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

Basically you ask here if, as God is omnipotent, he can make Himself omni-incapable. By definition, He can, leaving Himself paralyzed and incapable of ever doing one more thing. So, and here lies the fallibility, being omnipotent harbors a omni-helplessness. Which has the potential to surface in every situation, lurking in the dark, waiting for its chance Hence the intrinsic potential uselessness of omnipotency.

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

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..

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. :chin:

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.

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.

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.

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

When we began, you said it was only obedience that mattered - the morality of what was being commanded of zero relevance. I objected.

Then you set up a scenario in which you offered two choices: 1. always obey God or 2. always disobey God.

I told you I would still keep my option to disobey God open.

Your response was God is good (omnibenevolent).

So, it's not just obedience is it that matters? The moral nature of God's commands also counts.

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.

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

Indeed. There is even a law against it. Wars are waged far away, and a simple street fight is punished with a fine or an imprisonment.

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

Gods are just as potent as human beings. In every realm. That's what is meant with that they created us in their image. But their potentials have an energy that exceeds that of people by far.

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.

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

Now you start to talk nonsense, fine, wikipedia definition of God is same as God described in the bible:

God is usually conceived of as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent as well as having an eternal and necessary existence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

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

I don't consider that relevant because God being good already is the definition of God.
wikipedia gives an abstract and clear definition, while the bible does not give it clear.

Your allusion of God being sometimes good and sometimes bad seems to be based on God waging wars or asking Abraham to kill his son, which I told you it doesn't help to debate to grasp the garden of Eden because of the sheer size of the content that in the end leads to same definition anyway.

When we began, you said it was only obedience that mattered — TheMadFool

I still say so, but I also consider my self not all knowing because later I tried to redirect my position on that:

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, 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.

I suggest we try to figure out what happens if we are able to distinguish good and evil?
First thing that come to my mid is that we are able to judge.
Does that tell you anything?

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.

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

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:

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: — Gnomon

It pictures exactly what's going on here! Right place to put it! No kidding! :razz:

Except I didn't "label" @Graveltty because of disagreement with me, but because of contradictory definition of a God.

What sense does it make to distort well established definition? except to undermine entry discussion?

edit:
If you want my apology fine, I apologize.
So what or who is God?
Do we agree on definition of God or not?
This is a moot point that needs to be resolved.

I don't consider that relevant — SpaceDweller

Then you're irrelevant because it describes your position, not mine.

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

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Then you're irrelevant because it describes your position, not mine. — TheMadFool

Then what's your definition of God to make your position relevant?

↪Gnomon
Except I didn't "label" Graveltty because of disagreement with me, but because of contradictory definition of a God. — SpaceDweller

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.

FWIW, my own personal definition of "G*D" does not agree with Wiki for "God". But the Wiki def for PanEnDeism is close. And that's OK : there are dozens of variations on a definition of deity. Most ancient images of gods were un-apologetically anthro-morphic. And even modern Catholicism uses icons of humans & animals --- Jesus & Mary & Holy Spirit (e.g. dove) --- to represent different aspects of an otherwise inconceivable deity.

Therefore, on this forum, we need to address the proposed definition that is in question. We are not obligated to agree on a single interpretation, but we should only critique the one under consideration. It's par-for- the-course for one person's imaginary concept to sound like non-sense to another person. However, a philosophical discussion is supposed to accept each postulated opinon as fodder for rational discourse. :smile:

Universals are a class of mind-independent entities,
https://iep.utm.edu/universa/
Note -- "God" is typically assumed to be universal & singular. But "gods" are usually specific & multiple. Yet, my "G*D" may be considered a little bit of both : Pan + En + Deism.

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.
Also let's keep in mind that God ≠ deity.
Therefore changing the definition of that specific God would distort the meaning of the garden of Eden as well.

@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?

However, a philosophical discussion is supposed to accept each postulated opinon as fodder for rational discourse. — Gnomon

:100:

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

The God that Wikipedia defines? How ever can you define God? That's blasphemy. If Wiki means that almighty, all-knowing, only-doing-good God, then the picture is a truly disturbed one. Keeping out of touch with human reality infinitely. Although it gives a certain sense of feeling protected. Nevertheless, it's an inhuman God. If he could do anything he wants, who knows what terrible things can happen? In the name of his absolute knowledge of the good. If he was omnipotent, why he couldn't he have prevented an angel from falling? It should be possible, if he knows everything.

However, a philosophical discussion is supposed to accept each postulated opinon as fodder for rational discourse. — Gnomon

Indeed, you're correct.
And you position is "the Garden of Eden myth seems to be intended as a warning against "evil" Science..."
But that doesn't hold because:
1. It doesn't fit into the rest of scriptures
2. In time when this story was written there was no science.


What you ask requires theology.

What you ask requires theology. — SpaceDweller

Then this whole thread is useless.

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?

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

It's not secret that this story was written somewhat later than other books that chronologically follow it but still not before discovery of letter.

Pentateuch for example is older, therefore the story of Adam and Eve must have been transmitted orally from generation to generation.

Surely there was error during that transmission hence we have 2 versions of the garden of Eden both of which are part of the Bible.

Knowing that Genesis was written much much later than Adam and Eve become to be, there is no reason to reject presence of some knowledge, therefore you're correct.

But what is your approach to discover what that is?

But what is your approach to discover what that is? — SpaceDweller

I don't have an approach to discover what that is. I asked why you claim that there wasn't science in the time it was written.

I think knowledge of good and evil can be taken either literary or figuratively.

Literary, If you know what's good and what's evil then aren't you able to judge?
According to church teachings, knowledge of good and evil is proper to God, and so is judging.

That's essential, now consider nobody has this knowledge except you, it's secret, how would you use it to your advantage?

