Adam and Eve explained by a Christian....What do you think?

Pathofreason
Superfan
Pathofreason's picture
Posts: 320
Joined: 2006-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Adam and Eve explained by a Christian....What do you think?

This is an explanation of Genesis I got in my email the other day. I think this person was responding to something I said in a stick am Chat. I mentioned if any Christians want to try to explain the genesis story in a way that makes sense feel free. (not that I need it explained) But I just thought I would post this and see what you guys think.

 

 

The universe was not created in a day, the Bible says that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (from memory).  From this it is obvious that no limit is set upon the age of the universe or the earth -- this permits any number such as billions of years that scientists may desire.

The purpose with the creation of a man and a woman was to have them multiply so as to fill the earth.  That wouldn't quite have worked so well with two men now, would it?  b. side issue: The work the couple and consequently mankind were given was to be care takers of the whole earth.

Gen 1:28, . . . Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that  moveth upon the earth. (ASV)

There was nothing magical about the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil."  It represented the acceptance or the refusal by man of God's right to decide what is good and evil for man -- his right to rule us through his Theocracy.

God had provided plenty of food of all kinds for them to eat.  The pointing out of that one food product as having been prohibited brought no hardship upon them in any manner at all. 

However, it did test their obedience to him their God and maker, one may also say that it tested even their love for him

Their disobedience brought about at the worst possible time (before they had conceived children) was a rejection of the rule through love that worked thru willful obedience. 

God does not want people to obey him because they know the police will do this and that to them, or such.  He wants willful obedience bases on love.  That is why today too, only those that choose to willingly serve him and obey him (yes a lot of disobedient people call themselves Christian, but their willful sins will be the end of them) and put faith in his arrangements shall be saved.

Thus the rebellion against this rule that works only by willful obedience, theocracy, caused a legal issue to occur.  Satan had challenged (not God's power, that would have ended in an instant) God's rule.  A. He claimed that men didn't need God's rule to be trouble free -- therefore, the time for testing this was accorded.  B. He claimed that no human would serve God when forced into loosing all his material possessions (at the time of Job) C. He claimed that no human would serve God if they had to prove it by dying for it.

This legal issue has been decided in the heavenly court for many centuries now, and the decision has been reached.  That is why we believe we are in what is named the "last days of this system of things."

6Satan was an angel that sinned and used his free will for selfish purposes.  He wanted to be like God.  He was the ventriloquist behind that poor innocent animal everybody talks about.  (angels being invisible to human eyes unless not wanting it, it would seem as if the serpent talked since nobody else was aboutBecause Eve had recently been created and was unfamiliar with the animals, Eve didn't know that the animal couldn't talk.  That is why the Bible says that she was utterly deceived while her husband knew instantly what had occurred.

It would be like one of us going to another earth like world and not knowing which life form/s was/were intelligent enough to communicate with.

These two humans were as intelligent as you and I.  Since they were alone on earth, why should they worry about being naked.  Even between a man and his wife today there is no shame.  However, if I was found doing something unnatural by my wife I probably would feel shame.

The same happened to them.  They knew they had disobeyed and felt shame so the covered up.  Even today when someone does something truly stupid they tend to hide their faces in their hands or something to that effect.

Co-Founder of the Atheist/Freethought website Pathofreason.com

www.pathofreason.com

Check it out


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Textom

todangst wrote:
Textom wrote:

todangst wrote:
'god' is still punishing them for their actions, rendering them morally culpable

Again, not finding the punishment idea supported the Bible. The idea that not eating from the tree is a law and that violating that law deserves punishment comes from our buddy Augustine.

When I read Gen 2-3, I see a fairytale about a God who tells the two people that if they eat from a particular tree, that the tree will cause them to die (not the God).

I deal with this dodge in my original argument: calling it a fairytale does nothing to deal with the fact that the fairytale contains a clear contradiction.

I don't even see people here attempting to deal with this problem.

 

Are you referring to the contradiction where you argued that sin requires intent?

I remember that, and I agree with it.

I'm sort of waxing Socratic right now though.

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx wrote: Okay,

Archeopteryx wrote:

Okay, so you admit that God purposely allowed Adam and Eve to make this mistake? Why would he do that?

I submit that the idea permeating through the judeo-christian bible (and other spiritual texts) is that the creator god figure purposefully allowed everything possible for man, barring no alternative between nothing and infinity, and that this is just one of those alternatives, the one consistent metaphorical history that accords with the world as we know it.

Quote:

Why is it initially considered bad for Adam and Eve to have the same knowledge or the same immortality as god?

It seems to me from the book that it is ultimately considered bad for Adam and Eve to have both in succession.

They are warned against taking the knowledge of Good and Evil because in the day they do so they will surely die. However if they take from the tree of immortality they won't die. If you put two and two together here it becomes apparent that this god chose between death and eternal life for Adam and Eve after they had become wise, and he chose death. As to why, our only clue is that the first thing adam and eve knew of good and evil was their own shame. Shame was the consequence of the knowledge of good and evil, and god decreed it better to procreate and die than live forever now that they had discovered shame.

 

Quote:

But couldn't he have just prevented the way to the tree of life without removing them from the entire garden?

Doesn't removing them from the garden entirely seem like a punishment when allowing them to stay in the garden was a viable option? (i.e. isn't that kind of like grounding?)

The literal reading of the text, without introducing a god did it that isn't there explicitly. Adam had now become like god knowing good and evil, and because he had followed his wife and eaten the fruit the ground was cursed on his account and would not bring forth food for him, also Adam knew as a result of his eating of the fruit, shame and nakedness.

If you add these together I think it becomes apparent that Adam's knowledge of good and evil was it's own consequence. Upon recieving knowledge they concieved of inadequacy and lack for the first time in their lives. what was once a paradise to their innocent minds was now a source of distress.

Now if you refrain from assuming what is not in the text there is no support for the notion that god punished adam or caused the land to be barren to adam as a punishment any more than he caused adam to believe he was naked and in shame. But both may logically construed to be a part of the same consequence. If Adam could not previously percieve lack or inadequacy and could walk naked without shame, but now can percieve lack and inadequacy and cannot bear to walk naked, what's to say that it is not his perception of lack and inadequacy that causes the earth to be barren to him as well?

Nothing.

And the point I am making is that the story of genesis does not direct the reader toward the other internally contradictory conclusion that the christian church has laid claim to, assumptions must be introduced to reach that conclusion, and they aren't very good assumptions, at that.

Quote:

Doesn't the ground-tilling and painful birth indicate that they are somehow being chastised?

I think I kind of covered this above, but in any case, not necessarily. If we assume that their new perception of lack and inadequacy is it's own consequence, then painful birth and ground tilling are something other than punishment. Whats the point of punishing someone who has just brought the weight of the world down on their shoulders themselves?

My suggestion would be that perhaps they are a remedy for shame. I think that could speak for itself, but I'd be willing to address it for you if you asked.

 

Quote:

If painful birth and tilling the ground for a period of time can possibly allow them access to the tree of life, then why was the tree bad in the first place?

Per above, probably because of their feelings of shame, and their new perception of inadequacy and lack.

Quote:

Why couldn't god have nixed the entire tree plan and jumped straight to the result he wanted? If he is as powerful as he is claimed to be, what purpose would he have for using such a method?

That one is answered in the new testament. If you'll indulge me another analogy, lets say you're a businessman and your son looks up to you and would like also to be a business man. Now because you are an experienced and successful business man you can put your son instantly in the big chair and a succesful business man too. Voila! the boy is a success and a hero, he basks in glory, but he owns none of that glory. It all belongs to you, it was all your doing and none his.

In a nutshell that would be the meaning of life proposed by the genesis story. God is put forth as the perfect infallible and almighty being who dreamed up this world and if we are to be like that wise being and live up to our potential through toil and suffering then we can truly share the credit.

 

Quote:

If god knew this was all going to happen, as you seem to have indicated by selecting "B" earlier, then why did he need the trees to accomplish this goal?

Well the god of this story didn't need to, of course, but did anyway. It seems to me that the only valid reason for having used the metaphorical trees of the genesis story was to present the choice to man to make for himself.

Quote:

He has essentially set Adam and Eve up, knowing what they would do, and then had a plan ready for when they did it.

I dare to read this old philosophy in light of the universe we now have begun to know where every outcome plays out somewhere and each moment of life in this universe is fine tuned to the conditions which set it in motion. In which case the genesis story can represent one path of many which lead to this world becoming what it is. And in that sense, an omniscient perfect being knew exactly what adam and eve would do because they would, in the whole of a multiverse, do everything including this.

 

 

Quote:

So if the snake was not there, it's at least reasonable to think that the event might not have happened

Yes I think we can safely say that. But that would be the legend at the beginning of another world, I suppose, perhaps being debated there as vigorously.

 

Quote:

But if God did put the snake in the garden, how was the snake able to make such a claim about the tree? Adam and Eve were specifically created to have no knowledge of good and evil, but what about the snake (or any character that may have assumed his role in his absence)?

If the snake was created as naive as Adam and Eve, then he would not have been able to be so evil as to lie to eve about it being acceptable to eat from the tree; however, it's arguable that he may have eaten from the tree himself before tempting eve. That line of thinking would probably make more sense considering that the snake was punished by being forced to crawl on his belly, but in your case that would create a problem since you're arguing that Adam and Eve were not punished. Why would one eater be punished when another was not? What does this say of god's justice? Also, would this mean that the snake also has the option of becoming like god? If not, why not?

If the snake was not created as naive as Adam and Eve were, then it must be said that the snake was initially more like god than man or woman.

Finally, one might argue that the one particular snake was created specifically by god for this one specific purpose, but then it would not make much sense for god to punish the snake, and it still would not answer the question as to why an all powerful god would need to use such methods.

I think the answer to this would be specific to the relationship between god and man. Man was the one made in the image of god, making the man more like god than the snake.

There's no answer to this made clear in the story as far as I can tell. I guess you could assume that the snake had eaten the forbidden fruit and it was okay for animals to do so because they were different to god.

 

 

Archeopteryx wrote:


Also, it is strange to conceive of an ostensibly perfect being with perfect knowledge of good and evil finding himself in error, is it not?

 

Yes, actually, I agree with that. What this god considered, I don't know, it doesn't make clear whats on his mind, only what he chooses to do and the rest we have to infer. But I would agree that god is presented as infallible and in perfect knowledge, so it's unlikely that he finds himself in error. To take a stab at it I would say perhaps that he deems himself not responsible for adams and eves will, but responsible for their ultimate well being.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
The questions continue

My questions may be in a somewhat disorganize order here, so forgive me if I come back to the same quotes multiple times. I just don't find walls of text to be very friendly, so I like to break things up into chunks where I can. =P

Anyway... on with the questions: 

 

Quote:

I submit that the idea permeating through the judeo-christian bible (and other spiritual texts) is that the creator god figure purposefully allowed everything possible for man, barring no alternative between nothing and infinity, and that this is just one of those alternatives, the one consistent metaphorical history that accords with the world as we know it.

