rainbow walking

You missunderstood. The irrationality I was refering to was not that of holding the oponents claims to be false because it lacked evidence, but that of thinking you could prove your own claim by simply pointing out that you were hearing voices.

I agree, but how is this different if you can’t offer me anything more than your claim to think with an “inner voice”?


Perhaps if the person was completely insane and the nature of his claim was consistent with his mental desease. But, you never mentioned that.

But we don’t normally consider a theist completely insane based solely on his claim to believe a god exists. Such an example as this isn’t analogous to this challenge. The charge doesn’t revolve around a person’s sanity as much as their rationality.


That completely depends on his conclution, if he reads things into his observations that does not logically follow from them then I may call him irrational.

Agreed, but for the practical purposes of this challenge I’m not saddling you with any extraneous claims. Just the basic one of demonstrating the veracity of a claim that you think with an inner voice.

Thanks for an interesting topic, I hope you reply.

You’re welcome and I shall.

rainbow walking

But, that's the difference. The "standards" are different depending on the claim.

The standards involved in substantiating an empirical claim are the same across the board. You devise experiments to expose the phenomenon to critical examination and then develop conclusions as to its nature, source and impact. You present evidence to support your claim.
Very seldom can a certain "amount" of evidence (in this case the person saying so) merit the same probability in 2 seperate claims. And if they were to merit the same probability I would be wrong and inconsistent in my approach if I were to suddenly lower my standards.

Well, submit your evidence and let’s discuss the degree of its probability.

They would remain the same, and I would admit that I cannot prove my point to you no more than you could prove yours to me.

Ah…then you concede that you experience a phenomenon that you know to be true but cannot prove?

But I wouldn't start believing your claim all of a sudden, unless I had heard the same voice that led you to your conclution.

Of course not, and I wouldn’t expect you to. But I would expect you to consider the ramifications of your concession when you challenge my claim on the basis of lack of empirical evidence. In this regard our respective claims stand on equal, but shaky, ground.

To correctly prove a point to another person, that person must have the evidence available also.
Although in this example I could perhaps take your word for it regarding hearing the voice, but I would not accept your conclution.
Well, in this case, its you who have the burden of proof, since I’ve made no other claim than that you should prove to me that your acclaimed experience is genuine.



Not really. If I were to accept your claim, then I would also have to accept your conclution. That the voice you hear is one of a god.

Wait a minute now. You seem to be operating under a misconception or creating a straw man, since I’ve made no reciprocal claim of hearing the voice of god. All I am doing is using that example analogous to your own claim. Not trying to build a case for the existence of a god.

But the most reasonable thing for me to do is disregarding your conclution and base my own on the actual observations you made. This is ofcourse, if I were to trust you in your claim at all.
As I stated before, I cannot hear the voice you claim to hear.

Now I’m a bit confused here. Are you referring to the voice of god or that “inner voice” I’ve challenged you to prove exists? If it’s the latter and you are telling me you have not had this experience then you are essentially on my side in this exercise.

[quote] rw: Whether the actual object, (the internal voice, god etc.), is believed to originate "in here" or "out there" is also irrelevent to this exercise.



That seems abit strange to me. You are asking me for my approach on such a claim, yet you tend to censor my response by calling it irrelavent.
Oh, I apologize if you feel I’m attempting to censor your efforts. It’s just that you, and others, continue to drift in this direction which, IMO, is irrelevant to the challenge. Since I’ve already designed the challenge with some built in assumptions, one of them being this “inner voice” originates within the mind, I saw no reason to address this point any further.



On the same basis as you can deny me having a voice talking in my head. For you to make a positive claim, you must have the evidence available to you aswell.

I agree. Now, if a universal experiential phenomenon occurs that everyone attests to having experienced, and no one can prove the veracity of their attestation, on what level does this put them in relation to theists who make a similar claim, similar in regards to their inability to prove its veracity?

Lacking such, and not trusting the person making the claim I would say that "no" is the only reasonable answer. Ofcourse that can be false, the theist might be hearing voices and they might be the voice of god.

Then you realize and concede the conundrum of appealing to empirical evidentiary rules of proof in certain situations?

Because we can only define reality from our own observations (subjectively) anything lacking evidence, observations or probability must be said to not exist.
Then you are saying the “inner voice” process of thinking doesn’t exist?



Are you talking about the origin of the voice?
Well, one of the origins is our head, if we want to trace it backwards and name even more origins then we would need some evidence to do so. As there is no absolute named source for it until we indeed discover it. We could ofcourse name the creation of the universe as one probable cause, but then the question arises when the voice became a "voice". And if it even could be classified as a voice.

Well now, wait a minute. Above you said that any acclaimed experience that doesn’t meet evidentiary standards, for all practical purposes, doesn’t exist. Is it now your desire to drop this foolish claim of thinking with an “inner voice” and join us who are highly skeptical of such claims?

TO be continued...

rainbow walking

Only three million comrades? Are you saying that the rest of the world's population have been indoctrinated into believing that they have a "voice" in their heads? I don't remember being brainwashed into my belief - or rather *actual experience*.

I’m not really sure how they came upon their “inner voice”. For the purposes of this challenges I’m just responding to their claim of thinking in this fashion.

Anyway, in my last post I talked about an experiment involving an illiterate person, a drum and the Lord's Prayer.

Here are my questions - which you forgot to answer...
Would an illiterate person be able to do that task?

Yes

If so, what would be going through their head while they're doing it?


Don’t know…that’s what I’m hoping you can establish with evidence and facts.

They would only know of the spoken form of the words and not the written form...
Would they explicitly know in their thoughts what part of the thing (the Lord's Prayer, etc) they are up to? Or would they have no idea, then suddenly sense that it was time to say "stop!" ?

Again, I couldn’t say. I know me and my three million comrades, many of whom are illiterate, would accomplish the memorization and recitation using our process of “feelings”. No inner voice would be involved. That’s why we’re highly skeptical of your claim and seek evidence of its veracity.

