The Knowledge of Good and Evil

[William]

In biblical terms we are informed that the god did not want human beings to know about good and evil and that knowing such would cause humans to "surely die"...and expression which many Christians believe to be symbolic of "being separated from the god".

However, within that particular story, there is a tree which [traditionally symbolizes] life eternal and when we read that the god evicted the pair of offenders from the garden, this was specifically to prevent them from eating of that trees fruit and essentially NOT dying.

In that we have an apparent contradiction in the storyline in regard to the forbidden fruit which the pair were informed would cause them to "surely die" but it could only be a sure thing, IF the couple did not have access to the tree of life.

Therefore one can read from this, that the forbidden fruit itself could only cause sure death IF one did not have access to the tree of life...

So anyone interested [in the symbolism] should be able to ascertain that eating of the forbidden fruit and having knowledge of good and evil isn't what caused 'death' to arise which would then lead one to wonder WHY did the god not want the pair (and by that - all human beings ) to have access to such knowledge?

Did the god want humans to be simply animals with no understand of morality and if so why did he make them with the potential ability to reason and make decisions?

We are informed that the other part of the reason the pair were evicted from the garden was that in having the knowledge of good and evil AND not dying, they would 'become like us'.

Considering the storyline as presented, can we assume the 'us' are not very savory? Were they trying to create a creature which would be better than 'them' IF the creature did not have access to knowledge of good and evil?
Or were they trying to create a creature who would do whatever they commanded, without question or moral consideration?
Or perhaps they were trying to create a creature which would show some initiative and might eventually stand up to the tyranny of their creators after being placed into a harrowing period of misadventure while they eventually discovered within nature that certain parts of this mythology were proven to be most likely false?

It can be argued that "the knowledge of good and evil" presently isn't overly beneficial to humankind because it is such incomplete knowledge that there are many contradictory beliefs regarding what is and isn't 'good' or 'evil', so certainly the fruit of that tree did not give human beings immediate and full access to what is good and what is evil - which leads one to wonder if indeed such knowledge is even real and if indeed the 'us' [creator(s) of humans and the universe they placed humans into] really have such knowledge themselves.

[Miles]

In biblical terms we are informed that the god did not want human beings to know about good and evil and that knowing such would cause humans to "surely die"...and expression which many Christians believe to be symbolic of "being separated from the god".

However, within that particular story, there is a tree which [traditionally symbolizes] life eternal and when we read that the god evicted the pair of offenders from the garden, this was specifically to prevent them from eating of that trees fruit and essentially NOT dying.

In that we have an apparent contradiction in the storyline in regard to the forbidden fruit which the pair were informed would cause them to "surely die" but it could only be a sure thing, IF the couple did not have access to the tree of life.

Therefore one can read from this, that the forbidden fruit itself could only cause sure death IF one did not have access to the tree of life...

So anyone interested [in the symbolism] should be able to ascertain that eating of the forbidden fruit and having knowledge of good and evil isn't what caused 'death' to arise which would then lead one to wonder WHY did the god not want the pair (and by that - all human beings ) to have access to such knowledge?

Did the god want humans to be simply animals with no understand of morality and if so why did he make them with the potential ability to reason and make decisions?

We are informed that the other part of the reason the pair were evicted from the garden was that in having the knowledge of good and evil AND not dying, they would 'become like us'.

Considering the storyline as presented, can we assume the 'us' are not very savory? Were they trying to create a creature which would be better than 'them' IF the creature did not have access to knowledge of good and evil?
Or were they trying to create a creature who would do whatever they commanded, without question or moral consideration?
Or perhaps they were trying to create a creature which would show some initiative and might eventually stand up to the tyranny of their creators after being placed into a harrowing period of misadventure while they eventually discovered within nature that certain parts of this mythology were proven to be most likely false?

It can be argued that "the knowledge of good and evil" presently isn't overly beneficial to humankind because it is such incomplete knowledge that there are many contradictory beliefs regarding what is and isn't 'good' or 'evil', so certainly the fruit of that tree did not give human beings immediate and full access to what is good and what is evil - which leads one to wonder if indeed such knowledge is even real and if indeed the 'us' [creator(s) of humans and the universe they placed humans into] really have such knowledge themselves.

Interesting, but who were the "us"? Other than god did it include angels? Hanger-oners? The Bible doesn't say, and isn't it interesting that god had already created evil, which obviously was already circulating among the "us"----heavenly entities (angels,? Hanger-oners? and perhaps even god?) were doing evil things in heaven.

