to be unreasonably reasonable.

but few here have the ability to think for themselves, only to repeat the ideas of others. — TheGreatArcanum

And yet:

My philosophy is a merging of Parmenides ... and Heraclitus — TheGreatArcanum

Parmenides who says that therefore the subject “Existence” isn’t deserving of a predicate — TheGreatArcanum

Where does he say this? What does "deserving" mean here? If you say that there is an "unchanging aspect of existence" that is a predicate of existence. Perhaps you meant that existence is not a predicate.

In any case you ignore the point: existence is not something that exists.

Concepts do not come "prepackaged" with everything that comes into existence.
— Fooloso4

this is an assumption. — TheGreatArcanum

As is your claim that concepts do come "prepackaged" with everything that comes into existence.

Concepts are human artifacts.
— Fooloso4

another assumption even more wild than the first. — TheGreatArcanum

There is nothing wild about it. It is only when one accepts some version of the assumption that thought and being are the same that concepts are reified.

it returns to the potential for existence to be which is not nothing. so what is it? — TheGreatArcanum

Do you imagine that there is a realm of potential to which things return? If "it" has the potential to exist it does not exist in actuality. Do you think the cookie still exists that has been eaten? Whatever transformation the cookie undergoes "it" no longer exists.

if you’re going to define ‘existence’ as that which is in space and actualized, then of course, the cookie no longer exists. — TheGreatArcanum

Existence and what exists are not the same.

but the cookies Identity, that is, that internal changes which perpetuates it’s existence, live on after it dies, just the same as humans. — TheGreatArcanum

The internal changes do not "perpetuate" it's existence. Whatever changes it undergoes it is no longer a cookie. The cookie is not identical to what it becomes. If you think otherwise I wonder what you are eating.

What I mean by “Non-Existence” is that which has no essence whatsoever. — TheGreatArcanum

Here you violate Parmenides warning against speaking about what is not. When you say "that which" you are identifying something. Non-existence is not a that with no essence. "That" refers to something.

here you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of philosophy once again, because this is a quote from Heidegger . — TheGreatArcanum

I have not quoted Heidegger. "... those who have read Heidegger know that he talks a great deal about being itself" is not a quote from Heidegger.

However, Heidegger himself talks almost exclusively about being in the world and not being itself in the absolute sense of the word. — TheGreatArcanum

This is simply not true. Heidegger distinguishes between being and beings. That is fundamental to his philosophy. Being in the world is Dasien's mode of being.

I imagine that I will be considered the greatest philosopher of all time after I die. — TheGreatArcanum

This gives new meaning to Plato's claim that philosophy is divine madness!

I know you think that this is laughable, but you really you know nothing of my writings or what I experience within myself, so the joke is on you. — TheGreatArcanum

I know of your writings what you have said here. I don't think it is laughable, I think it is delusional. That is no laughing matter!

I will be releasing a book with the next two years that will expound upon the truth in great detail, and if all goes as planned, it will change the world. Man has been living in darkness for long enough now, so it’s time that he poke his head outside the cave and see what he’s been missing. I am here to help make that happen. unfortunately, there are dark forces fighting against me, trying to steal their minds away from me and the truth, but they will not prevail because my mission comes from the highest of the high. — TheGreatArcanum

It sounds like you suffer from delusions of grandeur and mistake it for mystical insight.

I emailed like 20 professors from various respected universities around the country and even several from the local D3 college in my area and I got zero responses even despite offering to pay money. — TheGreatArcanum

It is quite common for professors to receive this kind of "stuff" unsolicited. It is simply not worth the time and effort to respond. Nothing good will come of it. Unless they share your opinion of what you say as coming from "the highest of the high" you will reject their help and disparage them.

Non-Existence in the absolute sense of the word is non-existent, meaning that in the absolute sense of the word there is only Existence ... — TheGreatArcanum

This has been discussed at least since the work of Parmenides. Strictly speaking there is only what is (to eon). Existence is not something that is, what is exists.

