How did Adam and Eve know good from evil?

i just cant be bothered anymorekeep your arguments, you are all correct and i am completely off the planet.a hebrew yom means 24 hours specifically and a dog year is exactly the same as a human yearAdam and eve had no idea what the consequences of eating from the tree would be and the serpant is not satan as John says, it was simply a talking snake who spoke the truth and Adam and eve did not die.Great. Glad that you've all set me straight... i feel so enlightened.

Peg avoids the question yet again.Hint: One of the two will lead to damnation. The other will lead to salvation. Just like the choice given Adam and Eve. If you eat of the tree, you will either become as gods or you will die.You're trying to game the system. You want to eat from the tree first before you make your choice, but Adam and Eve didn't have that luxury. The very choice they were being asked to make was whether to eat from the tree.Why should they trust god? Because he's good? What does "good" mean to someone who doesn't understand good and evil?Beetaratagang or clerendipity? Action X is either beetaratagang or clerendipity, so you'll either be saved or damned.Which do you choose?Beetaratagang or clerendipity?Have you still not caught on? The very thing you are complaining about, your lack of knowledge as to which is which, is the very thing that Adam and Eve lacked. They didn't know what "good" and "evil" were any more than you know what "beetaratagang" or "clerendipity" mean.What possible justification could Adam and Eve have used to rely upon god's claim? Because he's god? That requires understanding what "good" means which they are incapable of since they haven't eaten from the tree yet. Creator of the universe? Created them? All of that is tied to understanding what "good" is which they don't know because they haven't eaten from the tree.That frustration you have about not knowing which of "beetaratagang" and "clerendipity" mean which is the same frustration of Adam and Eve: Lack of knowledge.So if you don't feel comfortable making such a choice, if you feel it is ludicrous to hold you responsble for a choice made over something you don't understand, why on earth should Adam and Eve take the fall for it? They didn't know any more than you do. And yet somehow, you accuse them of defying god.One of beetaratagang and clerendipity is good and the other is evil.Which do you choose? One is telling you the action is beetaratagang while the other is telling you it is clerendipity.Do you do it or not?Beetaratagang or clerendipity?Why do you hesitate?Beetaratagang or clerendipity?You're not stupid.Beetaratagang or clerendipity?How many times do I have to ask?Beetaratagang or clerendipity?You know all that Adam and Eve knew.Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

No, they were clearly told that eating from the tree would bring death. You are not giving me the same consideration.you can keep asking as much as you like, but until you answer my question i will not answer. What are the consequences of each?

That's too bad. I rather enjoyed our conversation. Do I detect a hint of sarcasm here? I never said that. I said that you don't know what god meant when he said that if he used the word Yom. It could mean any humber of things, including that portion of the day when it is light. How do you know god didn't mean that? And in case he meant "an undefined portion of time" then it's not really a threat now is it? I really don't get what you're getting at here. Are you seriously suggesting dogs experience time slower then we humans do? That would be some breakthrough in physics. They knew what the consequence was (death, that day), they just didn't understand it. Basically, yes. Adam and Eve didn't die that day, like god said they would. They did gain knowledge of good and evil, like the snake said they would. And since Jews don;t know any satan, it would be very weird for the snake to be him. More sarcasm Peg? Too bad, I'd rather have you see things from our side. I understand your side. You've been told this is the case, and you faith means a kot to you, so you will twist and turn so you can hold on to that. I think that's a bit silly, but that's the way this stuff works, I guess.

So I ask you once again:Would it help if Rrhain told you beetaratagang was good and clerendipity was bad, and I told you clerendipity was good and beetaratagang was bad?Now you have the same info Adam and Eve had. One person has told you the one thing is bad, the other has said the opposite.

I have the feeling this is going to lead nowhere, Huntard. Peg has already made it clear she is not going to discuss this anymore.

Yeah, probably.Anyway, Peg, I enjoyed this discussion, thank you for it.

slevesque responds to me:

quote:

---

I have stated these ressources early on in the discussion.

---

And I showed how those resources assume that which you're trying to prove. They all depend upon Adam and Eve already knowing what "good" and "evil" are. But they don't because they haven't eaten from the tree yet.You're trying to game the system just like Peg is. You want to know which is which before you make your choice, but that's the very point: You don't know which is which and you can never know which is which. You haven't eaten from the tree yet.

quote:

---

It's about listening to God, the creator of everything.