Quote:

Well the god of this story didn't need to, of course, but did anyway. It seems to me that the only valid reason for having used the metaphorical trees of the genesis story was to present the choice to man to make for himself.

 So you don't believe in a literal interpretation of genesis? This story is a metaphor intended to present a certain philosophy?

If true, then to what extent can we know what is literal and what is metaphorical within the bible? If we allow someone the option to say that a part of the bible---the trees, for example---are metaphorical, then how do we stop a person from saying that the bible as a whole is metaphorical? What if a person said that God himself was a metaphor? How do we know where to draw the lines between factual history and metaphorical history?

Quote:
I submit that the idea permeating through the judeo-christian bible (and other spiritual texts) is that the creator god figure purposefully allowed everything possible for man, barring no alternative between nothing and infinity, and that this is just one of those alternatives, the one consistent metaphorical history that accords with the world as we know it.

 It would seem to me that God created them in a very specific situation. He gave them a specific form. He placed them in a specific setting. He gave them specific knowledge (or lack thereof). So it doesn't seem that he's allowing them them unlimited possibilities at this point. The only way for them to have truly unlimited opportunities would be if they were God's equals. Is that not true?

 

If god is truly omniscient, then isn't it true that no matter how he begins the existence of Adam and Eve, he already knows the full story that is about to follow, including the choices they will be faced with and the decisions that will be made? If this is true, how could Adam or Eve be considered to have access to all possibilities if God's chosen manner of initiating their existence dictates everything that follows? In other words, doesn't God, in his omniscience, become the ultimate chooser?

 

Quote:

It seems to me from the book that it is ultimately considered bad for Adam and Eve to have both in succession.

They are warned against taking the knowledge of Good and Evil because in the day they do so they will surely die. However if they take from the tree of immortality they won't die. If you put two and two together here it becomes apparent that this god chose between death and eternal life for Adam and Eve after they had become wise, and he chose death. As to why, our only clue is that the first thing adam and eve knew of good and evil was their own shame. Shame was the consequence of the knowledge of good and evil, and god decreed it better to procreate and die than live forever now that they had discovered shame.

 This answers the question as to why it would be bad for them to take from the tree of life after they had already taken from the tree of knowledge.

Examining your rule of succession in the opposite scenario, what if they would have taken from the tree of life first? If the succession rule is true, then it would be bad to take from both trees in succession in either order. In that case, why would living eternally in a state of naivette about good and evil be considered bad?

All of the above supposes that the succession explanation is the correct one. But what reason do we have for believing this is the case?

One reason for my asking why it was considered bad to take from the trees in the first place was another way of asking this: Why did God choose to create Adam and Eve without the qualities offered by the trees?

If God wants those qualities as possibilities for Adam and Eve, then why doesn't he grant them those qualities to begin with?

I have a feeling this touches on the analogy you gave, so I'll skip to that next: 

 

Quote:

That one is answered in the new testament. If you'll indulge me another analogy, lets say you're a businessman and your son looks up to you and would like also to be a business man. Now because you are an experienced and successful business man you can put your son instantly in the big chair and a succesful business man too. Voila! the boy is a success and a hero, he basks in glory, but he owns none of that glory. It all belongs to you, it was all your doing and none his.

This is why I suggested that analogies no longer be used. I'm not going to admonish you for using one, but I don't think it quite applies. The situation we're looking at has a lot of very special quirks that I don't think can be accounted for in any analogy to day-to-day realities.

The businessman analogy suggests a mentor relationship. In other words, there is an expert and an understudy. Furthermore, it suggests some "business" that the former is an expert of and that the latter is trying to learn from a teacher.

 It doesn't quite fit the shape of the situation though. By using the analogy you gave, it seems to argue that God is the expert in the nature of his own existence and is attempting to teach Adam and Eve how to master a state of existence like his own (perhaps minus the power).

The problem is that God does not need to mentor for Adam and Eve to achieve that state. He could simply create them any way he wanted, and then it would be so.

As for the argument that he does it for our glory, why is this self-earned glory a necessity? Isn't it true that if he simply created us as equals, we would already be just as glorious (perhaps minus the power)? How would we know what we were missing?

Wouldn't it be the case that the glory only becomes necessary if God decides that it is a necessity? And wouldn't it be the case that we would only value that glory if God created us with the capacity and desire to place value on that glory? (in your businessman model, the understudy would only be learning the business because the mentor had instilled in him the desire to do so and instilled in him the value he placed on achieving that goal).

In other words, isn't it true that things are only necessary if God decides that they are necessary?

 

Quote:

In a nutshell that would be the meaning of life proposed by the genesis story. God is put forth as the perfect infallible and almighty being who dreamed up this world and if we are to be like that wise being and live up to our potential through toil and suffering then we can truly share the credit.

 Truly share the credit for what?

Isn't our potential only as much as God allows it to be? 

 

Quote:

The literal reading of the text, without introducing a god did it that isn't there explicitly. Adam had now become like god knowing good and evil, and because he had followed his wife and eaten the fruit the ground was cursed on his account and would not bring forth food for him, also Adam knew as a result of his eating of the fruit, shame and nakedness.

If you add these together I think it becomes apparent that Adam's knowledge of good and evil was it's own consequence. Upon recieving knowledge they concieved of inadequacy and lack for the first time in their lives. what was once a paradise to their innocent minds was now a source of distress.

Okay, I see your metaphor and I think I understand where you're going. I'll direct my questions accordingly (or try). 

 If we're not reading the story literally and are instead reading it as a metaphor for the consequences of knowledge, then from what source do Adam and Eve receive the knowledge that causes them so much distress?

Quote:

Now if you refrain from assuming what is not in the text

I'm sorry if this sounds cheekish, but isn't that what any non-literal interpretation does?

Quote:
 

there is no support for the notion that god punished adam or caused the land to be barren to adam as a punishment any more than he caused adam to believe he was naked and in shame.

Isn't it true that he did, in a sense, cause Adam to believe he was naked and to be ashamed?

God could have created Adam in a different form but he chose this specific form and also granted the capacity (apparently latent for the first half of the story) for shame.

Since we have agreed that God purposely presented Adam and Eve with this choice, and since we have agreed that he is omniscient, does it not follow that God's decisions led to Adam and Eve's shame and nakedness?

Also, if man was created in the image of God, isn't it at least a little strange that Adam and Eve would feel ashamed of their form?

 

Quote:

But both may logically construed to be a part of the same consequence. If Adam could not previously percieve lack or inadequacy and could walk naked without shame, but now can percieve lack and inadequacy and cannot bear to walk naked, what's to say that it is not his perception of lack and inadequacy that causes the earth to be barren to him as well?

That would seem to work, in the framework of the interpretation you've laid out.

Quote:
 

Nothing.

And the point I am making is that the story of genesis does not direct the reader toward the other internally contradictory conclusion that the christian church has laid claim to, assumptions must be introduced to reach that conclusion, and they aren't very good assumptions, at that.

I'm sorry, this is probably a dumb question, but what internal contradiction did you mean? Original sin? 

Quote:

Per above, probably because of their feelings of shame, and their new perception of inadequacy and lack.

I feel like this is a dumb question as well, but exactly how do feelings of shame, inadequacy, and lack lead one down the path toward immortality?

 

Quote:

Well the god of this story didn't need to, of course, but did anyway. It seems to me that the only valid reason for having used the metaphorical trees of the genesis story was to present the choice to man to make for himself.

I asked this before, but I'll repeat in brief: Wouldn't that choice only become necessary if God decided it so? 

 

Quote:

I dare to read this old philosophy in light of the universe we now have begun to know where every outcome plays out somewhere and each moment of life in this universe is fine tuned to the conditions which set it in motion. In which case the genesis story can represent one path of many which lead to this world becoming what it is. And in that sense, an omniscient perfect being knew exactly what adam and eve would do because they would, in the whole of a multiverse, do everything including this.

Quote:

Yes I think we can safely say that. But that would be the legend at the beginning of another world, I suppose, perhaps being debated there as vigorously.

So you're saying that Genesis implies a multiverse consisting of infinite universes where each universe plays out, unconscious of any other universe?

 So god is only omniscient because he is able to draw on the knowledge he possesses of all possible universes?

I'm not sure this is a good way to explain his omniscience in this particular case. In order for him to have knowledge of what Adam and Eve would do in this one specific case, he would have to have knowledge of the future. It could not be due to his knowledge of other probable universes because, even if such a thing had happened before, or if such a thing MUST happen since the rule of all possible universes dictates that it must happen at least once, there would be no way for him to know that THIS universe would be the universe in which it happened unless he had some form of prescience. Is this not true?

 By this rule, are you arguing that God only knows that things will happen in this world because they must happen in at least one world? How does he know what will happen where and at what time?

By your posts above, it sounds like you're trying to explain God's omniscience with the idea that he is able to use other possible universes as references, but to me that would indicate a lack of omniscience since his knowledge would be derived from an external source.

Or am I reading it wrong?

Quote:

I think the answer to this would be specific to the relationship between god and man. Man was the one made in the image of god, making the man more like god than the snake.

There's no answer to this made clear in the story as far as I can tell. I guess you could assume that the snake had eaten the forbidden fruit and it was okay for animals to do so because they were different to god.

If man was more like god than the snake, then we must accept that the snake did not possess more knowledge than man in the beginning. In other words, the snake was naive like man. This means, by way of the arguments I presented before, that the snake must have eaten from the tree before man. It would follow, then, that the snake achieved god-level knowledge of good and evil before man. And yet man simply felt shame, while the snake lost his legs.

This, to me, seems peculiar. But since you're looking at all of this metaphorically, I suppose it's not as momentously problematic.

It's still a suspicious peculiarity, though, to say the least.

 

Quote:

Yes, actually, I agree with that. What this god considered, I don't know, it doesn't make clear whats on his mind, only what he chooses to do and the rest we have to infer. But I would agree that god is presented as infallible and in perfect knowledge, so it's unlikely that he finds himself in error. To take a stab at it I would say perhaps that he deems himself not responsible for adams and eves will, but responsible for their ultimate well being.

I agree that an infallible god who is perfectly knowledgeable of good and evil could not find himself in error.

But it seems that he does make an error. He specifically tells Adam not to take from the tree (or not to make the choice it represents), and yet Adam takes from the tree. Regardless of whether or not there was any punishment, God still seems responsible for the failure of man to obey an order that came from his own mouth.

And if God is omniscient and knows what the outcome of the whole charade will be, and if he has constructed it to be just so, then God appears dishonest when he advises that the tree should not be touched (or choice not made).