... in the relative sense of the word, there is the concept of non-existence, and it comes prepackaged with everything that comes into existence — TheGreatArcanum

Concepts do not come "prepackaged" with everything that comes into existence. There is no one concept that comes along with each and every thing that exists. There may be various concepts regarding some one thing and various concepts regarding all things.

... so the question must be answered as to how the concept of non-existence comes to be when Non-Existence is not? — TheGreatArcanum

Concepts are human artifacts. When something dies and decomposes it no longer exists. When someone eats the last cookie the cookies no longer exist. You may have a concept of it existing elsewhere, but that "relative" concept of non-existence does not come "prepackaged" with everything that ceases to exist.

Once again, existence is not something that exists, as if in addition to all the things there are there is also this one other thing, existence. Non-Existence is not something that is not. What is not does not exist. But, as Plato points out, it can be said of what is that it is what it is and not some other thing.

what I’m saying is that everybody thinks about beings but never about being itself — TheGreatArcanum

Here you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of philosophy. I don't know who "everybody" is, but those who have read Heidegger know that he talks a great deal about being itself, and he is not alone.

when wisdom is predicted on the knowledge of being itself. — TheGreatArcanum

Do you mean predicated? Is knowledge of being itself the same or other than knowledge of the whole? Do you imagine that you are wise? That you possess the great arcanum of what is?

the law of Identity and law of contradiction are eternal, and its impossible for this not to be so. If they weren’t concepts which pointed to essence, the essence of existence itself, the Essence of Existence could become Non-Existence from one moment to the next in time and here could be no continuation of existence in the relative sense. — TheGreatArcanum

There can be no identity without difference. Are 'a' and 'b' identical? Is 'a is a' identical to 'a is b' or different? If 'a' is identical to 'b' then how can there be both 'a' and 'b'?

The term essence (essentia) was a Latin invention used to translate Aristotle's Greek ousiai. Aristotle's "first philosophy" is the study of "being qua being". It seeks to know the causes and principles of being, that is, of substance (ousiai). Substance or essentia is the “the what it was to be” of a thing. The concepts of law of Identity and law of contradiction do not point to the essence of existence itself. They are principles of thought not of being. The "Essence of Existence" cannot become "Non-Existence" simply because what it is to be cannot be to not be.

Gen 1:25: - before the fall - 'Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.' — Wayfarer

That is Genesis 2:25. Look at the context - building a woman for man from himself (bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh) and bringing her to him, cleaving together they became one flesh.

Why would they be ashamed to be naked? Is it shameful for a husband and wife to be naked in each other's presence? Adam and Eve had nothing to hide from each other before they knew good and evil. Once man has knowledge of good and evil, however, once man is no longer innocent, there may be things that a husband and wife might want to hide from each other.

Gen 3:7: - after 'having eaten' - 'Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves'. — Wayfarer

Do you imagine that from that point forward they did not remove the fig leaves when they had sex?

I don't buy that interpretation - the advent of self-consciousness, and therefore shame, seems much nearer the mark to me. — Wayfarer

And if it is not nearer the mark have you sinned? All kidding aside, it is the taint of Christianity that makes sex shameful. But outside the Garden there is an aspect of sex that was not present in the Garden - procreation and the pain of labor. Knowledge is not about self-consciousness but production - the ability to make something. What man makes, what he produces is not simply one or the other, good or bad, but both. Procreation is the paradigmatic case. This is not the place to get into it, but notice how much of the creation stories are based on a unity in tension between opposites, beginning with the two opposite origin stories themselves - a watery world in flux where nothing is distinguished until God begins to separate one thing from another, and a world that is static where nothing happens until the mist waters the earth. Man is dust and breath, a unity that is destroyed in order to make another that together form a unity, cleaving together and cleaving apart from others. A single tree that bears fruit that is both good and bad.

if you cannot figure it out for yourself using the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction, you won't understand it. — TheGreatArcanum

The question is, what do you mean when you say "the concept of non-existence" and the concept's "coming into being". What you mean may be very different than what someone else might mean.

