Magus55

They didn't know the extent of what good and evil was. They knew that God told them not to eat from it, but Satan pushed them through the boundaries. He lied to Eve and tricked her into eating from it, so Eve listened. She didn't know it was "good" or "evil" because Satan said it wasn't.



I knew you were gonna ask about why the tree was there. God had to put the tree there in the act of giving them free will. Think about it, if God gave them no commandment, they could never have had the possibility of doing wrong, because God didn't decree that doing anything was wrong. The tree is that decree that allowed Free will to exist. If the tree wasn't there, they couldn't have chosen whether or not to obey or disobey God. If the tree wasn't there, there wasn't anything they couldn't choose to do that God forbid. The Tree allowed them to have Free will. God forbidding the eating of the tree is what gave Adam and Eve the ability to say, yes we will follow God, no we will not follow him.

Mageth

They didn't know the extent of what good and evil was.

No, they had no knowledge of good and evil.

They knew that God told them not to eat from it, but Satan pushed them through the boundaries. He lied to Eve and tricked her into eating from it, so Eve listened. She didn't know it was "good" or "evil" because Satan said it wasn't.

No, she had no knowledge of good and evil until she ate the fruit. And yet god blamed Adam and Eve? This makes no sense at all.

I knew you were gonna ask about why the tree was there. God had to put the tree there in the act of giving them free will. Think about it, if God gave them no commandment, they could never have had the possibility of doing wrong, because God didn't decree that doing anything was wrong.

So god, by his decree, created "wrong", or at least the possibility of doing wrong. God left the loaded gun on the table.

The tree is that decree that allowed Free will to exist. If the tree wasn't there, they couldn't have chosen whether or not to obey or disobey God. If the tree wasn't there, there wasn't anything they couldn't choose to do that God forbid. The Tree allowed them to have Free will. God forbidding the eating of the tree is what gave Adam and Eve the ability to say, yes we will follow God, no we will not follow him.

And thus God introduced sin into the world, by his own volition. Think about it.

Thanks for backing up my argument.

winstonjen

But god put the tree there, and being all-knowing and all-powerful, he would have known what would happen. Therefore, he should take responsibility. By forseeing what would happen, and doing it anyway, he is responsible.

And it's a bad analogy - the gunsmith is not omnipotent, and does not intend for his guns to be used to kill people.

Ganymede

If you knew in advance, with absolute certainty, that your rocket was going to be stolen and misused, and took no steps to prevent that from happening, then yes you are responsible for the death of those people.

JCS

Well there you go. God forgot to mention satan as something else they should avoid in this perfect construct. Seems your perfect deity has all sorts of imperfections going on simultaneously. Forgets to mention satan forgets to demonstrate the concept of consequence to A&E leaves a dangerous fruit lying about. Any thing else you care to confess?



Yeah but until they did they couldn't know that is was either good or evil to do so. You keep putting the cart before the horse.

Well that makes no sense at all. You're stating that they could not still follow this deity once they ate the fruit, thus you are negating their freewill. Talk about wanting your cake and eating it to.

Magus55

You are using a Calvinist argument here. God's omniscience, does not predestine events to take place. The fact that he knows what will happen before it does, doesn't prevent it from happening. Yes God knew Adam and Eve would eat from the tree, but that doesn't remove the fact they had the choice to eat from it or not. The analogy works just fine for God. God never intended for humans to use their free will to disobey him, but they did it anyway. And the gun manufacturing knew what the weapon could do, therefore he had foreknowledge that someone could very well use it against its intended purpose.

Mageth, how many times do i need to say it. God did not create sin itself, only the scenario where its possible for sin to exist. Sin is not a material thing, he didn't drop a pot of sin on the world and walaa, he created sin. By allowing Free will, God allowed humans to make choices that are in harmony with God and those that aren't, He never created sinful, evil humans, only the possibility for them to exist. And stop bringing the argument of sin up, im sick of trying to explain it to people who have absolutely no desire to comprehend it. The only reason you bring it up is to play dumb games to try and disprove God's nature, it never worked before and it won't now. So give it up.

winstonjen

If god does nothing to change matters, he is guilty of causing them by omission, because he knows that they will happen, and he is powerful enough to stop it or change it, but he doesn't.

Free will does not require evil. Good people can still choose between a number of good acts to do.

Perhaps Mageth's arguments have not worked to convince you, but I'm guessing that it's because of your own stubbornness. Perhaps god has 'hardened your heart' to any evidence or arguments that contradict your preferred view of the world. However, some people must find the arguments of atheists convincing, or they wouldn't have converted from Xianity and other theist positions to atheism. So why should we give it up?