As for the argument that he considers himself responsible for their ultimate well-being: How could an omniscient god with complete control create a situation where he lost enough of that control that the well-being of his creations became an issue? Unless, of course, he did it on purpose?


A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Textom

todangst wrote:
Textom wrote:

todangst wrote:
'god' is still punishing them for their actions, rendering them morally culpable

Again, not finding the punishment idea supported the Bible. The idea that not eating from the tree is a law and that violating that law deserves punishment comes from our buddy Augustine.

When I read Gen 2-3, I see a fairytale about a God who tells the two people that if they eat from a particular tree, that the tree will cause them to die (not the God).

I deal with this dodge in my original argument: calling it a fairytale does nothing to deal with the fact that the fairytale contains a clear contradiction.

I don't even see people here attempting to deal with this problem.

 Who's dodging?  I agree there's a contradiction.

 My point is that the contradiction is not in the text of the Bible.  The God of Genesis isn't even portrayed as omnicient. The contradiction is in the accumulated mass of doctrines (omnicience, original sin) that followed after the text and aren't even necessarily supported by the text.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx wrote:

Archeopteryx wrote:

So you don't believe in a literal interpretation of genesis? This story is a metaphor intended to present a certain philosophy?

To the first question yes with a minor but..

And to the second question a definite yes with the same but..

Yes I believe it is a metaphor intended to present a philosophical AND theological or spiritual view of our human condition.

In my view genesis comes from a time when theology and philosophy were very closely intertwined. Formal philosophy was for all intents and purposes, theological. The fact that it is theological doesn't preclude it being philosophical, quite the opposite is true, I think, when you consider the world context of the grandfathers who originally passed it down.

Archeopteryx wrote:

If true, then to what extent can we know what is literal and what is metaphorical within the bible? If we allow someone the option to say that a part of the bible---the trees, for example---are metaphorical, then how do we stop a person from saying that the bible as a whole is metaphorical? What if a person said that God himself was a metaphor?

That would be alright with me. It would make the humans of the story metaphorical too, since they are the image of god.

I don't ascribe full literal precept to the bible, but that is not because I don't believe that there is no correlation between the bible and actual history, it is, rather, because I treat all history as metaphor on a basic level. No history is written in a perfect version of my own plain language or without colouring by the scribe themselves, but all histories have a moral behind them which is consistent with itself, so I focus on that. This is especially true of something as old as genesis. It couldn't be further removed in time from us here and now and so I take it to be literal unto itself, but unto the world I now inhabit it can at best be metaphorical.

Quote:

How do we know where to draw the lines between factual history and metaphorical history?

Generally my rule of thumb is that the further back it is, the more it corresponds with my ideas of the world on a non-literal level whether it was intended that way or not. I essentially assume all accounts of history are a little removed from being literal in terms that I deem literal, and I make it a point of special emphasis on old, old ones.

Quote:

Quote:
is that the creator god figure purposefully allowed everything possible for man, barring no alternative between nothing and infinity,

It would seem to me that God created them in a very specific situation. He gave them a specific form. He placed them in a specific setting. He gave them specific knowledge (or lack thereof). So it doesn't seem that he's allowing them them unlimited possibilities at this point. The only way for them to have truly unlimited opportunities would be if they were God's equals. Is that not true?

Yes, this is true, but they were not limited; the tree of knowledge was there unguarded, thus the opportunity to become god's equal was always present.

 

Quote:

If god is truly omniscient, then isn't it true that no matter how he begins the existence of Adam and Eve, he already knows the full story that is about to follow, including the choices they will be faced with and the decisions that will be made? If this is true, how could Adam or Eve be considered to have access to all possibilities if God's chosen manner of initiating their existence dictates everything that follows? In other words, doesn't God, in his omniscience, become the ultimate chooser?

Only if there is just one path.

There is a bible passage that could relate to this but it's not in Genesis, it's in the Proverbs.

16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.

These passages surely make god a self-righteous puppeteer of man. If we have only one path, and no choice in it, in both cases the second line contradicts the concept of man having a choice in the first line, I give you the definitive atheist maker.

On the other hand, give the writer the benefit of the doubt for just one moment and ask How can there be a choice for man and yet every decision be from god? The simple answer is that God designed every possible outcome and for man to have choice he must necessarily have access to all those outcomes. If God is to be omniscient then equally man must live all those possible outcomes simultaneously, anything otherwise would make god wrong, or a puppeteer. fortunately for god there is just such a possibility that our universe works that way.

there is also a parable from jesus about god pruning branches which tends to say the same thing, so in my view overall, a multiverse is actually a concept espoused by the bible.

 

 

Quote:
Quote:

If you put two and two together here it becomes apparent that this god chose between death and eternal life for Adam and Eve after they had become wise, and he chose death.

This answers the question as to why it would be bad for them to take from the tree of life after they had already taken from the tree of knowledge.

Examining your rule of succession in the opposite scenario, what if they would have taken from the tree of life first? If the succession rule is true, then it would be bad to take from both trees in succession in either order. In that case, why would living eternally in a state of naivette about good and evil be considered bad?

Well only the tree of knowledge was forbidden, so I would presume that adam and eve were already eating from the tree of life, and possibly that you would have to eat from it constantly to be immortal.

Quote:

All of the above supposes that the succession explanation is the correct one. But what reason do we have for believing this is the case?

Only the part where god says lest man reach out and also eat from the tree of life and live forever.

 


Quote:
Quote:

That one is answered in the new testament. If you'll indulge me another analogy, lets say you're a businessman and your son looks up to you and would like also to be a business man. Now because you are an experienced and successful business man you can put your son instantly in the big chair and a succesful business man too. Voila! the boy is a success and a hero, he basks in glory, but he owns none of that glory. It all belongs to you, it was all your doing and none his.

This is why I suggested that analogies no longer be used. I'm not going to admonish you for using one, but I don't think it quite applies. The situation we're looking at has a lot of very special quirks that I don't think can be accounted for in any analogy to day-to-day realities.

The businessman analogy suggests a mentor relationship. In other words, there is an expert and an understudy. Furthermore, it suggests some "business" that the former is an expert of and that the latter is trying to learn from a teacher.

That is why i set up a father an son relationship in the analogy; so the son chooses to want to be a business man after the two already have a relationship. The former is an expert of buisness, but he is also the father, they have a relationship that will exist despite what the son chooses to be. Moreover the son has a history with the father in which he has lived oblivious and naive to his fathers life, he could continue to do so just as easily and there would be no mentor/student relationship at all.

 

Quote:

It doesn't quite fit the shape of the situation though. By using the analogy you gave, it seems to argue that God is the expert in the nature of his own existence and is attempting to teach Adam and Eve how to master a state of existence like his own (perhaps minus the power).

Yes, but only after they desired it.

Quote:

The problem is that God does not need to mentor for Adam and Eve to achieve that state. He could simply create them any way he wanted, and then it would be so.

true. but he would be limiting their opportunities if he did.

Quote:

As for the argument that he does it for our glory, why is this self-earned glory a necessity? Isn't it true that if he simply created us as equals, we would already be just as glorious (perhaps minus the power)? How would we know what we were missing?

I suspect we wouldn't know. However, we're not missing it and it seems right to me ultimately that we shouldn't. Ultimately I'd be on gods side over this one issue.

Quote:

Wouldn't it be the case that the glory only becomes necessary if God decides that it is a necessity? And wouldn't it be the case that we would only value that glory if God created us with the capacity and desire to place value on that glory? (in your businessman model, the understudy would only be learning the business because the mentor had instilled in him the desire to do so and instilled in him the value he placed on achieving that goal).

Yes, I think there is something else in this post that I am going to answer the same way. Whichever way you look at it, if god created man in his own image, or if man formed a god ideal in his own image, the result is that we share values.

 

Quote:
Quote:

In a nutshell that would be the meaning of life proposed by the genesis story. God is put forth as the perfect infallible and almighty being who dreamed up this world and if we are to be like that wise being and live up to our potential through toil and suffering then we can truly share the credit.

Truly share the credit for what?

Isn't our potential only as much as God allows it to be?

 

I suppose, but surely that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the experience. God is supposed to be good and if thats true, then he wouldn't just do things because he can, he would choose the good.

 

Quote:
Quote:

The literal reading of the text, without introducing a god did it that isn't there explicitly. Adam had now become like god knowing good and evil, and because he had followed his wife and eaten the fruit the ground was cursed on his account and would not bring forth food for him, also Adam knew as a result of his eating of the fruit, shame and nakedness.

If you add these together I think it becomes apparent that Adam's knowledge of good and evil was it's own consequence. Upon recieving knowledge they concieved of inadequacy and lack for the first time in their lives. what was once a paradise to their innocent minds was now a source of distress.

Okay, I see your metaphor and I think I understand where you're going. I'll direct my questions accordingly (or try).

If we're not reading the story literally and are instead reading it as a metaphor for the consequences of knowledge, then from what source do Adam and Eve receive the knowledge that causes them so much distress?

ultimately from the creator, of course.

God starts out as a knowing being, so I don't think we are given reason to attribute the act of 'making knowledge stressful' to god, and on the other hand, as I was saying above, Man and god share qualities because they are in each others image, if knowledge is stressful to adam then its stressful to god too, yet god is perfect and infallible this god figure also reconciles distress, and other consequences of knowledge, in perfection. If nothing else it is a curious archetype.

 

Quote:
Quote:

Now if you refrain from assuming what is not in the text

I'm sorry if this sounds cheekish, but isn't that what any non-literal interpretation does?

LOL, fair enough. I guess I need to rephrase, I mean to stay with it being a metaphor, but at all times true unto itself, literal unto itself. Not literal in correspondence with this latter day world, especially in regard to ideas we may project from our own experience such as, if its suffering it must be punishment, and the like.

 

Quote:
Quote:

there is no support for the notion that god punished adam or caused the land to be barren to adam as a punishment any more than he caused adam to believe he was naked and in shame.

Isn't it true that he did, in a sense, cause Adam to believe he was naked and to be ashamed?

Yes, but he also gave adam the choice to desire the knowledge of good and evil of his own accord.

Quote:

God could have created Adam in a different form but he chose this specific form and also granted the capacity (apparently latent for the first half of the story) for shame.

Yeah but note that this form is the image of god. He made adam like himself, and it was in that likeness hat the latent capacity for shame existed.

 

Quote:

Since we have agreed that God purposely presented Adam and Eve with this choice, and since we have agreed that he is omniscient, does it not follow that God's decisions led to Adam and Eve's shame and nakedness?

Also, if man was created in the image of God, isn't it at least a little strange that Adam and Eve would feel ashamed of their form?

Maybe, and then, as I said above, perhaps god also has the capacity to feel shame but having become perfect in knowledge is able to reconcile it.

