Is it Important to Have Knowledge of G&E?

[William]

Linked Topic: The Knowledge of Good and Evil

From the Thread Topic: Questions for those who believe in free will

Replying to The Tanager in post #132] Discussion between The Tanager and William:

All in all it appears to me to be that you believe "free" will is about moral considerations, which are built from human concepts [how the individual defines/accepts the definitions of nature] rather than the nature of nature [because nature is not bound by moral considerations.]
The definitions created this way bring about moral awareness which would otherwise be absent and are largely done through some supernatural authority outside of nature [because nature has no morals] and thus deities are created to compensate, and morals are forced into nature through that means.

I think free will is primarily about moral considerations built from our human nature given to us by the Creator. Not all of nature is moral but I think humans are naturally so.

If that is the case and your thinking is correct, then we need to identify why "not all of nature is moral but humans are naturally moral" - I will create another thread on that question.

It appears to me that with the premise;

"Free will is primarily about moral considerations built from our human nature given to us by the Creator."

that free will therefore comes after the acquiring of KGE.

IF the premise is true THEN the story that humans acquired KGE through disobeying a command not to eat the fruit which is credited with giving humans such knowledge, must be false.

This because, in order to have "moral considerations" one has to have that "knowledge of good and evil", and thus IF The Creator built this knowledge into the nature of the human instrument [as a given] THEN there is no requirement for any "Forbidden fruit" to be the object/means through which KGE was obtained, as it was already implanted with the natural human condition by The Creator.

Q: Is the argument above logically sound?

[JehovahsWitness]

Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

There'd be no reason to base it solely on the name of the tree.


Tcg

So would it be fair to say you interpret Genesis 3:22 literally ? That Adam and Eve literally had no information in their heads about anything good? That if you showed them something good and said "this is good" they would have looked at you with puzzlement unable to understand what the sentence meant? They would have understood the words "this is..." but would have stumbled at the word good unable to attribute meaning to the sounds?

I'm quoting what God supposedly said.


Tcg

So you quote but have no thoughts or opinion on what you refer to?

[Tcg]

Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

There'd be no reason to base it solely on the name of the tree.


Tcg

So would it be fair to say you interpret Genesis 3:22 literally ? That Adam and Eve literally had no information in their heads about anything good? That if you showed them something good and said "this is good" they would have looked at you with puzzlement unable to understand what the sentence meant? They would have understood the words "this is..." but would have stumbled at the word good unable to attribute meaning to the sounds?

I'm quoting what God supposedly said.


Tcg

So you quote but have no thoughts or opinion on what you refer to?

I've already expressed that quite clearly. Your accusation that Purple Knight's conclusion was based only on the name of the tree was false. As I have presented God himself, reportedly, expressed that knowing good and evil was a new thing for Adam. Do you have anything other than an Ad Hominem with which to address this fact?


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

I've already expressed that quite clearly.

Ok thanks for sharing. I will await Purple to whom I posted my original question. I do think he is capable of speaking for himself and his opinion I am at least interested in.


Have a nice day,


JW



RELATED POSTS

Does Genesis indicate Adam and Eve literally had no way of grasping what the Word "good" meant?
viewtopic.php?p=1040394#p1040394


Why was the free in the middle of the garden referred to as "The tree of the knowledge of good and evil"?
viewtopic.php?p=849045#p849045

[Tcg]

Ok thanks for sharing. I will await Purple to whom I posted my original question. I do think he is capable of speaking for himself and his opinion I am at least interested in.

JW

Is this your admission that you indeed have nothing other than an Ad Hominem with which to address the facts I've presented?


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

How would Adam & Eve know what die means?

God probably explained that also.

Possibly but there is also no indication in the bible that animals were created to live forever and so they probably also saw animals and insects die (fruit flies for example only live 40-50 days). Either way it is counter productive to present something as a penalty for an action in the absence of any understanding of what that penalty entails.





JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

ADAM &EVE, ORIGINAL SIN and ... THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND BAD

[Tcg]

Possibly but there is also no indication in the bible that animals were created to live forever and so they probably also saw animals and insects die (apparently fruit flies for example only live 40-50 days). Either way it would be counterproductive to present as a penalty for an action in the absence of any understanding of what that penalty entailled.

JW

Probably? The extent of your argument is based on probably? It's not terribly convincing.


