1:God made Adam first, told him “only” not to eat of the tree, “/then/” made Eve...2:God told Adam, because you listened to the voice of your wife, notice that God did “/not/” say to Eve, because you did “/not/” listen to your husband nor me...3: God used the word “/curse/” to what the Serpent and Adam did in the garden, but “/not/” to what Eve did in the garden.....yes?
For a scholarly examination of the Hebrew text of Genesis 3, the Seed, the Blood, and what really happened, check out w w w . b l o o d a n d s e e d . c o m
Finally, if Adam & Eve had known of the consequences of their act, would they have eaten the fruit? And how do you explain an all knowing, compassionate & just god, cursing the future generations of these 2 people for their failure, considering all that I've mentioned? How fair was this "temptation" of Adam & Eve?
Another reason why we know this story isn't true, is bcuz we happen to know that Evolution... man having a common ancestor with lower primates, is a fact, not a theory!
justification 4 such an act...none! Unless of course, if god was inherently evil & simply created man 4 his sadistic pleasure. I use sadistic most intently here, having made the OT a special study of mine.
In my view, the guarantee that this story was not a historical explanation of what happened, but simply man's attempt 2 explain "sin," comes from god's omniscience. I'm assuming your understanding of his omniscience is different than mine? Either god is perfect & is omniscient, or he isn't.
have some question about that, why would god allow Satan, one of the most powerful angels, to work his magic on Eve, which virtually guaranteed Eve's failure. This would most certainly been a pre-emptive strike. In fact, the points mentioned can only mean that the story was designed to show man taking a sure path to failure. How can I be sure of this? Bcuz of the one aspect of the story I haven't mentioned yet, god's cursing of the future generations of mankind. There is absolutely no
I contend that this story never happened. I see it as man's attempt to explain man's struggle to overcome his animal instincts. This has been an age old struggle from the beginning & continues.
If the story were true, it simply makes no sense.
We'd have to know exactly what A & E knew of good & evil, right from wrong, before they ate the fruit. More importantly, why would god give the oder not to eat, then place the tree unguarded in their presence?
if he wanted us to decide for ourselves, why did he put a serpent in the garden which was the most "subtil"( the word used in the old king James version, meaning the most cunning and deceiving) " creature he had made... the serpent was placed there deliberately to tempt us.. and at any rate, how DID the serpent have knowledge of good and evil.. did the serpent also eat from the tree? how did Satan ( being the serpent, i suppose) gain the knowledge of good and evil?
[] the serpent was placed there deliberately to tempt us []
In this I would agree. However:
A - No amount of temptation by the serpent could actually force a decision from these two people.
B - More to the point, the purpose of the tempter appears to be to counter-balance God's influence on Man's decisions. In other words, Man had God prodding him toward the correct path, but a tempter was needed to make his decision more objective.
[] how did Satan ( being the serpent, i suppose) gain the knowledge of good and evil? []
I apologize for not making this more clear in the video, but here goes.
I don't hold that this tree was (or even represents) the only source of such knowledge. So, Satan could have gained the knowledge by any number of hypothetical means, or even had it from the moment of his creation.
You will also notice, if you read the text, that the serpent was indeed snacking on the fruit.
@ThatChristian you said "if you read the text, that the serpent was indeed snacking on the fruit"....are you saying that is in the bible? verse please
I believe that the Supreme Being has a moral nature. I believe that He/She created the universe in harmony with this moral nature. I believe he gave certain entities within the universe the ability to, if they so chose, perform actions which were not in harmony with this moral nature. Anything not in harmony with the Supreme Being's moral nature is, by definition, evil. I believe certain, if not all, of these being chose at some point to act in opposition the this nature. Thus comes evil.
"these being chose at some point to act in opposition the this nature"
That is precisely what we are trying to account for.
WHY did every single human being ever created choose evil? "Becaue they had a choice" is not an answer. "Because evil is part of human nature" is an answer. Now who created human nature?
Ah, but here we come to the issue of the Fall of Man. According to this idea, evil is indeed a part of human nature, but is due to the first humans having chosen, of free will, to do evil. That accounts for the evil in human nature, and thus why every human being has chosen, at some point, to choose evil. They of course still have a genuine choice, but are inclined toward wrong. Does this satisfy your inquiry, or must I go into how the Fall is perceived to have effected all of mankind?
"According to this idea, evil is indeed a part of human nature, but is due to the first humans having chosen, of free will, to do evil."
The problem with this is that Adam and Eve had a human nature too. Their behavior was a consequence of their nature, their nature was not a consequence of their behavior.
The only thing changed when they ate the apple, is that they understood that part of their nature was evil.
Since God is good and has free will, evil is not a necessary part of free will. Since evil is not a necessary part of free will, free will can exist without evil. If free will can exist without evil, then God could have made a world where both conditions are satisfied. Therefore nothing about a world without evil precludes free will.
And even though God said "don't eat that", she couldn't have known disobedience was bad until after she disobeyed.
Evil is a necessary POSSIBILITY for moral, libertarian free will. I would not go so far as to say that in order for M/L free will NECESSARILY results in evil. However, if God were to refuse to actualize those worlds containing moral agents if said moral agents acted in the way He preferred them to act, then it is difficult to see how one could call said agents free in any significant sense.
Also, I would not say that God has free will in this particular sense.
"For more on this, in a completely different vein, I would suggest reading Alvin Plantinga's "God, Freedom, and Evil"."