This is getting really long so I will skip ahead a little...

Quote:

I'm sorry, this is probably a dumb question, but what internal contradiction did you mean? Original sin?

Yeah in a nutshell.

 

Quote:
Quote:

Per above, probably because of their feelings of shame, and their new perception of inadequacy and lack.

I feel like this is a dumb question as well, but exactly how do feelings of shame, inadequacy, and lack lead one down the path toward immortality?

It doesn't, it leads one down the path of knowledge. Immortality was on the other tree.

 

Quote:

So you're saying that Genesis implies a multiverse consisting of infinite universes where each universe plays out, unconscious of any other universe?

No Genesis doesn't imply that at all. I am applying that possible worldview to my conclusions about the genesis story.

 

Quote:

So god is only omniscient because he is able to draw on the knowledge he possesses of all possible universes?

Yep, I've had this discussion a few places around the boards here. Essentially, an omniscient, omnipotent god being could only exist if we were in a multiverse. If not omni-god is logically contradictory, and/or no free will exists.

Quote:

By this rule, are you arguing that God only knows that things will happen in this world because they must happen in at least one world? How does he know what will happen where and at what time?

That is a logical consequence of knowing all outcomes of a multiverse, they can only happen on the right branch in the right time. By knowing every possible outcome God also would know where each outcome would take place. Part and parcel of the same knowledge.

 

Quote:

By your posts above, it sounds like you're trying to explain God's omniscience with the idea that he is able to use other possible universes as references, but to me that would indicate a lack of omniscience since his knowledge would be derived from an external source.

Or am I reading it wrong?

No that's definitely not what I am saying. The source is not external he would be god of the multiverse.

 

Quote:

If man was more like god than the snake, then we must accept that the snake did not possess more knowledge than man in the beginning. In other words, the snake was naive like man. This means, by way of the arguments I presented before, that the snake must have eaten from the tree before man. It would follow, then, that the snake achieved god-level knowledge of good and evil before man. And yet man simply felt shame, while the snake lost his legs.

I'm going with the presumption that the snake ate from the tree of knowledge and because he was not like god, was not affected by knowledge the same way as man. That is to say, the knowledge couldn't make the animals like god.

The snake lost his legs and was sent from eden as a consequence of the deception. But why, is a mystery. I could only make more assumptions and I don't think I should make too many more right now than I already have.

Quote:

As for the argument that he considers himself responsible for their ultimate well-being: How could an omniscient god with complete control create a situation where he lost enough of that control that the well-being of his creations became an issue? Unless, of course, he did it on purpose?


He did it on purpose, is my conclusion, the whole was a contrived set of circumstances leading to a unique predestined outcome.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
[quote ="Eloise"]

Eloise wrote:


That one is answered in the new testament. If you'll indulge me another analogy, lets say you're a businessman and your son looks up to you and would like also to be a business man. Now because you are an experienced and successful business man you can put your son instantly in the big chair and a succesful business man too. Voila! the boy is a success and a hero, he basks in glory, but he owns none of that glory. It all belongs to you, it was all your doing and none his.
...

That is why i set up a father an son relationship in the analogy; so the son chooses to want to be a business man after the two already have a relationship. The former is an expert of buisness, but he is also the father, they have a relationship that will exist despite what the son chooses to be. Moreover the son has a history with the father in which he has lived oblivious and naive to his fathers life, he could continue to do so just as easily and there would be no mentor/student relationship at all.



I see where you're headed here, but if God always existed and has always been successful, what did God "do" to earn his success? Was God at one time naive just like man? A perfect being would not need to gain experience. He would be perfect by definition. Acts and deeds are irrelevant.

Why is this a problem for Man, but not God?

Eloise wrote:
Archeopteryx wrote:


As for the argument that he considers himself responsible for their ultimate well-being: How could an omniscient god with complete control create a situation where he lost enough of that control that the well-being of his creations became an issue? Unless, of course, he did it on purpose?



He did it on purpose, is my conclusion, the whole was a contrived set of circumstances leading to a unique predestined outcome.



And this pre-determined out come is to be like God? Again, if God can be righteous and worthy without earning his status, what is the purpose these contrived set of circumstance. God, being omnipotent, could make man as much or as little like himself without intermediate steps.

It seems you've chosen to impose limits on God to give the story meaning, whether literal or metaphorical. 

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Veils of Maya

Veils of Maya wrote:
Eloise wrote:


That one is answered in the new testament. If you'll indulge me another analogy, lets say you're a businessman and your son looks up to you and would like also to be a business man. Now because you are an experienced and successful business man you can put your son instantly in the big chair and a succesful business man too. Voila! the boy is a success and a hero, he basks in glory, but he owns none of that glory. It all belongs to you, it was all your doing and none his.
...

That is why i set up a father an son relationship in the analogy; so the son chooses to want to be a business man after the two already have a relationship. The former is an expert of buisness, but he is also the father, they have a relationship that will exist despite what the son chooses to be. Moreover the son has a history with the father in which he has lived oblivious and naive to his fathers life, he could continue to do so just as easily and there would be no mentor/student relationship at all.



I see where you're headed here, but if God always existed and has always been successful,

I don't claim this to be true.

Unfortunately it gets complicated from here. So I will just take a moment to clarify the boundaries.

Of Genesis I conclude:

a. It can only be a set-up. We are presented with the idea of a creator God, and his creation. The creation follows a course which could only have been laid by the creator himself, equivocally, the creator contrived said course.

b. As the contrivance played out, each successive event was dealt with by the knowledgable creator in a likewise fashion of contrivance toward a unique outcome, ie there is no reactive context for the actions of the god of genesis because the story is closed on the single fact that the creator created it.

Beyond these two conclusions I'm outside of genesis somewhat and speaking in general about a conception of God in overarching theology. I don't mean to confuse by demonstrating a conception of a spiritual deity from outside of genesis, but only to show that there is a conception in which genesis is still a consistent theology.

Now, 'always existed' is virtually impossible to claim coherently, but I'll give it a tentative go. When talking about always existed we're alluding to infinity which is a mathematical concept that would have to exist outside of our observable universe. By alluding to infinity but still contriving within the observable universe to understand it we only refute ourselves. an infinite existence is necessarily incoherent in our terms and language of the observable universe. However some mathematics does work on infinity and to that end we can say that there are differing degrees of infinity. On that we can say that a god always existing and a god always successful are different degrees of infinity. Thus they don't have to occur together for either or the other to be infinite. And if they do occur together equally do other degrees such as always somewhere between always naive and always successful exists.

So I don't make the claim that God always existed and always was successful. He also always was naive, and always was somewhere between if he always was. But remembering that infinities are paradoxes in the terms of our observable universe, I generally don't bother saying any of it because it confounds common sense.

Quote:

what did God "do" to earn his success?

Just to answer your question now that I have gone to the trouble of introducing confounding infinity concepts to the mix - the same as us.

Quote:

Was God at one time naive just like man? A perfect being would not need to gain experience. He would be perfect by definition. Acts and deeds are irrelevant.

They are not irrelevant. If the being chose to do them, they would by definition be perfect deeds. Necessity is the mother of invention, not choice.

Quote:

Why is this a problem for Man, but not God?

It's not a problem for god because man is the one in this probability system and god is the projected ideal outside of it. But really when you get down to the nitty gritty of what I am saying there's really no difference between them.

 

 

Veils of maya wrote:
Eloise wrote:
Archeopteryx wrote:

As for the argument that he considers himself responsible for their ultimate well-being: How could an omniscient god with complete control create a situation where he lost enough of that control that the well-being of his creations became an issue? Unless, of course, he did it on purpose?



He did it on purpose, is my conclusion, the whole was a contrived set of circumstances leading to a unique predestined outcome.



And this pre-determined out come is to be like God?

No. The predetermined outcome is this world. This system.

Quote:

Again, if God can be righteous and worthy without earning his status, what is the purpose these contrived set of circumstance. God, being omnipotent, could make man as much or as little like himself without intermediate steps.

yet here we are in intermediate steps. Seems to me god simply ignored his prerogative. Sticking out tongue


Quote:

It seems you've chosen to impose limits on God to give the story meaning, whether literal or metaphorical.

No I generally consider limits in their ability to give my existence meaning, whether literal or metaphorical. Having no limits does not preclude that you may find a use for imposing them.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


AngelEngine
AngelEngine's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-10-01
User is offlineOffline
Guess ill pick up the

Guess ill pick up the slack. :D 

 

Eloise wrote:

Veils of Maya wrote:


I see where you're headed here, but if God always existed and has always been successful,

I don't claim this to be true.

Unfortunately it gets complicated from here. So I will just take a moment to clarify the boundaries.

Far be it for you to create boundaries, dont you think?

Quote:
 

Of Genesis I conclude:

a. It can only be a set-up. We are presented with the idea of a creator God, and his creation. The creation follows a course which could only have been laid by the creator himself, equivocally, the creator contrived said course.

And, thus, making the creator liable for his mistake. Yet, no one makes him accountable.

There is no justice in the world. 

Quote:
 

b. As the contrivance played out, each successive event was dealt with by the knowledgable creator in a likewise fashion of contrivance toward a unique outcome, ie there is no reactive context for the actions of the god of genesis because the story is closed on the single fact that the creator created it.

 So, youre claiming that god did not know what the outcome was? Well, wouldnt that destroy the initial concept of God?

 God exists outside space time. If you exist outside space time, that would mean that you can be anywhere, anytime. Of course you can, youre able to pass through the barrier called "time", and passover to any point in time, much like a linear board. However, if God exists in time and space, he would instantaneously know what happens in the past, present and future. Why? Because once you enter a void where time is non-existant, Infinite time is but a speck, and the knowledge gained is also infinite. You can see 100000 years pass by in a second.

Quote:
 

Beyond these two conclusions I'm outside of genesis somewhat and speaking in general about a conception of God in overarching theology. I don't mean to confuse by demonstrating a conception of a spiritual deity from outside of genesis, but only to show that there is a conception in which genesis is still a consistent theology.

God is perfect. And Lucifer is deemed as the most perfect, strongest, and smartest of the angels. This is a contradiction. If god is perfect, all his creations will also be perfect. Yet, Lucifer was obviously imperfect, which would mean that god didnt create him perfectly, which is why god isnt perfect.

 Yet, every christian claims god is perfect. This is in itself, a contradiction, and not consistant.


Quote:
 

So I don't make the claim that God always existed and always was successful. He also always was naive, and always was somewhere between if he always was. But remembering that infinities are paradoxes in the terms of our observable universe, I generally don't bother saying any of it because it confounds common sense.

Infinite time is completely possible. If you go to the speed of light, every second for you, becomes an infinite amount of seconds for the outside world.  

Quote:
 

Quote:

what did God "do" to earn his success?