I'm trying to begin a dialectic ... — TheGreatArcanum

In that case you should answer the question.

... but few here have the ability to think for themselves, only to repeat the ideas of others. — TheGreatArcanum

I assume you miss the irony. First, if you do not repeat the ideas of others then what your idea of the concept of non-existence coming into being is remains undetermined without further explanation. Second, if you are the mystic you fancy yourself to be then you would not be bound by the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction.

↪Frank Apisa ↪Fooloso4 can you please tell me when the concept of non-existence came into being? — TheGreatArcanum

What is the concept of non-existence? In what sense does this concept come into being?

I'm curious about why you believe that sin doesn't figure in this story. What they did experience was 'shame' - that after having eaten, Adam and Eve knew they were naked, and sought to cover themselves with figleaves. I would have thought that this sense of shame would be intimately connected with 'sin'. — Wayfarer

Shame? The story says nothing about shame. My reading follows Robert Sacks' "The Lion and the Ass: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis". To be naked is to be exposed. The term (חֲגוֹר) translated as girdle or loincloth or belt also means battle garments or armor (see 2 Kings 3:21). Knowing good and evil they knew they were vulnerable and had to protect themselves. Their inept attempt reflects their nascent knowledge. God made clothing (לָבַשׁ) for them.

already done it. I’ve established 10 principles of ontology/epistemology and 17 first principles of philosophy. In two years, without a college degree, I’ve done what no philosopher before me has ever done. — TheGreatArcanum

And perhaps a degree in philosophy would allow you to see how little you have actually accomplished. If you were the mystic you imagine yourself to be you would eschew attempts at establishing first principles.

And for the record. Traditional philosophy isn’t philosophy. It’s a last ditch effort to save materialism and atheism. It’s hilarious to watch. Such fools; they same can be said for nearly all of humanity. — TheGreatArcanum

Who then are the philosophers? Are the idealist philosophers materialists? Are religious philosophers atheists?

But I think being cast out of the Garden of Eden is equivalent to it. — Andrew4Handel

God states why they were banished from the Garden and forbidden to return. It was not because they sinned but because of what they would become if they had been allowed to remain. It is the Christian preoccupation with sin that overshadows God's real concern.

I don't think sophistication and subtly is how religion reaches the masses. — Andrew4Handel

That may be but this does not mean that this story and others in the Hebrew Bible are without sophistication and subtly.

I think Ecclesiates is the Book of the bible that is most nuanced and realistic about the human predicament but as far as I can see not widely embraced in mainstream Christianity. For example it was never discussed in a a bible reading in the churches I grew up in. — Andrew4Handel

There is no salvation in the words of Koheleth. If not for a certain kind of reverence and piety for what is regarded as the "old testament" the work would stand as an affront, but the advent of the "good news" assures that believers need not be troubled.

Despite its mythological narrative, the Book of Job is also nuanced and realistic and leaves us without comforting answers to the human predicament. It yields no answers as to why things happen as they do.

it's like apples and oranges — schopenhauer1

Or matzo balls and bacon. Or circumcised and uncircumcised.

I'd like to preface this with the fact that I don't believe any of this happened — schopenhauer1

Either do I. My interest is not "religious" but philosophical - the texts are an influential part of our intellectual history. Whether the philosophers accepted or rejected the claims they often referred to them, often without identifying them.[

quote="schopenhauer1;290921"]I think Paul was a well-educated guy, educated enough to essentially start a new religion and sell the shit out of it.[/quote]

I agree, although I do not think he intended to start a new religion. Apparently he believed the world was about to end. There would be no need for religion since those who were saved would transformed and live as spirit bodies in a transformed world

... he pretty much hijacked the Jesus Movement sect, — schopenhauer1

Christian animosity toward and propaganda against the Jews in the New Testament are the direct result of this schism. I suspect that Jesus would have been appalled by Paul's teachings, and even more so if he knew he would be made a God by Paul's followers.

