How did Adam and Eve know good from evil?

Hi Rrhain,I don't think your analogy is correct since for it to be correct, you would have to identify which of Beetaratagang or clerendipity lead to eternal damnation and which to eternal life.Because God did indeed say: If you do this, this is what happens. If you do that, this is what happens. He didn't say 'you can do this and this and this, and one of these things will kill you. Now choose.'AbE. And of course, they didn't have t 'experience' death to know what it is. By knowing what life is, and by knowing that death is the opposite of life, then you can get an idea of what it is. To say that the knowledge of something can only be acquired through experience is fallacious.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

I understand there is a point to be made, but his analogy with Beetaratagang and clerendipity is still flawed because told him which choice led to which consequences.Now you can argue that they didn't understand what the consequences were, but then in this case another more refined analogy would be needed then the one he is presenting.

Hi CS,I beg to disagree that the analogy is a faire representation of the situatio, because B and C are not some equal entities for Adam and Eve, even before they ate of the fruit.It is all a matter of trust, and not knowledge. In fact, a lack of knowledge is more often then not required for the act of trust. If I know everything there is to know about cars, there will be no need to 'trust' the mechanic who repairs mine. In fact, I might just as well repair it myself.In fact, in a situation of trust, you usually put your trust in someone you think has that knowledge that you don't have.With this aspect of trust in mind, the question for A&E then becomes: Who do I trust ? God or the snake ? Which one do I think has the true knowledge of what will happen if I do this ?If they had had the knowledge to make the decision, it would no longer be a situation of trust, but a situation of personal wisdom. I hope you see what I mean.

It does not require a lot of logical deductions to arrive at this conclusion. Eve's dilemna as presented in her dialogue with the snake is clearly one of who to trust. The snake does not attempt to convince here by logical arguments appealing to here knowledge of things. He instead attacks the credibility of God by interposing his own opinion on what will happen if she eats the fruit. The fact that they didn't have the knowledge of good and evil does not mean that they didn't have the required knowledge to make the decision to trust God and not the serpent. They knew that God was the creator of all things, that he was the one who established the natural order of things. And in this natural order, he had given them dominion over all living things. They knew the serpent was a living thing, and threfore they had dominion over it, as did God, who had created it.They had all that was necessary to make the correct decision.It's like if you're house is on fire, and you are in a room full of smoke, and there is a door in front of you that can potentially lead you outside. The problem is that you see through the cracks that the fire is just on the other side of this door. Your friend with you tells you to open the door and get out of here, but you remember that you were once told by a firefighter that in this situation, you don't open the door because the fire will burst out and most probably burn you. Now, in this situation, even if you don't know the physical reason behind this phenomenon, even though you don't know that this is because fire consumes oxygen, and opening the door would fuel it even more. Even though you don't know any of these things, it does not mean that your decision is a crap shoot 50/50 chance. It does not, because you know the firefighter who is giving you this advice. You know that HE knows the reason this will happen, you know that he was taught and trained for these situations. And so the correct decision, even if you don't understand it, is to trust him instead of your friend who knows shizzles about fires.

I have stated these ressources early on in the discussion. It's not about listening to 'good' God or 'evil serpent', all the while not knowing what good and evil is.It's about listening to God, the creator of everything. The same God which gave you dominion over all creation, as opposed to the serpent, which you are supposed to rule over. One tells you eating the fruit is 'bad', the other tells you it is good. They obviously have contradictory definitions of the words, but since you don't have the ability to make such a judgement yourself, you can't take a decision based on this. However, you have the information to make the logical choice to trust God.In fact, in any situation of trust, it is because you are lacking something in regards to that specific situation. In this situation it is the knowledge of good and evil, which makes this the situation of trust.This aspect of trust in the decision making you are skipping over, because when it is added into the equation your gibberish analogy doesn't stand up, as it is no longer a crap-shoot 50/50 decision anymore.And I'm sorry if you feel I am avoiding any issue, but in fact I am discussing exactly your analogy. Just because I am arguing that it is not a correct analogy given the situation does not mean I am avoiding it ...

I have a hard time seeing how you can conclude from God's act of creation that he is incompetent. you would have made it another way, so it makes him incompetent ?And your previous description a particular event is so biased in it's description that everything that would make God 'incompetent' in the sequence is in fact added by you unto the text.