Just to answer your question now that I have gone to the trouble of introducing confounding infinity concepts to the mix - the same as us.

A better answer would be, "Much like Paris Hilton earned her "success". And by that, i mean, that god doesnt know where his sucess came from, but is grateful for it, and not afraid to exploit it." 

Quote:
Quote:

Was God at one time naive just like man? A perfect being would not need to gain experience. He would be perfect by definition. Acts and deeds are irrelevant.

They are not irrelevant. If the being chose to do them, they would by definition be perfect deeds. Necessity is the mother of invention, not choice.

A perfect being would act out perfect deeds. However, gods actions, deeds, and emotional stability are far from perfect. One can only conclude, after reading the bible, that god is not perfect. 

Quote:
Quote:

Why is this a problem for Man, but not God?

It's not a problem for god because man is the one in this probability system and god is the projected ideal outside of it. But really when you get down to the nitty gritty of what I am saying there's really no difference between them.

God does not play dice with the universe. 

 

 

Quote:

No. The predetermined outcome is this world. This system.

Again, god does not play dice with the universe. Every law set in motion works, because its calibrated to work. If god really tried to create humans by probability, wouldnt it be more better to assume that god also gambled with the laws of physics to see how they would affect humans? 

Quote:

yet here we are in intermediate steps. Seems to me god simply ignored his prerogative. :P

Seems more like christians ignored the word "perfect". 


Quote:

No I generally consider limits in their ability to give my existence meaning, whether literal or metaphorical. Having no limits does not preclude that you may find a use for imposing them.

 Again, isnt it a bit presumptuous for you to assume that these limits exist? 

I'm infallible. I don't know why you can't remember that.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Another round

Quote:

Archeopteryx wrote:

So you don't believe in a literal interpretation of genesis? This story is a metaphor intended to present a certain philosophy?

To the first question yes with a minor but..

And to the second question a definite yes with the same but..

Yes I believe it is a metaphor intended to present a philosophical AND theological or spiritual view of our human condition.

In my view genesis comes from a time when theology and philosophy were very closely intertwined. Formal philosophy was for all intents and purposes, theological. The fact that it is theological doesn't preclude it being philosophical, quite the opposite is true, I think, when you consider the world context of the grandfathers who originally passed it down.

But if it's to be understood metaphorically, how can we claim any certainty about the nature of the god or his works in the theology? Metaphors, by nature, are open to interpretation and could mean one thing to one reader and a completely different thing to another reader. (You've already seen ways in which God can be interpreted to be imperfect, or even a jerk). If the Eden story (and the entire book at that) is held as metaphorical, then the entire thing becomes subjective and no interpretation can be pursued as definitely true. Agree or disagree?

Quote:

I don't ascribe full literal precept to the bible, but that is not because I don't believe that there is no correlation between the bible and actual history, it is, rather, because I treat all history as metaphor on a basic level. No history is written in a perfect version of my own plain language or without colouring by the scribe themselves, but all histories have a moral behind them which is consistent with itself, so I focus on that. This is especially true of something as old as genesis. It couldn't be further removed in time from us here and now and so I take it to be literal unto itself, but unto the world I now inhabit it can at best be metaphorical.

I agree that history has a certain metaphorical element to it, primarily because true historical events become watered down by pop culture. For example, Columbus didn't discover that the world was round, Paul Revere didn't make his alleged journey (it was actually a man named Israel something-or-another), George Washington most likely didn't chop down the cherry tree, etc etc. Yet all of these "historical" claims are important in some way. There is some kind of morality or patriotism embedded in them that has spoken to people and made lives better.

However, they are still not literally true, and I think it's very important that people realize that popular views can distort history or even make up stories about figures that never happened.

A story's metaphorical/philosophical value does not argue for its truth. I won't object if you claim there is something good or useful to be found in the story (or the bible as a whole), but coming from an atheist point of view, it's the truth of the God behind the whole thing that interests me most. That said, finding value in his stories simply does not say anything one way or the other to me. I've found value in plenty of stories. =)

Quote:

Generally my rule of thumb is that the further back it is, the more it corresponds with my ideas of the world on a non-literal level whether it was intended that way or not. I essentially assume all accounts of history are a little removed from being literal in terms that I deem literal, and I make it a point of special emphasis on old, old ones.

Okay, so the further back in time it is, the more non-literal (more metaphorical?) the story is likely to be?

I don't believe this answers the question. It simply points to a change in proportions as time goes back. It still does not say how we are able to know exactly what is metaphorical and what is not. At any specific point in time, how can we accurately separate the literal from the non-literal?

Quote:

Quote:

 

Quote:
is that the creator god figure purposefully allowed everything possible for man, barring no alternative between nothing and infinity,

It would seem to me that God created them in a very specific situation. He gave them a specific form. He placed them in a specific setting. He gave them specific knowledge (or lack thereof). So it doesn't seem that he's allowing them them unlimited possibilities at this point. The only way for them to have truly unlimited opportunities would be if they were God's equals. Is that not true?

Yes, this is true, but they were not limited; the tree of knowledge was there unguarded, thus the opportunity to become god's equal was always present.

But they were limited because they were placed in a scenario determined by God. Specifically, they were placed in the "two-tree paradise garden while existing in the image of god scenario". Metaphorical or literal, this is a specific existential situation they were placed in.

Since they were placed in this particular scenario while in this one particular form, and since limitations were placed on their knowledge (naivette about good and evil; risk of dying if removed from the tree of life), I think it's very safe to say that limits were imposed. Would I be wrong?

Followup: If God was genuinely allowing them all possible opportunities without imposing any limits, and if their goal was to achieve godliness, then would it not be a possibility for them to circumvent God's "Trial o' Trees" in order to achieve godliness? Is that not a possibility? Why wouldn't it be a possibility or why wouldn't they do it if it was?

Quote:

These passages surely make god a self-righteous puppeteer of man. If we have only one path, and no choice in it, in both cases the second line contradicts the concept of man having a choice in the first line, I give you the definitive atheist maker.

I'd hesitate to call the definitive atheist maker, but it certainly makes the list. Eye-wink

Quote:

On the other hand, give the writer the benefit of the doubt for just one moment and ask How can there be a choice for man and yet every decision be from god? The simple answer is that God designed every possible outcome and for man to have choice he must necessarily have access to all those outcomes. If God is to be omniscient then equally man must live all those possible outcomes simultaneously, anything otherwise would make god wrong, or a puppeteer. fortunately for god there is just such a possibility that our universe works that way.

there is also a parable from jesus about god pruning branches which tends to say the same thing, so in my view overall, a multiverse is actually a concept espoused by the bible.

This would also mean that God would have to create an infinite number of universes to allow for all possible universes. Since anything is possible with God, the universes must be infinite in number and infinitely varied.

Unfortunately, since we can propose universes with no god or universes controlled by a different god, this becomes troublesome, since there would be one or more universes in which god would have to make himself not exist, which would create a bizarre paradox. Especially if the people of such a universe were trying to achieve godhood in the absence of any god.

*resists cheap atheism plug*

Or would I be mistaken to say so?

-----------------------------------------------

Also, I don't think this necessarily allows man to have all possible opportunities. That would only be true from God's perspective, since he had allowed all possible things to happen. But if you assume the perspective of one individual man, in one individual universe, then that man does not have access to all possible opportunities. He has access to one course that God has already set him on.

In short, when speaking of man as a whole, God would have covered all possible scenarios. But when speaking of man as an individual, man is still limited to a single path.

Quote:

That is why i set up a father an son relationship in the analogy; so the son chooses to want to be a business man after the two already have a relationship. The former is an expert of buisness, but he is also the father, they have a relationship that will exist despite what the son chooses to be.

What if the "son" decided he did not want to pursue the business and furthermore did not desire the relationship with the "father" figure? Woudn't his inability to escape the relationsip suggest a limit of some kind?

Quote:

Moreover the son has a history with the father in which he has lived oblivious and naive to his fathers life, he could continue to do so just as easily and there would be no mentor/student relationship at all.

But there would still be the father relationship, which the "son" in question may not want, in the context of a multiverse. Just another way of saying my previous comment.

Quote:

Quote:

It doesn't quite fit the shape of the situation though. By using the analogy you gave, it seems to argue that God is the expert in the nature of his own existence and is attempting to teach Adam and Eve how to master a state of existence like his own (perhaps minus the power).

Yes, but only after they desired it.

But since God created desire and placed in them the capacity for desire, any desire to pursue godliness would be god's own work.

And since there is a definite choice here (to pursue the business or not pursue the business) we must be able to propose a universe where man is not presented with any such choice. The choice exists because God willed it.

Quote:

Quote:

The problem is that God does not need to mentor for Adam and Eve to achieve that state. He could simply create them any way he wanted, and then it would be so.

true. but he would be limiting their opportunities if he did.

Not if he created them as his perfect equals. All powerful and omniscient beings are truly unlimited. Anything else they create that is not equal to themselves must be limited in some way. Is this not true?

It's kind of like in Aladdin where the Genie makes Jafar the most powerful sorceror in existence, but since he gave Jafar that power, he also has the power to take it away, so technically the Genie is still more powerful than Jafar, so Jafar wishes to be his equal (a genie). Of course, he fails to recognize that Genie's have limits, too, but if you ignore that aspect of the story, you get the idea. Kind of. lol.

That was the dorkiest parallel ever, but I really enjoyed making it for some reason.

Quote:

 

Quote:

As for the argument that he does it for our glory, why is this self-earned glory a necessity? Isn't it true that if he simply created us as equals, we would already be just as glorious (perhaps minus the power)? How would we know what we were missing?

I suspect we wouldn't know. However, we're not missing it and it seems right to me ultimately that we shouldn't. Ultimately I'd be on gods side over this one issue.

But why? Is it just a matter of which version is more appealing? Both versions result in the same amount of glory, it's simply the means that have changed. I don't see why the one should be better than the other, especially when it appears to take unnecessary steps.

Quote:

Quote:

Wouldn't it be the case that the glory only becomes necessary if God decides that it is a necessity? And wouldn't it be the case that we would only value that glory if God created us with the capacity and desire to place value on that glory? (in your businessman model, the understudy would only be learning the business because the mentor had instilled in him the desire to do so and instilled in him the value he placed on achieving that goal).

Yes, I think there is something else in this post that I am going to answer the same way. Whichever way you look at it, if god created man in his own image, or if man formed a god ideal in his own image, the result is that we share values.

But if we share values, and if man's proposed value is on his desire to achieve glory equal to god's, then wouldn't that mean that god's value is on his desire to be the way he is?

"Being me is awesome. I'm going to create you in my image so that you think being me is awesome too. Only you have to kind of earn it, whereas I'm already the man."

lol, perhaps a bit of a caricature, but that's honestly how it sounds to me. Am I misunderstanding something?