---

Why? Why is that a better choice than someone who isn't? You're assuming what you're trying to prove. Your justification relies upon knowing what "good" is, but they don't know that yet because they haven't eaten from the tree.And in actuality, we find that this "god" character you're saying Adam and Eve should rely on is actually an incompetent boob and Adam has first-hand experience with that. In response to being lonely, god creates not another human but instead a whole bunch of animals as if that would fix the problem.

quote:

---

The same God which gave you dominion over all creation

---

You mean that's good? How are Adam and Eve supposed to know that when they don't know what good and evil are? You're assuming that which you're trying to prove.

quote:

---

as opposed to the serpent, which you are supposed to rule over.

---

You mean that's bad? How are Adam and Eve supposed to know that when they don't know what good and evil are? You're assuming that which you're trying to prove.

quote:

---

One tells you eating the fruit is 'bad', the other tells you it is good.

---

And how are Adam and Eve supposed to understand what either of them mean when they don't know what good and evil are? You're assuming that which you're trying to prove.

quote:

---

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.

---

Incorrect. Everything you have provided assumes you already know what good and evil are. Why is it better to trust the creator of the universe? Especially when he's shown himself to be incompetent.You've got a bumbler on one side saying no and the smartest thing around saying yes.Why should Adam and Eve trust the fool?

quote:

---

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.

---

But the point you are completely missing is that "trust" requires understanding good and evil. So given someone who doesn't understand that, how are they supposed to make any sort of legitimate choice in the matter? They are trusting that god is "good" and wouldn't steer them wrong. That requires knowing what "good" and "wrong" are.You're trying to game the system: To have the effects of eating from the tree without actually eating it. You want to know which is which when the entire point is that you don't know and cannot know. You're trying to come up with a logical justification of what "good" is but the very conclusion you are reaching is incomprehensible to Adam and Eve. Even if they followed your advice, how could they ever comprehend what it was they concluded?The final statement of your proof is, "Ergo, god is good." But "good" isn't something that's understood. Yeah, god created everything. So what? Why does that mean we should trust what he says?Because what he says is good, right?Um, what is this "good" thing?

quote:

---

This aspect of trust in the decision making you are skipping over

---

Incorrect. It is the very sticking point. "Trust" requires comprehension of good and evil which Adam and Eve don't have because they haven't eaten from the tree yet. You're assuming that which you're trying to prove.How does one prove god is "good" when there is no ability at any level to understand what "good" is?

quote:

---

because when it is added into the equation

---

Your equation assumes that which is trying to be proven. There is no way to conclude anything is "good" because nobody knows what "good" means.

quote:

---

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

---

Of course not. The reason I conclude you are avoiding it isn't because you're disagreeing. It's because the justifications you are using to disagree are invalid. You are trying to logically prove "good" when there is no way to know what "good" is.Thus, you are avoiding the question.You've got an incompetent fool saying no and the smartest thing around saying yes.Why do you choose the fool? Why is having "dominion" (whatever that means) over the smart creature evidence that you should distrust what it says? If you told the smart creature to tell you the truth, wouldn't your "dominion" over it be sufficient cause to trust what it says?See...you're assuming what you're trying to prove. All your justifications presume to understand what good and evil are when there is no way to do so. How do you conclude "good" when you don't know what "good" is to conclude it?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

don't you see that this is why the tree of knowledge was a test of obedience and dependence on Gods soverignty as opposed to a tree that imparted special knowledge?Lets bring the example closer to home: your government sets up rules, you obey those rules because you live under their governance. But now along comes someone from another country and tells you that the legal penalties will not be applied if you break the law, so what do you do?do you simply go ahead and break the laws because some stranger told you that the legal penalty wont be enforced?Its the same with Adam and Eve. Along comes a stranger and he tells Eve that the legal penalty wont apply...that she'll be better off. She goes ahead and breaks the law without consulting anyone.Now back to clerendipity and beetaratagang - To make a choice not only do we need to know the consequences (as Adam and Eve did) we also need to know the person who gave us the choice in the first place. If that person had always been our protector and provider and had never left us without and his word was always truthful, then there is no reason to distrust him....unlike a strange talking snake whom noone had ever seen before and especially with the knowledge that animals don't usually talk. You would have to know that something wasnt right about that whole situation, wouldnt you?Or should we assume that A&E were dimwits who had no idea that snakes couldnt really talk?

call me a glutton for punishment

slevesque responds to me:

quote:

---

I have a hard time seeing how you can conclude from God's act of creation that he is incompetent.

---

Because he keeps having to fix it. Adam has first-hand experience with this incompetence. It is "not good" that Adam should be alone. But rather than make another human, he creates all the other animals and brings them to Adam to see if any of them would be a sufficient wife. None of them are. Only after this colossal failure does it dawn upon god that perhaps another human is required. But rather than do the same thing he did with Adam, he performs major surgery upon Adam and steals a body part in order to do it.These are not the actions of someone who knows what he's doing.

quote:

---

you would have made it another way, so it makes him incompetent ?

---

He wouldn't have put the tree in the garden with innocents who don't know any better not to eat from it no matter how many times you tell them, "Don't touch!" for one.He'd know that a single human isn't good and wouldn't have done that to begin with.Upon realizing the first mistake, he'd make another human, not a bunch of non-humans.Upon realizing the second mistake, he wouldn't make a radical alteration of the original to do it but would use the same process.For an all-powerful being, god surely makes a hash of things.

quote:

---

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.

---

Huh? Are you saying I'm misquoting?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

philosophical dribble.All they knew up until that point was good. They were perfect beings in perfect harmony with their creator. They didnt need to 'know' good, they WERE good.And they did know 'evil'...they knew eating from the tree WAS evil. That is what evil was...disobeying Gods commands was evil. Thats why, after they ate, they 'knew' evil...they had brought evil upon themselves and thereby experienced it...they knew it. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

But how do you know you should be obedient to god? You don't know he is good, you lack that knowledge. Actually no. I fear this will open a whole new can of worms, but I don't follow the rules because I live under their governance. In fact, there are rules I break regularly. I follow the rules because of the consequneces to other people when I don't. This is also why I break some rules. Crossing a red light, for example, when there is no traffic whatsoever. It's forbidden by law, yet I do it anyway, simply becasue there are no consequences to other people. No, I would do what I do now. Because I understand good and evil, thanks to Adam and Eve! The legal consequences are not why I follow these rules, the societal consequences are. Actually, no it isn't. They shouldn't do stuff simply because god has told them not to. Not becuase of consequences for others, not because of consequences to themselves, simply because the whim of god has determined it to be so. That's not a basis I would follow anybody under. Turns out the tranger was right, the legal penalties didn't apply. And look at what she gave us humans! I now can decide what is good and evil! It allows me to follow rules because of the consequences to other people, becuase I know harming them is evil. I thank them to this day for their choice! They don't know this. They can't see that what he is doing is "good". They don't know why he does this! That's the point. From their perspective it is one person telling them one thing and another telling them the opposite. Again, they don't know this. They can't see the snake is evil! They don't know. They essentially see two neutral persons telling them opposite things. They also have no idea that anything they could do is evil. They can't conceive of it. NO! That's the point! I would know there's something amiss here, but I have knowledge of good and evil! They didn't. They see a neutral person making one claim, and another making the opposite. How are they to know who tells the truth. Nevermind that it was the snake. Just like you can't determine whether Rrhain is telling you the truth when he says clerendipity is bad, and I say clerendipity is good. You have no idea which one of us is right. That's the point we're trying to convey to you. Without the knowledge of good and evil (or if Rrhain or me is telling you the truth), you have no way of knowing what the right choice is! How do you know snakes weren't supposed to talk? How do you know no other animals talked? There's nothing in genesis that says other animals couldn;t talk. Also, Eve apparently isn't the least bit surprised the snake begins to talk to her. So, either yes she is a dimwit, or snakes/animals talking wasn't really that weird in Eden.

Good girl!

im talking about legal consequences. We get issued a fine if we are caught running red lights. What do you get if you are caught? either way it doesnt matter...there are consequences and you obey because you dont want those consequences. thats fair enough, you have the right to make that decision. However the decision to be independent of God is what leads to death. So if you wanted to avoid death, you would need choose dependence and obedience. They chose independence and it led to death for all mankind but not all mankind are happy with their decision. I would rather live forever therefore i choose dependence on Gods laws. He is the lawmaker because he is the creator and in the position of the universal sovereign, this gives him the right to make laws and me as a subject have an obligation to obey him.doing so leads to life which is a much better prospect then death. Lets look at it logically.
Do any animals today have the ability for human language? Can they speak a human language?No they cant. But lets say they did, why would God later remove the ability to speak human language from them?