The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-07-2013, 07:24 AM
RE: The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
The Theist wrote: "To clarify, the angel later known as Satan was placed in charge of protecting Adam and Eve.

They were not warned of a serpent or Satan. Why not? It wasn't known that there was a danger there. But again, common sense dictates that Eve should have trusted her Creator and husband rather than a serpent. "

Protect them from what? In the next sentence you said it wasn't known that there was a danger there.

"Now I don't want to be sane either, but I'm just saying there may be other delusions and hallucinations worthy of consideration before jumping to an irrational conclusion, that's all."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2013, 07:27 AM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2013 07:31 AM by Fisty_McBeefpunch.)
RE: The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
(05-07-2013 07:24 AM)Fisty_McBeefpunch Wrote:  The Theist wrote: "To clarify, the angel later known as Satan was placed in charge of protecting Adam and Eve.

They were not warned of a serpent or Satan. Why not? It wasn't known that there was a danger there. But again, common sense dictates that Eve should have trusted her Creator and husband rather than a serpent. "

Protect them from what? In the next sentence you said it wasn't known that there was a danger there.

I hit the wrong thing while editing so I'll try again.

Still, how did she know not to trust anything if she had no concept of good and evil until after "their eyes were open"? They were in a perfect paradise communing with God.

"Now I don't want to be sane either, but I'm just saying there may be other delusions and hallucinations worthy of consideration before jumping to an irrational conclusion, that's all."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2013, 07:36 AM
RE: The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
(05-07-2013 12:22 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(05-07-2013 12:04 AM)The Theist Wrote:  You mean how could she have known? Have you considered what I've told you she had to work with, believe the Creator or believe a serpent. Consider the fact that she had been around an indeterminate period of time. A serpent she was undoubtedly accustomed to, but a speaking serpent?

You can ask yourself, if, even as a child, you are told something by a parent you trust and this is contradicted by something you are not accustomed to which would you believe? Most probably for good reason.


Well, Paul mentions that Eve was deceived but Adam made a consious decision for fear of losing his mate. The "knowledge" of good and evil, as I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, explained by the Jerusalem Bible, was the decision to decide for themselves what was good and what was bad. They rejected God's guidence.


To clarify, the angel later known as Satan was placed in charge of protecting Adam and Eve.

They were not warned of a serpent or Satan. Why not? It wasn't known that there was a danger there. But again, common sense dictates that Eve should have trusted her Creator and husband rather than a serpent.

I rather like Fisty's argument, and think you didn't answer it very adequately. You've got to avoid filtering it through your hindsight bias... instead, put yourself in Eve's position. Having never encountered deception, how could you know when you're being lied to? Whether or not you've encountered speaking serpents, how can you know that it's unusual or noteworthy? In Eve's situation, everything would be "new", and neither the scientific method nor rules of logic have been figured out (nor the concept of "common sense" that you believe she ought to have had). I think you're giving her too much credit.

I think you drew the wrong conclusion from your own analogy to a child trusting his or her parents. If your parents told you that Santa Claus existed, would you believe them, even if it contradicted everything you observed? Of course -- kids do it all the time. Would you believe someone else who told you that your parents were lying? Probably. You'd have no method of determining what is the truth, and your immediacy bias would lead you to believe what you heard most recently.

Now you claim that Adam and Eve weren't warned of the serpent because "it wasn't known there was a danger there". It wasn't known by... an all-knowing God? Was God blindsided by this event? What about while it was happening -- was God unaware that they were being tempted? The text makes it sound like that's exactly what happened, because they seem to have thought they could hide from God (which, if they knew that God was all-present or all-knowing, violated "common sense"). Who gave the serpent the power to speak in the first place? Who allowed Satan access to humans after this incident? It's like you have two concepts of God, one in which he lacks control and knowledge (and for some strange reason responsibility) when things go wrong, and another one in which he controls and knows all when not applying this control or knowledge to actual situations.

And even our parents warn us not to talk to strangers, or put things in light sockets or run into the street. It appears that God was a neglectful parent or he just didn't see it coming and therefore cannot be all knowing or all powerful.

"Now I don't want to be sane either, but I'm just saying there may be other delusions and hallucinations worthy of consideration before jumping to an irrational conclusion, that's all."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fisty_McBeefpunch's post
05-07-2013, 08:29 AM
RE: The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
(04-07-2013 10:36 PM)The Theist Wrote:  You would have to delve into the meaning of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad and the tree of everlasting life. Basically this is why sin equals death.

What was the long-term plan? Sooner or later things are going to be full - immortals can't reproduce forever. And besides, death clearly existed regardless (I'm fairly sure most plants die when you eat them).