JCS

Well if he is the prime mover and with full knowledge of the outcome, where exactly does choice come in? In order for the results to be known, would not the choices be predetermined? If not, than I could make a choice he would not expect, thus he could not know in advance what those choices might be. So which is it?


And this is different how? If the potential for a fault exists in a design and the user exposes the designers fault it is the user that is held accountable for the design flaw? Don't tell that to the lawyers who sue over product liability.

Mr. foreman have you reached a verdict?

Yes your Honor. We find in favor of the home builder. Even though he forget to nail the house together and it collapsed on the occupants, the occupants are negligent for having chosen to live inside the dwelling.

Yeah the onus is on us because it makes sense to you. I do not need to disprove your assertions concerning any god(s) nature. But if you want me to sway to your side of the arguement you will need to do the proving.

winstonjen

Allow me to repeat myself:

Mageth

You are using a Calvinist argument here. God's omniscience, does not predestine events to take place. The fact that he knows what will happen before it does, doesn't prevent it from happening.

I think you need to reword the last sentence, as it makes no sense.

Yes God knew Adam and Eve would eat from the tree, but that doesn't remove the fact they had the choice to eat from it or not.

The twisted logic behind this boggles the mind. If god knows something is going to happen, then by God it's going to happen, no matter what "choice" anyone is presented with.

The analogy works just fine for God.

Did he tell you that?

God never intended for humans to use their free will to disobey him, but they did it anyway.

Then why in hell did he give humans free will, and on top of that set up the scenario for them to disobey him?

And the gun manufacturing knew what the weapon could do, therefore he had foreknowledge that someone could very well use it against its intended purpose.

Exactly. So the gunmaker at least shares responsibility for the use of the gun for an unintended purpose.

Mageth, how many times do i need to say it. God did not create sin itself, only the scenario where its possible for sin to exist.

I did not say god "created" sin, I said "so god, by his decree, created "wrong", or at least the possibility of doing wrong" and that god introduced sin to the world.

You, in your post I was responding to, implied that God decreed that doing "something" was wrong. In so doing, God created wrong.

You also said "God forbidding the eating of the tree is what gave Adam and Eve the ability to say, yes we will follow God, no we will not follow him. " In so doing, God introduced the ability to sin to A&E, and through the tree and his decree, defined the sin which they could (indeed, would) commit. So I still say god introduced sin into the world.

Sin is not a material thing, he didn't drop a pot of sin on the world and walaa, he created sin.

By your own words, god decreed what is wrong. If god would not have done that, then sin would not, could not have come into the world.

By allowing Free will, God allowed humans to make choices that are in harmony with God and those that aren't, He never created sinful, evil humans, only the possibility for them to exist.

Since they do exist, and are not just a "possibility", and god supposedly created everything, then god did indeed create sinful, evil humans. I't simple, really.

And why couldn't god have introduced free will to make choices only in harmony with god? If humans still had choices, they would still have free will, would they not?

And stop bringing the argument of sin up, im sick of trying to explain it to people who have absolutely no desire to comprehend it.

Forgive me, o god of the II, but I think I'll exercise my free will and continue to bring it up!

I would argue that I comprehend the biblical concepts of sin et al at least as well as you (better, from what I've seen; I could argue from your side more effectively than you've demonstrated if I so chose), and having spent 47 years reading, discussing and thinking about them, including here on this board for the last two years, the "absolutely no desire" bit it demonstrably false.

The problem is, you fail to recognize the inextricable wad of contradictions that the "Fall" account of Genesis poses, and that the "typical" defense of it that you appear to be reciting by rote, and not doing a very good job of I might add, is indefensible.

So if you don't want to attempt to "explain" it, don't. Such efforts are fruitless for "your side" anyways. From "our side", I'll continute to "bring it up", as it is a good illustration of problems with the biblical account for the lurkers and others to see and ponder.

The only reason you bring it up is to play dumb games to try and disprove God's nature, it never worked before and it won't now. So give it up.

I don't bring it up to "play dumb games to try and disprove God's nature", unless you think theological discussions are "dumb games." (hmm, perhaps you're on to something there.) I could just as well accuse you of bringing sin up to "play dumb games to try and prove God's nature", couldn't I?

The reason I "bring it up" (if indeed I was guilty of that on this thread; I haven't looked back to see where the subject of "sin" was introduced in this thread) is so "lurkers" and others (even you) can hopefully critically examine some of the claims of "god's nature" made by believers and sometimes actually based on the bible.

And such a tactic demonstrably has worked before, and may even be working now. I know it's worked before because examination and discussion of such issues as sin, free will, A&E, etc. were a big contributing factor to my coming to my senses and recognizing the Bible and Xian doctrine for the inconsistent, contradictory, unsupportable account of "god's nature" that it is.

So, no, I won't give it up, free will and all.