Maybe I'm too hard on people but after I heard him make his "naturalism is incompatible with evolution" case, I lost all repect for him as a thinking person.
"However, if God were to refuse to actualize those worlds"
This is just semantics. He's not picking from a list, he's creating from scratch, and if this is the real world, he HAS refused to actualize every possible world containing moral libertarian free agents except this one.
[] How in the world does God not have free will? []
I did not say that He didn't have free will. I said He did not have libertarian, moral free will. I'll go out on a limb and say that He has free will in all other senses of the term.
[]Because she needs knowledge of good and bad before she can label anything, including disobedience, as bad. []
Would you mind parsing this out in a syllogism. Then perhaps we can deal with your argument. As it is, I appear to be getting it in fragments.
[]He's not picking from a list, he's creating from scratch[]
Aside from being false (God, being omniscient, would have all possible worlds before Him is His mind, so to speak), this is rather irrelevant.
[]..he HAS refused...[]
But not on the basis of the choices said moral agents make. That is key. He is free not to actualize any world He chooses, but to do so on the basis of specific free choices would defeat the purpose.
[]Maybe I'm too hard on people but after I heard him make his "naturalism is incompatible with evolution" case, I lost all repect for him as a thinking person.[]
Because, according to scripture, He is incapable of doing wrong. By definition, then, He could not be morally free (If you drag us off into a rabbit trail about Deuteronomy, I will be obliged to e-slap you).
[] I am incapable of making that any clearer to a human brain. []
That is unfortunate. For if a statement cannot be reduced to a coherent syllogism, it is by definition illogical. I do hope you will reconsider.
[] Have you ever heard his argument I'm referring to? []
Yes, I have indeed. What does this have to do with anything?
Never mind that Alvin Plantinga happens to be scores ahead of you in both intelligence and experience. I could just as easily say that since you have committed the classic ad hominem blunder, I should not listen to anything else YOU have to say. But I won't, since that would itself be ad hominem, just like what you said.
"Never mind that Alvin Plantinga happens to be scores ahead of you in both intelligence and experience."
Anyone who was way ahead of me in intelligence wouldn't think that argument was valid.
"Because, according to scripture, He is incapable of doing wrong."
I love the fact that you concede God has a nature but not humans. Before you say "when did I do that", you do that everytime you refuse to account for people's bad behavior. Freedom doesn't account for evil.
[]If you can't understand what I wrote, then you are in no position to say anything about my intelligence. []
It is not a question of whether I understand what you have typed or not, it is a question of whether your statements can be reduced to a logically consistent argument. It shouldn't be difficult - why not do it?
[]Anyone who was way ahead of me in intelligence wouldn't think that argument was valid. []
Plantinga's intelligence ought not be what is at issue here in the first place. I recommended a book to you. You could read it with an open mind or stay in the dark. It makes little difference to me.
[] you do that everytime you refuse to account for people's bad behavior.[]
How would this amount to not conceding that humans have "a nature"?
[]Freedom doesn't account for evil. []
Every morally significant action is either right or wrong. If humans are given the choice between these two forms of action (moral freedom), the ability to commit a wrong action would be necessarily entailed. Thus, moral freedom does indeed account for wrong actions. Am I missing something here?
[]If I have no knowledge of good and evil, I cannot know if any of my actions are good or evil.[]
Is that your idea of syllogism? Where are the premises? What is the conclusion?
[] Freedom isn't even necessary for evil, let alone good. []
I completely agree. Freedom is not necessary for evil (and certainly not for good). However, moral freedom is sufficient for evil, which is something entirely different than necessity.
The book is still an excellent read. I don't agree with Plantinga's treatment of the Cosmological or Teleological argument (toward the end of the book, which is mostly concerned with addressing the problem of evil), and I don't know exactly how I feel about his treatment of the Ontological Argument, but I am better for having read it none-the-less.
[]The premise is before the comma, the conclusion is after it. How is that statement not bullet proof?[]
Well, for starters, a conclusion can only follow from a single premise if the conclusion only amounts to a restatement of the premise. In which case, it is not an argument at all, but merely an assertion.
Secondly, one could take exception by saying that just because the tree gives someone knowledge of good and evil does not mean that all such knowledge is dependent upon the tree.
"the conclusion only amounts to a restatement of the premise"
Which is why I accused you of being difficult for making me to write it out like that. Of course it's just a blind assertion. The blind assertion, supported by nothing, is that knowledge of good and evil are gained from eating an apple from a tree.
Sir, this is not about salvation, it is about the Fall of Man. Given that, I do not see that I have any obligation to answer your objection. It would simply be off topic.
Once again, this video does not directly address the concept of spiritual salvation, making any referrence to it impertinent. If you would like to address salvation, feel free to send me a personal message and we'll try to work through the questions you have. That is, of course, if you are interested in answers.
yes these comments page are clearly being clogged up by my incesent yammering. You just want me to send you a PM so you wont answer it...it is denial in the worst form.
If I happen not to answer a personal message which you send me, just assume I am busy doing other, more important (which is not saying much) things - as I am sure you are when you do not answer a message for an extended period of time. And please remember that at some point a conversation simply gets tiresome and repetitive, and I am not afraid to simply stop such a conversation.
Now, if you do not want to continue this elsewhere, this discussion is over.