SRB

Despite all your good intentions, what you wrote is a pseudo-argument. You talk of premises and a conclusion but there does not seem to be any genuine reasoning going on. No conclusion is derived from the premises. Your conclusion, quoted above, does not follow from anything that precedes it by any legitimate rule of inference. If you think otherwise, you need to tell us precisely the propositions which are supposed to entail the conclusion, and (preferably) the name of the rule(s) of inference used

SRB

rainbow walking

Despite all your good intentions, what you wrote is a pseudo-argument. You talk of premises and a conclusion but there does not seem to be any genuine reasoning going on. No conclusion is derived from the premises. Your conclusion, quoted above, does not follow from anything that precedes it by any legitimate rule of inference. If you think otherwise, you need to tell us precisely the propositions which are supposed to entail the conclusion, and (preferably) the name of the rule(s) of inference used




Uh...no. You just need to re-read the argument. If you would care to point out which propositions fail and why, I'll be more than happy to address your concerns.

Biff the unclean

Rw: While this could be inferred, to do so essentially nullifies the FWD.
That's exactly why I brought it up.

Theism claims that freewill is a necessity of GnE and accounts for how both god and evil can co-exist. Remove freewill and GnE becomes a moot point.
A number of problems.
This is 21st century Theism and not what your bible says. It says that the God severely punished all of mankind for attaining Free Will (The Fall of Man) and that he piled so many laws on mankind-all of which superceded our Free Will-that nobody could be expected to follow them all ("If a man says he does not sin, he lies"). You couldn't even have a bowl of clam chowder without facing the pit of Hell for Pete's sake. So the bible is very clear about Free Will--God doesn't like it one little bit. The God of Free Will that you tout isn't the same God who is in the bible.

One possibility, to be sure, but not the only one. You could also be a tool of your genetics, or environment or of aliens.
This must be a new theism that I am unfamiliar with. Funny how often these new revelations come up on these pages.

Not in our lifetimes thus far, but our lives are short in comparison to the age of the universe.
Which brings us to the problem of infinite (age of the universe at least) punishment for finite ("our lives are short") offences. A related topic, but perhaps better left for another thread.

There may be good reason why a god would remain silent for long stretches of time.
Again you are trying to say this nothing (in this case silence) is God not doing anything rather than this nothing is nothing.


BTU: No, just a God who doesn't exist not doing anything.

You can’t really prove that, can you? Your "if not X, therefore not Y", logic isn’t the only way to examine the veracity of a claim. It’s based on your limited view of WHEN a god should act.
I see, it's my fault because my view is limited. Odd that this is the only subject where I hear complaints that my view is limited while my worthy oponient--who has exactly the same limitations that I do-- doesn't have any problem with their view.
Do you want me to prove that there is no Biblical God? Fine, Yahweh is omnipresent--he's everywhere. You are somewhere. A somewhere which is part of everywhere. Now look around the room you are in. See any Gods there? Check behind the couch in case he's hiding. No Gods in your particular somewhere? Then that is proof that there is no Yahweh.
If He does happen to be in your room put Him on the line, I have a bone or two to pick with Him.

Israel exists, the predictions exist. Both are verifiable claims.
If predictions exist then the future must already be set for the predictor to be able to predict it. If this fortune telling stuff is true then there cannot be Free Will as your future actions are already established

("The One Forbidden Thing.") it originated…when?
According to Joseph Campbell (Occidental Mythology) the oldest trace of this story is on a carved green steatite vase (in the Louvre) inscribed c. 2025 BCE by King Gudea of Lagash, dedicated to a late Sumerian manifestation of the consort of the goddess, under his title Ningizzida, "Lord of the Tree of Truth." It has two snakes and not just one like the Jewish retelling.

BTU: Adam couldn't decide for himself, he didn't have free will. Genesis is quite specific about this.
Chapter and verse?
Oh good grief, don't you know where to find this story? It's right in the front of the Bible.
Here God forbids Adam from obtaining the knowledge of right and wrong and lies to him about dying
Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: (17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Why forbid man the knowledge of good and evil if he already had the knowledge of good and evil?

Here Talking Snake helps the people out by exposing God's lie.
3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

In that day their eyes would be opened. Not possible if their eyes were already open.
In that day would know good and evil and be like gods. It's telling us that the knowledge of good and evil at this point was an attribute of God and that people could gain this godly power by eating the fruit.

Then, just in case you still think that they already could make value judgements (necessary to Free Will) we come to

3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. (3:8) And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

The old Catch 22 (or should that be Catch 1 ?) the second that they knew the difference between good and evil they realized that they had done something evil. But they were incapable of knowing this


If Adam didn’t have freewill why did god even issue the command?
Because in older versions of this same myth the fruit was of the knowledge of culture and civilization and not good and evil. Man chooses this knowledge which frees him from servitude to the gods but at the cost of losing eternal life. It's a much more noble story with people choosing freedom over life itself. The Jewish version mucked the story up a bit.

BTU: Without the ability to tell good from evil or right from wrong it was impossible to make a choice.

Why do you say this? We make choices all the time that incur no moral or ethical consequence. "What color tie should I wear with this suit?"
And if you were color blind on what criteria would you base your choice? Adam and Eve had no ability to distinguish good from evil.

Three things are required in moral agency:
1. Knowledge of a choice
Choice without decrement is by necessity completely arbitrary.

2. Knowledge of a consequence
In other words, the knowledge of if your choice would be good or evil. A & E didn't have that knowledge until it was too late.
You might point out God's death threat. That doesn't make it on two counts. God was lying, as Talking Snake correctly pointed out. And 2, A&E had no way of knowing if it was good or evil to die.
3. Freedom to choose
Not really relevant.

God issued a command which represented a choice for Adam.
Which Adam could not possibly know if it was good or evil to obey.
God also issued a consequence if Adam made a particular choice. Adam demonstrated his understanding by making a choice.
If Adam understood then what happened in Gen 3:7?
If Adam already had the knowledge of good and evil then what was God so pissed off about?

I think you need to re-read the story and study it closer. Adam had to know and understand the ramifications of death else it would make no sense why a god would use that as a consequent. Adam had to know and understand that death was not a GOOD thing, else he would have had no reason to comply with the command.
For the story to be fair then yes. For the story to be sane, also yes. BUT the story doesn't say that. It is quite specific A&E did not know what GOOD was until they ate the fruit. The story is neither fair nor is it sane. They didn't even know what death was.

It wasn’t until another set of consequences were introduced before Adam reconsidered his original choice. Read carefully Eve’s temptation and look at the wording and nature of the temptation. She saw that the fruit was GOOD for food, pleasing to the eye and to be desired for intellectual improvement.
Right, Eve is making value judgements before she knows the difference between good and evil. It's a very poorly written story, this is only one of many plot flaws.