And as I read the story there were two trees; the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life, which would grant the eater of its fruit eternal life. A&E ate of the first tree, gaining knowledge of good and evil.

Gen 2:16, 6-7
16 The Lord God gave him this command: “You may eat from any tree in the garden. 17 But you must not eat from the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil. If you eat fruit from that tree, on that day you will certainly die!” [an interesting remark in that the tree of life was also in the garden. One that would give A&E eternal life]

6 The woman could see that the tree was beautiful and the fruit looked so good to eat. She also liked the idea that it would make her wise. So she took some of the fruit from the tree and ate it. Her husband was there with her, so she gave him some of the fruit, and he ate it.
7 Then it was as if their eyes opened, and they saw things differently. . . .

and were subsequently banished from the garden so they wouldn't eat of the second tree and live forever.

Gen 3:22-24
"The Lord God said, “Look, the man has become like us—he knows about good and evil. And now the man might take the fruit from the tree of life. If the man eats that fruit, he will live forever. So the Lord God forced the man out of the Garden of Eden to work the ground he was made from. God forced the man to leave the garden.”

.

[William]

Interesting, but who were the "us"? Other than god did it include angels? Hanger-oners? The Bible doesn't say, and isn't it interesting that god had already created evil, which obviously was already circulating among the "us"----heavenly entities (angels,? Hanger-oners? and perhaps even god?) were doing evil things in heaven.

I am under the impression that most Christians think that the "us" is referring to angelic beings, but the nature of the universe forces one to first consider the idea that "they" could be another species which evolved with this galaxy, when Occam's Razor is applied to the question.

Which is to say, why assume the super[extra] natural when we can apply a more natural explanation?

This - of course - does not mean that such actually happened or even if it did, that the "us" represent some extraterrestrial species not native to this planet.

But I think such natural ideas must be examined and critiqued first, before we can dismiss them and go on to those supernatural ideas regarding said question.

I would say though, that even the idea of more natural explanation that the "us" represents another species which evolved through those natural processes, changes the definition of what a 'god' is [can be] as what we then have is a species of unknown number who are extremely stealthy within their god-like positions of power and influence over the unfolding story of humankind and as such may - in reality [should it be the actual case] - be very small in number - even only the size of a single family...

This - plainly - also dovetails into the general conspiracy theories to do with 'aliens' - species which control humanity behind the scenes...and we can understand in that, that Christian/Middle Eastern Mythology has a lot to do why such conspiracies exist.

Which is to say, if the Mythologies could be speaking about such a species when referring to the god/the "us", then those types of conspiracies also could be true.

And IF these were true THEN can we examine the way humanity has been and currently still is conducting its affairs and see such as possibly being the case?

Perhaps.

But then what? Can we ascertain that the methods employed by the controlling species are ultimately going to turn out good for humanity as a whole, or are they more designed to take the pick of the litter [as it were] and discard the rest as rejects?

Certainly general Christian thinking and subsequent expression of faith support such an idea - or ideas based upon sorting 'this' from 'that' when it comes to who gets chosen and who is rejected...

[Miles]

Interesting, but who were the "us"? Other than god did it include angels? Hanger-oners? The Bible doesn't say, and isn't it interesting that god had already created evil, which obviously was already circulating among the "us"----heavenly entities (angels,? Hanger-oners? and perhaps even god?) were doing evil things in heaven.

I am under the impression that most Christians think that the "us" is referring to angelic beings, but the nature of the universe forces one to first consider the idea that "they" could be another species which evolved with this galaxy, when Occam's Razor is applied to the question.

No it does not. Religion may force you to, but certainly not the universe as it's considered by science, which is where the concept of species comes from. And I would love to see the law of parsimony applied to the issue of "us" that would have angelic beings coming out as some kind of species. A species of what; animal life, plant life, maybe bacteria?

Which is to say, why assume the super[extra] natural when we can apply a more natural explanation?

Because the supernatural is a concept that only exists within belief whereas the natural exists as testable fact. But go ahead and give us evidence of the supernatural that meets the principles of the scientific method, the best method we have for examining and determining the nature of reality.

But I think such natural ideas must be examined and critiqued first, before we can dismiss them and go on to those supernatural ideas regarding said question.

I'm afraid your playing too fast and loose with the term "natural." If all you mean by it is that such ideas come naturally to you, fine, but in no way is the supernatural ever considered to be natural. In fact, that's why we append "super" to the word, because it is not natural at all.


.