I already conclusively answered this objection in the "Defending God and the Fall of Man" comments section. You know, the other place that you raised the objection?
lol Thats awesome. I get it now. I ask some questions and you can't answer them. So you say I am absurd and we are "off topic". This seems to be your mode of conversation. I tell ya its going to be hard to keep a dialog with someone who gets frustrated with a couple honest questions and deletes them, but I'll try again.
[]lol Thats awesome. I get it now. I ask some questions and you can't answer them.[]
What would give you that impression? I said if you wanted to continue the absurd conversation, you could send me a Personal Message. As it is, what we were discussing ceased to have any resemblance to the original topic weeks ago.
[]So you say I am absurd[]
I did not say that you were absurd, I said the conversation was absurd, and if insisted on continuing it you could send me a Personal Message.
[]I tell ya its going to be hard to keep a dialog with someone who gets frustrated with a couple honest questions and deletes them, but I'll try again.[]
I wasn't frustrated. Tangents occur. I've started some myself at times. The simple fact is, though, that we weren't discussing the same thing anymore.
Funny what you think is logic.When its quite apparant that you wouldnt know reality from fantasy.So you actually believe god didnt set up its own creation to its downfall?It created hell just so that it can punish those it helped set up.This is sorry logic.
If you are going to say that I have a false view of logic, you should probably venture to define what YOU think logic is.
The rest of your comment is long on opinion but very short on any argument to back up said opinion. You haven't stated why you believe these things about God or why I should hold your views as valid. When you have approached some form of support for your claims, I may have the opportunity to respond to them.
I believe that Christianity is true. That includes the claims Christianity makes which are non-compatible with the claims that certain other faiths make.
Then you are certainly illogical.Since you believe in talking snakes,talking donkeys,talking burning bushes,seas parting in two,man walking on water,and a diety that kills 2 millions of its own creation in its holy book.Yes you are one who cannot be of logic.
Why dont you explain it yourself since im very intersted in your explaination to any of the supposed miracles,lets start with the videos primary..adam and eve.
Explain why it is logical? It is logical as long as it commits no fallacies. The burden is on you to point out fallacies in the purported occurrence if you are to claim it is illogical.
He is coming from the standpoint that supernatural isn't possible (talking snakes). you come from the stand point of we are here complex and there is a bible, historians have proven jesus and he died and went to hell for 3 days and rose again, god must be real. He comes from the standpoint of, I've never seen a miricle, god has never reached out to me, a talking snake is impossible, god is a superstition. Niether of you are commiting logical fallacys, but you are starting with differnt values
[]Niether of you are commiting logical fallacys,[]
Then the claim "this is illogical" is a false one, pure and simple. All of the afore-mentioned disagreements have absolutely nothing to do with the way I view the world being "illogical", as he so ineloquently put it.
One road is fiery, full of death, hate, torture, and famine. One road is happy, full of love, goodness, and candy. The obvious choice is the love one. Why would anyone choose the death one?
I guess I'm just not understanding there reasoning. Didn't god give them everything they needed in the garden? What knowledge of want did they have before eating the apple? Why would they choose to eat an apple over paradise?
what made them want that? what desire sparked the need to disobey god? What made them think they could be like god by eating an apple? where did the desire come from if the garden was a paradise?
I'm just not understanding how they wanted anything else when they had paradise. Aside from that, If they already had which they needed in their personality to disobey god, what was gained by eating the apple that they did not already have? I just don't understand their reasoning to listen to the serpent. Like I said why would anyone choose the crappy road?
Are you referring to your "job" answer? That doesn't make sense because Me wanting a new job means I am unsatisfied with my current job. If eden is paradise then they shouldn't have been unsatisfied at all. And if they were then eden was made to be unsatisfying and not fulfilling in every manner.
Of course, but that is because they lacked the knowledge of the new job. If they had known that the new job was worthless they never would have left. And (being a good friend) if I had the knowledge that the new job was horrible, I would tell them that. Now, this is from a human standpoint, and is hard to apply to something that is as different as god and human. God, not suppling them with the knowledge of what things are like outside eden, is a bad parent.
That would work well if, in fact, God had not told them what would happen if they ate of the tree. He did, they just were convinced that He was lying.
His task was not to convince them, (Although at the time they were convinced. It was afterwards that they began to doubt what He said) it was to inform them. That, He certainly achieved.
How could you have the concept of spiritual death. Most people now wouldn't even begin to understand that concept. I present that you could not understand this without experiencing it. Can you explain to me what a spiritual death would be like?
Well, I don't know what it feels like not to be partially separated from God, if that is what you mean. I don't know what it feels like to be totally dead in the spirit, no. That only happens to your average human after his physical death.
No and I couldn't begin to imagine what it would be like. Now...since I've seen others die and have experienced others' death. I know that when you die you are no longer here and your body decomposes, you're consciousness is gone. I know this through experience about others' physical death. Noone has any experience with spiritual death. Adam and eve couldn't have even had knowledge of physical death, having not experiencing it in any way.
You seem so confident about what occurs upon death (probably based on the numerous reports and investigations of scientists and medical doctors). The fact is, we can know about quite a few things without having first-hand experienced them, such as the evolution of life, for instance. You must throw out a pretty big bucket of your knowledge if you limit it to personal experience and nothing less.
And I agree. lots of knowledge comes second hand. However when you are dealing with the first humans, and all they had to go off of was god saying "or you will die" I don't think they could have comprehended that. Or if they had any understanding of it they couldn't have fully understood it, for if they did, they never would have disobeyed him. as you have pointed out, I can't understand it even with the wealth of knowledge in science. How could have adam and eve?