Had she had no prior moral agency she would have been insulated from the temptations. Without a prior knowledge of good and evil how would she know the difference between food that was good or bad?
But with prior knowledge of good and evil she would not have become like a god and had her eyes opened by eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. The story clearly says that A&E didn't have this knowledge and gained it by eating the magic fruit.
She would have been insulated from temptations because she would have had no value system and all her choices would have been arbitrary. But then you couldn't subjugate women and treat them like crap if Eve and that other "first lady" Pandora hadn't brought evil into the world.

Or recognize an esthetic quality, or an intellectual improvement?
If they could do that, ye shall be as gods

She had to DECIDE that beauty was preferable to ugliness and wisdom to ignorance before these temptations would even have an effect.
Based on what?

"Hasn’t god said that you are not to eat of ANY of the trees in the garden?" Of course, this was an inaccurate depiction of the rules an Eve set him strait, demonstrating again that she was a moral agent already…BEFORE she ate of the forbidden fruit.
First let me point out that this is a f**king talking snake we are talking about. Talking reptiles are a sure sign that we are talking about a fairy tale. Eve was only repeating what she was told not making a moral judgement.

She had a choice, freedom to choose and a consequent and she knew it and understood it.
Then explain how if she had the knowledge of good and evil was she forbidden the knowledge of good and evil and why the change after the fruit was eaten?

I included these only as examples of other biblical people demonstrating moral agency and hence, freewill.
All of them after the fruit was eaten

BTU: God lies to Adam and tells him that if he eats the fruit he will die that very day.

… I also, in the course of elaborating on my premises, mentioned that god’s declaration to "make man in his image" was an historical claim, that Adam wasn’t the finished product but just the beginning…hence the book of Genesis (beginnings).
Except that the bible doesn't say that.
Elsewhere the bible declares that with god a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. This is consistent with how long Adam lived and with god’s declaration being historical rather than individual. If a day is indeed a thousand years with an ancient historical god then Adam did indeed die in the day he ate thereof.
And you wonder why Atheists laugh at your theology. If a day is a thousand years and there are three hundred and sixty five days in a year then at 900 years old that would make Adam 328,500 Earth years old…not counting leap years

Talking snake lied. The fruit had no power to give them what they already had.
Then why did they suddenly change?

What they didn’t have, and what talking snake didn’t mention nor want them to know they didn’t have, was the EXPERIENCE of bad consequences resulting from wrong choices. They knew and lived in good consequences every day in the garden…but they couldn’t appreciate their good fortune, until they had actual EXPERIENTIAL knowledge of the opposite end of the stick.
Nice story, better than the one in Genesis. But it's the Genesis story we are talking about and not this new one you have concocted.

BTU: Adam and Eve eat the fruit and instantly know that they had done wrong. But only a minute before this they had no idea.

No, they simply had no experience of a bad consequence.
At this point they still had no experience with bad consequences. They just magically gain the knowledge by eating a piece of fruit.

By forbidding historical man from tampering with the fruit of that tree, from making good evil and evil good, god, in his wisdom knew that historical man would do just that.
We are talking about mythological man here, there is nothing historic in this fable. Nor does the story have anything to do with perverting good and evil but simply gain the knowledge of what they are.

Exactly as A & E did. Also, in his wisdom, he was making the statement that in the day man tampers with morality, making good evil and evil good, man would surely die…and you know what? He didn’t miss it even a little bit.
Only in the fairy land that these bible stories take place in.

Also, this god, in his infinite wisdom, covered his own ass in that when man tampered with the fruit of morality god would no longer be responsible for the consequences…so you have the basis of the FWD and how an all good god can co-exist with suffering and evil.
That came out of left field. Man has Free Will but God will punish him if he doesn't do exactly as God commands. That's some "free will" ya got there. Sort of like a thief hold a gun to your head and saying "your money or your life" is free will.

You should make an effort to get into this shit. It really is meaningful.
Mythology can be very meaningful…but not if you mistake it as being fact.

Adam had the freedom of choice else the command would have needed no consequence. If he was a slave to anything it was to his own lack of experience.
A death threat is not what I would call "freedom of choice." Why do you hold God up to lower standards than you would human beings?

I would strongly suggest you re-read the story and make an effort to comprehend the obvious.
I did re-read it. I even posted the pertinent parts above. I stand by what I have written.

It just isn’t logical to issue a command and consequence to people who didn’t have the capacity to comprehend it.
Logic? There's no logic in this story, it's quite irrational.


So you’ll allow the historicity of the church into your reasoning when it’s convenient but expect god to act now and declare he doesn’t exist if he doesn’t honor your expectations?
The historicity of the church is based on their changing perceptions of what the bible says. Today God is all touchy feelly, God is love. Not all that long ago Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live was the death of thousands of little old ladies. Tomorrow, who knows what new bull shite awaits us.
God does act exactly as I would expect him to. He acts like he's nonexistent.

If this god has an historical purpose for man then there’s a rhyme and reason for everything relating to man, both good and bad.
A statement of faith if I ever heard one. Faith flung in the face of history.

And you have successfully demonstrated that man doesn’t need a superman god.
I said that he had a piece of chicken stuck in his throat, not that he was in a plague or the World Trade Center or the Space Shuttle. Chicken doesn't need supernatural help.

So tell me again, why are you arguing so adamantly against a god who allows you to participate in such challenging adventures as saving a man’s life?
Again you twist a God doing nothing because there isn't any God into God allowing you to do something. You are literally trying to make something out of nothing

But I think it’s your standards that any god would never meet…nor likely have any desire to.
My standards are very low, I'd ask no more of a Super God than I would ask of Biff. But nothing is still nothing no matter what spin you put on it.

ReasonableDoubt

RW: You can't be serious about God using reverse psychology on us?

Nehemiah 9:13
"You came down on Mount Sinai; you spoke to them from heaven. You gave them regulations and laws that are just and right, and decrees and commands that are good. "


Ezekiel 20:25
"I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; "

So we have to differentiate, being mere humans, which of God's laws are for real and which ones he gave us on purpose that were not good, and which ones are actually reverse psychology?
That exhausts me just to think about!

SRB

I don't understand what it means for a proposition to fail. What I said was that the conclusion (which I quoted) is not entailed by any of the preceding steps. It is a non sequitur. In an argument the conclusion is supposed to follow from the premises by the rules of logic. Yours does not.

SRB

rainbow walking

Rw: While this could be inferred, to do so essentially nullifies the FWD.

Biff: That's exactly why I brought it up.

