Evidence for God from Science

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"

Oh yes. Great point, KMart I never noticed that before. You must mean this verse, which I think is Eve's line.

Genesis 3:3
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

She seems to object on the grounds that god said no (and that she will die), you are correct. Thanks that's helpful.

Jbuza wrote: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.

So you are saying they knew of right and wrong, but not good and evil. So what is the difference IYO? (Without analogy please, if possible, I always find that analogies fail to hit the spot.)

I do still have other problems with the fall. If people want to discuss it let's start another thread. If, however, people are getting annoyed with me pushing this let me know and I'll drop it.

Blob wrote:

Jbuza wrote: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.

So you are saying they knew of right and wrong, but not good and evil. So what is the difference IYO? (Without analogy please, if possible, I always find that analogies fail to hit the spot.)

I do still have other problems with the fall. If people want to discuss it let's start another thread. If, however, people are getting annoyed with me pushing this let me know and I'll drop it.

No I was just trying to say that the knowledge of good and evil wouldn't have been important. They knew the were not supposed to eat of that tree because God told them not to. Understanding good and evil wouldn't have made eating of the tree right or wrong. God's command is what made it wrong. I don't beleive that my son 2 1/2 fully understands the concept of good and evil yet, but he knows that he is not supposed to do certian things becasue dad says not to do them.

Jbuza wrote:No I was just trying to say that the knowledge of good and evil wouldn't have been important. They knew the were not supposed to eat of that tree because God told them not to. Understanding good and evil wouldn't have made eating of the tree right or wrong. God's command is what made it wrong.

Ah.. then I don't understand it.

blob wrote:Without analogy please, if possible, I always find that analogies fail to hit the spot

Jbuza wrote: I don't beleive that my son 2 1/2 fully understands the concept of good and evil yet, but he knows that he is not supposed to do certian things becasue dad says not to do them.

Arrghh!

Blob wrote:

Jbuza wrote:No I was just trying to say that the knowledge of good and evil wouldn't have been important. They knew the were not supposed to eat of that tree because God told them not to. Understanding good and evil wouldn't have made eating of the tree right or wrong. God's command is what made it wrong.

Ah.. then I don't understand it.

Are you saying that you don't understand me, or that you don't understand good and evil

blob wrote:

blob wrote:Without analogy please, if possible, I always find that analogies fail to hit the spot

Jbuza wrote: I don't beleive that my son 2 1/2 fully understands the concept of good and evil yet, but he knows that he is not supposed to do certian things becasue dad says not to do them.

Arrghh!

I know. I know. I wasn't supposed to do that. But I think it illustrates that one mustn't fully comprehend good and evil to understand something is wrong.

Hi all, I tried to post a couple days ago but after an hour of typing my screen went bye-bye. I will not endeavor to try to repost it but did want to add a few comments.

Regarding "Blind faith": my use was to mimic what many evolutionists claim of Christians (just blind faith) and to turn and show them it takes more blind faith to believe evolution than to believe God.

Also my faith is not blind. You will not find the term in the Bible. In fact, faith is supported by SUBSTANCE and EVIDENCE. Hebrews 11:1-3 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

i.e. When you have FAITH that your spouse won't cheat on you - its because you KNOW your spouse, their values, their love, and you trust what they say. -- When we have faith is God its not too much different. And so we have faith that He is, and is a rewarder of them who seek Him. It is by our belief in Him and His words (belief means you will manifest that belief through obedience) that we are saved. After we believe EVIDENCE abounds in our lives by His many blessings and favor. (Ask anyone who can testify to answered prayers.)

Regarding the rest of the evolution science arguments - they are on the internet in many forums for all to see yet there is still disagreement. The truth is both Creationists and Evolutionists (Christian & Non-Christian)always look at the exact same evidence yet they INTERPRET them differently because of each of their presuppostions.

1 Corinthians 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

On that note- I choose to be skeptical of scientists who were not there at the beginning and choose to believe God who was there and through His spirit left a record (both written and in the heavens and earth.)

To my brothers in the faith in regard to belief in the evolutionary concept of all this death before man came to be: To deny the biblical account of creation and accept evolution where death came before Adam's sin and not related to Adam's sin denies a very basic tenet of the Christian Faith: that man's sin brought forth death. The sting of sin is death and if sin wasn't the cause of death then why would man need a redeemer? In effect, it neuters the gospel.

Now, God has not called many wise, we know. This western culture is indeed a remnant of the Greco-Roman mindset and the scriptures tell us that preaching Christ crucified is FOOLISHNESS to the people of this presuppostion.

1 Corinthians 1:17-31 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

To men and women everywhere: You, as all flesh, will DEVOLVE back into the dust you were created from and you will be raised to judgment at the end of days. Wouldn't it be an act of WISDOM to get to know the Judge personally before that time?

Peace.
Ken
http://www.truthontheweb.org

Jbuza wrote:Are you saying that you don't understand me, or that you don't understand good and evil

I would have thought that good entails doing right and evil entails doing wrong. I do not see how they are separable in the context of this story.

blob wrote:it illustrates that one mustn't fully comprehend good and evil to understand something is wrong.

I don't see the distinction in the context of the story. The tree of knowledge gave them the wisdom of good and evil, which is necessary to distinguish right and wrong.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil enlightened Adam & Eve to the reality of the shame of sin. Even their conscience was now defiled and they needed a Redeemer to purge their conscience.

Ken wrote:The tree of the knowledge of good and evil enlightened Adam & Eve to the reality of the shame of sin. Even their conscience was now defiled and they needed a Redeemer to purge their conscience.

Then why plant the tree in the first place?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Ken wrote:The tree of the knowledge of good and evil enlightened Adam & Eve to the reality of the shame of sin. Even their conscience was now defiled and they needed a Redeemer to purge their conscience.

Then why plant the tree in the first place?

Exactly! I've always wondered that myself...
It's like, If you really don't want the dog to eat your cheeseburger, dont leave it on the floor...

I do think, however, it means more... to have faith, having never seen HIS face as Adam & Eve did...

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Ken wrote:The tree of the knowledge of good and evil enlightened Adam & Eve to the reality of the shame of sin. Even their conscience was now defiled and they needed a Redeemer to purge their conscience.

Then why plant the tree in the first place?

Free will. The only way to have love is through free will...if God did not give free will, Adam and Eve would have been mere robots, having no choice but to love God. With the tree, they have a choice-love God and obey, or disobey God and not love Him.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Ken wrote:The tree of the knowledge of good and evil enlightened Adam & Eve to the reality of the shame of sin. Even their conscience was now defiled and they needed a Redeemer to purge their conscience.

Then why plant the tree in the first place?

It gave them the option of going against God if they desired to do so. It could be said, everything until that moment was in a sense forced upon Adam and Eve by God, even if everything He did for them was good. They had no choice, and to take literally even Adam's naming of animals from which he saw there was no companion suitable for him, the story appears to portray that God encouraged and desired us to make decisions.

Kurieuo

Ken wrote:The tree of the knowledge of good and evil enlightened Adam & Eve to the reality of the shame of sin. Even their conscience was now defiled and they needed a Redeemer to purge their conscience.

The issue was whether it was their fault to eat from the tree of knowledge. Before doing so, i.e. when they made the decision, they were "free of sin" with no knowledge of "good and evil". Therefore they should not have been held responsible.

This question really presents no problem when knowledge is understood correctly. For example, lets say a tea drinker has never had the opportunity to taste coffee. If they ask what coffee tastes like, someone might respond it tastes like tea only much stronger and slightly different. The tea drinker may even know how coffee is made, and the many different varieties one can have. But would the tea drinker really "know" what coffee tastes like until they've drank a cup?

People (particularly skeptics) unnecessarily, and I believe wrongly, equivocate an "intellectual knowledge" of good and evil with an "experiential knowledge". I see no reason why Adam and Eve could not have intellectually comprehended the difference before their eating, although they would have lacked the experiential knowledge. The penny dropped, so-to-speak, when they ate the fruit. And as I believe Ken was trying to say, a realisation happened as to what it was like to go against God.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:This question really presents no problem when knowledge is understood correctly. For example, lets say a tea drinker has never had the opportunity to taste coffee. If they ask what coffee tastes like, someone might respond it tastes like tea only much stronger and slightly different. The tea drinker may even know how coffee is made, and the many different varieties one can have. But would the tea drinker really "know" what coffee tastes like until they've drank a cup?

Arrghhh! An analogy!

The tea drinker's knowledge of coffee is not then just intellectual, but an intellectual extension of their experiential knowledge of drinking tea. What equivalent experiential knowledge did Adam and Eve draw upon?

Also experential knowledge of the sensory response to a specific stimuli is not in the same category as value-judgement knowledge such as what should be deemed good and what should be deemed evil. (This is why analogies never really work for divine stories.)

People (particularly skeptics) unnecessarily, and I believe wrongly, equivocate an "intellectual knowledge" of good and evil with an "experiential knowledge". I see no reason why Adam and Eve could not have intellectually comprehended the difference before their eating, although they would have lacked the experiential knowledge. The penny dropped, so-to-speak, when they ate the fruit. And as I believe Ken was trying to say, a realisation happened as to what it was like to go against God.

By that reasoning the penny would have dropped when they experienced making the decision to eat the fruit - before they actual eating. So was the precise moment of the fall the decision to eat the fruit rather than the ingesting?