You seem to be under the impression that Adam and Eve were both stupid and ignorant, which is not the case. I am certain they fully understood what He was telling them, because He likely explained it to them in greater detail than what is recorded. Plus, they certainly had the brain capacity to understand it, because they were the non-degraded humans of which we have none of their kind left.
Of course I think they were ignorant. They hadn't eaten the apple of knowledge yet. Why wouldn't it be recorded his explanation? what else isn't recorded? Non-degraded humans? where do you get that from? does it say that in the bible? If we are degraded humans how come we are expected to understand things since we lack the brain capacity now? You are presupposing that they knew what he was talking about. But you are right it wouldn't make much sense if they didnt. but humans now don't. ??
Let anyone who is interested know that this is not the entire conversation. I have deleted a substantial amount of it on the basis of it being off topic.
That is not true. Just you do not desire something does not mean it does not matter. It simply means you do not desire it. And, of course, that is all fine and well, but it gets us no where in a conversation about objective reality or the logical consistency of a particular doctrine.
Yes, I probably should have had better foresight. Darn, I cannot even remember what I wrote. I think some of it is covered in the added portion of this video.
This has been flagged as spam show
1:God made Adam first, told him “only” not to eat of the tree, “/then/” made Eve...2:God told Adam, because you listened to the voice of your wife, notice that God did “/not/” say to Eve, because you did “/not/” listen to your husband nor me...3: God used the word “/curse/” to what the Serpent and Adam did in the garden, but “/not/” to what Eve did in the garden.....yes?
hemet92544 2 months ago
I have one word that explains everything you retards are pondering on..."EVOLUTION"
chadderlot 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So if man "fell" what do we do with this?......
Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
xxbobdeexx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For a scholarly examination of the Hebrew text of Genesis 3, the Seed, the Blood, and what really happened, check out w w w . b l o o d a n d s e e d . c o m
holylandstudies 1 year ago
#4
Finally, if Adam & Eve had known of the consequences of their act, would they have eaten the fruit? And how do you explain an all knowing, compassionate & just god, cursing the future generations of these 2 people for their failure, considering all that I've mentioned? How fair was this "temptation" of Adam & Eve?
Another reason why we know this story isn't true, is bcuz we happen to know that Evolution... man having a common ancestor with lower primates, is a fact, not a theory!
Cootabux 1 year ago
#3
justification 4 such an act...none! Unless of course, if god was inherently evil & simply created man 4 his sadistic pleasure. I use sadistic most intently here, having made the OT a special study of mine.
In my view, the guarantee that this story was not a historical explanation of what happened, but simply man's attempt 2 explain "sin," comes from god's omniscience. I'm assuming your understanding of his omniscience is different than mine? Either god is perfect & is omniscient, or he isn't.
Cootabux 1 year ago
#2
have some question about that, why would god allow Satan, one of the most powerful angels, to work his magic on Eve, which virtually guaranteed Eve's failure. This would most certainly been a pre-emptive strike. In fact, the points mentioned can only mean that the story was designed to show man taking a sure path to failure. How can I be sure of this? Bcuz of the one aspect of the story I haven't mentioned yet, god's cursing of the future generations of mankind. There is absolutely no
Cootabux 1 year ago
#1
I contend that this story never happened. I see it as man's attempt to explain man's struggle to overcome his animal instincts. This has been an age old struggle from the beginning & continues.
If the story were true, it simply makes no sense.
We'd have to know exactly what A & E knew of good & evil, right from wrong, before they ate the fruit. More importantly, why would god give the oder not to eat, then place the tree unguarded in their presence?
If the Serpent was in fact Satan, and I
Cootabux 1 year ago
if he wanted us to decide for ourselves, why did he put a serpent in the garden which was the most "subtil"( the word used in the old king James version, meaning the most cunning and deceiving) " creature he had made... the serpent was placed there deliberately to tempt us.. and at any rate, how DID the serpent have knowledge of good and evil.. did the serpent also eat from the tree? how did Satan ( being the serpent, i suppose) gain the knowledge of good and evil?
coolbeens21 2 years ago
[] the serpent was placed there deliberately to tempt us []
In this I would agree. However:
A - No amount of temptation by the serpent could actually force a decision from these two people.
B - More to the point, the purpose of the tempter appears to be to counter-balance God's influence on Man's decisions. In other words, Man had God prodding him toward the correct path, but a tempter was needed to make his decision more objective.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
[] how did Satan ( being the serpent, i suppose) gain the knowledge of good and evil? []
I apologize for not making this more clear in the video, but here goes.
I don't hold that this tree was (or even represents) the only source of such knowledge. So, Satan could have gained the knowledge by any number of hypothetical means, or even had it from the moment of his creation.
You will also notice, if you read the text, that the serpent was indeed snacking on the fruit.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
@ThatChristian you said "if you read the text, that the serpent was indeed snacking on the fruit"....are you saying that is in the bible? verse please
hemet92544 2 months ago
Here is an honest question.
Do you think this video accounts for evil in the world?
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
I believe that the Supreme Being has a moral nature. I believe that He/She created the universe in harmony with this moral nature. I believe he gave certain entities within the universe the ability to, if they so chose, perform actions which were not in harmony with this moral nature. Anything not in harmony with the Supreme Being's moral nature is, by definition, evil. I believe certain, if not all, of these being chose at some point to act in opposition the this nature. Thus comes evil.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
"these being chose at some point to act in opposition the this nature"
That is precisely what we are trying to account for.