Well, good for you. Now demonstrate that the inference is valid.

rw: Theism claims that freewill is a necessity of GnE and accounts for how both god and evil can co-exist. Remove freewill and GnE becomes a moot point.

Biff: A number of problems.
This is 21st century Theism and not what your bible says.

Deal with me and don’t bog us down in interpretations.

Biff: It says that the God severely punished all of mankind for attaining Free Will (The Fall of Man) and that he piled so many laws on mankind-all of which superceded our Free Will-that nobody could be expected to follow them all ("If a man says he does not sin, he lies"). You couldn't even have a bowl of clam chowder without facing the pit of Hell for Pete's sake. So the bible is very clear about Free Will--God doesn't like it one little bit. The God of Free Will that you tout isn't the same God who is in the bible.

I’m touting the god of the entire bible, not just the OT. This god is dealing with historical man and changes his approach with man on a number of occasions throughout. You appear to be focused on the pre-deluvian and priestly dispensations, (that means periods when god dealt with man in specific ways).

rw: One possibility, to be sure, but not the only one. You could also be a tool of your genetics, or environment or of aliens.

Biff: This must be a new theism that I am unfamiliar with. Funny how often these new revelations come up on these pages.

Just showing you that your one single possibility isn’t the only one if we’re going to allow possibilities. Not presenting this as a new revelation.

rw: Not in our lifetimes thus far, but our lives are short in comparison to the age of the universe.

Biff: Which brings us to the problem of infinite (age of the universe at least) punishment for finite ("our lives are short") offences. A related topic, but perhaps better left for another thread.

Oh, don’t hold back on my account. I’m not going to address every damn perceived deficiency in the bible.

rw: There may be good reason why a god would remain silent for long stretches of time.

Biff: Again you are trying to say this nothing (in this case silence) is God not doing anything rather than this nothing is nothing.


Or one could say he’s not doing anything as flamboyant as he once did. Whether he is or not is irrelevant.



rw: You can’t really prove that, can you? Your "if not X, therefore not Y", logic isn’t the only way to examine the veracity of a claim. It’s based on your limited view of WHEN a god should act.

Biff: I see, it's my fault because my view is limited. Odd that this is the only subject where I hear complaints that my view is limited while my worthy oponient--who has exactly the same limitations that I do-- doesn't have any problem with their view.

And what limitations are you referring to?

Biff: Do you want me to prove that there is no Biblical God? Fine, Yahweh is omnipresent--he's everywhere. You are somewhere. A somewhere which is part of everywhere. Now look around the room you are in. See any Gods there? Check behind the couch in case he's hiding. No Gods in your particular somewhere? Then that is proof that there is no Yahweh.
If He does happen to be in your room put Him on the line, I have a bone or two to pick with Him.

Hehehe…you aren’t serious are you? So tell me Biff, where in that omnipresence does it say this is to be defined as omni-visible presence? Hell, the bible declares this god to be invisible. Apparently your personal version of this being doesn’t exist…what a pity, you make him sound so…cuddly.

rw: Israel exists, the predictions exist. Both are verifiable claims.

Biff: If predictions exist then the future must already be set for the predictor to be able to predict it.

Is that so? Then meteorologists are setting the future of weather when they predict it and get it right?

Biff: If this fortune telling stuff is true then there cannot be Free Will as your future actions are already established

Well, since I didn’t find any specific mention of my name in the bible or prediction concerning my fortune I guess I’m one of the lucky ones…yes?

("The One Forbidden Thing.") it originated…when?

Biff: According to Joseph Campbell (Occidental Mythology) the oldest trace of this story is on a carved green steatite vase (in the Louvre) inscribed c. 2025 BCE by King Gudea of Lagash, dedicated to a late Sumerian manifestation of the consort of the goddess, under his title Ningizzida, "Lord of the Tree of Truth." It has two snakes and not just one like the Jewish retelling.


Ah yes…the old “all the other tribes invented the various aspects of the Genesis account and the Habiru just assembled it until the Jews could redact it.” And all of this without a shred of evidence. Another one of those, “this is the way it happened because we say so” deals. It seems never to occur to anyone that this myth originated from an earlier source than any of the acclaimed out-sources and the other tribes’ renditions are spin offs of the original. Bloody amazing.

Biff: Oh good grief, don't you know where to find this story? It's right in the front of the Bible.


No…in the front you say?

Biff: Here God forbids Adam from obtaining the knowledge of right and wrong and lies to him about dying
Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: (17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


Uh..no that’s not the correct interpretation but you go ahead and keep on keeping on. How ‘bout I just take a seat and let you finish your literal rendering of , what was it you called it…myth? Now what is it about myths and allegory and all that other shit…?
While I’m waiting I’ll just do some thinking out loud… “Gee, I wonder why this god put that tree in the middle of an otherwise perfect garden anyway? Especially when demanding that in-experienced individual not mess with it is only going to lead to just that…I guess because of his…well, in-experience. I would really have to wonder about somebody setting something up like that intentionally. I would have to conclude that “NOT touching it” was the last thing they expected this in-experienced individual to do. I mean, the last thing an omni-benevolent god would want is for his slaves to gain experiential knowledge of the very kind needed for independent thinking. Yeah, such an omniscient creature would have to be really dumb to put an inexperienced creature in that kind of situation. Don’t you think…Biff…Biff, are you there?”

Biff: Why forbid man the knowledge of good and evil if he already had the knowledge of good and evil?


Good question Biff? Maybe knowledge wasn’t the intended target? Maybe experience was what Adam needed to make some productive use out of the knowledge he already had. I can remember telling my youngest son not to touch the stove. I told him he would get burned and that it would hurt but did he listen? Nooo…, he had to experience the pain before the knowledge became meaningful to him…know what I mean, Biff?

Biff: Here Talking Snake helps the people out by exposing God's lie.
3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


Well, if the above sounds at all possible, we’d have to conclude that the snake was actually working in collusion with this god. After all, you neglected to include the text that says the serpent was the most subtle of all the creatures this god had made. Now I wonder what kind of “knowing” they were referring to? Seems to me there’s an intellectual knowledge and there’s an experiential knowledge. I know there are man-eating sharks in the ocean but I’ve never had the experience of meeting one face to face…and can’t say as I’d really care to…know what I mean, Biff? One thing I can say for my son, when that hot stove reached out and touched him it was definitely an eye opening experience. And I had a hell of a time getting him to admit that he had touched that stove. He just kept insisting that the stove some how burnt him of its own volition. It was, from his POV, all the stoves fault. One other thing: The only problem with the snakes claim is that they surely did die. The time frame is a bit problematic, but then, with these redactions of these ancient myths it’s hard to pin everything down to an exaction that would satisfy everyone.