[William]

Interesting, but who were the "us"? Other than god did it include angels? Hanger-oners? The Bible doesn't say, and isn't it interesting that god had already created evil, which obviously was already circulating among the "us"----heavenly entities (angels,? Hanger-oners? and perhaps even god?) were doing evil things in heaven.

I am under the impression that most Christians think that the "us" is referring to angelic beings, but the nature of the universe forces one to first consider the idea that "they" could be another species which evolved with this galaxy, when Occam's Razor is applied to the question.

No it does not.

Sure it does.

Religion may force you to, but certainly not the universe as it's considered by science, which is where the concept of species comes from.

My interest in species is related to what science has learned through examining how life-forms developed on Earth. I cannot intelligently claim that this Galaxy planet Earth exists within, cannot produce similar types of life forms on other planets.

And I would love to see the law of parsimony applied to the issue of "us" that would have angelic beings coming out as some kind of species. A species of what; animal life, plant life, maybe bacteria?

I think you have read me wrongly then. I was referring to Occam's Razor in relation to the idea of what exactly the "us" in the mythology may represent. It may be a case that what is referred to as "Angelic beings" is the same as what is referred to as "extraterrestrials" or even "unknown terrestrials" in relation to possibly identifying what it is that the "us" represents.

Which is to say, why assume the super[extra] natural when we can apply a more natural explanation?

Because the supernatural is a concept that only exists within belief whereas the natural exists as testable fact. But go ahead and give us evidence of the supernatural that meets the principles of the scientific method, the best method we have for examining and determining the nature of reality.

Are you saying then, that scientifically speaking, both extraterrestrial or unknown terrestrial are something which could not naturally develop? Or are you saying that until such things can be shown to exist as real, they must be treated as "supernatural"?

But I think such natural ideas must be examined and critiqued first, before we can dismiss them and go on to those supernatural ideas regarding said question.

I'm afraid your playing too fast and loose with the term "natural." If all you mean by it is that such ideas come naturally to you, fine, but in no way is the supernatural ever considered to be natural. In fact, that's why we append "super" to the word, because it is not natural at all.

I see now that you did not understand my post, as I made that quite clear when I wrote;

Which is to say, why assume the super[extra] natural when we can apply a more natural explanation?

This - of course - does not mean that such actually happened or even if it did, that the "us" represent some extraterrestrial species not native to this planet.

But I think such natural ideas must be examined and critiqued first, before we can dismiss them and go on to those supernatural ideas regarding said question.

Perhaps you should read whole paragraphs [in context] instead of just taking snippets and commenting [out of context] on those...

[Miles]

Interesting, but who were the "us"? Other than god did it include angels? Hanger-oners? The Bible doesn't say, and isn't it interesting that god had already created evil, which obviously was already circulating among the "us"----heavenly entities (angels,? Hanger-oners? and perhaps even god?) were doing evil things in heaven.

I am under the impression that most Christians think that the "us" is referring to angelic beings, but the nature of the universe forces one to first consider the idea that "they" could be another species which evolved with this galaxy, when Occam's Razor is applied to the question.

No it does not.

Sure it does.

So you're under the impression that the nature of the universe as it's considered by science, which doesn't deal with the supernatural in any form whatsoever, forces people to first consider the idea that angelic beings could be another species which evolved with this galaxy, angelic beings. And does so as a result of applying the law of parsimony! Then please show your work.

My interest in species is related to what science has learned through examining how life-forms developed on Earth. I cannot intelligently claim that this Galaxy planet Earth exists within, cannot produce similar types of life forms on other planets.

Okay, but I fail to see the relevance to god's "us."

I think you have read me wrongly then. I was referring to Occam's Razor in relation to the idea of what exactly the "us" in the mythology may represent. It may be a case that what is referred to as "Angelic beings" is the same as what is referred to as "extraterrestrials" or even "unknown terrestrials" in relation to possibly identifying what it is that the "us" represents.

And maybe my failure to reading you correctly was because you never mentioned mythology, "extraterrestrials," "unknown terrestrials," or even implied them.

Which is to say, why assume the super[extra] natural when we can apply a more natural explanation?

Because the supernatural is a concept that only exists within belief whereas the natural exists as testable fact. But go ahead and give us evidence of the supernatural that meets the principles of the scientific method, the best method we have for examining and determining the nature of reality.

Are you saying then, that scientifically speaking, both extraterrestrial or unknown terrestrial are something which could not naturally develop? Or are you saying that until such things can be shown to exist as real, they must be treated as "supernatural"?