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:

In a nutshell that would be the meaning of life proposed by the genesis story. God is put forth as the perfect infallible and almighty being who dreamed up this world and if we are to be like that wise being and live up to our potential through toil and suffering then we can truly share the credit.

Truly share the credit for what?

Isn't our potential only as much as God allows it to be?

 

I suppose, but surely that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the experience. God is supposed to be good and if thats true, then he wouldn't just do things because he can, he would choose the good.

If he's good, yes.

But I'm not going to give him a "good" default status.

If he's sensical, yes.

But I'm not going to just take his word for it ("It all makes sense in a crazy way, trust me!&quotEye-wink, and I'm not going to call him "sensical" by default.

But that's just me.

Quote:

Okay, I see your metaphor and I think I understand where you're going. I'll direct my questions accordingly (or try).

If we're not reading the story literally and are instead reading it as a metaphor for the consequences of knowledge, then from what source do Adam and Eve receive the knowledge that causes them so much distress?

ultimately from the creator, of course.

God starts out as a knowing being, so I don't think we are given reason to attribute the act of 'making knowledge stressful' to god, and on the other hand, as I was saying above, Man and god share qualities because they are in each others image, if knowledge is stressful to adam then its stressful to god too, yet god is perfect and infallible this god figure also reconciles distress, and other consequences of knowledge, in perfection. If nothing else it is a curious archetype.

Unfortunately, it wasn't the distress element I was targeting in this case, though I do appreciate your explanation.

In the literal reading of the story, knowledge of good and evil is gained by a choice to take from the tree of knowledge, which leads to distress.

If the trees are metaphorical as opposed to literal, then the knowledge must have come from a different source than a "tree". As you've said, the knowledge must have come from the creator.

To me, this seems to defeat the position that a choice was being made, and it also seems to point toward the garden's being unnecessary. How do you make sense of this?

Quote:

I'm sorry if this sounds cheekish, but isn't that what any non-literal interpretation does?

LOL, fair enough. I guess I need to rephrase, I mean to stay with it being a metaphor, but at all times true unto itself, literal unto itself. Not literal in correspondence with this latter day world, especially in regard to ideas we may project from our own experience such as, if its suffering it must be punishment, and the like.

Not literal as it corresponds to the modern world, but....

literal how so?

I still don't quite understand what you mean by "literal unto itself". Please elaborate?

Quote:

Isn't it true that he did, in a sense, cause Adam to believe he was naked and to be ashamed?

Yes, but he also gave adam the choice to desire the knowledge of good and evil of his own accord.

If he was naive of any knowledge of good and evil, how could he desire it?

Quote:

Quote:

God could have created Adam in a different form but he chose this specific form and also granted the capacity (apparently latent for the first half of the story) for shame.

Yeah but note that this form is the image of god. He made adam like himself, and it was in that likeness hat the latent capacity for shame existed.

+

Quote:

Maybe, and then, as I said above, perhaps god also has the capacity to feel shame but having become perfect in knowledge is able to reconcile it.

But if god gave Adam this latent capacity for shame, he must not have given Adam whatever qualities he hiimself possesses for reconciling this shame so perfectly. This would seem to indicate that God has, after all, imposed limitations.

Quote:

Quote:

So you're saying that Genesis implies a multiverse consisting of infinite universes where each universe plays out, unconscious of any other universe?

No Genesis doesn't imply that at all. I am applying that possible worldview to my conclusions about the genesis story.

I feel like this is a cheap shot, but I'm curious. Supposing that the multiverse explanation is not the correct one, how would that affect your understanding of Genesis? You seem to have embroidered it into a handful of your explanations, and if it turned out not to be true, I wondered if there was another way of interpreting things?

(Though I'm not suggesting we pursue them).

Quote:

Quote:

So god is only omniscient because he is able to draw on the knowledge he possesses of all possible universes?

Yep, I've had this discussion a few places around the boards here. Essentially, an omniscient, omnipotent god being could only exist if we were in a multiverse. If not omni-god is logically contradictory, and/or no free will exists.

Quote:

Quote:

By your posts above, it sounds like you're trying to explain God's omniscience with the idea that he is able to use other possible universes as references, but to me that would indicate a lack of omniscience since his knowledge would be derived from an external source.

Or am I reading it wrong?

No that's definitely not what I am saying. The source is not external he would be god of the multiverse.

This seems like a contradiction to me. If he is only omniscient if there are multiple universes, then that means that if there were not multiple universes, then he would not be omniscient (especially before the creation of the multiverse, for example). It must follow, then, that God relies on these universes for omniscience. Therefore, he would not be omniscient in himself. Therefore, he would fail to be perfect.

Quote:

The snake lost his legs and was sent from eden as a consequence of the deception. But why, is a mystery. I could only make more assumptions and I don't think I should make too many more right now than I already have.

But in order to be capable of deception, the serpent would have to have knowledge of good and evil, which was not given to man, which indicates that the serpent was created with knowledge more like god's (at least as far as good/evil are concerned). If not, then the tree must have affected him. True?

Quote:

Quote:

As for the argument that he considers himself responsible for their ultimate well-being: How could an omniscient god with complete control create a situation where he lost enough of that control that the well-being of his creations became an issue? Unless, of course, he did it on purpose?

 

He did it on purpose, is my conclusion, the whole was a contrived set of circumstances leading to a unique predestined outcome.

Flashback:

Quote:

Yes, this is true, but they were not limited; the tree of knowledge was there unguarded, thus the opportunity to become god's equal was always present.

How do you reconcile "not limited" and "opportunity" with a contrived set of circumstances leading to a unique predestined outcome?

Doesn't predestination entail only the appearance of choice and not actual choice?

*edit: fixed quote* 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
That was a great read

That was a great read Archeopteryx

"Being me is awesome. I'm going to create you in my image so that you think being me is awesome too. Only you have to kind of earn it, whereas I'm already the man." ... gets me laughing and happy !

I am just curious, ( and a slow learner ), do you claim a lable for yourself ? atheist, freethinker, or whatever ?


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

That was a great read Archeopteryx

"Being me is awesome. I'm going to create you in my image so that you think being me is awesome too. Only you have to kind of earn it, whereas I'm already the man." ... gets me laughing and happy !

I am just curious, ( and a slow learner ), do you claim a lable for yourself ? atheist, freethinker, or whatever ?

 

I'm glad I made you laugh. I want to clarify that I wasn't exactly trying to ridicule her though. I just get bored with being serious all the time, so I have to entertain myself now and then (see the Aladdin comparison) =P

 

Anyway, I tend to use "skeptical atheist", but I'm fine with just using "atheist" as well. There are a lot of different words for atheism, but they all mean rouhgly the same thing. I don't really care about what a person calls themself. If I say, "God?" and they say "No." The rest is just added fluff. 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx wrote:

Archeopteryx wrote:

But if it's to be understood metaphorically, how can we claim any certainty about the nature of the god or his works in the theology?

That, to me, is exactly why I just don't claim certainty. There is no escaping the fable undercurrent of all theology. It just is. Such is the fluid nature of language. What I feel I can do is give a measure of benefit in regard of authors and speakers, in general their intent is good and they are imparting the knowledge and reason they have gained in lengthy and dedicated contemplation. I feel certainty that there is a thread of real wisdom in spiritual legend due to the core decent intent, but that is my only actual certainty.

aside: If I was to go out on a limb and point out the one common idea that I feel is closest to certainty about the nature of God it would be that God and Man are one.

 

Quote:

If the Eden story (and the entire book at that) is held as metaphorical, then the entire thing becomes subjective and no interpretation can be pursued as definitely true. Agree or disagree?

agree. But my 'God' would have done that intentionally.

 

Quote:

I agree that history has a certain metaphorical element to it, primarily because true historical events become watered down by pop culture. For example, Columbus didn't discover that the world was round, Paul Revere didn't make his alleged journey (it was actually a man named Israel something-or-another), George Washington most likely didn't chop down the cherry tree, etc etc. Yet all of these "historical" claims are important in some way. There is some kind of morality or patriotism embedded in them that has spoken to people and made lives better.

However, they are still not literally true, and I think it's very important that people realize that popular views can distort history or even make up stories about figures that never happened.

Couldn't have said that better myself.

Quote:

A story's metaphorical/philosophical value does not argue for its truth. I won't object if you claim there is something good or useful to be found in the story (or the bible as a whole), but coming from an atheist point of view, it's the truth of the God behind the whole thing that interests me most. That said, finding value in his stories simply does not say anything one way or the other to me. I've found value in plenty of stories. =)

Me too! (finding value). Literature was my first love.

But that in itself says something to me, something like imagination is the breath of life.

 

Quote:

Okay, so the further back in time it is, the more non-literal (more metaphorical?) the story is likely to be?

I don't believe this answers the question. It simply points to a change in proportions as time goes back. It still does not say how we are able to know exactly what is metaphorical and what is not. At any specific point in time, how can we accurately separate the literal from the non-literal?

I don't have an answer specifically to that hence my approach that it is all metaphorical on some level. What I do is test my subjective impression.

 

 

Quote:

But they were limited because they were placed in a scenario determined by God. Specifically, they were placed in the "two-tree paradise garden while existing in the image of god scenario". Metaphorical or literal, this is a specific existential situation they were placed in.

I'm thinking this is us jigging around some semantics. When I say they weren't limited I mean that the potential for any number of possibilities were present. The potential to be like God was present in the tree so it was there as an opportunity.

I see what you are saying is that a limit existed within adam and eve, and hence god limited them. Now I'd go further than that with the metaphor of nakedness and say adam and eve were not just limited by god, they were some kind of void, blank slate. Not just limited in one way, but endowed in basically no way. That is to say, if they were in the image of god, it was a mirror image, a superficial reflection endowed with no actual qualities.

Quote:

Since they were placed in this particular scenario while in this one particular form, and since limitations were placed on their knowledge (naivette about good and evil; risk of dying if removed from the tree of life), I think it's very safe to say that limits were imposed. Would I be wrong?

No I wouldn't say you were wrong.

I think the difference is we are talking from alternate perspectives. It seems to me that what you're saying is like saying the higway is bounded by concrete thus you're constrained to stay on it, and I am pointing to the exit 20 kms up the road and saying no we aren't. You're right because when we are there and not 20kms up the road we are limited, but I feel I am also right because since we are on the highway constrained in one direction, ie towards the exit, the limit is only perceived.

 

Quote:

Followup: If God was genuinely allowing them all possible opportunities without imposing any limits, and if their goal was to achieve godliness, then would it not be a possibility for them to circumvent God's "Trial o' Trees" in order to achieve godliness? Is that not a possibility? Why wouldn't it be a possibility or why wouldn't they do it if it was?