Biff: In that day their eyes would be opened. Not possible if their eyes were already open.

I agree. Another half truth?

Biff: In that day would know good and evil and be like gods.


Hmmm…boy that’s a tough one Biff. It could go any number of directions here, you know? For instance why gods with a lower case and not God?

Biff: It's telling us that the knowledge of good and evil at this point was an attribute of God and that people could gain this godly power by eating the fruit.


You know Biff, I have to hand it to you, it does say that. But…I just keep stumbling over those little things Biff… for instance, gods just don’t up and die, not even. And I just can’t get past that pesky serpents penchant for telling half-truths. As we progress into the story the narrative does confirm that their eyes were opened, so it seems the old snakeroo was shooting strait there, but it never again mentions that “being like God thingy”, so is it just me or do you smell another rat running around disguised as a snake here too, Biff?

Biff: Then, just in case you still think that they already could make value judgements (necessary to Free Will) we come to

3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. (3:8) And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.



One of my favorite parts because I just love naked women. I don’t know Biff, it just seems to me that if we allow a strict literal reading here we have little choice but to conclude that A & E were just…well…literally BLIND. I mean how in hell can you run around naked and not know it? And what does this knowledge have to do with being good or evil? Frankly I’m mystified. Unless…nah…well I’ll go ahead and say it, (you’re probably already ahead of me here anyway), unless they were experiencing, literally, their nakedness for the first time. But then that takes us back around to experiential knowledge and you probably don’t want to talk about that. I understand if you don’t Biff, really I do. So basically, according to this, the first thing they experienced was their own nakedness. And such an experience too! They set out immediately establishing the fashion industry. Help me out here Biff cause there’s one thing here that troubles me. If they were, as you say, literally amoral and, from this literalness, we must conclude, literally blind…how in hell did they find that f-king tree in the middle of the garden?



Biff: The old Catch 22 (or should that be Catch 1 ?) the second that they knew the difference between good and evil they realized that they had done something evil. But they were incapable of knowing this

Uh…well that isn’t what it says Biff. It says when their eyes were opened they experienced their nakedness for the first time. Now, I know I may be out of line here Biff, but it just seems to me that, unless you are just literally blind, it would be hard as hell not to look down on occasion and notice your own body and know that you don’t have anything covering up that boner sticking out every time Eve bends over to pick up a grape from the garden floor. And even harder still (no pun intended…really), not to notice that Eve seems to be missing something in that department but making up for it way up high…know where I’m coming from? So it is possible that within this mythological book of allegory there actually is more than one way to “know” good and evil.

rw: If Adam didn’t have freewill why did god even issue the command?

Biff: Because in older versions of this same myth the fruit was of the knowledge of culture and civilization and not good and evil. Man chooses this knowledge which frees him from servitude to the gods but at the cost of losing eternal life. It's a much more noble story with people choosing freedom over life itself. The Jewish version mucked the story up a bit.


O’kay, I’ll give you that one Biff, but how does this respond to my question? Whether it’s a choice between life and liberty or good and evil wouldn’t the person faced with the choice have to know something about the choice he’s making?

Biff: And if you were color blind on what criteria would you base your choice?

It wouldn’t matter in that case. Are you arguing that Adam just randomly chose, that it didn’t matter? So he…what…flipped a coin?


Biff: Adam and Eve had no ability to distinguish good from evil.



Come on Biff, you can do better than this. They knew how to recognize what was good for them and what wasn’t. Adam had to know what death meant to him or the consequence would have been meaningless. You and I know what death means but we’ve yet to experience it, so we don’t have full knowledge, just intellectual knowledge. We both know that death is the last thing we want to experience and will do everything we can to avoid it, so don’t try to tell me that A & E were mindless idiots…okay. That dog won’t hunt.

rw: Three things are required in moral agency:
1. Knowledge of a choice

Biff: Choice without decrement is by necessity completely arbitrary.


What is “decrement”? Do you mean discernment?

rw: 2. Knowledge of a consequence

Biff: In other words, the knowledge of if your choice would be good or evil. A & E didn't have that knowledge until it was too late.

Yawn…

Biff: You might point out God's death threat. That doesn't make it on two counts. God was lying, as Talking Snake correctly pointed out.


Was he? So A & E are still alive and well?

Biff: And 2, A&E had no way of knowing if it was good or evil to die.


Come on Biff, this circularity is getting absurd. So this god issued a consequence that A & E wouldn’t even comprehend? And the reason being?

rw: 3. Freedom to choose

Biff: Not really relevant.


What the f…?! I see… this god was just talking to hear himself talk. He said those things to Adam for appearances sake. Phhht…this is really weak, Biff. So this god…what…followed Adam around like a shadow and physically kept him from making that choice?

rw: God issued a command which represented a choice for Adam.

Biff: Which Adam could not possibly know if it was good or evil to obey.

And this god’s purpose for wasting these words on dumb ears being…?

rw: God also issued a consequence if Adam made a particular choice. Adam demonstrated his understanding by making a choice.

Biff: If Adam understood then what happened in Gen 3:7?

They “experienced” the full ramifications of their choice…and their nakedness. Must have been quite a rush.

Biff: If Adam already had the knowledge of good and evil then what was God so pissed off about?



Their attempt to shift the blame, cover it up and hide from him…duh.

rw: I think you need to re-read the story and study it closer. Adam had to know and understand the ramifications of death else it would make no sense why a god would use that as a consequent. Adam had to know and understand that death was not a GOOD thing, else he would have had no reason to comply with the command.

Biff: For the story to be fair then yes. For the story to be sane, also yes.


Well, thank you for that concession…I mean that.

Biff: BUT the story doesn't say that.

Not explicitly, no. It’s a metaphorical jungle out there Biff, you know that. These myths are notorious for being cagey and surreptitious in their allegory. Why do you insist on a literal reading? Does it lead to any meaningful conclusions? Why not an A & E that were literally blind then? I’ve noticed you seem to have over-looked the obvious in your search for the…obvious.


Biff: It is quite specific A&E did not know what GOOD was until they ate the fruit. The story is neither fair nor is it sane. They didn't even know what death was.