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #17]

All in all, trying to argue that the being [called God] in the story was a 'nice' entity when taking those things into account, seems more than just a stretch - more a case of not seeing the wood from the trees...but even more the case of bowing to an image of The Creator which is so obviously not nice at all...one understands fear of the damage such a being can inflict upon an individual as being more the reason folk gravitate to this idea of a Creator - not through love, but fear.

I can't say the God in the story wasn't nice... specifically to pre-apple-stealy Adam and Eve. He gave them everything.

Incorrect PK.

What the God in the story forbids them from having, is knowledge of good and evil, thus having the ability to develop morals. So no - the fruit wasn't apples and the God did not give them everything.
That is the point of this thread. To examine if it is important to have KGE...and if so, why were the pair forbidden from having something which would assist them with this? Why did the God not teach them right from wrong as a good parent-figure might be expected to do?
Why use fear of punishment as a device and place temptation in their path? For one thing certainly sticks out here - as much as Christians point at the Serpent as the worst thing in the garden, it is clear that the worst thing in the garden was the tree with the forbidden fruit, for without that what was there to tempt them with?

Think about it.

The God in the story created the pair without any understanding of good and evil. That was their so called 'perfect state'.
Yet Christians argue that we need morals and some go so far as to say that the God installed morals into the pair from the go-get.
Why would the God want human beings not to know about good and evil?
And if that was the case, why would the God place a tree which bore fruit which could give the pair access to that information?

Can we sensibly argue that without morals, humans beings would be worse off? And if we can, then why would any God-being NOT want us to be better off?

So the critique is about the story, and how the story makes The Creator look like a sinister manipulator which fearful believers turn a blind eye about as they claim that the story is true, and that this is how The Creator actually worked.

It is far more sensible to acknowledge that the story itself is something which came from the minds of primitive humans who - in their ignorance - tried to explain why they existed and was never meant to be taken as the literal truth - as Christians throughout the modern world still claim it to being.

[The Tanager]

I think that The Tanagers argument is that one requires free will in order to act morally/immorally in the first instance, which - as the OP points out - is something necessary to argue if one is to stand by the claim that human beings were not permitted [forbidden] to know good and evil.

Thus,

Q: How can we have morals without knowing good and evil?"

Which - following the logic of the story under question [Adam and Eve] - we are left with the notion that The Creator did not want us have morals. Rather than, as The Tanager argues - The Creator built knowledge of good and evil into our nature from the go-get...so therefore the story is not necessary to 'explain' how we came by morals...through "disobeying The Creator" as the notion is quite absurd.

I don't think the story is meant to explain how we came by our morals. I think the Adam and Eve story shows that, in choosing to eat the fruit, Adam and Eve were deciding for themselves what was good and evil, rather than going with what God said was good and evil. In eating the fruit, Adam and Eve first experientially knew what it was to choose evil (already experientially knowing what it meant to choose good). Either of these could be why the tree became called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This name does not refer to them not intellectually understanding the difference between good and evil.

[The Tanager]

Is the argument above logically sound?

No, because your "given" is incorrect:

It is not my 'given' - as the OP explains, a Christian [The Tanager] argued this as a given.

I'm not saying that not eating that particular fruit was built into Adam and Eve as a moral command. They intellectually understood right and wrong. Right includes trusting an omnipotent being's judgment. God told them not to eat of a particular tree. They intellectually knew disobeying God was wrong and would lead to what God deemed evil. They went with deciding for themselves what was 'good' and 'evil.'

[The Tanager]

I think that this is why Christians such as The Tanager argue that morality is a natural attribute placed into the human design.

I hope they don't, because then what of the psychopath?

Pyschopaths either have numbed their conscience by a series of free will choices or could have physical defects that inhibit their moral nature. Neither contradicts morality being a natural part of humanity just like the existence of blindness doesn't mean sight isn't a part of human nature.

And what of moral disagreements? Are we to believe that every time two people disagree about right and wrong, one of them is just lying about what he believes? Why would he do such a thing, since everyone's conscience says the same thing and nobody can ever be deceived...

Our moral law is not like a physical law. Morality is more complex, where we can apply the same moral principles to a different belief about what is fact. For example, I think there is a universal moral principle to protect our children and seek justice for those who do children harm. The disagreements come in over what "protect" and "justice" are believed to be. Does 'protect' include sheltering our kids from all discomfort? Does justice include killing the one who harmed a child? Imprisoning them? Trying to rehabilitate them?