iano writes:
I've rearranged your post to show the contradiction
Iano, you went off the point, not me, you introduced the notion of a 'truly impartial' observer, not me. 'Truly impartial' suggests to me having no preconceptions. That cannot be said of someone who believes the bible is truth.
iano writes:
A truly impartial observer, looking at the evidence as he finds it and who doesn't force things were they don't want to go, who doesn't let his own pre-disposition rule his judgement - would conclude man had choice. Not the opposite.
I can't agree with this... as I said, a "truly impartial" observer would reach no such conclusion. The notion of a truly impartial observer has no place in a discussion like this. that is the point I was making.
You are saying, as far as I can see, that man had to have had a choice because otherwise nothing makes sense, That is exactly the point I am making. The difference is you are making the choice/no choice option fit your desired end, turning away from the possibility simply because it makes your position untenable. (probobly a typical Christian attitude to challenges?).
What I am trying to do is look at what supposedly happened in Eden, and trying to make sense of the apparent contradictions without making it fit any preconception I may/may not have.
If i follow the story through,
i.e.
God made the universe and everything in it
God knew this particualr situation would arise (the temptation).
God knew what the outcome would be.
God knew that man would be punished for all eternity.
God knew all this before it even happened.
God knew there would be no other outcome.
Thus any "choice" on the part of adam and eve was an illusion.
I agree this makes the notion of an all loving and all seeing god a nonsense, but that is my point. The fact that the story of genesis does just this, (makes a nonsense of the traditional view of God). Is not an argument against 'no-choice' it is merely the resulting outcome.