A question that was first presented by Socrates.

Well, according to the Bible, one made in His image; one with a god's knowledge of good and evil.You disagree, perhaps, that the Bible makes these claims?

That doesn't matter, though. God is very clear when he says that we are as gods, knowing good from evil - and he says that after the sin, so clearly, the sin doesn't matter.According to God, we have the same ability to judge good and evil as he does. The Bible couldn't be clearer on the subject. Your interpretation simply isn't Biblical. Sorry, God says differently, and I'm going to believe him, not you.Look, your position is simply paradoxical. If sin keeps us from having god's knowledge of good and evil, but that sin was gaining god's knowledge of good and evil, then there can't have been a sin. But if we didn't sin, then we have god's knowledge of good and evil, which is a sin. But if we sinned, then we don't have god's knowledge of good and evil. But if we don't, then we didn't sin, and so we have god's knowledge of good and evil...Around and around you go, Mike. Your position is contradicted by the Bible, and moreover, doesn't make any fuckin' sense.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-26-2004 02:35 PM

Not in regards to our ability to determine good from evil, or else, God wouldn't have said that we have become like gods, knowing good from evil, after we had sinned, now would he?This point is so staggeringly obvious that I don't see how you can miss it. Of course you do. Don't get smart. Then why bother with the Bible? Why even bring it up if you're not basing your beliefs on it? Yes:

quote:

---

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil;

---

It doesn't get any clearer than that. That's right at the beginning, where the important stuff is. Open your eyes, use your mind, Mike, and see.

Well, you didn't cite them, for one thing, so how do I know that those quotes are from God and not some other character in the Bible?My quote is from the LORD God, directly, and it's at the beginning, so it trumps yours. On the subject of good and evil? Here's Einstein's words:

quote:

---

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish."

---

So, apparently not. Remember that that's the specific subject we're talking about - knowledge of good and evil. In regards to knowledge of, say, the finer points of chess, I'll freely admit that God has me blown out of the water.Specifically, in regards to good and evil, I have the same ability God has. God says so, directly, in the Bible. But God says we do. He says our knowledge of good and evil is the same as His; "like gods, knowing good and evil." If it wasn't as good as God's, then how could it be like God's?

quote:

---

"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, scince for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once." - Albert Einstein

---

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-26-2004 03:13 PM

My interpretation is based on the Bible. You, apparently, base yours on spirits or something. I'd say I've provided a considerably better Biblical base for my position than you have for yours. After all I'm not the one in direct opposition to the Word of God. Hey, in regards to the knowledge of good and evil, I've already substantiated that I'm just taking God's word for it. He's the one that said I'm his equal in regards to knowledge of good and evil, not me. I'm just repeating it. But Isaiah is not God. God is God. Why should I take Isaiah's word over God's Holy Words? But not all the Bible is spoken by God. In regards to what God has said, why don't we just stick with what God actually said? That's not why I offered that quote. You tried to suggest that Einstein was a superior authority on good and evil; I merely showed that even Einstein himself disagrees. Can we be in error about good and evil things? Surely. But, since we know we're equal to God in the knowledge of good and evil, we know that God's knowledge of good and evil must be like ours - therefore, God must be capable of error in regards to good and evil. Unless God has stated that we are, and in regards to good and evil, he has. He's directly said that, Mike. He did. Therefore, it must be true. Both of us. We're both equal. Any one of us - you, me, or God - could be in error in regards to good and evil. That's a direct consequence of God's will.