WHY did every single human being ever created choose evil? "Becaue they had a choice" is not an answer. "Because evil is part of human nature" is an answer. Now who created human nature?
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
Ah, but here we come to the issue of the Fall of Man. According to this idea, evil is indeed a part of human nature, but is due to the first humans having chosen, of free will, to do evil. That accounts for the evil in human nature, and thus why every human being has chosen, at some point, to choose evil. They of course still have a genuine choice, but are inclined toward wrong. Does this satisfy your inquiry, or must I go into how the Fall is perceived to have effected all of mankind?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
"According to this idea, evil is indeed a part of human nature, but is due to the first humans having chosen, of free will, to do evil."
The problem with this is that Adam and Eve had a human nature too. Their behavior was a consequence of their nature, their nature was not a consequence of their behavior.
The only thing changed when they ate the apple, is that they understood that part of their nature was evil.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
[]The problem with this is that Adam and Eve had a human nature too. []
But that is not to say that they had within themselves all of the elements we now attribute to human nature.
[]Their behavior was a consequence of their nature, their nature was not a consequence of their behavior.[]
Could I not simply disagree with this?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
"Could I not simply disagree with this?"
If you want to say falling causes the nature of gravity, I can't stop you and certainly don't have the patience to walk you through it, so go for it.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
But here I would simply say that you are confusing the gravity with the falling, at least in this case.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Since God is good and has free will, evil is not a necessary part of free will. Since evil is not a necessary part of free will, free will can exist without evil. If free will can exist without evil, then God could have made a world where both conditions are satisfied. Therefore nothing about a world without evil precludes free will.
And even though God said "don't eat that", she couldn't have known disobedience was bad until after she disobeyed.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
Evil is a necessary POSSIBILITY for moral, libertarian free will. I would not go so far as to say that in order for M/L free will NECESSARILY results in evil. However, if God were to refuse to actualize those worlds containing moral agents if said moral agents acted in the way He preferred them to act, then it is difficult to see how one could call said agents free in any significant sense.
Also, I would not say that God has free will in this particular sense.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
For more on this, in a completely different vein, I would suggest reading Alvin Plantinga's "God, Freedom, and Evil".
[]And even though God said "don't eat that", she couldn't have known disobedience was bad until after she disobeyed. []
And why would you say that?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
"And why would you say that?"
Because she needs knowledge of good and bad before she can label anything, including disobedience, as bad.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
"For more on this, in a completely different vein, I would suggest reading Alvin Plantinga's "God, Freedom, and Evil"."
Maybe I'm too hard on people but after I heard him make his "naturalism is incompatible with evolution" case, I lost all repect for him as a thinking person.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
"I would not say that God has free will in this particular sense."
WHAT?
That's the only part of your comment that actually refutes my argument, and the only part of my argument I thought you would actually accept.
How in the world does God not have free will?
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
"However, if God were to refuse to actualize those worlds"
This is just semantics. He's not picking from a list, he's creating from scratch, and if this is the real world, he HAS refused to actualize every possible world containing moral libertarian free agents except this one.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
[] How in the world does God not have free will? []
I did not say that He didn't have free will. I said He did not have libertarian, moral free will. I'll go out on a limb and say that He has free will in all other senses of the term.
[]Because she needs knowledge of good and bad before she can label anything, including disobedience, as bad. []
Would you mind parsing this out in a syllogism. Then perhaps we can deal with your argument. As it is, I appear to be getting it in fragments.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
[]He's not picking from a list, he's creating from scratch[]
Aside from being false (God, being omniscient, would have all possible worlds before Him is His mind, so to speak), this is rather irrelevant.
[]..he HAS refused...[]
But not on the basis of the choices said moral agents make. That is key. He is free not to actualize any world He chooses, but to do so on the basis of specific free choices would defeat the purpose.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
[]Maybe I'm too hard on people but after I heard him make his "naturalism is incompatible with evolution" case, I lost all repect for him as a thinking person.[]
Uh... ad hominem much?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Have you ever heard his argument I'm referring to?
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
"I said He did not have libertarian, moral free will."
Why not?
"Would you mind parsing this out in a syllogism. Then perhaps we can deal with your argument. As it is, I appear to be getting it in fragments."
I am incapable of making that any clearer to a human brain.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
[] Why not? []
Because, according to scripture, He is incapable of doing wrong. By definition, then, He could not be morally free (If you drag us off into a rabbit trail about Deuteronomy, I will be obliged to e-slap you).
[] I am incapable of making that any clearer to a human brain. []
That is unfortunate. For if a statement cannot be reduced to a coherent syllogism, it is by definition illogical. I do hope you will reconsider.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
[] Have you ever heard his argument I'm referring to? []
Yes, I have indeed. What does this have to do with anything?
Never mind that Alvin Plantinga happens to be scores ahead of you in both intelligence and experience. I could just as easily say that since you have committed the classic ad hominem blunder, I should not listen to anything else YOU have to say. But I won't, since that would itself be ad hominem, just like what you said.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
"Never mind that Alvin Plantinga happens to be scores ahead of you in both intelligence and experience."
Anyone who was way ahead of me in intelligence wouldn't think that argument was valid.
"Because, according to scripture, He is incapable of doing wrong."
I love the fact that you concede God has a nature but not humans. Before you say "when did I do that", you do that everytime you refuse to account for people's bad behavior. Freedom doesn't account for evil.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
"That is unfortunate. For if a statement cannot be reduced to a coherent syllogism, it is by definition illogical. I do hope you will reconsider."