Okay Biff, if that’s your story then stick to it, but please buckle your seat belt cause you in for a rough ride hombre’.

rw: It wasn’t until another set of consequences were introduced before Adam reconsidered his original choice. Read carefully Eve’s temptation and look at the wording and nature of the temptation. She saw that the fruit was GOOD for food, pleasing to the eye and to be desired for intellectual improvement.

Biff: Right, Eve is making value judgements before she knows the difference between good and evil. It's a very poorly written story, this is only one of many plot flaws.


Ah..it’s a poorly written story. It’s everyone else’s fault but Biffs literal translation.

rw: Had she had no prior moral agency she would have been insulated from the temptations. Without a prior knowledge of good and evil how would she know the difference between food that was good or bad?

Biff: But with prior knowledge of good and evil she would not have become like a god…

And the story doesn’t conclude with her becoming like a god either, in fact, it concludes with their death. Gods aren’t suppose to die. Consider the source of this particular assertion Biff. I know you have displayed a certain, how shall I say…affinity for the snake, but really Biff, are you willing to go down with him? ( no pun intended…really)


Biff: and had her eyes opened by eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.

Yep, it was a real eye opening EXPERIENCE for both of them.


Biff: The story clearly says that A&E didn't have this knowledge and gained it by eating the magic fruit.

The story also doesn’t go into any detail about what this knowledge entailed, how it was conveyed, how or why it had such an impact on their vision, their self esteem, and their courage either.

Biff: She would have been insulated from temptations because she would have had no value system and all her choices would have been arbitrary.

Oh really? Am I hearing the sound of a drowning man grasping for a straw to stuff a float? The story is VERRRY explicit about the specific temptations she endured on her way to making that choice. Shall I bring them to your attention? Oh, what the hell, why not.


And, I might add, she experienced all this PRIOR to eating the fruit.

Biff: But then you couldn't subjugate women and treat them like crap if Eve and that other "first lady" Pandora hadn't brought evil into the world.


Yep, I thought that was the sound of a straw man life guard being stuffed to pull Biff’s ass outta the crack…or is that pull Biff’s crack outta his ass? Well, anywho…

rw: Or recognize an esthetic quality, or an intellectual improvement?

Biff: If they could do that, ye shall be as gods



Hey, I can do the above but a god I ain’t. That damn snake didn’t deliver the goods…just the evils.

rw: She had to DECIDE that beauty was preferable to ugliness and wisdom to ignorance before these temptations would even have an effect.

Biff: Based on what?


Intellectual comprehension.

rw: "Hasn’t god said that you are not to eat of ANY of the trees in the garden?" Of course, this was an inaccurate depiction of the rules and Eve set him strait, demonstrating again that she was a moral agent already…BEFORE she ate of the forbidden fruit.

Biff: First let me point out that this is a f**king talking snake we are talking about. Talking reptiles are a sure sign that we are talking about a fairy tale.


Hey, thank you for that concession…now please try to keep that in mind.

Biff: Eve was only repeating what she was told not making a moral judgement.


She was correcting a false, wrong, bad, erroneous, evil rendition. Now how could a mindless, blind female idiot do that on rote memorization?

rw: She had a choice, freedom to choose and a consequent and she knew it and understood it.

Biff: Then explain how if she had the knowledge of good and evil was she forbidden the knowledge of good and evil and why the change after the fruit was eaten?

Been there, done that…left a bloody trail of dead literal renderings all over the shithouse walls.


Biff: Except that the bible doesn't say that.

It does if you know where to look and how to read.

rw: Elsewhere the bible declares that with god a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. This is consistent with how long Adam lived and with god’s declaration being historical rather than individual. If a day is indeed a thousand years with an ancient historical god then Adam did indeed die in the day he ate thereof.

Biff: And you wonder why Atheists laugh at your theology. If a day is a thousand years and there are three hundred and sixty five days in a year then at 900 years old that would make Adam 328,500 Earth years old…not counting leap years


We left something out of that little math lesson didn’t we? If a thousand years is as a day then Adam didn’t quite see the sun come up.

[b] rw: Talking snake lied. The fruit had no power to give them what they already had.

biff: Then why did they suddenly change?


Experience does that to you, know what I mean Biff? Sometimes it makes all the difference in the world.

rw: What they didn’t have, and what talking snake didn’t mention nor want them to know they didn’t have, was the EXPERIENCE of bad consequences resulting from wrong choices. They knew and lived in good consequences every day in the garden…but they couldn’t appreciate their good fortune, until they had actual EXPERIENTIAL knowledge of the opposite end of the stick.

Biff: Nice story, better than the one in Genesis. But it's the Genesis story we are talking about and not this new one you have concocted.

Hohum…

Biff: At this point they still had no experience with bad consequences. They just magically gain the knowledge by eating a piece of fruit.

Hey, I didn’t see anything in there about magic.

rw: By forbidding historical man from tampering with the fruit of that tree, from making good evil and evil good, god, in his wisdom knew that historical man would do just that.

Biff: We are talking about mythological man here, there is nothing historic in this fable.

Sure does run allegorical to most history lessons I’ve had.


Biff: Nor does the story have anything to do with perverting good and evil but simply gain the knowledge of what they are.

No, that comes later.

rw: Exactly as A & E did. Also, in his wisdom, he was making the statement that in the day man tampers with morality, making good evil and evil good, man would surely die…and you know what? He didn’t miss it even a little bit.

Biff: Only in the fairy land that these bible stories take place in.

Has happened all through man’s history, nations and cultures changing the rules to make it possible for evil to prosper and good to pay.

rw: Also, this god, in his infinite wisdom, covered his own ass in that when man tampered with the fruit of morality god would no longer be responsible for the consequences…so you have the basis of the FWD and how an all good god can co-exist with suffering and evil.

Biff: That came out of left field.

Nope. Strait out of the bible.


Biff: Man has Free Will but God will punish him if he doesn't do exactly as God commands.

And that’s different from any government around the world today…how?

Biff: That's some "free will" ya got there. Sort of like a thief hold a gun to your head and saying "your money or your life" is free will.



Or a particular biblical interpretation and saying believe this or go to hell.

rw: You should make an effort to get into this shit. It really is meaningful.

Biff: Mythology can be very meaningful…but not if you mistake it as being fact.

Especially when you notice how strongly its metaphors correlate with historical facts.

rw: Adam had the freedom of choice else the command would have needed no consequence. If he was a slave to anything it was to his own lack of experience.