(04-07-2013 10:36 PM)The Theist Wrote:  The angels had been created in God's image and had undoubtedly been around for a great length of time before the creation of the earth began. They had gotten to know, from their creator, what was right and wrong, and God's rest was the period of time in which mankind would have matured to the same degree. For this reason God removed man from Eden and the tree of everlasting life 'so that he wouldn't be like "us" and know good and bad. The Jeruselem Bible puts it best: "This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, is to lay hands on, 3:5, 22. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess; nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty, a sin of pride." The Jerusalem Bible 1966.

I fail to see the virtue in moral slavery.

(04-07-2013 10:36 PM)The Theist Wrote:  Most everything is debatable, potentially subject to the possibility of ambiguity or misrepresentation.

Yes. So why believe it?

(04-07-2013 10:36 PM)The Theist Wrote:  In verse 1 the heavens, which include the stars, sun and moon, were created.

In verse 3 the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is imperfect denoting continuous action. Light gradually came to be. The light was visible then on earth. The light (Hebrew ohr) is used meaning the light itself, later in verse 14 the Hebrew maohr (source of light) is visible on the earth. Job 38:4, 9 mention a "swaddling band" in the early stages of creation, it's possible the dust and debris from creation prevented the light and the source of the light from being imedietly visible on earth.

Bull honkey. The original authors simply didn't know the difference. Twisting it around to avoid that fact is simply intellectual contortionism.

Dividing light from darkness, and defining morning and evening (day and night in the "is there light or not sense") explicitly happens on the first day. It doesn't matter what a 'day' is - just that it's the first one. The creation of light sources is explicitly mentioned as taking place on the fourth day. They are explicitly described and enumerated as first through seventh. What meaning does this have, if not chronological? For if it is chronological, it is contradictory.

(04-07-2013 10:36 PM)The Theist Wrote:  It's a good translation. My grandpa's "day" isn't limited to a period consisting of 24 literal hours.

It's a bad translation if it introduces ambiguity and apparent contradiction. That's why the Quran is only officially studied in classical Arabic, notwithstanding its own ridiculous claims.

(04-07-2013 10:36 PM)The Theist Wrote:  Could you clarify exactly what you mean by that?

It's pretty obvious. How do you know one account is chronological and one isn't?

The answer, of course, is to attempt to explain away the obvious errors and contradictions in a poorly written fable.

(04-07-2013 10:36 PM)The Theist Wrote:  Agreed. And of course that would apply to evidence of those outside of faith. There are two possible ways to interpret the Bible. Right or wrong. We are all subject to imperfection.

And this is what it comes down to. Eventually the only justification left for belief is, "I just do". All the obvious flaws in every holy book are, in the end, irrelevant.

There are equally fervent believers in any number of contradictory faiths. They cannot all be true. No doubt each believer thinks her own is the correct one. Ask her why, and - "I just do".

That's not good enough. I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
05-07-2013, 08:58 AM
RE: The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
(05-07-2013 12:22 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  I rather like Fisty's argument, and think you didn't answer it very adequately. You've got to avoid filtering it through your hindsight bias... instead, put yourself in Eve's position.

I think that hindsight bias, as you say, is difficult for any of us to avoid, and I have been trying to do exactly as you have said, put ourselves in Eve's position.

(05-07-2013 12:22 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  Having never encountered deception, how could you know when you're being lied to? Whether or not you've encountered speaking serpents, how can you know that it's unusual or noteworthy? In Eve's situation, everything would be "new", and neither the scientific method nor rules of logic have been figured out (nor the concept of "common sense" that you believe she ought to have had). I think you're giving her too much credit.

Well, perhaps you are right, but as I brought up, Paul said Eve was decieved, Adam wasn't. So Eve's sin, in effect, as I understand it, isn't the issue. It is Adam's sin that was at issue, because he wasn't decieved and he was given charge of the Earth.

(05-07-2013 12:22 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  I think you drew the wrong conclusion from your own analogy to a child trusting his or her parents. If your parents told you that Santa Claus existed, would you believe them, even if it contradicted everything you observed? Of course -- kids do it all the time. Would you believe someone else who told you that your parents were lying? Probably. You'd have no method of determining what is the truth, and your immediacy bias would lead you to believe what you heard most recently.

I think that you have to keep in mind that the offense here was to choose for themselves what was good and what was bad over what God told them was good and what was bad.