If you can't understand what I wrote, then you are in no position to say anything about my intelligence.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
[]If you can't understand what I wrote, then you are in no position to say anything about my intelligence. []
It is not a question of whether I understand what you have typed or not, it is a question of whether your statements can be reduced to a logically consistent argument. It shouldn't be difficult - why not do it?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
[]Anyone who was way ahead of me in intelligence wouldn't think that argument was valid. []
Plantinga's intelligence ought not be what is at issue here in the first place. I recommended a book to you. You could read it with an open mind or stay in the dark. It makes little difference to me.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
[] you do that everytime you refuse to account for people's bad behavior.[]
How would this amount to not conceding that humans have "a nature"?
[]Freedom doesn't account for evil. []
Every morally significant action is either right or wrong. If humans are given the choice between these two forms of action (moral freedom), the ability to commit a wrong action would be necessarily entailed. Thus, moral freedom does indeed account for wrong actions. Am I missing something here?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
"Am I missing something here? "
Yes, you are missing everything.
Freedom isn't even necessary for evil, let alone good.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
"Freedom isn't even necessary for evil, let alone good."
But more importantly, evil is not necessary for freedom. Which is what my original comment said, which completely destroys this entire video.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
Do you want me to write it like this.
1) Knowledge of good and evil comes from eating from the tree.
2) Eve hadn't eaten from the tree.
3) Therefore Eve has no knowledge of good and evil.
Is that better?
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
"You could read it with an open mind or stay in the dark."
I'm not confused about any of this.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
"why not do it? "
Because you are just trying to be difficult so I'll go away.
If I have no knowledge of good and evil, I cannot know if any of my actions are good or evil.
I can't believe you made me write that.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
[]If I have no knowledge of good and evil, I cannot know if any of my actions are good or evil.[]
Is that your idea of syllogism? Where are the premises? What is the conclusion?
[] Freedom isn't even necessary for evil, let alone good. []
I completely agree. Freedom is not necessary for evil (and certainly not for good). However, moral freedom is sufficient for evil, which is something entirely different than necessity.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
"Where are the premises? What is the conclusion?"
The premise is before the comma, the conclusion is after it. How is that statement not bullet proof?
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
[] I'm not confused about any of this. []
The book is still an excellent read. I don't agree with Plantinga's treatment of the Cosmological or Teleological argument (toward the end of the book, which is mostly concerned with addressing the problem of evil), and I don't know exactly how I feel about his treatment of the Ontological Argument, but I am better for having read it none-the-less.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
[]But more importantly, evil is not necessary for freedom. Which is what my original comment said, which completely destroys this entire video.[]
But as I said before, the POSSIBILITY of evil IS necessary for moral freedom.
[]Is that better? []
I suppose so, except your conclusion happens not to amount to an objection to my arguments.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
"I suppose so, except your conclusion happens not to amount to an objection to my arguments."
She couldn't have known disobedience was evil.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
[]The premise is before the comma, the conclusion is after it. How is that statement not bullet proof?[]
Well, for starters, a conclusion can only follow from a single premise if the conclusion only amounts to a restatement of the premise. In which case, it is not an argument at all, but merely an assertion.
Secondly, one could take exception by saying that just because the tree gives someone knowledge of good and evil does not mean that all such knowledge is dependent upon the tree.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
"the conclusion only amounts to a restatement of the premise"
Which is why I accused you of being difficult for making me to write it out like that. Of course it's just a blind assertion. The blind assertion, supported by nothing, is that knowledge of good and evil are gained from eating an apple from a tree.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
So, once again, what is your objection?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Sir, this is not about salvation, it is about the Fall of Man. Given that, I do not see that I have any obligation to answer your objection. It would simply be off topic.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Why is god willing to allow the suffering for millions of people in this life and the next, just so he can have some devout followers?
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
Once again, this video does not directly address the concept of spiritual salvation, making any referrence to it impertinent. If you would like to address salvation, feel free to send me a personal message and we'll try to work through the questions you have. That is, of course, if you are interested in answers.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
I didn't ask about salvation. I asked why god wants devout followers so badly that he is willing to allow millions to suffer for eternity.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
Your question does not directly relate to The Fall of Man. Your question IS about salvation (i.e. "devout followers" and "suffer for eternity").
I am not going to clog up this comments page with unrelated question, nor am I going to clog it up with debates about what is an unrelated question.
You may send me a personal message if this is so important to you.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
yes these comments page are clearly being clogged up by my incesent yammering. You just want me to send you a PM so you wont answer it...it is denial in the worst form.
ASHIUSX 2 years ago
If I happen not to answer a personal message which you send me, just assume I am busy doing other, more important (which is not saying much) things - as I am sure you are when you do not answer a message for an extended period of time. And please remember that at some point a conversation simply gets tiresome and repetitive, and I am not afraid to simply stop such a conversation.
Now, if you do not want to continue this elsewhere, this discussion is over.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Thank you.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
If adam and eve knew then what we know now they never would have ate the apple. Unless they wanted things this way or were dysfunctional
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
I already conclusively answered this objection in the "Defending God and the Fall of Man" comments section. You know, the other place that you raised the objection?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
lol Thats awesome. I get it now. I ask some questions and you can't answer them. So you say I am absurd and we are "off topic". This seems to be your mode of conversation. I tell ya its going to be hard to keep a dialog with someone who gets frustrated with a couple honest questions and deletes them, but I'll try again.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
[]lol Thats awesome. I get it now. I ask some questions and you can't answer them.[]
What would give you that impression? I said if you wanted to continue the absurd conversation, you could send me a Personal Message. As it is, what we were discussing ceased to have any resemblance to the original topic weeks ago.