Biff: A death threat is not what I would call "freedom of choice." Why do you hold God up to lower standards than you would human beings?



You’re losing it again, Biff. Where did you get the idea that god was threatening Adam? Does it say that god killed Adam after the incident? The way I read it this god was just warning Adam of the consequence but said nothing as to how it would actualize.

rw: I would strongly suggest you re-read the story and make an effort to comprehend the obvious.

Biff: I did re-read it. I even posted the pertinent parts above. I stand by what I have written.

Good for you.

rw: It just isn’t logical to issue a command and consequence to people who didn’t have the capacity to comprehend it.

Biff: Logic? There's no logic in this story, it's quite irrational.

Yes, whatever you say Biff. But this just reminds me of how far off the beaten path we’ve strayed. The remaining few remarks are no more relevant than the majority of what you’ve posted thus far as a rebuttal of my FWD, so, with that said, I bid you farewell.

Biff the unclean

Deal with me and don’t bog us down in interpretations.
The two, I'm afraid, are not mutually exclusive. You claim that God gave man Free Will and honors it. Genesis says that the Serpent gave man Free Will and God is opposed to it.

I’m touting the god of the entire bible, not just the OT.
I've always found it interesting that Yahweh is never named in the NT. In fact the God of the NT has a different personality from either of the two personalities God exhibits in the OT. He takes on a different Sabbath even though he's been have people killed for getting it wrong in the OT. And suddenly he's Triune, coincidentally he becomes Triune at the very time that the office of Caesar becomes triune.

This god is dealing with historical man and changes his approach with man on a number of occasions throughout.
This silly story of Free Will that we are talking about has a fully grown guy who magically appears when a pile of dust is blown on. a woman made from a magic spare rib. A talking snake, some magic produce and a winged lion with the head of a man and a sword of fire. This isn't historical man, this is myth.

You appear to be focused on the pre-deluvian and priestly dispensations, (that means periods when god dealt with man in specific ways).
No I'm dealing with your misrepresenting the story of the gaining of Free Will in an effort to make a defense of the very story.
Don't blame me if it's a stupid fairy tale, I'm not a Theist.

Biff: Again you are trying to say this nothing (in this case silence) is God not doing anything rather than this nothing is nothing.

Or one could say he’s not doing anything as flamboyant as he once did. Whether he is or not is irrelevant.
One couldn't say that as these stories do not represent actual history but rather mythology of a given culture.

Hehehe…you aren’t serious are you? So tell me Biff, where in that omnipresence does it say this is to be defined as omni-visible presence?
Where did I put those boots? It's getting deep in here.
Hell, the bible declares this god to be invisible. Apparently your personal version of this being doesn’t exist…what a pity, you make him sound so…cuddly.
So now Adam, Eve, Lot, Abraham and company didn't see him?
Moses hair turned white from looking at Gods invisible neither regions?

Is that so? Then meteorologists are setting the future of weather when they predict it and get it right?
So the prophets were like weathermen now? They saw trends and currents in the affairs of men and made educated guesses about future events? Then why do you make a big deal out of what they foretold. Political analysts do that every election.

Ah yes…the old "all the other tribes invented the various aspects of the Genesis account and the Habiru just assembled it until the Jews could redact it." And all of this without a shred of evidence.
Why do you make the claim that there is no evidence of earlier versions of Jewish mythology right after I've given you the name of the book that lists most of the sources?

It seems never to occur to anyone that this myth originated from an earlier source than any of the acclaimed out-sources and the other tribes’ renditions are spin offs of the original. Bloody amazing.
It is painfully obvious that you have never picked up a book of comparative mythology. That is what CM is the study of…how myths evolve. What amazing is that you already know that your stories are derived from earlier ones, and you know that the stories changed with the telling. As stories tend to do. Yet you think that your newer version is "historical" and the original are not.

Biff: Here God forbids Adam from obtaining the knowledge of right and wrong and lies to him about dying
Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: (17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


Uh..no that’s not the correct interpretation but you go ahead and keep on keeping on. How ‘bout I just take a seat and let you finish your literal rendering of , what was it you called it…myth?
You are pretty smug for a person who reads one day in the Bible and then claims that really means 1000 years. Apparently the words in the Bible mean whatever you want them to mean.

"Gee, I wonder why this god put that tree in the middle of an otherwise perfect garden anyway?
The legend has two trees. One of Knowledge the other of eternal life.
3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

Especially when demanding that in-experienced individual not mess with it is only going to lead to just that…I guess because of his…well, in-experience.
When the police do something like that it's called "entrapment." These cases are thrown out of court.

I would have to conclude that "NOT touching it" was the last thing they expected this in-experienced individual to do. I mean, the last thing an omni-benevolent god would want is for his slaves to gain experiential knowledge of the very kind needed for independent thinking.
Thus damning generations of all the humans on Earth to eternal torment in Hell. Sure that you want to stick with the "omni-benevolent" claim?

Maybe knowledge wasn’t the intended target?
The OT says it was.

Maybe experience was what Adam needed to make some productive use out of the knowledge he already had.
They call this part "The Fall of Man" they needed God to be crucified to fix it.

I can remember telling my youngest son not to touch the stove. I told him he would get burned and that it would hurt but did he listen? Nooo…, he had to experience the pain before the knowledge became meaningful to him…know what I mean, Biff?
I'm sorry about the intellectual state of your family.
BUT if you were present (let's say you were omni-present) when your child was burned and you did nothing to prevent the injury the child welfare people will want to speak to you.
You are making God into a thug in your scenario.

Well, if the above sounds at all possible, we’d have to conclude that the snake was actually working in collusion with this god.
3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
So much for collusion.

Seems to me there’s an intellectual knowledge and there’s an experiential knowledge.
The largest snake has a brain about the size of an olive, there's not much intellect there.

The only problem with the snakes claim is that they surely did die.
Not till 900 plus years later. God said that they would die that very day. Despite your tap dance the days in Genesis are days. It rains for 40 days not 40 thousand years.

Hmmm…boy that’s a tough one Biff. It could go any number of directions here, you know? For instance why gods with a lower case and not God?
It's saying that they would have god-like power not actually be gods.

But…I just keep stumbling over those little things Biff… for instance, gods just don’t up and die, not even.
It covers that part…3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever3:23 )Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.(3:24 )So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

And I just can’t get past that pesky serpents penchant for telling half-truths.
I've just reread this fable several times. The serpent is always honest and above board.