(05-07-2013 12:22 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  Now you claim that Adam and Eve weren't warned of the serpent because "it wasn't known there was a danger there". It wasn't known by... an all-knowing God? Was God blindsided by this event? What about while it was happening -- was God unaware that they were being tempted? The text makes it sound like that's exactly what happened, because they seem to have thought they could hide from God (which, if they knew that God was all-present or all-knowing, violated "common sense").

Good thinking, that they thought they could hide from God had never occurred to me in that context, but you are exactly right. God didn't know it was going to happen and is not all present or all knowing as such. Notice God asked them what they had done, had they eaten from the tree? He didn't know.

(05-07-2013 12:22 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  Who gave the serpent the power to speak in the first place?

The serpent didn't actually speak, Satan spoke through the serpent. Making it look as though the serpent were speaking.

(05-07-2013 12:22 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  Who allowed Satan access to humans after this incident? It's like you have two concepts of God, one in which he lacks control and knowledge (and for some strange reason responsibility) when things go wrong, and another one in which he controls and knows all when not applying this control or knowledge to actual situations.

You are assuming that as a Bible student I adhere to the traditional religious nonsense of God being strictly omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. I don't because it doesn't hold up to a careful study of the Bible. Can God do anything? God can't lie. Can God be anywhere all the time? God's position is fixed in Heaven. Does God know all? God didn't know Adam had sinned, he didn't know if the people of Sodom were as bad as everyone said so he sent angels to investigate. God can do anything he wants to within his own qualities and justice. So he cant lie. He can get to know anything he wants to, but doesn't know all simultanously, he can be anywhere he wants, but not all at once.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2013, 09:38 AM
RE: The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
(05-07-2013 12:53 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  Forgive my lack of direct quotes. Typing on my phone as I lie in bed... white and black striped boxer briefs in case you were wondering.

The problem that I pointed out between Genesis 1 & 2 is that in 2, it first mentions that god rested on the 7th day after all his hard work. That means right off the bat, it has established that it is now talking about the 7th day.

2 points of consideration. 1. In verse 3 it says that God rests on the 7th day. An interesting aside here is that thousands of years later David would indicate that that 7th day was continuing in his time. Still thousands of years later Paul does the same. In fact, that 7th day continues even today. It has never ended.

2. So in verse 3 it says that God rested from his work in the creation, in verse 4 it either concludes the first account, or introduces the repeating of the second account.

(05-07-2013 12:53 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  Even if 2 was a topical explanation, it mentions man being created before plants. That's inconsistent with Genesis 1.

I know exactly what you said in your analogy. I simply rearranged it to relate it to Genesis 1 & 2.

But you are not allowing for the repetition.

(05-07-2013 12:53 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  As for god's nature... what is he then? Both omniscient and omnipotent? Neither? One or the other?

I hope your answer isn't along the lines of "we cannot ever know that"

This is somewhat problematic. The religious tradition tends to lean towards omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent in the strictest sense, meaning, totally.

Consider a basic usage of a similar word, omnivorous. It isn't applied in the strictest sense of absolutely eating everything. There are limits implied. So, technically you could say God is omnipotent and omniscient, but with limitations. God can't lie. God doesn't appear to know everything at once, throughout scripture there are obvious limits implied. God can do anything he wants within his own sense of justice, fairness, etc. He can be anywhere he wants, but his position is fixed, he isn't everywhere all at once. He can get to know anything he wants but doesn't know all at once.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2013, 09:52 AM
RE: The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
(05-07-2013 09:38 AM)The Theist Wrote:  2 points of consideration. 1. In verse 3 it says that God rests on the 7th day. An interesting aside here is that thousands of years later David would indicate that that 7th day was continuing in his time. Still thousands of years later Paul does the same. In fact, that 7th day continues even today. It has never ended.

2. So in verse 3 it says that God rested from his work in the creation, in verse 4 it either concludes the first account, or introduces the repeating of the second account.

I'm sorry, but that is far too convenient of an explanation and pretty nonsensical. Why does the 7th day continue? Did god have 6 days then all of a sudden make the 7th day eternal? What was the need for that? Why couldn't it be 1 day and then make that eternal so that we are perpetually in day 1. There's no logic there.

(05-07-2013 09:38 AM)The Theist Wrote:  But you are not allowing for the repetition.

I am allowing for it. I accepted your premise of the second chapter being a topical explanation. But even in a topical explanation, it must follow the events of the subject that it is describing. The events in Genesis 1 clearly states plants were created before man. In Genesis 2, it clearly states that man was created then plants thereafter.

Back to your analogy:

You told a friend that you are going to the mall to buy a coat. Then you told another friend after the fact that you bought a coat and then went to the mall.

^^that is how Genesis 1 and 2 are telling it.