[]So you say I am absurd[]
I did not say that you were absurd, I said the conversation was absurd, and if insisted on continuing it you could send me a Personal Message.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
[]and we are "off topic".[]
Um... We were off topic. You cannot deny that.
[]This seems to be your mode of conversation.[]
What is that even supposed to mean?
[]I tell ya its going to be hard to keep a dialog with someone who gets frustrated with a couple honest questions and deletes them, but I'll try again.[]
I wasn't frustrated. Tangents occur. I've started some myself at times. The simple fact is, though, that we weren't discussing the same thing anymore.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Sir, we have gotten infinitely off topic. If you insist on continuing this absurd conversation, feel free to send me a Personal Message.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Why, thank you. Unfortunately, I am not, but thank you for the compliment.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Maybe you should put in the description "God did not create evil", just to clarify?
It would spare some (whom we won't mention) few weeks of heresy XD
paxcoder 3 years ago
Well, for you... Um... I mean the unnamed persons, I will.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Was evil around before god?
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
No.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
how did it not happen as a result of god creating everything?
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
Funny what you think is logic.When its quite apparant that you wouldnt know reality from fantasy.So you actually believe god didnt set up its own creation to its downfall?It created hell just so that it can punish those it helped set up.This is sorry logic.
Killer0fTheSun 3 years ago
If you are going to say that I have a false view of logic, you should probably venture to define what YOU think logic is.
The rest of your comment is long on opinion but very short on any argument to back up said opinion. You haven't stated why you believe these things about God or why I should hold your views as valid. When you have approached some form of support for your claims, I may have the opportunity to respond to them.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
You believe in christanity as the only true religion?
Killer0fTheSun 3 years ago
I believe that Christianity is true. That includes the claims Christianity makes which are non-compatible with the claims that certain other faiths make.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Then you are certainly illogical.Since you believe in talking snakes,talking donkeys,talking burning bushes,seas parting in two,man walking on water,and a diety that kills 2 millions of its own creation in its holy book.Yes you are one who cannot be of logic.
Killer0fTheSun 3 years ago
What fallacies do those purported occurrences commit?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Why dont you explain it yourself since im very intersted in your explaination to any of the supposed miracles,lets start with the videos primary..adam and eve.
Killer0fTheSun 3 years ago
[]Why dont you explain it yourself[]
Explain why it is logical? It is logical as long as it commits no fallacies. The burden is on you to point out fallacies in the purported occurrence if you are to claim it is illogical.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Okay,the supposed punishment that comes to humankind from two people,this is illogical.
Killer0fTheSun 3 years ago
Please explain what you are talking about and why it is illogical (what fallacy it commits).
ThatChristian 3 years ago
He is coming from the standpoint that supernatural isn't possible (talking snakes). you come from the stand point of we are here complex and there is a bible, historians have proven jesus and he died and went to hell for 3 days and rose again, god must be real. He comes from the standpoint of, I've never seen a miricle, god has never reached out to me, a talking snake is impossible, god is a superstition. Niether of you are commiting logical fallacys, but you are starting with differnt values
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
[]Niether of you are commiting logical fallacys,[]
Then the claim "this is illogical" is a false one, pure and simple. All of the afore-mentioned disagreements have absolutely nothing to do with the way I view the world being "illogical", as he so ineloquently put it.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
And I agree.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
One road is fiery, full of death, hate, torture, and famine. One road is happy, full of love, goodness, and candy. The obvious choice is the love one. Why would anyone choose the death one?
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
That's a good question.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
well lets go back to the beginning. Why would adam and eve eat the apple?
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
Because they decided that they did not want to listen to God and seek after their own interests.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Why would they do that?
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
Because they wanted to, I suppose.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
I guess I'm just not understanding there reasoning. Didn't god give them everything they needed in the garden? What knowledge of want did they have before eating the apple? Why would they choose to eat an apple over paradise?
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
They wanted to be as great as God. A simple reading of the text can reveal that easily.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
what made them want that? what desire sparked the need to disobey god? What made them think they could be like god by eating an apple? where did the desire come from if the garden was a paradise?
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
[]what made them want that?[]
What makes you want to get a new job or keep the one you've got?
[]what desire sparked the need to disobey god?[]
What need are you referring to?
[]What made them think they could be like god by eating an apple?[]
The serpent told them that it was the case.
[]where did the desire come from if the garden was a paradise?[]
Are you under some sort of impression that desires are things which float around in the environment?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
I'm just not understanding how they wanted anything else when they had paradise. Aside from that, If they already had which they needed in their personality to disobey god, what was gained by eating the apple that they did not already have? I just don't understand their reasoning to listen to the serpent. Like I said why would anyone choose the crappy road?
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
[]I'm just not understanding how they wanted anything else when they had paradise.[]
Yes, that is what you said. Now, do have anything to add? I've told you what I think about the situation, and you are simply repeating yourself.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
...so you don't have a logical answer for me? Don't you think it's something to be pondered?