That's always a possibility. In fact since I've caught up with the multiverse stuff, it's a probability too. Somewhere in infinite potential lets say God has done just that. What does that make us here and now? Perhaps it makes us, the result of our instant god selves flirting with our own limitless potential, here at our own whim, providing ourselves genesis as a backdrop for our own existential playground.

 

Quote:
Quote:

These passages surely make god a self-righteous puppeteer of man. If we have only one path, and no choice in it, in both cases the second line contradicts the concept of man having a choice in the first line, I give you the definitive atheist maker.

I'd hesitate to call the definitive atheist maker, but it certainly makes the list. Eye-wink

Smiling

 

Quote:

Quote:

On the other hand, give the writer the benefit of the doubt for just one moment and ask How can there be a choice for man and yet every decision be from god? The simple answer is that God designed every possible outcome and for man to have choice he must necessarily have access to all those outcomes. If God is to be omniscient then equally man must live all those possible outcomes simultaneously, anything otherwise would make god wrong, or a puppeteer. fortunately for god there is just such a possibility that our universe works that way.

there is also a parable from jesus about god pruning branches which tends to say the same thing, so in my view overall, a multiverse is actually a concept espoused by the bible.

This would also mean that God would have to create an infinite number of universes to allow for all possible universes. Since anything is possible with God, the universes must be infinite in number and infinitely varied.

Unfortunately, since we can propose universes with no god or universes controlled by a different god, this becomes troublesome, since there would be one or more universes in which god would have to make himself not exist, which would create a bizarre paradox. Especially if the people of such a universe were trying to achieve godhood in the absence of any god.

*resists cheap atheism plug*

Or would I be mistaken to say so?

Nope, I see no mistake. That's what happens when we toy with infinities. Sticking out tongue

By the way, don't resist your plug. Were you thinking of booking a holiday?

I agree that there must be a no-god universe, but I actually don't have a problem with that. I think I undermined the point that this refutes in my last paragraph didn't I?

 

Quote:

-----------------------------------------------

Also, I don't think this necessarily allows man to have all possible opportunities. That would only be true from God's perspective, since he had allowed all possible things to happen. But if you assume the perspective of one individual man, in one individual universe, then that man does not have access to all possible opportunities. He has access to one course that God has already set him on.

Do you have that in the context of a multiverse?

I see it a little differently. Consider a group of probabilities clustered around a scenario, if the man takes all paths from that scenario, then by default God has set him on all paths. Now lets say ach of the probabilities from a single condition are predetermined by God. Let there be ten of those (this is probably a too conservative number but..). Then god has laid ten predetermined paths and man has access to all of them. One individual man in one indiviual universe sees only one path from a perspective of pre-relative time, he sees this perspective in advance of himself, and in retrospect of himself. In a sense you can say decoherence works on both sides of you in time and if you do, then it follows that the only thing predetermined by god is a step on each path, not the path itself. Even from the perception of one man in one universe. So if there are ten predetermined paths before one man in one universe, there is also ten predetermined steps behind him and he estimates the one he has come from over the ten probabilities just as he estimates the one he should go to in the future.

This all rests heavily on the multiverse, I should qualify, I think you get to that point a bit further down.

 


Snipped the Father an son analogy as I think the answers would be repetitive.

Quote:

It's kind of like in Aladdin where the Genie makes Jafar the most powerful sorceror in existence, but since he gave Jafar that power, he also has the power to take it away, so technically the Genie is still more powerful than Jafar, so Jafar wishes to be his equal (a genie). Of course, he fails to recognize that Genie's have limits, too, but if you ignore that aspect of the story, you get the idea. Kind of. lol.

That was the dorkiest parallel ever, but I really enjoyed making it for some reason.

LOL at the genie reference, but to be honest I'm not sure I do get the parallel.

Quote:
Quote:

I suspect we wouldn't know. However, we're not missing it and it seems right to me ultimately that we shouldn't. Ultimately I'd be on gods side over this one issue.

But why? Is it just a matter of which version is more appealing? Both versions result in the same amount of glory, it's simply the means that have changed. I don't see why the one should be better than the other, especially when it appears to take unnecessary steps.

It's the freedom that appeals to me. I'd be on God's side on the issue of whether we are free to exist in chaos, injustice, drama and confusion, or whether he would be more right to shelter us indefinitely from it and limit us to avoidance of it. I think the right of those two is absolute freedom.

 

Quote:


But if we share values, and if man's proposed value is on his desire to achieve glory equal to god's, then wouldn't that mean that god's value is on his desire to be the way he is?

Yes, indeed and I anything that doesn't say this IMO is inconsistent with genesis. To some degree, for that reason if I am going to have a conception of a theologically consistent deity it's going to be an infinitely spectacular and eternally fascinating one. Or else it's just not worth pursuing.

Quote:

"Being me is awesome. I'm going to create you in my image so that you think being me is awesome too. Only you have to kind of earn it, whereas I'm already the man."

lol, perhaps a bit of a caricature, but that's honestly how it sounds to me. Am I misunderstanding something?

No you're not misunderstanding, I would nod to that as a reasonable metaphor for our relationship with God. It's theologically consistent, and you can tell that it is by all the bizarre questions that throws up at you about who this vain god fella thinks he is. Sticking out tongue

 

 

Quote:

Unfortunately, it wasn't the distress element I was targeting in this case, though I do appreciate your explanation.

In the literal reading of the story, knowledge of good and evil is gained by a choice to take from the tree of knowledge, which leads to distress.

If the trees are metaphorical as opposed to literal, then the knowledge must have come from a different source than a "tree". As you've said, the knowledge must have come from the creator.

Ahh so you meant by that to ask what my subjective interpretation of the metaphorical trees would be? My answer to that would be that I think we might view them as paths of probability, rooted in the central ground of God's eden meaning that they are probabilities that spring from the cradle of humanity.

The fruit of those trees would suggest the end product of those paths. And i'd extend the metaphor in the sense that within fruit are the seeds of a new tree, whereupon by internalising the fruit mankind internalised an offspring of the whole tree, which is all the paths of knowledge of good and evil from the cradle of humanity, as seeds which in turn would grow into internal trees.

Quote:

To me, this seems to defeat the position that a choice was being made, and it also seems to point toward the garden's being unnecessary. How do you make sense of this?

Hmmm... I guess you could say I make sense of it through thinking on a really large scale, and by not seeing any of it in terms of necessity as an end, but rather a means to what is.

 

Quote:

Not literal as it corresponds to the modern world, but....

literal how so?

I still don't quite understand what you mean by "literal unto itself". Please elaborate?

I mean true and literal in it's own setting. So to say, eden is eden and the only referent I have to eden is eden's story. most of all this applies in the sense that the god in eden is edens god. All characterisations of God in genesis are exactly that. What I meant originally is what really matters I suppose, and what I originally meant was that gods deeds are always clearly delineated in genesis. he created the fruit and adam and eve ate the fruit. Therefore he is the creator of the curses, but the idea that he imposed them after the eating is not literal in the text at all. Moreover there is no reason why it should be, if genesis is true unto itself god created and predestined everything that could happen. Thus it is necessary to the story that if god did some thing directly in one part of the story that it be pointed out, he did it there and then. Where it is not pointed out, the ambiguity is telling a different story.

 

 

Quote:

If he was naive of any knowledge of good and evil, how could he desire it?

Eve was told it would make her like God, this is where the desire would be.

 

 

Quote:

But if god gave Adam this latent capacity for shame, he must not have given Adam whatever qualities he hiimself possesses for reconciling this shame so perfectly. This would seem to indicate that God has, after all, imposed limitations.

presumably the fruit contained both the catalyst for shame and the catalyst for perfect reconcile, as per the appointed access to the hidden manna in revelations.

 

 

Quote:

I feel like this is a cheap shot, but I'm curious. Supposing that the multiverse explanation is not the correct one, how would that affect your understanding of Genesis? You seem to have embroidered it into a handful of your explanations, and if it turned out not to be true, I wondered if there was another way of interpreting things?

(Though I'm not suggesting we pursue them).

 

No, that's not a cheap shot, its a fair question.

It would be disappointing if it was the incorrect interpretation, god would have to come up with something really special to replace it as his 'glory' Sticking out tongue

I haven't thought of another way of interpreting things that doesn't seem like absolute bullshit to me, so I would probably be refuting them with you if we did discuss alternatives.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

So god is only omniscient because he is able to draw on the knowledge he possesses of all possible universes?

Yep, I've had this discussion a few places around the boards here. Essentially, an omniscient, omnipotent god being could only exist if we were in a multiverse. If not omni-god is logically contradictory, and/or no free will exists.

Quote:

Quote:

By your posts above, it sounds like you're trying to explain God's omniscience with the idea that he is able to use other possible universes as references, but to me that would indicate a lack of omniscience since his knowledge would be derived from an external source.

Or am I reading it wrong?

No that's definitely not what I am saying. The source is not external he would be god of the multiverse.

This seems like a contradiction to me. If he is only omniscient if there are multiple universes, then that means that if there were not multiple universes, then he would not be omniscient (especially before the creation of the multiverse, for example). It must follow, then, that God relies on these universes for omniscience. Therefore, he would not be omniscient in himself. Therefore, he would fail to be perfect.

Ahh I see what you're getting at. When I said no that's definitely not what I am saying I was referring quite exclusively to the idea of the multiverse as an outside referent. I don't imagine it that way as you've probably gathered from my above answers.

 

Quote:

Quote:

The snake lost his legs and was sent from eden as a consequence of the deception. But why, is a mystery. I could only make more assumptions and I don't think I should make too many more right now than I already have.

But in order to be capable of deception, the serpent would have to have knowledge of good and evil, which was not given to man, which indicates that the serpent was created with knowledge more like god's (at least as far as good/evil are concerned). If not, then the tree must have affected him. True?

I'm still pointing at the tree. But I don't think the tree would affect the snake in the same way as it affected man. The snake definitely indicates a creature of a different order which different qualities.

The way I see it is that in the story knowledge of good and evil added to man results in godliness. Knowledge of good and evil added to an animal results, it seems, in an ordinary animal.

 

Quote:

Doesn't predestination entail only the appearance of choice and not actual choice?

I think I answered this above, let me know if what I've already said isn't satisfying this question.

*edited to fix quotes*

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Veils of Maya
Veils of Maya's picture
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: So I don't

Eloise wrote:


So I don't make the claim that God always existed and always was successful. He also always was naive, and always was somewhere between if he always was. But remembering that infinities are paradoxes in the terms of our observable universe, I generally don't bother saying any of it because it confounds common sense.



Either God is "successful" by default (the mere act of being God) or God had to earn his success. For the sake of this discussion, how God could have earned these traits (if earning them was required) is really irrelevant.

Eloise wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


what did God "do" to earn his success?