(05-07-2013 09:38 AM)The Theist Wrote:  This is somewhat problematic. The religious tradition tends to lean towards omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent in the strictest sense, meaning, totally.

Consider a basic usage of a similar word, omnivorous. It isn't applied in the strictest sense of absolutely eating everything. There are limits implied. So, technically you could say God is omnipotent and omniscient, but with limitations. God can't lie. God doesn't appear to know everything at once, throughout scripture there are obvious limits implied. God can do anything he wants within his own sense of justice, fairness, etc. He can be anywhere he wants, but his position is fixed, he isn't everywhere all at once. He can get to know anything he wants but doesn't know all at once.

So if God has limitations, how could he possibly be the creator of all? If he is limited in his power, then he is bound by some type of natural forces. This means he exists in a realm that precedes him. A creator of everything cannot logically have limitations. Conversely, a being without limitations is illogical. Thus we come to a paradox.

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2013, 01:18 PM (This post was last modified: 06-07-2013 11:34 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
(05-07-2013 09:52 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  Conversely, a being without limitations is illogical. Thus we come to a paradox.


Adam and Eve were obviously parselmouths.




No serious scholar actually takes these ancient myths literally, any more. None. Attempting to do so is simply a measure of the utter and complete ignorance of it's proponent. No mainline university in the world teaches this in 2013. None. It' a failed enterprise, and speaks only of the "outside" nature of the debate from real scholarship. It's not what scholars discuss any more, and they have not for at least a hundred years.

Seriously, what you say is, in classical Greek philosophy called "Euthyphro's dilemma". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
Any god who is "subject" to anything *in reality*, (limitations), is not, and cannot be, it's (any external objective or standard) creator, and it therefore exists apart from the god, and thus refutes the fact that the god is, or can be, the creator of Reality.
How would a god know what to set up as a standard for anything, if it did not objectively, already exist ?
How could a god only do what is good, if "the good" is not already extant, and separate in reality ? How would it know what to create ?
They will reply "it's god's nature that she is only good". Which of course does not advance the discussion.
"The good" still is identifiable and a (separate) standard. Either it's capricious, or not the creator of Reality.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-07-2013, 05:31 AM
RE: The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
(05-07-2013 08:58 AM)The Theist Wrote:  You are assuming that as a Bible student I adhere to the traditional religious nonsense of God being strictly omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. I don't because it doesn't hold up to a careful study of the Bible. Can God do anything? God can't lie. Can God be anywhere all the time? God's position is fixed in Heaven. Does God know all? God didn't know Adam had sinned, he didn't know if the people of Sodom were as bad as everyone said so he sent angels to investigate. God can do anything he wants to within his own qualities and justice. So he cant lie. He can get to know anything he wants to, but doesn't know all simultanously, he can be anywhere he wants, but not all at once.

You're right. I assumed that you held the popular theological beliefs on these points. I like your point-of-view because it is much more in line with several bible stories, but theologians don't hold these positions unreasonably -- these qualities protect other parts of the bible. For example, Philippians 4:13 says that "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me", which is clearly untrue if Christ can't do all things through himself. While Genesis makes God out to be lacking omnipotence and omnipresence, most of the bible doesn't, and you'll find that a lot of bible passages can't be true when you remove those qualities. But, overall, I re-iterate that your point-of-view does make *more* sense than the prevailing one.

So most of the arguments I made wouldn't are straw-man attacks, given what you personally believe. However, it still doesn't make sense that Eve got punished for being deceived. Why would it matter if Adam sinned without deception? You'll note that everyone got punished, including Eve (by getting thrown out of the garden) and women in general (through painful childbirth) despite getting deceived into her sin. So let's not pretend that only Adam's actions mattered.

Also, the scripture doesn't even suggest that Satan spoke through the serpent. The snake is referred to 100% of the time as a snake, and Satan isn't even mentioned once in the entire book of Genesis. The punishments given to the snake, such as "crawling on your belly all your life" and "bruising man's heel" and "getting bruised by man's heel" and "eating dust" are things that don't make sense in the context of Satan's punishments, but they all make sense in the context of punishments towards snakes (assuming that snakes eat dust, which was probably the limited scientific view of snakes at the time). Many people have tried to make sense of the illogical idea that a snake would talk by making it into Satan, but there's no scriptural support for it. It would appear, from this passage, that the talking snake was just a talking snake.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
06-07-2013, 06:29 AM
RE: The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
"The serpent didn't actually speak, Satan spoke through the serpent. Making it look as though the serpent were speaking. " What? Where are you drawing this from?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like devilsadvoc8's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: