Evidence for God from Science

I would like to pose a question for debate regarding the story of the “Fall of Man” as stated in Genesis. Just to briefly describe myself, I am an active member of my United Methodist Church but I have rather liberal theological beliefs.

The story in Genesis says that God created Man and then Woman. My first assumption is these two individuals were homosapiens more or less identical to modern man. This is an assumption but if they were not like “us” then it would be very difficult to relate to the story as the beginning of us.

Now their life situation was different. Before the “Fall” death did not exist so their aging process would not exist due to the environment that God created. Also, since they did not have a childhood their developmental cycle must have been also created by God. But again, to be able to relate to the story even with these differences they would have to be us.

The story does not indicate how long they lived in the Garden of Eden before the “Fall”. It could have been only a day but the story suggests that it was more likely a longer rather than shorter time span. In fact, it could have been millions of years.

Adams and Eve were given the freedom to make choices and in order to have choices they must have situations to make choices either good or bad. The story's plot allows this choice by placing a particular tree. God forbade the humans to eat this fruit indicating the fruit had miraculous powers that were not for them. It seems this is about the only restriction given to them.

So you have two human beings living for a very long time with only one rule. Humans, like us, created with a thirst for knowledge and a great curiosity. We don't know for sure but it is likely they resisted the temptation for millions of years and for however how long they resisted it seems to me it would be to their credit although God did not see it this way in the story.

These two humans were also were gullible on the “bad things” in the world having few negative experiences for comparison since everything was so perfect living in the Garden. They likely had no conception of death for at that time no humans had died. In their innocence they were the first nudists. They also likely had no full comprehension of the ramifications of breaking the rules since they had no experiences with which to compare such an act. They had not seen another human getting punished for a crime since there were no other humans.

The forbidden fruit rule could be compared to telling a child or spouse that a certain box easily available contained many wonderful chocolate candies, but under no circumstances could they eat any. What do you think would happen?

To make matters worse these innocence humans had an evil companion who was bent on their destruction due to his hated of God. We can assume, the snake, was Satan who was a very advanced creature capable of miraculous feats according to the other Biblical descriptions of him. The story does not indicate any major reason the humans should have been suspicious of him. Also, it would appear Satan had an unlimited amount of time in which to persuade them since the story does not give any time line. How could two innocence human beings have a chance such a being's manipulation?

This seems to me to address the question that according the plot of the story, man was set up to fail, the odds were certainly against him. Yes, he had free choice and could have chosen not eat the fruit and did choose not to eat the fruit for likely a very long time. However, with an unlimited time span, no experience with any type of crime or misbehavior, a lack of knowledge on the issue of death as a penalty, and an evil super being with unlimited time working constantly to manipulate them to eat the fruit, it seems they had no chance.

I view this story as an analogy. I believe in the development of man at some point we developed self conscious. This point was the beginning of human morality. We were no longer animals who have no moral consciousness. We were now able to comprehend the differences between right and wrong. Sin was created only when we were advanced enough to know right from wrong.

I would greatly appreciate any comments or debate.

I was hoping someone would point out the flaws in my statements.

Otisblues wrote:I would like to pose a question for debate regarding the story of the “Fall of Man” as stated in Genesis. Just to briefly describe myself, I am an active member of my United Methodist Church but I have rather liberal theological beliefs.

The story in Genesis says that God created Man and then Woman. My first assumption is these two individuals were homosapiens more or less identical to modern man. This is an assumption but if they were not like “us” then it would be very difficult to relate to the story as the beginning of us.

Now their life situation was different. Before the “Fall” death did not exist so their aging process would not exist due to the environment that God created. Also, since they did not have a childhood their developmental cycle must have been also created by God. But again, to be able to relate to the story even with these differences they would have to be us.

The story does not indicate how long they lived in the Garden of Eden before the “Fall”. It could have been only a day but the story suggests that it was more likely a longer rather than shorter time span. In fact, it could have been millions of years.

Adams and Eve were given the freedom to make choices and in order to have choices they must have situations to make choices either good or bad. The story's plot allows this choice by placing a particular tree. God forbade the humans to eat this fruit indicating the fruit had miraculous powers that were not for them. It seems this is about the only restriction given to them.

So you have two human beings living for a very long time with only one rule. Humans, like us, created with a thirst for knowledge and a great curiosity. We don't know for sure but it is likely they resisted the temptation for millions of years and for however how long they resisted it seems to me it would be to their credit although God did not see it this way in the story.

These two humans were also were gullible on the “bad things” in the world having few negative experiences for comparison since everything was so perfect living in the Garden. They likely had no conception of death for at that time no humans had died. In their innocence they were the first nudists. They also likely had no full comprehension of the ramifications of breaking the rules since they had no experiences with which to compare such an act. They had not seen another human getting punished for a crime since there were no other humans.

The forbidden fruit rule could be compared to telling a child or spouse that a certain box easily available contained many wonderful chocolate candies, but under no circumstances could they eat any. What do you think would happen?

To make matters worse these innocence humans had an evil companion who was bent on their destruction due to his hated of God. We can assume, the snake, was Satan who was a very advanced creature capable of miraculous feats according to the other Biblical descriptions of him. The story does not indicate any major reason the humans should have been suspicious of him. Also, it would appear Satan had an unlimited amount of time in which to persuade them since the story does not give any time line. How could two innocence human beings have a chance such a being's manipulation?

This seems to me to address the question that according the plot of the story, man was set up to fail, the odds were certainly against him. Yes, he had free choice and could have chosen not eat the fruit and did choose not to eat the fruit for likely a very long time. However, with an unlimited time span, no experience with any type of crime or misbehavior, a lack of knowledge on the issue of death as a penalty, and an evil super being with unlimited time working constantly to manipulate them to eat the fruit, it seems they had no chance.

I view this story as an analogy. I believe in the development of man at some point we developed self conscious. This point was the beginning of human morality. We were no longer animals who have no moral consciousness. We were now able to comprehend the differences between right and wrong. Sin was created only when we were advanced enough to know right from wrong.

I would greatly appreciate any comments or debate.

The problem I se in your argument is that you see us as already being weak in the garden before the fall. But God had given us a paradise and we had only one rule....one rule. In giving in to Satan and eating from the tree, we essentailly established that God was not to be trusted.


Another thought...If you, as a parent, tells a child to avoid something (let's say the knife on the cabinet, or the hot stovetop), do you not tell them because you know exactly what is right for them? God, in His wisdom, set up the Garden and gave Adam and eve everything they needed.

Just for awhile, suppose that God simply said to Adam and Eve..."trust me in everything, I am trustworthy , what I have given you is everything you need and could ever desire....you have every physical desire, food, laughter, touch, sexual desires, movement....every mental desire....curiousity, intellect, reason, rationality...every emotional desire....companionship, joy,...every spiritual desire.....you have me!! TRUST ME"

They had the garden, they had each other, they had the best human realtionship ever, they had GOD!! they had the best spiritual relationship ever...

But how do you establish that trust? By following what God decreed. And God had one....ONE simple rule....don't eat that...in essence....trust me, that is bad for you....I have given you everything you need...I AM everything oyu need

At that fateful decision, Adam and Eve essentially declared that what God had given them was NOT good and not best and that they declared themselves to have the same rights as God.

I also take exception to this idea that Adam and Eve were gullible. I think this feeds some childish notion that they were stupid and ignorant, almost childish in their innocenc. Do we not think they were rational, reasonable, intelligent creatures? And while there may not have been human death....not everyone believes that the scripture means there was no animal or plant death. (and certainly, even if they didn't understand completely....what parent tries to communicate the physiology of electricity through our bodies to a 5 year old...."that's bad, that will hurt, that's ouchie" suffices for most parents. And a child learns to trust the parent in this.

Why would God have given them a warning that they did not understand? He wouldn't have....No, we cannot use such a naive argument. Adam and Eve knew what they were doing, knew what they were doing was wrong. It is our shame and guilt that all of us bear. We cannot look the Almighty in the face and use such a paltry excuse as "you could have hid the tree better" or "you could have warned us"....How dare we? This is God!!

In the pattern of Job "I place my hand over my mouth" He alone is worthy to judge....

Only until we understand our shame and guilt in our sin do we truly understand HIs grace and mercy.

Regards

Zoegirl wrote:I also take exception to this idea that Adam and Eve were gullible.

I agree with you, Zoegirl, I believe Adam and eve were exceptionally intelligent. Just to name all of the animals and remembering them all is a great feat in itself. I believe that everything that God makes is perfect in every way...it's only sin that corrupts that...enter the Devil. The Devil used their innocence of sin and evil to get to them. Eve was decieved, but I believe that Adam knew full well what he was doing. In either case they disobeyed Gods only request of them.

First of all, I really appreciate your well thought response. As you might guess I like to debate these type issues but I am very careful because my goal is to debate not upset. I limit my debates at my local Church because at times various conservative members become upset at my questions. The wonderful thing about the United Methodist Church is they will allow people like me to be member.

I hope I can respectfully disagree with a number of your points. Feel free to point out any flaws in my logic or rational.

The first flaw I find with in your argument is related to the analogy using a child and his parents in instruction about dangerous objects or situations. There is an obvious reason for a child to not touch a stove. And most children will at some point ignore his parent's instructions. When they touch something hot, they obtain an immediate lesson, it hurts. Thus, the child has learned from experience reinforcing the parent's instructions. Children learn from experience, they stand on a couch and fall off. It hurts. They touch a hot stove. They learn. It is simply the way humans develop. Of course, we do not know the dynamics of Adam and Eve's development since as I understand the story they were created as adults. However, I assume God gave them a similar development pattern as a normal human being.

Another major obstacle for Adam and Eve was from the manipulations created by the supernatural snake that the fruit would give them great powers making them like their Father, God. What child does not want to be like their father? From a motivational perspective they perceived these powers as a good thing. At least a parent can make the argument that a hot stove will hurt. Parents can even demonstrate this with a warm stove and let the child touch it giving the child experience. God could only say in your words, “Trust me”. Yes, I would have been much happier in my youth if I had always trusted my parents. But as most children I had to learn for myself. The fruit looked as if it would taste good. They could touch the fruit and the tree and it did not hurt them so why not eat it. I wish I had never smoked a cigarette, I no longer do, but as a teen it looked so cool to me to smoke so I did not listen to my parents. My Father smoked cigarettes but told me it was a bad thing. Yet, it seemed he enjoyed smoking. God knew evil and seemed to be okay with it. The old phrase, “Do as I say not as I do” comes to mind.

It is not that the child does not trust his parent; it is simply human nature that we humans have to learn from experience. In most cases the child does learn to trust his parents. But how many times have you heard some adult say, they wished that they had listened to their parents. It seems as we age and have more experience in life we learned that our parents did know a lot more than we thought when we were younger. I am simply saying that in the Garden Adam and Eve did not have the chance to have many of these life experiences because everything was so perfect.

Adam and Eve had no such experience. If things were perfect in the Garden then Adam and Eve would not have experienced physical or emotional pain until after the Fall. I am not saying they were “gullible” only innocence without experience. They were likely very intelligent but unless you have the information you do not know. To work this computer is very easy for me because I know how. If you don't know which keys to push, it would be impossible even for a very intelligent person.

Your statement demonstrates this idea; Adam and Eve were in a perfect place with a perfect relationship. Where do you learn about the negatives of life, the story specifically indicates they did not know evil?

Also, you point out correctly that God instructed them that he was everything they required. Obviously, as the plot thickened Adam and Eve decided this was not totally accurate. Thus, the Garden in their perception was not perfect. They obviously had to feel something was lacking or else they would have had no motivation to eat the fruit.

As far a death is concern, I would disagree that you can make the assumption that animals and plants died. The story simply does not give this information. I could just as easily argue there was no death for anything. Again, the story does not specify whether or not death existed for any living creatures in the Garden. And I would argue that in a “perfect” place for everything to be “perfect” for Adam and Eve even the death of animals would have been limiting, thus less than perfect.

God said in verse 1-17 of Genesis, “but of the tree of the knowledge of good evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.” I contend neither Adam nor Eve fully understood the concept of death and may never have seen anything die. And I am even confused by the verse because in the story neither Adam nor Eve died “in the day” that they ate the forbidden fruit. I imagined they lived a rather long life although this is not stated.

I agree with you that the story states Adam and Eve were aware that God did not want them to eat the fruit. However, your arguments seem to dismiss many other facets of their situation that would have created the motivation to eat the fruit. One of which is human curiosity. We all know how curious humans are. You seemed to agree they had this trait. This curiosity has created our science and technology. Just curiosity in itself would generate motivation especially giving the fact Adam and Eve had an unlimited amount of time to contemplate this action.

You also leave out two other significant aspects. There infinite amount of time factor and the third character, a supernatural super being. Satan, with all of his supernatural intelligence and abilities, had all the time he needed to persuade Eve. The story says the snake was more cunning than any of the other creatures. Of course he was. He had been a creature existing in heaven with God. He had been one of the closest entities to God as the Bible explains before his fall.

The story gives one example of Satan's manipulative technique but we don't know how many times this scene happened. The story simply does not address this but it seems likely to me the first time Satan made this argument to her she would have dismissed it. But we can easily imagine how such a thought could begin to grow over time. Humans are such creatures that are very vulnerable to this type argument. Just look at many TV ads. If you used this deodorant, it will make you popular. Also, there was only one man that was able to completely overcome the temptations of Satan and that was God's own son, Jesus. What chance does man have? That was one purpose of Jesus' life. To demonstrate Satan could be overcome.

To conclude, I think there were just too many temptations and manipulations for Adam and Eve to resist their normal human nature and not act against God. Also, I would suggest they may have resisted this for millions of years and I would give them credit for this. However, they were doomed to fail.

This is not an aspect of this argument but I have always wondered that if God is omniscient, knowing everything, then before he created Man he knew they would fail. I am told by some of my friends, that I should not attempt to contemplate God's mind and they are probably correct. It will give you a headache.

I've read through the above posts and i'm going to throw in a few random thoughts.

Otisblues wrote:This is not an aspect of this argument but I have always wondered that if God is omniscient, knowing everything, then before he created Man he knew they would fail. I am told by some of my friends, that I should not attempt to contemplate God's mind and they are probably correct. It will give you a headache.

This goes back to the parent-child analogy. You stated, very correctly, that most parents know that their children will not always listen. They have to learn for themselves. So, Adam and Eve had to learn for themselves as well (and i'm sure God knew this). Sure, they probably wished they had listened to God (i do all the time).

Otisblues wrote:You also leave out two other significant aspects. There infinite amount of time factor and the third character, a supernatural super being. Satan, with all of his supernatural intelligence and abilities, had all the time he needed to persuade Eve. The story says the snake was more cunning than any of the other creatures. Of course he was. He had been a creature existing in heaven with God. He had been one of the closest entities to God as the Bible explains before his fall.

I don't really agree that they were in the Garden for a million or so years. I don't think they were there very long at all. Adam had Seth when he was only 130 years old. Did he not have an age when he was in the Garden? Although i don't think he "got older," in the traditional sense of deteriorating, i do think he aged. He had "birthdays" and he became one, then two, then three, all the way up to 130, when Seth was born. I don't think the "aging" process started when he fell, i think it started at his creation.

Also, if they were in the garden for a million or so years, why wait that long to have children?

Otisblues wrote:As far a death is concern, I would disagree that you can make the assumption that animals and plants died. The story simply does not give this information. I could just as easily argue there was no death for anything. Again, the story does not specify whether or not death existed for any living creatures in the Garden. And I would argue that in a “perfect” place for everything to be “perfect” for Adam and Eve even the death of animals would have been limiting, thus less than perfect.

I don't recall Genisis station that creation was "perfect," only that is was "good."

Again, this was just a few random thoughts that came to mind as i read.

Thanks for the reply. I really enjoy hearing other people's thoughts on such matters. I will get out another reply as soon as I get time.

Thanks again.

I don't really agree that they were in the Garden for a million or so years. I don't think they were there very long at all. Adam had Seth when he was only 130 years old. Did he not have an age when he was in the Garden? Although i don't think he "got older," in the traditional sense of deteriorating, i do think he aged. He had "birthdays" and he became one, then two, then three, all the way up to 130, when Seth was born. I don't think the "aging" process started when he fell, i think it started at his creation.

Also, if they were in the garden for a million or so years, why wait that long to have children?


Could it be they did not know about sex? They did not know they were naked. Maybe God only intended for the two of them to be in the Garden. While bringing a child into the world is a blessing in most cases, I'm told it is an extremely painful event. The way I read the story pain would not have been a part of such a perfect life. From verse 3-16 “In pain you shall bring forth children” was part of the curse God gave to Eve after the Fall. So it appears to me the children had to arrive after the Fall rather than before it.

You have to define what you mean by “aged” for the only definition I know of this is one grows until about 17 or 18 and then begins to deteriorate. There is nothing in the story that suggests Adam and Eve physically changed in anyway before the Fall. Thus, they could have been there for a very long time. You assumption about birthdays is not supported by the story. It may have been time did not exist in the sense it does today so aging would have no meaning. His age may have begun once he left the Garden since it appears at that point they entered the world in which we live. The story does not say how old God meant him to be when he was created so he might have begun his age process at what we would call 20 or 30. The story does not give us this information.


I don't recall Genesis station that creation was "perfect," only that is was "good."

Maybe perfect is the wrong word and I read too much into the word “good”. In early philosophical texts “good” usually mean the highest level, the ultimate meaning as with Plato's forms. If life in the garden was not perfect, it must have been close to it since I agree with Zoegirl that according to the story they had been given everything they desired. Of course, like humans today, it is never enough, it is just our nature and probably always will be. That is one of the reasons I felt they had no chance.


Again, thanks for bringing these subject to my attention because I love to have to think a bit and debate various issues knowing our own mistakes are the most difficult to see.

Otisblues wrote:You have to define what you mean by “aged” for the only definition I know of this is one grows until about 17 or 18 and then begins to deteriorate. There is nothing in the story that suggests Adam and Eve physically changed in anyway before the Fall. Thus, they could have been there for a very long time. You assumption about birthdays is not supported by the story. It may have been time did not exist in the sense it does today so aging would have no meaning. His age may have begun once he left the Garden since it appears at that point they entered the world in which we live. The story does not say how old God meant him to be when he was created so he might have begun his age process at what we would call 20 or 30. The story does not give us this information.

I don't mean they physically change, just that they get older. Consider his creation as his birthday. A year later, he is one (or something along those lines). Even if he didn't change while he was in the garden, he is still getting older.

Otisblues wrote:Could it be they did not know about sex? They did not know they were naked. Maybe God only intended for the two of them to be in the Garden. While bringing a child into the world is a blessing in most cases, I'm told it is an extremely painful event. The way I read the story pain would not have been a part of such a perfect life. From verse 3-16 “In pain you shall bring forth children” was part of the curse God gave to Eve after the Fall. So it appears to me the children had to arrive after the Fall rather than before it.

I doubt they were unaware of sex, sex being one of the many gifts from god. However, the line "In pain you shall bring forth children" suggests she was aware of childbirth before they fell.

Also, i asked a friend of mine how long he thought they were in the Garden. His resonse: How long can you go without sinning.

I don't mean they physically change, just that they get older. Consider his creation as his birthday. A year later, he is one (or something along those lines). Even if he didn't change while he was in the garden, he is still getting older.


If time existed in the Garden in the same form as we know it, then yes, he did aged in the sense of numbers only but this would have no relevance to his physical age. If it did it seems he would have ended up as a frail old man unable to die. It seems a reasonable assumption that at least some of the law of physics were different in the garden.


I doubt they were unaware of sex, sex being one of the many gifts from god. However, the line "In pain you shall bring forth children" suggests she was aware of childbirth before they fell.

I disagree that the statement necessarily indicates she knew of childbirth. It is simply one of the penalties of being thrown out of the garden. There is no reason to assume from the story that Eve had experienced childbirth. I guess it is possible that she would observed it in the animals in the garden. There is nothing in the story that indicates children were born before the Fall. In verse 4-1 is the first mention of sex and conception with the birth of Cain. Cain was their first child. This is after the Fall. It does seem reasonable with enough time they as intelligence humans would figure sex out. They could have easily figured this out by seeing animals having sex. However, there is no mention of this and the lack of any mention of children is significant in its absence. I guess God did not want children running around the Garden. They would have eaten the fruit as soon as they could get at it.

And your friend makes a good point.

How do you add my quote to your reply? I'm new to this.

Could it be they did not know about sex? They did not know they were naked. Maybe God only intended for the two of them to be in the Garden. While bringing a child into the world is a blessing in most cases, I'm told it is an extremely painful event. The way I read the story pain would not have been a part of such a perfect life. From verse 3-16 “In pain you shall bring forth children” was part of the curse God gave to Eve after the Fall. So it appears to me the children had to arrive after the Fall rather than before it.


It does seem reasonable with enough time they as intelligence humans would figure sex out. They could have easily figured this out by seeing animals having sex. However, there is no mention of this and the lack of any mention of children is significant in its absence. I guess God did not want children running around the Garden. They would have eaten the fruit as soon as they could get at it.

....given enough time they would have figured it out!?!? "This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh"...Adam saying essentially "WOW....look at her!!" Somehow, even if God wasn't going to nudge them along (remember, no shame), I think good old physiology would have clued them in pretty quickly. Hmmm, naked woman, naked man.... 2+2=...

I'm thinking it wouldn't have been a very long time...
whether or not He prevented conception or there was something He placed over them, who knows, but God established the relationship between a man and a woman

Secondly, they had no shame in their nakedness, doesn't mean they were unaware of their nakedness. I think they could have figured out by simple comparison from the animals.

Even though you point is well taken, no child was born until after the Fall.

I will then go back to my original thesis, Adam and Eve never had a chance.

Somehow I doubt that they were unaware of sex and reproduction. Earlier in the creation account, God tells them to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28). Something tells me this did not mean "eat the stuff on the trees and do math equations".

Otisblues wrote:Even though you point is well taken, no child was born until after the Fall.

I will then go back to my original thesis, Adam and Eve never had a chance.

What are you really saying here? If they never had a chance then the logical conclusion is that it is not their fault and there is no guilt.

At what point can we use this excuse? "We never had a chance" Can pedophiles around children use this excuse? Can rapists use this excuse. "Well, she just tempted me beyond bearing" Can thieves use this excuse? Can we use this excuse? To be mean? To cheat on our spouses? "Well, gee, honey, she was just too sexy, I didn't have a chance..." To lie? To think mean thoughtS? To think lustful thoughts? At what point do we get a free pass. FROM a righteous and just God? Who we defied?

God is at fault? We have no guilt?

Come on. We had the BEST of ALL relationships. If ANYTHING, we had the BEST of all chances of resisting any temptation!! Who should want a mud pie when a banquet awaits them....every day?!?!? But such was our desire for our own wants and power that we decided that the banquet was insufficient.

Ultimately, we choose to disobey and defy God. We had all the chances in the garden....but we choose ourselves to worship instead of God...

Swamper wrote:Somehow I doubt that they were unaware of sex and reproduction. Earlier in the creation account, God tells them to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28). Something tells me this did not mean "eat the stuff on the trees and do math equations".

There goes my argument for learning math!!