Just to answer your question now that I have gone to the trouble of introducing confounding infinity concepts to the mix - the same as us.



This must be your own interpretation, as the Bible portrays God as being righteous by the mere act of being God. Nowhere do we see depictions of God "earning his wings", gaining knowledge or paying dues. Nor do I know of it being a popular idea in any theological circles.

Eloise wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:


Was God at one time naive just like man? A perfect being would not need to gain experience. He would be perfect by definition. Acts and deeds are irrelevant.



They are not irrelevant. If the being chose to do them, they would by definition be perfect deeds. Necessity is the mother of invention, not choice.



God's actions and deeds are irrelevant in regards to his power and knowledge. He doesn't start out as an angel and work his way up to an omnipotent being.

Veils of maya wrote:
Eloise wrote:


Why is this a problem for Man, but not God?



It's not a problem for god because man is the one in this probability system and god is the projected ideal outside of it. But really when you get down to the nitty gritty of what I am saying there's really no difference between them.



If there is no difference between Man and God in this respect, your theory that God would make him "work" for his success doesn't seem to hold up. God didn't learn from the school of hard knocks, why should Man?

And if God deems man would gain by experiencing something that God did not, then would this not imply that God missing something?

Veils of maya wrote:
Eloise wrote:


And this pre-determined out come is to be like God?



No. The predetermined outcome is this world. This system.



If the act of Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge made Man more like God, and God orchestrated the entire series of events, then it would appear that God was preparing Man to be more like God.

Veils of maya wrote:
Eloise wrote:


Again, if God can be righteous and worthy without earning his status, what is the purpose these contrived set of circumstance. God, being omnipotent, could make man as much or as little like himself without intermediate steps.



yet here we are in intermediate steps. Seems to me god simply ignored his prerogative. Sticking out tongue



Yes, here we are. Seems to me that Genesis is simply one of many myths that tries to explain why and how we got to be here in the first place. (And gives a rather poor answer at that.)

Veils of maya wrote:
Eloise wrote:


It seems you've chosen to impose limits on God to give the story meaning, whether literal or metaphorical.


No I generally consider limits in their ability to give my existence meaning, whether literal or metaphorical. Having no limits does not preclude that you may find a use for imposing them.
 


To rephrase, you've imposed limits on God so the story makes sense. But, since most theists believe their existence has meaning because God created them with a purpose, imposing these limits also appears to be an attempt create a purpose where none is apparent other than "God wanted to."

An all knowing, all powerful God with an incomprehensible will could be used to explain absolutely any phenomena we could ever expereince.  As such, his actions could be indistinguishable from a natural universe without a purpose. 

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Quote: That, to me, is

Quote:

That, to me, is exactly why I just don't claim certainty. There is no escaping the fable undercurrent of all theology. It just is. Such is the fluid nature of language. What I feel I can do is give a measure of benefit in regard of authors and speakers, in general their intent is good and they are imparting the knowledge and reason they have gained in lengthy and dedicated contemplation. I feel certainty that there is a thread of real wisdom in spiritual legend due to the core decent intent, but that is my only actual certainty.

That wouldn't sell me to a religion, but okay. Smiling

 

Quote:

aside: If I was to go out on a limb and point out the one common idea that I feel is closest to certainty about the nature of God it would be that God and Man are one.

That sounds like a claim that might be best debated under its own topic. Coming soon!

 

Quote:

agree. But my 'God' would have done that intentionally.

That was a rude thing for him to do! So says I.

Again, it doesn't sell me, but okay. Your admitting that there is at least SOME uncertainty about the interpretation you've given is satisfying enough for me. Smiling

 

Quote:

Couldn't have said that better myself.

Thanks.

 

Quote:

I don't have an answer specifically to that hence my approach that it is all metaphorical on some level. What I do is test my subjective impression.

Ah, okay. I see what you're saying. This only underlines the aforementioned uncertainty. Check.

 

Quote:

I'm thinking this is us jigging around some semantics. When I say they weren't limited I mean that the potential for any number of possibilities were present. The potential to be like God was present in the tree so it was there as an opportunity.

I see what you are saying is that a limit existed within adam and eve, and hence god limited them. Now I'd go further than that with the metaphor of nakedness and say adam and eve were not just limited by god, they were some kind of void, blank slate. Not just limited in one way, but endowed in basically no way. That is to say, if they were in the image of god, it was a mirror image, a superficial reflection endowed with no actual qualities.

Quote:
 

 

No I wouldn't say you were wrong.

I think the difference is we are talking from alternate perspectives. It seems to me that what you're saying is like saying the higway is bounded by concrete thus you're constrained to stay on it, and I am pointing to the exit 20 kms up the road and saying no we aren't. You're right because when we are there and not 20kms up the road we are limited, but I feel I am also right because since we are on the highway constrained in one direction, ie towards the exit, the limit is only perceived.

Quote:

Do you have that in the context of a multiverse?

I see it a little differently. Consider a group of probabilities clustered around a scenario, if the man takes all paths from that scenario, then by default God has set him on all paths. Now lets say ach of the probabilities from a single condition are predetermined by God. Let there be ten of those (this is probably a too conservative number but..). Then god has laid ten predetermined paths and man has access to all of them. One individual man in one indiviual universe sees only one path from a perspective of pre-relative time, he sees this perspective in advance of himself, and in retrospect of himself. In a sense you can say decoherence works on both sides of you in time and if you do, then it follows that the only thing predetermined by god is a step on each path, not the path itself. Even from the perception of one man in one universe. So if there are ten predetermined paths before one man in one universe, there is also ten predetermined steps behind him and he estimates the one he has come from over the ten probabilities just as he estimates the one he should go to in the future.

This all rests heavily on the multiverse, I should qualify, I think you get to that point a bit further down.

So are you arguing that we somehow choose the predetermined path before we begin?

Why aren't we just allowed to roam free through space, time, and universe? If god can, so too should we, otherwise I see the path as limited.

Or am I still not grasping your point? 

-------------------------------------------------------- 

The fact that all of this hinges on the truth of the multiverse is another heavy underline for the uncertainty of it, I would say. If I was well-versed enough in cosmology, I would maybe start discussing the probabilities, but I don't know enough about cosmology to go that route.

 

Quote:

Quote:

It's kind of like in Aladdin where the Genie makes Jafar the most powerful sorceror in existence, but since he gave Jafar that power, he also has the power to take it away, so technically the Genie is still more powerful than Jafar, so Jafar wishes to be his equal (a genie). Of course, he fails to recognize that Genie's have limits, too, but if you ignore that aspect of the story, you get the idea. Kind of. lol.

That was the dorkiest parallel ever, but I really enjoyed making it for some reason.

LOL at the genie reference, but to be honest I'm not sure I do get the parallel.

The point was that god is all perfect, all powerful, all knowing, and all good (with latent shame, evil, etc).

If god creates man in any way that is not completely equal to himself, he is creating man with limits or at a disadvantage. And even if man can earn a certain godliness, unless this godliness is equal to god's in ever way, god has created man with limits or at a disadvantage.

This touches on the idea that it was necessary for god to create man at a disadvantage in order for him to have glory. That topic already exists, but I haven't paid it much attention.

Sorry, people from that topic! 

 

Quote:

It's the freedom that appeals to me. I'd be on God's side on the issue of whether we are free to exist in chaos, injustice, drama and confusion, or whether he would be more right to shelter us indefinitely from it and limit us to avoidance of it. I think the right of those two is absolute freedom.

I think, then, that it would make more sense for God to create man as his exact equal and then let man decide whether or not he wants to undergo such an existence.  That would defeat the purpose of earning godliness though, since you would have already had it to begin with.

Quote:

Quote:

To me, this seems to defeat the position that a choice was being made, and it also seems to point toward the garden's being unnecessary. How do you make sense of this?

Hmmm... I guess you could say I make sense of it through thinking on a really large scale, and by not seeing any of it in terms of necessity as an end, but rather a means to what is.

But if the knowledge came from god, then basically what you get in the story is this situation:

God: "Hey, Adam. Sup, Eve. I have some knowledge that I could give to you, but you shouldn't have it or you'll die."

Eve: "Oh... so can we have it now?"

God: "Okay, here you go."

lol, is this wrong?

Quote:

Eve was told it would make her like God, this is where the desire would be.

But if the knowledge came from God, then it would be akin to saying, "Having god's knowledge would make you like god."

Which makes sense, but seems like a silly thing for someone to say.

It also gets back to the question of how Eve went about obtaining this knowledge. If it was not a tree and came from God, how else could she get it other than asking God for it? Was the snake just tempting Eve to ask God for his knowledge?

Quote:

presumably the fruit contained both the catalyst for shame and the catalyst for perfect reconcile, as per the appointed access to the hidden manna in revelations.

How could the fruit have given him the capacity to perfectly reconcile shame if he was able to feel shame?

 

Quote:

No, that's not a cheap shot, its a fair question.

It would be disappointing if it was the incorrect interpretation, god would have to come up with something really special to replace it as his 'glory' Sticking out tongue

I haven't thought of another way of interpreting things that doesn't seem like absolute bullshit to me, so I would probably be refuting them with you if we did discuss alternatives.

I deem this acceptable.

Quote:
 

Ahh I see what you're getting at. When I said no that's definitely not what I am saying I was referring quite exclusively to the idea of the multiverse as an outside referent. I don't imagine it that way as you've probably gathered from my above answers.

But if God's omniscience depends on the multiverse's existing, then it is a referent of some kind.

 

Quote:

I'm still pointing at the tree. But I don't think the tree would affect the snake in the same way as it affected man. The snake definitely indicates a creature of a different order which different qualities.

The way I see it is that in the story knowledge of good and evil added to man results in godliness. Knowledge of good and evil added to an animal results, it seems, in an ordinary animal.

But that seems to say that humans are only closer to God in physical form.

My eyebrow is now raised.

 


The fact that you admit subjectivity, uncertainty, and a reliance on the truth of the multiverse is satisfying enough for me.

 

I continue to disagree with you, but I see no more reason to argue with you.

Except for fun of course.

Cheers! 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Fateless7
Posts: 111
Joined: 2007-09-27
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx wrote: If god

Archeopteryx wrote:

If god creates man in any way that is not completely equal to himself, he is creating man with limits or at a disadvantage. And even if man can earn a certain godliness, unless this godliness is equal to god's in ever way, god has created man with limits or at a disadvantage.

This touches on the idea that it was necessary for god to create man at a disadvantage in order for him to have glory. That topic already exists, but I haven't paid it much attention.

Sorry, people from that topic! 

Sad Yeah, I started that thread. Lol, it's okay. But you should I know I did make a post in this thread explaining that idea, since it's relevant. You might have missed it. No one replied to it, anyway. I think it's on the second page! Feel free to take a look, but in any case, thanks for the acknowledgement. Smiling