Evidence for God from Science

Blob wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Their sense of right and wrong was not internal-they got it from God. So it was their fault nonetheless.

Okay, but I thought they got it after eating the fruit not before. So they cannot be held accountable for what they did before eating it.

Why not? You said you've read a little of Genesis, as you should know, they were told what is right and wrong. So they were at fault. They did what they were told not to do.

Byblos wrote:For the purpose of this discussion, let's assume that Adam and Eve are symbols and not real physical people (just an assumption as I don't intend for this to turn into a Bible argument on symbolism).

Okay.

In the symbolic sense, what Adam and Eve represent is free will (that dreaded expression I keep referring to), IMO. Why do they represent free will? Because that is what separates us humans from any other living thing on the planet.

Okay.

Because it gives us the choice to believe in God or not.

But Adam & Eve had no choice whether to believe in him or not. They directly interacted with him. He spoke to them to say "do not eat of the fruit of this tree". They saw him walking in the garden and hid from him. At the symbolic level the story does not address the issue of knowing whether god exists or not.

God literally gave us the choice to reject him.

But what is rejection of god in your opinion, Byblos. Is it not knowing he exists; or is it knowing he exists but rejecting his love and authority?

Because no matter how much science can explain the universe, I do not believe free will can explained scientifically. Yes, there has been attempts and speculations that point to some biological/chemical reactions but they've all been just that, speculations.

Personally I am undecided on the free will/determinism issue.

However, an all-knowing god could not have free will. This is because if he already knows what will happen he cannot change it and so has no free will; whereas if he can and does change it then he is not all-knowing.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: they were told what is right and wrong.

I disagree. They were told not to eat the fruit, but they were not told what is right and what is wrong. The bible makes it quite clear they would only know what "good" and "evil" are if they ate the fruit. And if they did not know what "good" is then they could not know that to disobey god is not "good". And therefore they were not to blame, for they quite literally knew not what they did.

Blob wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: they were told what is right and wrong.

I disagree. They were told not to eat the fruit, but they were not told what is right and what is wrong. The bible makes it quite clear they would only know what "good" and "evil" are if they ate the fruit. And if they did not know what "good" is then they could not know that to disobey god is not "good". And therefore they were not to blame, for they quite literally knew not what they did.

Simple...eating fruit, wrong, not eating fruit, good (or at least neutral).

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Simple...eating fruit, wrong, not eating fruit, good (or at least neutral).

Easy for you because you know what "good" means. Or do you walk around naked and unashamed?

Adam and Eve did not know what "good" means. It says so in the bible.

Blobbette, if I told you not to touch a live wire, and you do...it's your fault, you know why-you were warned. Doesn't matter if you didn't know what "live wire" means...so what, still your fault.

Blob wrote:

Byblos wrote:For the purpose of this discussion, let's assume that Adam and Eve are symbols and not real physical people (just an assumption as I don't intend for this to turn into a Bible argument on symbolism).

Okay.

In the symbolic sense, what Adam and Eve represent is free will (that dreaded expression I keep referring to), IMO. Why do they represent free will? Because that is what separates us humans from any other living thing on the planet.

Okay.

Because it gives us the choice to believe in God or not.

But Adam & Eve had no choice whether to believe in him or not. They directly interacted with him. He spoke to them to say "do not eat of the fruit of this tree". They saw him walking in the garden and hid from him. At the symbolic level the story does not address the issue of knowing whether god exists or not.

That's because the story is in the physical world. The symbolism is not and, therefore, free will came about outside of the story.

Blob wrote:

God literally gave us the choice to reject him.

But what is rejection of god in your opinion, Byblos. Is it not knowing he exists; or is it knowing he exists but rejecting his love and authority?

It is either or both. He gave us the right to question his very existence. We can simply choose to believe that which is bound by the discernable senses or we can go beyond that. How far we are willing to go is up to us.

Blob wrote:

Because no matter how much science can explain the universe, I do not believe free will can explained scientifically. Yes, there has been attempts and speculations that point to some biological/chemical reactions but they've all been just that, speculations.

Personally I am undecided on the free will/determinism issue.

However, an all-knowing god could not have free will. This is because if he already knows what will happen he cannot change it and so has no free will; whereas if he can and does change it then he is not all-knowing.

Ah, great point. I did discuss this in another thread but here goes it. And that's where I will drop the proverbial bombshell. I do believe God is omnipresent and omnipotent, but I do not believe God is all-knowing in the sense that He already has my future already mapped out for me. Because if that were true then my precious free will is completely negated. The reason I believe that is that I also firmly believe that at some point (i.e. judgement day) I will have to answer to God. And if I am to be judged, then it MUST be my choice to act on how I am to be judged. Ergo, free will.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Blobbette, if I told you not to touch a live wire, and you do...it's your fault, you know why-you were warned. Doesn't matter if you didn't know what "live wire" means...so what, still your fault.

Yes it is my fault. Although the clumsy electrician who left that live wire hanging around is also to blame...

Anyway, your analogy does not apply because I'm not saying they didn't know what "piece of fruit" means; I'm saying they did not know what "good" and "evil" were (as it says in the bible). And if they did not know what "evil" was then they did not know it was "evil" to disobey the command.

You have to remember that Adam and Eve were not like us. They were never children and never grew up. They were adults in form but babies in mind - unashmaed to be naked with no concept of "good" or "evil". With no concept of "good" or "evil" one cannot know it is "good" to obey god and "evil" to disobey him. Therefore they were not to blame.