That's essential, now consider nobody has this knowledge except you, it's secret, how would you use it to your advantage? — SpaceDweller

You mean I play the devil? Should I make others know? Eeeeehhh.... if I were the only one knowing it, as God had in mind that only He should know this, I would make everybody know, if I were the devil. To spread the evil, as I love (being the devil) evil. But I would at the same time give the knowledge of good. As the devil, I would make people human!

You mean I play the devil? Should I make others know? — GraveItty

Absolutely not! by exposing the secret you lose the power of knowledge because you make competition and thus lose monopol.

Notice what serpent said to woman:

“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.”

There is only one God, and knowledge of good and evil is proper to God hence why serpent said and you will be like God, because that knowledge is divine.

Knowledge of good and evil lets you judge, you can't judge if you don't know what are you judging.
God is the only judge, but now you're like God and you can do the job that is proper to God which is judging.

I already told you, when the story of garden of Eden was written, in that time letter was already discovered, human civilization is therefore already advanced and there is a lot of knowledge around.
Think again, how was "judging" used in that time? or how is it used today? or how it was used before that period?

Who is your judge for example?

The Apple’s Return

God, alone in His Power, had no fun,
So He made Sapiens out of His One,
Our image reflecting His Love’s Knowing,
As His mirror of Divine Perfection.

‘God’s image reflects the mottled colors
Painted by human artists upon the air
Where the wormed apple was before the fall
That rotted away truth’s tree of knowledge.

Eden’s fresh market carried everything;
The shiny red apples called from the Tree,
“Touch me, take me, eat me”, and soon trouble
Was at hand, although it was crispy, sweet.

Shirking responsibility, The Blamer
Cited humans as the culprits of his err,
And cast them out of Eden, to this day—
This evil being God’s own Original Sin.

‘Coerced’ is to follow God’s will—or burn,
Thus feeding the Fires of Hell in turn,
But humans had local laws long before
Moses brought down the Ten of lore.

Eden’s sinful Apple, causing our shit,
Made for harsh apple cider, but when it
Was heated with sulfurous brimstone it
Soon turned smooth, the Hell taken out of it!

Bless your soul with tongues of fire; Holy Spirit burn;
Leave no trace of man’s desire; Holy Spirit turn.
Oh, man, why detest thy constitution;
Doth thou think Nature has a lot to learn?

So Nature got it wrong, the pious say,
In man’s constitution, erring its essay,
Granting so many ways to go astray.
Well, then, Who, do they say, penned this world’s play?

‘God’, Divine Human, and Spirit, to boot,
All structured on wishes—what a hoot!
Angels added, too, and Devils haunting.
All as supposed, so, their doings are moot.

‘God’ changed His mind, so it would work better,
From err of His deluge wet and wetter,
Ne’er to kill again by water His kin;
Jesus gave Original Sin’s Redemption.

I found the Garden in the Amazon’s heart,
Wherein lie massive fields of Lady’s Slippers
And all of the rare flowers of Paradise…
And there I put the apple back on the tree.

But what if God only possessed the knowledge of good and bad. Why should the devil give this knowledge to Eve? What did he gain? Why giving the knowledge of the good too?

Why should the devil give this knowledge to Eve? What did he gain? — DecheleSchilder

Devil's biggest sin is rebellion against God, the devil doesn't want to serve God, instead he want's to be grater than God and to be worshiped as God.
Hence first God's commandment is "I am your God, don't have other Gods..."

God made people, and the biggest sin people can do is to rebel against God and to take the job of a God akin to be Gods them self.

The devil is basically telling Adam and Eve to rebel against God (like he did), and is telling them "and you will be like God", but that's just his pretense to seduce them.
Neither Adam and Eve nor the Devil were able to become Gods, but just like Gods.

It's important to keep in mind that knowledge of good and evil is proper to God because he is a judge, God didn't give that knowledge to people because he didn't want them to be judges.

For example, if I'm judge and you're judge but we don't agree then who is right? or who is God? There can be no 2 Gods. either I'm God or you rebel against me.

What the devil gained is rebellion of people against God and to take judgement into their hands, which is proper to God.

Why giving the knowledge of the good too? — DecheleSchilder

2 explanations that come to my mind:
1. If you don't know what's good then everything is evil and vice versa.
2. God being just judge, may use good deeds to annul evil deeds of same weight.

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

Very Gnostic in spirit. I read about Gnosticism yesterday on Wikipedia and this - matter & flesh as evil, the spirit & soul as good - figures in its teachings. Gnosticism was declared heresy by the church and stamped out therefore.

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

And then some say religion has no bone to pick with science.

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

God is supposed to have endued us with free will. That's the solution to the problem of evil. He also (the Fall of Man) has a zero tolerance policy towards disobedience. Either God is evil or God should be ok with disobedience.

God is supposed to have endued us with free will. That's the solution to the problem of evil. — TheMadFool

But we still have free will, it was not taken away from us, I don't see anything evil in that.
It would be evil to be slaves of God's will, to worship him even though we don't want that, however God made us free to choose which is good.

Otherwise, I think free will depends on why God created people and everything else in the first place.
Theologically God is love, to express his love he gave life, out of his love he creates people.

However if all that God cares about is being loved and worshiped in return, then he could simply create robot-like people that say "I love you, I love you...", but that's no longer outward (creational) love then.
It's rather preprogramed self love or self worship which is contradictory to love toward creation.

I think that's the reason why free will is necessary, to rule out self love, not because of hatred toward it's creation.

has a zero tolerance policy towards disobedience. Either God is evil or God should be ok with disobedience. — TheMadFool

Zero tolerance policy would mean to kill Adam and Eve, destroy everything and possibly start over.