When did Moses get into it? What, I need to highlight it for you? Ok, I guess:

quote:

---

Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil

---

God is talking about himself, therefore the "us" that we have become as one of is God himself. We are like God in the way that he specifies - the ability to know good from evil. Don't believe me, believe your god who says that we all have the same ability to know good from evil as He. And, in general, God is presumably right about those things.But in the specific case of knowledge of good and evil, it's different. We're like god in that specific ability.It really is that simple, Mike. But I guess you can't tell the difference between the specific and the general? I can talk about Hamlet's motivations, actions, nature, and desire; that doesn't mean I think Hamlet is a true story.Just because I know the god we're talking about is a fictional character doesn't mean that I can't read the book and come to conclusions about him and his nature. The Bible is there to read, by anyone who wants to. It's not like it refuses to open if you don't believe in fairy tales. I don't understand the question. Can you phrase it in an analogy that doesn't have to do with engines?

What do you think that means, Mike? "As one of us"? It means "like us."It can't be any clearer. I shouldn't have to explain the meaning of statements in clear English to a reasonable person. I told you that I agreed with Isaiah - because Isaiah is speaking in the general. The Genesis author quotes God speaking on the specific.It's just that simple, Mike. But you can't tell the difference between general statements and specific ones, so you don't get it. And not God.

The amount? "As one of them" means "of equal ability." If I said that I could perform on the uneven bars "as an Olympic gymnast", wouldn't you have pretty high standards for my uneven bars routine?If I said that I could race cars "as a NASCAR driver", wouldn't you think I mean that I was a pretty good driver; not simply that I knew how to drive a car?"As gods" means that we have an equal ability to determine good from evil as other gods. ...as God does. It's just that simple, Mike. Being able to drive doesn't make Jeff Gordon say "hey, that guy is like me." Being able to race alongside him does. God is clearly saying we have a commensurate knowledge of good and evil.

That's not a "passing comment", that's the very thrust of Genesis 3.Look, if you can't read plain statements in English, I can't help you. (I can't very well teach you to read using the written word.) But maybe you don't have any business talking about what the Bible says or doesn't say if you have such a problem with the language in it. No, Mike. This whole thing was started by you. You asked, dismissively, "what authority do you have to judge God's actions?"I've been telling you what authority we have. We have the authority that God says we have; the authority we were given according to His plan.If you didn't want to know, then you shouldn't have asked. Why not? What's so bad about reading the Bible and learning what it says?You can agree with the atheists on certain things, Mike, without becoming one. Occasionally we are right about stuff; it's not a sin to agree with what is correct.

How is it an appropriate analogy? Who has ever said that a 500cc engine "is as" a 100cc one?Your analogy failes in applicability. (You don't "refute" analogies, because analogies don't prove anything.)

You have to put it together, though. Science isn't just observation; its the creation of theoretical frameworks to explain those observations. No, not in the least. That's why publishing is the most crucial step of the scientific method - you share your results and conclusions, and other people check them. "Peer review."I mean, the fact that science goes on in people's heads should have alerted you to the fact that science is a process of reasoning, after all. Who did you think was doing the reasoning if not humans?

Well...As much as we'd like it not to be, observation tends to be "theory-laden". In the most obvious sense, its your theories that tell you what to go observe in the first place.There's practical limits to what we can observe; it's theory that guides us in terms of determining which observations to spend our limited time and resources on.But regardless of which comes first, it's all going on in people's heads. How can we say that any part of it isn't a product of human reasoning? That's the only place where it goes on. Even an observation is a function of human reasoning.

Not really.No amount of theory can make you observe something that isn't there. It's just that you almost never go into the field without some idea of what you're looking to observe; it's theory that gives you that idea.

I don't think you understand yet.Let's pretend that I have a "theory" that says that there's a supermodel in my bathroom, right now. No amount of theorizing is going to allow me to observe that if there isn't, in fact, a supermodel in my bathroom right now. (Which there isn't.) There's no theory I can come up with that's going to allow me to observe what isn't true.But, the fact that my theory focuses on supermodels in bathrooms might mean that I never look in the kitchen. Get it, yet? Theory doesn't create observation, but it does have an influence on which observations we wind up making. Ultimately, though, reality is the final arbiter of what we observe. No theory can make us observe something that isn't actually there.

Jesus only beats us because he loves us.