Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
676 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (5 members, 671 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,053 Year: 5,165/6,534 Month: 8/577 Week: 76/135 Day: 7/1 Hour: 0/3

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Free will vs Omniscience
Posts: 5113
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.6

Message 1395 of 1406 (886009)
05-02-2021 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1391 by Phat
05-02-2021 2:59 AM

Re: Sheep & Goat Behavior and Gods Foreknowledge
ringo writes:

We have had the knowledge of good and evil since Adam and Eve. Case closed.

Who put the tree in the Garden? Who planted it?

I think would make God guilty of planting an attractive nuisance:

The attractive nuisance doctrine applies to the law of torts in some jurisdictions. It states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children. The doctrine is designed to protect children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object, by imposing a liability on the landowner. The doctrine has been applied to hold landowners liable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of lumber or sand, trampolines, and swimming pools. However, it can be applied to virtually anything on the property of the landowner.

There is no set cutoff point that defines youth. The courts will evaluate each "child" on a case-by-case basis to see if the "child" qualifies as a youth. If it is determined that the child was able to understand and appreciate the hazard, the doctrine of attractive nuisance will not likely apply.

Under the old common law, the plaintiff (either the child, or a parent suing on the child's behalf) had to show that it was the hazardous condition itself which lured the child onto the landowner's property. However, most jurisdictions have statutorily altered this condition, and now require only that the injury was foreseeable by the landowner.

Add to that list of examples of attractive nuisances old-style refrigerators and freezers (with latched doors that could only be opened from the outside, since replaced with a magnetic seal), and trees of knowledge of good and evil.

Who put the tree in the Garden? Who planted it? Who fully foresaw the injury to those innocents that that attractive nuisance would cause?

It is abundantly clear who is responsible. Looks like a closed case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1391 by Phat, posted 05-02-2021 2:59 AM Phat has seen this message

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022