Nope, because you never mentioned them. The only beings you ever mentioned were of the angelic (supernatural) stripe.

I see now that you did not understand my post, as I made that quite clear when I wrote;

Which is to say, why assume the super[extra] natural when we can apply a more natural explanation?

And you still haven't provided one reason why anyone should apply a more natural explanation, which I take to be one rooted in the logic of science, when science doesn't deal in angels, ESP, psychic healing, and such.


.

[William]

Interesting, but who were the "us"? Other than god did it include angels? Hanger-oners? The Bible doesn't say, and isn't it interesting that god had already created evil, which obviously was already circulating among the "us"----heavenly entities (angels,? Hanger-oners? and perhaps even god?) were doing evil things in heaven.

I am under the impression that most Christians think that the "us" is referring to angelic beings, but the nature of the universe forces one to first consider the idea that "they" could be another species which evolved with this galaxy, when Occam's Razor is applied to the question.

No it does not.

Sure it does.

So you're under the impression that the nature of the universe as it's considered by science, which doesn't deal with the supernatural in any form whatsoever, forces people to first consider the idea that angelic beings could be another species which evolved with this galaxy, angelic beings.

Nope. I am under the impression one has to look firstly at nature for any answer to who/what the "us" in the mythology might be and see if possible explanation can be found therein BEFORE making assertions that they are beings from some other universe (supernatural).
I am under the impression that Christians [in general] believe that the "us" mentioned are supernatural beings, which should not be the FIRST assumption one should make.

And does so as a result of applying the law of parsimony! Then please show your work.

The law of parsimony is something you brought into the discussion and appear to want to argue a point? But I am not clear on what that point is.
I only mentioned Occam's Razor in relation to there existing two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the smallest number of assumptions is usually correct.
Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation.

My interest in species is related to what science has learned through examining how life-forms developed on Earth. I cannot intelligently claim that this Galaxy planet Earth exists within, cannot produce similar types of life forms on other planets.

Okay, but I fail to see the relevance to god's "us."

This may be because you confused my reference to "Occam's Razor" with "applying the law of parsimony"...

Are you saying then, that scientifically speaking, both extraterrestrial or unknown terrestrial are something which could not naturally develop? Or are you saying that until such things can be shown to exist as real, they must be treated as "supernatural"?

Nope, because you never mentioned them. The only beings you ever mentioned were of the angelic (supernatural) stripe.

What post of mine are you referring to?

[Miles]

No it does not.

Sure it does.

Alas, our exchange here has outrun its appeal so I'm going to address only one of your remarks:

Okay, but I fail to see the relevance to god's "us."

This may be because you confused my reference to "Occam's Razor" with "applying the law of parsimony"...

"Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami), or law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae) is the problem-solving principle that 'entities should not be multiplied without necessity' ",
Source: Wikipedia

Have a good day.

.

[William]

No it does not.

Sure it does.

Alas, our exchange here has outrun its appeal so I'm going to address only one of your remarks:

Okay, but I fail to see the relevance to god's "us."

This may be because you confused my reference to "Occam's Razor" with "applying the law of parsimony"...

"Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami), or law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae) is the problem-solving principle that 'entities should not be multiplied without necessity' ",
Source: Wikipedia

Have a good day.

.

Thanks for that correction.
I still don't understand why you think I am incorrect to use 0ccam's razor/law of parsimony in relation to the possibility of extraterrestrial/unknown terrestrial in relation to explaining the possible reference to the word "us" being used in the Mythology. Obviously you think it is important enough to mention and I am keen to read your view if it means I can drop the notion altogether...

[William]

The question was asked "who are the "us" referred to, to which I gave some possibilities which might answer that...Moving on then - we can focus on the thread topic re the question as to;

"What is the problem with having the knowledge of good and evil in and of itself?"...

...because it would at least seem that this is an important aspect of social evolution in terms of moving away from acting instinctively and responding to our environment in a programed [robotic] manner [like the 'lower' animals tend to do] ... why would something that important be prohibited by the "us" (biblical god)?

Observation of current humanity, [historical evidence] perhaps one answer might be that we tend toward using such knowledge against the greater good.

This would be because we are not fully informed...so we do not really know what good and evil are - but generally think [are under the impression] that we do.

Insufficient knowledge applied to the science of getting to know our environment equates [historical evidence] that we humans are reckless in that regard...perhaps even so reckless that we are going to experience our extinction brought about by our own actions...and "surely die".