As we progress into the story the narrative does confirm that their eyes were opened, so it seems the old snakeroo was shooting strait there, but it never again mentions that "being like God thingy", so is it just me or do you smell another rat running around disguised as a snake here too, Biff?
"Behold man has become as one of us." The "us" Yahweh is referring to is the gods. The Jews weren't always monotheists you know and the neighboring peoples they took this story from never were.

I mean how in hell can you run around naked and not know it?
They knew that they were naked, they just didn't know that there was anything wrong with being naked.

And what does this knowledge have to do with being good or evil? Frankly I’m mystified.
A cultural thing in the middle east. Nudity is evil to them.

So basically, according to this, the first thing they experienced was their own nakedness. And such an experience too!
More precisely, the first thing they experienced was guilt over being naked.
They set out immediately establishing the fashion industry.
3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
He was into leather.

If they were, as you say, literally amoral and, from this literalness, we must conclude, literally blind…how in hell did they find that f-king tree in the middle of the garden?
They weren't blind. They were without a value system, as you said, literally amoral. The magic fruit gave them knowledge of morals so suddenly they realized that to be naked was immoral.

Now, I know I may be out of line here Biff, but it just seems to me that, unless you are just literally blind, it would be hard as hell not to look down on occasion and notice your own body and know that you don’t have anything covering up that boner sticking out every time Eve bends over to pick up a grape from the garden floor.
That is why you keep insisting that they already knew the difference between good and evil. But this dramatic change in their consciousness shows that their knowledge came from the magic fruit.

Biff: Because in older versions of this same myth the fruit was of the knowledge of culture and civilization and not good and evil. Man chooses this knowledge which frees him from servitude to the gods but at the cost of losing eternal life. It's a much more noble story with people choosing freedom over life itself. The Jewish version mucked the story up a bit.

O’kay, I’ll give you that one Biff, but how does this respond to my question?
Because this was a part left over from the original story (along with the plural of gods).

Whether it’s a choice between life and liberty or good and evil wouldn’t the person faced with the choice have to know something about the choice he’s making?
In the original story they knew right from wrong already. But in the original the two snakes are the heroes and the creator/enslaver god is the villian.


Biff: And if you were color blind on what criteria would you base your choice?

It wouldn’t matter in that case.
It would if I told you that on the day you picked the red tie you would die and you had no idea what "red" even was.

Are you arguing that Adam just randomly chose, that it didn’t matter?
Exactly. What else could he have done? Since he lacked the knowledge of good and evil what criteria could he use to make a moral decision?


Biff: Adam and Eve had no ability to distinguish good from evil.
Come on Biff, you can do better than this. They knew how to recognize what was good for them and what wasn’t.
It's the damned Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.


Adam had to know what death meant to him or the consequence would have been meaningless.
That's the whole point! According to Genesis the consequences were completely meaningless to him until it was too late.

We both know that death is the last thing we want to experience and will do everything we can to avoid it, so don’t try to tell me that A & E were mindless idiots…okay. That dog won’t hunt.
It was the Fall of Man that brought death into the world. There was no way for A&E to know what death was, and no way for them to know if it was good or evil.
You call them mindless idiots and by todays standards you would be right. But this is an origins story…how people got the knowledge of good and evil.

So A & E are still alive and well?
Gods lie
2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Come on Biff, this circularity is getting absurd. So this god issued a consequence that A & E wouldn’t even comprehend? And the reason being?
The reason being that the story was poorly edited and ill concieved.

And this god’s purpose for wasting these words on dumb ears being…?
The purpose of this story seems to be to frighten small children who are sitting around camp fires of dried camel dung.

These myths are notorious for being cagey and surreptitious in their allegory. Why do you insist on a literal reading?
Because you are making a FWD that is erroneously based. When did you shift from history to mythology?

Ah..it’s a poorly written story. It’s everyone else’s fault but Biffs literal translation.
I'm using the KJV. I neither wrote nor did I translate this story. Nor do I make a FW defense of it.

And the story doesn’t conclude with her becoming like a god either, in fact, it concludes with their death. Gods aren’t suppose to die.
3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever
You keep forgetting this part.

Yep, I thought that was the sound of a straw man life guard being stuffed to pull Biff’s ass outta the crack…or is that pull Biff’s crack outta his ass?
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? You seem to be getting desperate.

Hey, I can do the above but a god I ain’t. That damn snake didn’t deliver the goods…just the evils.
It wasn't the snake that set a monster with a flaming sword on them. Snake got them the knowledge that they were lacking.

Biff: Based on what?
Intellectual comprehension.
Intellectual comprehension in this case would require a criteria against which to compare her motives. She didn't have one…this whole story is about how she got it.


Biff: Eve was only repeating what she was told not making a moral judgement.

She was correcting a false, wrong, bad, erroneous, evil rendition. Now how could a mindless, blind female idiot do that on rote memorization?
Where did you get this "blind" stuff from? How did she know what was false, wrong, bad, erroneous or evil before she acquired the knowledge?

We left something out of that little math lesson didn’t we? If a thousand years is as a day then Adam didn’t quite see the sun come up.
We also left out that a thousand years is to God as a day and a day as of a thousand years so if you don't ignore the second part Adam should have been dead in the blink of an eye.

Biff: At this point they still had no experience with bad consequences. They just magically gain the knowledge by eating a piece of fruit.

Hey, I didn’t see anything in there about magic.
You didn't? Do you gain you knowledge of values from eating snacks?

Biff: We are talking about mythological man here, there is nothing historic in this fable.

Sure does run allegorical to most history lessons I’ve had.
Home schooling?

Has happened all through man’s history, nations and cultures changing the rules to make it possible for evil to prosper and good to pay.
And just how is this a FWD?

Biff: That came out of left field.

Nope. Strait out of the bible.
A strait by the bye, is a narrow passage of water between two bodies of land. Like the Bering Strait. The word you are looking for is straight.

You’re losing it again, Biff. Where did you get the idea that god was threatening Adam?
2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Does it say that god killed Adam after the incident?
3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

whatever you say Biff. But this just reminds me of how far off the beaten path we’ve strayed. The remaining few remarks are no more relevant than the majority of what you’ve posted thus far as a rebuttal of my FWD, so, with that said, I bid you farewell.
Free Will is the bases of a FWD. Genesis contradicts your FWD, we didn't stray at all your entire premise is flawed.