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
No, I gave you my logical answer, then you repeated your original question.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Are you referring to your "job" answer? That doesn't make sense because Me wanting a new job means I am unsatisfied with my current job. If eden is paradise then they shouldn't have been unsatisfied at all. And if they were then eden was made to be unsatisfying and not fulfilling in every manner.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
Have you or anyone you have known left your current job to get a new one only to find out that your previous job was better?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Of course, but that is because they lacked the knowledge of the new job. If they had known that the new job was worthless they never would have left. And (being a good friend) if I had the knowledge that the new job was horrible, I would tell them that. Now, this is from a human standpoint, and is hard to apply to something that is as different as god and human. God, not suppling them with the knowledge of what things are like outside eden, is a bad parent.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
That would work well if, in fact, God had not told them what would happen if they ate of the tree. He did, they just were convinced that He was lying.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
If god can't convince a simple human that eating an apple is bad, how can he be perceived as perfect. He failed in his task.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
His task was not to convince them, (Although at the time they were convinced. It was afterwards that they began to doubt what He said) it was to inform them. That, He certainly achieved.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
He said they would die if they ate the apple. What knowledge of death did they have before eating the apple.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
What would inhibit their knowledge? I am sure that they had a concept of spiritual death, otherwise the statement would be meaningless.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
How could you have the concept of spiritual death. Most people now wouldn't even begin to understand that concept. I present that you could not understand this without experiencing it. Can you explain to me what a spiritual death would be like?
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
[]Most people now wouldn't even begin to understand that concept.[]
I know very few, if any, people who do not understand that concept. Maybe you can't, but please don't extrapolate that to the majority.
[]I present that you could not understand this without experiencing it.[]
I submit that that is false. There are a great many things that one can have a rather good understanding of without experiencing it.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
[]Can you explain to me what a spiritual death would be like?[]
Yes. It is a spiritual state one enters into when rebelling against God. The person is separated from the spiritual presence of the Father.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
and what does that feel like?
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
You know people that know what it feels like to have a spiritual death?
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
Well, I don't know what it feels like not to be partially separated from God, if that is what you mean. I don't know what it feels like to be totally dead in the spirit, no. That only happens to your average human after his physical death.
So, I suppose you had a point coming?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
So if you don't know what its like. and most people wouldnt. How could adam and eve understand it.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
Have you ever experienced physical death?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
No and I couldn't begin to imagine what it would be like. Now...since I've seen others die and have experienced others' death. I know that when you die you are no longer here and your body decomposes, you're consciousness is gone. I know this through experience about others' physical death. Noone has any experience with spiritual death. Adam and eve couldn't have even had knowledge of physical death, having not experiencing it in any way.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
[]Now...since I've seen others die and have experienced others' death.[]
No you haven't. One cannot experience another's death, and beyond that all there is is knowledge.
[]I know that when you die you are no longer here and your body decomposes, you're consciousness is gone.[]
How do you know? All you have is the knowledge of it happening to other people, but it's never happened to you.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Thats what I was saying. You must have misunderstood. And I quote:
"No and I couldn't begin to imagine what it would be like."
Everything after that is assumptions based on my experience with other people dying. But all they are are assumptions
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
You seem so confident about what occurs upon death (probably based on the numerous reports and investigations of scientists and medical doctors). The fact is, we can know about quite a few things without having first-hand experienced them, such as the evolution of life, for instance. You must throw out a pretty big bucket of your knowledge if you limit it to personal experience and nothing less.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
And I agree. lots of knowledge comes second hand. However when you are dealing with the first humans, and all they had to go off of was god saying "or you will die" I don't think they could have comprehended that. Or if they had any understanding of it they couldn't have fully understood it, for if they did, they never would have disobeyed him. as you have pointed out, I can't understand it even with the wealth of knowledge in science. How could have adam and eve?
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
You seem to be under the impression that Adam and Eve were both stupid and ignorant, which is not the case. I am certain they fully understood what He was telling them, because He likely explained it to them in greater detail than what is recorded. Plus, they certainly had the brain capacity to understand it, because they were the non-degraded humans of which we have none of their kind left.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Of course I think they were ignorant. They hadn't eaten the apple of knowledge yet. Why wouldn't it be recorded his explanation? what else isn't recorded? Non-degraded humans? where do you get that from? does it say that in the bible? If we are degraded humans how come we are expected to understand things since we lack the brain capacity now? You are presupposing that they knew what he was talking about. But you are right it wouldn't make much sense if they didnt. but humans now don't. ??
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
Let anyone who is interested know that this is not the entire conversation. I have deleted a substantial amount of it on the basis of it being off topic.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
If all this is true, then free will is something I'd rather not have
velocityeleven 3 years ago
Alright. Does it matter whether you would rather have free will or not?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
If not having free will meant I could go to heaven then I would hate to have it
velocityeleven 3 years ago
And...?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
and so under those situation, free will would not matter. Well it would in the sense I would rather not have it
velocityeleven 3 years ago
That is not true. Just you do not desire something does not mean it does not matter. It simply means you do not desire it. And, of course, that is all fine and well, but it gets us no where in a conversation about objective reality or the logical consistency of a particular doctrine.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Thanks.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Great explanation ThatChristian - love the art work too.
apologist101 3 years ago
Thank you.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
God doesn't judge us.
Guildhelm 3 years ago
Well, the truth of that statement, I think, depends on what you mean by that.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
It got an e-mail saying you replied to my comments, but then you deleted the video.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Yes, I probably should have had better foresight. Darn, I cannot even remember what I wrote. I think some of it is covered in the added portion of this video.
ThatChristian 3 years ago