Byblos wrote:It is either or both. He gave us the right to question his very existence. We can simply choose to believe that which is bound by the discernable senses or we can go beyond that. How far we are willing to go is up to us.

Don't you think there is an important difference though? I simply don't believe the christian god exists, which is hardly exercising a choice (anymore than it is my choice to believe I have a billion dollars in my bank account). Yet I will suffer never-ending terrifying agony for this.

However to be sure he exists (and theists never display the slightest doubt) but disobey him and reject his love anyway - well that is a clear choice.

And that's where I will drop the proverbial bombshell. I do believe God is omnipresent and omnipotent, but I do not believe God is all-knowing

Yes that is a bombshell! - or at least a very unusual stance for a christian. But that makes sense to me, thanks Byblos.

Blob wrote:

Byblos wrote:It is either or both. He gave us the right to question his very existence. We can simply choose to believe that which is bound by the discernable senses or we can go beyond that. How far we are willing to go is up to us.

Don't you think there is an important difference though? I simply don't believe the christian god exists, which is hardly exercising a choice (anymore than it is my choice to believe I have a billion dollars in my bank account). Yet I will suffer never-ending terrifying agony for this.

However to be sure he exists (and theists never display the slightest doubt) but disobey him and reject his love anyway - well that is a clear choice.

To me there is no difference because I do not question his existence. Since you do question it, is it not your choice to do so? You are making a concerted, conscious decision to say, unless I have absolute proof, there is no God. That is a choice. It is of your own free will that you came to that conclusion. When I say you were given the right to reject him, it also implies that you have the right to reject his very existence, not merely reject him knowing he exists nonetheless.

Blob wrote:

And that's where I will drop the proverbial bombshell. I do believe God is omnipresent and omnipotent, but I do not believe God is all-knowing

Yes that is a bombshell! - or at least a very unusual stance for a christian. But that makes sense to me, thanks Byblos.

You're welcome. Just to clarify though, I said I didn't believe God was all-knowing in the sense that he does not see what I will do next. Can he see what I will do next? Absolutely, but that entails suspending my free will. However, I do also believe that God has a sense of future direction (at the macro level if you wish) but our (micro) actions totally depend on us.

Blob wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: they were told what is right and wrong.

I disagree. They were told not to eat the fruit, but they were not told what is right and what is wrong. The bible makes it quite clear they would only know what "good" and "evil" are if they ate the fruit. And if they did not know what "good" is then they could not know that to disobey god is not "good". And therefore they were not to blame, for they quite literally knew not what they did.

You have to understand that they would have known where the Tree of Life was. God Specifically told them that if they eat of the Fruit of that Tree you will surely Die. Now from that we know Adam and Eve know what Dying means. Surely you think if they go against the commandment of God they know it is wrong. It is like a Child!! If your Child goes against the Commandment that you have spoken on to the Child that Child knows he is wrong.

Byblos wrote:To me there is no difference because I do not question his existence. Since you do question it, is it not your choice to do so? You are making a concerted, conscious decision to say, unless I have absolute proof, there is no God. That is a choice. It is of your own free will that you came to that conclusion. When I say you were given the right to reject him, it also implies that you have the right to reject his very existence, not merely reject him knowing he exists nonetheless.

Yes I see your opinion. And given that most people in the world believe in a god of some kind or other it could be said I have chosen not to.

However, for one for is unconvinced that there is a god it is different. There is no amount of mental gymnastics or wishing it true that can make me believe a thing. For example, I cannot believe there is a billion dollars in my bank account however hard I try and however much I wish it were true.

Also if endless excrutiating terror awaits me for my disability to believe (a rather harsh justice, IMO) it seems rather unfair that god simply bursts into some people's lives (e.g. my mother) and leaves others in the dark (e.g. me if I die an atheist which seems likely - most Brits do).

bizzt wrote:You have to understand that they would have known where the Tree of Life was. God Specifically told them that if they eat of the Fruit of that Tree you will surely Die. Now from that we know Adam and Eve know what Dying means.

Yes they knew what fruit was; and they knew what death was at least as an abstract idea (not through experience of it like we have). However they did not know that it was a "bad" thing (because they had no concept of "good").

Surely you think if they go against the commandment of God they know it is wrong. It is like a Child!! If your Child goes against the Commandment that you have spoken on to the Child that Child knows he is wrong.

The problem is the bible said they knew not of "good" or "evil". They only knew what these things were after eating the fruit. Therefore they did not know that going against the commandment of god was "not good". How could they without knowledge of what "good" means or is?

Blobette, another thing...if Adam and Eve really didn't know there was a difference between following God and not following Him...then why did Eve at first object to eating the fruit when told to do so? If they are not at fault, why is it that she stopped and say "wait a minute, I was told not to do this"

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Blobette, another thing...if Adam and Eve really didn't know there was a difference between following God and not following Him...then why did Eve at first object to eating the fruit when told to do so? If they are not at fault, why is it that she stopped and say "wait a minute, I was told not to do this"

Another important point to consider is If Adam and Eve had the knowledge of good and evil they wouldn't have known it was wrong to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil unless God told them not to eat of it.

I agree they didn't know about good and evil, but they still did evil. There knowledge of good and evil came from God before they ate of the tree.