Good point but doesn't such wisdom lead to "If God is omnipotent let him make stone so heavy it won't be able to raise it again"? — SpaceDweller
As you implied, the Garden of Eden myth seems to be intended as a warning against "evil" Science, which trusts its sensory extensions and rational conclusions more than the absolute Word of God : "apple bad, trust me". That's also why the Bible repeatedly indicates that physical Flesh (including taste & touch) is corrupted, and only the non-physical Spirit is pure & good, and a direct link to God --- so, trust, and don't bother to verify..Even non-Christians know the rather tragic tale, The Fall Of Man. The story goes that Eve was enticed by Satan in serpent form to eat the forbidden fruit - — TheMadFool
Not necessarily assuming,
If definition of God is "omnipotent, omniscient and all benevolent", then there is no reason to assume God would command contrary to that definition. — SpaceDweller
Just because you can start punching people on the streets, doesn't mean you would actually do it because you know how that would end. — SpaceDweller
Omnipotence is not God's only property.
Since God is also omniscient he knows doing so is self destructing.
Since God is also omnibenevolent he knows doing so is not good. — SpaceDweller
Therefore if God makes him self omni-helplessness then that God is contradictory to itself, that is contradictory to it's omnibenevolent nature, which is no longer a God that we speak of. — SpaceDweller
God is omni-contradictory because He is omnisapient. His omnibenevolency stands apart from is but his omni-contradictiveness acounts for Him being omni-malevolent. — GraveItty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GodGod is usually conceived of as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent as well as having an eternal and necessary existence.
You're begging the question because when I rejected your position that only obedience matters, God's goodness is an open question i.e. it needs to be proved and then the scenario you set up is so crafted as if God is good. — TheMadFool
When we began, you said it was only obedience that mattered — TheMadFool
According to church teaching (which btw. makes my statement about disobedience toward God less accurate), knowledge of good and evil is before all proper to God, knowledge which God didn't want people to know, that is essential. — SpaceDweller
Now you start to talk nonsense, fine, wikipedia definition of God is same as God described in the bible: — SpaceDweller
Pardon the intrusion, but I just copied this Dilbert cartoon from Steven Pinker's Rationality, and was looking for a place to put it. Just kidding! :joke:Now you start to talk nonsense, fine, wikipedia definition of God is same as God described in the bible: — SpaceDweller
Nonsense from your POV. Calling something nonsense is usually done when the sense of the competing POV (mine) is in contradiction with the POV it contradicts. I merely use the vocabulary of infinite potentiality (be it moral, physical, or semantic) and make a kin of reductio ad absurdum to reveal the shortcomings the POV. That's all it is: a point of view. It's not mine though. — GraveItty
I don't consider that relevant — SpaceDweller
Now, if you're interested into unlocking the meaning of "knowledge of good and evil" as much as I am then what we should focus on is, why knowledge of good and evil is bad for people, because if there is an answer to this then we'll know whether God is indeed good or not. — SpaceDweller
Then you're irrelevant because it describes your position, not mine. — TheMadFool
I apologize, if the cartoon was not an accurate portrayal of the disagreement. As I said, I had just copied the Dilbert for future reference, since name-calling is common on this forum. I hadn't followed your dialog, but the "nonsense!" epithet was close-enough for me to use the 'toon as a "cool-down" warning.↪Gnomon
Except I didn't "label" Graveltty because of disagreement with me, but because of contradictory definition of a God. — SpaceDweller
I see, but we are here talking about specific God, God in the garden of Eden is Abrahamic God which has all the properties that wiki defines. — SpaceDweller
Indeed, you're correct.However, a philosophical discussion is supposed to accept each postulated opinon as fodder for rational discourse. — Gnomon
In time when this story was written there was no science — SpaceDweller
There was a whole lot of knowledge! That's what science is about: knowledge. How else were houses built, roads constructed, or wine be packed? — GraveItty
But what is your approach to discover what that is? — SpaceDweller
That's essential, now consider nobody has this knowledge except you, it's secret, how would you use it to your advantage? — SpaceDweller
Absolutely not! by exposing the secret you lose the power of knowledge because you make competition and thus lose monopol.You mean I play the devil? Should I make others know? — GraveItty
“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Why should the devil give this knowledge to Eve? What did he gain? — DecheleSchilder
Why giving the knowledge of the good too? — DecheleSchilder
As you implied, the Garden of Eden myth seems to be intended as a warning against "evil" Science, which trusts its sensory extensions and rational conclusions more than the absolute Word of God : "apple bad, trust me". That's also why the Bible repeatedly indicates that physical Flesh (including taste & touch) is corrupted, and only the non-physical Spirit is pure & good, and a direct link to God --- so, trust, and don't bother to verify.. — Gnomon
Of course, in the Garden, those child-like humans had direct sensory experience with God, who walked in the garden, making sounds that frightened the babes-in-the-woods. Today, we are bereft of that intimate contact, and the original words of God, are now -- reportedly -- recorded in man-made books, after passing through the fallible minds of many generations of sinful fleshly humans. Therefore, it follows that the self-reliance of Science may be the product of a Satanic plot. Hence, your label "malus scientia" seems to be appropriate. Unless, human reason is the only remaining reliable Word (Logos) of the Creator — Gnomon
TheMadFool said it is relevant to know whether God can go or do wrong, since that specific God has property of being omnibenevolent, I think is therefore irrelevant to argue over something that is already known, there is no assumption or personal position here.
So why don't we just focus on the knowledge of good and evil? — SpaceDweller
But we still have free will, it was not taken away from us, I don't see anything evil in that.God is supposed to have endued us with free will. That's the solution to the problem of evil. — TheMadFool
has a zero tolerance policy towards disobedience. Either God is evil or God should be ok with disobedience. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.