... competing factions of its before the Council of Nicea. — schopenhauer1

In my opinion, Arius' arguments had a far more convincing Biblical grounding than Athanasius'.


.

Its funny, but who gets to decide what "sin" is? In the Hebrew Bible, sin tends to be tied to error in following Mosaic law. — schopenhauer1

This is an interesting question. Cain's sin was not a violation of Mosaic Law since this was prior to the Law. Adam and Eve's disobedience was not called a sin. Perhaps the reason is that prior to knowledge of good and bad they were innocents and could not be held responsible for what they did not know. On the other hand, Eve saw that the fruit of the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom (3:6). How could she see that if without having knowledge of good and bad?

This idea can come from Gnostic ones originally that the physical world is simply considered "bad" due to the Demiurge's rule over it. Ideas of these kind were floating around in the Greco-Roman period. Paul probably took them and incorporated it to his new theology and interpretation. — schopenhauer1

I have wondered about Paul's influences - was it the influence of Hellenism or some strand of Judaism or some combination? According to Acts, Saul was a student of Gamaliel, but we do not find in the lineage of that teaching, beginning with his grandfather Hillel, what Paul came to preach. Contrary to that teaching, Saul did not display the kind of tolerance they advocated. Was Paul's conversion responsible for his teachings about sin? Was his aversion to the body idiosyncratic? To what extent might it have been rhetorical, geared to an audience that was familiar with Hellenistic teachings about the corruption of this world? A way of persuading them to seek salvation in Christ before it was too late? A story of cosmic forces beyond their control?

... the radical existential Christian philosopher Lev Shestov. — Janus

It has been a long time (1976-77) since I read Shestov, but I do not recall his work as being "Christian".

The first thing that should be noted is that there is no mention of original sin in the creation story. The first mention of sin occurs in Genesis 4 when God says to Cain:

But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it. (4:7)

To sin is to be led astray or to harm or be blameworthy. But one can rule over sin, that is, one is able avoid wrongdoing. One is not blameworthy because one is born of sin, but because one does something wrong.

According to Paul:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned (Romans 5:12)

According to the Genesis story because man has become “like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” (3:22) Adam had been warned: “but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” (2:17).

Paul, who was as subtle as the serpent, gets things right in one sense, as did the serpent, but misrepresents it. Men die, but according to the story it is because they have become “like one of us”. They became like the gods because they ate of the tree of knowledge and thus were prevented from eating of the tree of life. Now Paul can call what they did a sin, but the story does not. In addition, Cain did not sin because his parents did, he did so as a matter of choice or an inability to control himself.

Another point that should be considered. We find in the Hebrew Bible statements such as:

Keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.” (Exodus 34:7)

‘The Lord is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.’ (Numbers 14:18)

One way to read this is that God will not only punish you but your children and their children, but why should God visit the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children? This seems like the height of injustice. How can children and their children be blamed for what their ancestors did? This is the flip side of the image of God’s promise to Abram:

I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you; and all the families of the earth will be blessed through you. (Genesis 12:2-3)

It can be read as a warning to those who desire greatness. Rather than being the father of a great nation, your iniquity will make you the father of generations who are cursed. Does this mean that the innocent will be punished for their father’s misdeeds? The statements do not, however, say that they children are innocent, but rather that God will not clear the guilty. Does this mean that the children are guilty simply because the father was guilty? I don’t think so. Although there are exceptions, consider phrases such as: “like father like son” and “the apple doesn't fall far from the tree”.

Consider also the following:

Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)

The Hebrew Bible advocates personal responsibility. Sin can get the best of you, but you have some say as to whether it does or does not. Paul, however, seems to abdicate responsibility - we are powerless against sin and in need of grace.

"What is a rule? If, e.g., I say 'Do this and don't do this', the other doesn't know what he is meant to do; that is, we don't allow a contradiction to count as a rule.
— Sam26

'We don't allow it ' means there is a rule against it. The rule of rules. — unenlightened

It is not that there is a rule against it, but that if it is contradictory it cannot be followed, and if it can't be followed it can't count as a rule to be followed.