I'm a Theist

[uwot]

So to you, the "Tree of knowledge of good and evil", CANNOT be considered a tree of knowledge?

I am. Because leaving off the essential qualifying phrase gives a distorted and untrue impression of what is being said.

Mr Can, if you insist that the bible be taken literally there's some pretty ghastly behaviour you subscribe to. For instance:
"See, the day of the Lord is coming — a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated." (Isaiah 13:9–16 NIV)
Personally, I think you should take that as a warning. Anyway, plenty more where that came from: https://ffrf.org/publications/freethoug ... ent-verses

And this is not trivial: the Atheists, for example, insist that the Genesis story is against science because (they say) it criticizes the having of knowledge.

No sir, not for the first time you misunderstand the objections of people who happen to disagree with you. The problem is that if the Genesis story is to be taken literally when it suits your purposes, you cannot then demand that the bits that you find troubling be 'interpreted' without being accused of absolutely honking hypocrisy. The Genesis story, just for example, that the Earth was created in six days - that is against science.

[surreptitious57]

Genesis is entirely incompatible with biology and physics so of course it is against science

[Immanuel Can]

Isn't ALL knowledge good?

No. Why would you think so?

Would knowledge of how to torture children be "good'? Would we not be better to have no diseases, and hence no need of any "knowledge" of diseases? Of course. There are plenty of things we know that are evil, and which we'd all be better off is we'd never known about them at all, either intellectually or experientially -- for all knowledge ends up being of both kinds.

If you do not have knowledge of evil, then are you not restricting yourself, especially in the pursuit of wisdom?

Restricting?

Would it be a "restriction" to have no diseases? Would it be a "restriction" to "lack" the knowledge of how to torture children? That would be an odd word choice. What "wisdom" would we miss if there were no need of knowledge of evil? Evil is unwisdom.

Moreover, the world does not need evil in order to exist. It may be true that the world we now know, the only one we have known so far, has evil in it. (Of course, Atheism can't even lead us to any conclusion like that, but at least Theism can.) But in principle, there's no reason to think an "all good" world is impossible. And Scripturally, such a thing once existed already; so it's hardly problematic if evil is eliminated.

Ergo, ultimately, is it not a test of faith that God has put forward?

Not quite. But not quite wrong either.

We just have to choose a different word to describe it. The word "test" implies something incorrect. But what is certainly a sine qua non of human freedom is that human beings have to have had, for some time, both knowledge of how to do right, and how to do the alternative...evil. Only then can we speak of human beings as having had a meaningful "choice" between the two.

Note, however, that that doesn't imply that good and evil are both necessary forever. It just means for a short period, of some duration. It may well be that the reason evil has been allowed temporarily is to enable human beings to decide with genuine autonomy on which side of the line they wish to be. That's not a "test," but it is a sort of "opportunity to choose."

[attofishpi]

Isn't ALL knowledge good?

No. Why would you think so?

Would knowledge of how to torture children be "good'?

In what way is that knowledge YOU SICK FUCK?

[Immanuel Can]

In what way is that knowledge

Knowledge, unspecified further, is not just of good things. It includes very bad ones.

It was your question: I merely answered it for you in a way you clearly understand to reflect an evil kind of knowledge.

[attofishpi]

No. Why would you think so?

Would knowledge of how to torture children be "good'?

In what way is that knowledge YOU SICK FUCK?

Knowledge, unspecified further, is not just of good things. It includes very bad ones.

It was your question: I merely answered it for you in a way you clearly understand to reflect an evil kind of knowledge.

In WHAT way is torturing children KNOWLEDGE?

[Immanuel Can]

In WHAT way is torturing children KNOWLEDGE?

Oh, you can figure that out very easily. You have to know a lot of awful things in order to do it. You also have to be quite wicked.

[attofishpi]

....sit on that thought idiot.

[uwot]

...in principle, there's no reason to think an "all good" world is impossible. And Scripturally, such a thing once existed already; so it's hardly problematic if evil is eliminated.

Mr Can, the garden of Eden was home to the serpent that tempted Eve. Was that serpent part of your "all good" world?

[attofishpi]

FFS uwot He needs to contemplate on what knowledge he has in torturing children! Apparently KNOWLEDGE lies therein..

[uwot]

FFS uwot He needs to contemplate on what knowledge he has in torturing children! Apparently KNOWLEDGE lies therein..

Well, yer might ask him how knowing what children find torturous is a bad thing, if it informs good people what not to do.

[attofishpi]

FFS uwot He needs to contemplate on what knowledge he has in torturing children! Apparently KNOWLEDGE lies therein..

Well, yer might ask him how knowing what children find torturous is a bad thing, if it informs good people what not to do.

Na, it's ridiculous at the outset.

He is trying to compare actual knowledge - of good AND evil... to the pathetic 'evils' that some 'men' commit.

HUGE difference.
Immanuel has never eaten of the tree - i doubt has ever TESTED GOD. For at least one reason, because God told him NOT to in the bible.

...Immanuel is too afraid to punch God's buttons, but then, so are most.

[Immanuel Can]

FFS uwot He needs to contemplate on what knowledge he has in torturing children! Apparently KNOWLEDGE lies therein..

Heh.

I always remember those old black-and-white cop movies at a time like this.

The bad guys were getting chased in their car. One was standing on the running boards, firing shots at the cops. When he ran out of ammo, he always did the same thing...

He threw the gun.

It never worked, if the bullets hadn't. The thrown gun never killed the cops. But he had no more options, so that's what he did.

Ad hominems are like that. They show that someone is feeling "pursued," and in the course of the discussion has simply run out of logical "bullets." Having nothing left in his "gun," he throw a "Yeah, well you're a..." kind of statement. But it's the end of options.

Ad hominems signal the capitulation of reason to emotion. They show the break down of logic. They show that the sender has stopped thinking and started raging, deflecting or trying to escape, so any measure has become good enough. That's why they never bother me. They're just a noise made by the fleeing.

I'm sympathetic to the anxiety of the put-to-flight. But I'm not chasing you here personally, atto. I'm just working out a logical argument, chasing down an answer. You can hold onto your gun. And if you feel uncomfortable, then godspeed to you. That's not my purpose.

Good luck, atto.

[attofishpi]

FFS uwot He needs to contemplate on what knowledge he has in torturing children! Apparently KNOWLEDGE lies therein..

Heh.

I always remember those old black-and-white cop movies at a time like this.

The bad guys were getting chased in their car. One was standing on the running boards, firing shots at the cops. When he ran out of ammo, he always did the same thing...

He threw the gun.

It never worked, if the bullets hadn't. The thrown gun never killed the cops. But he had no more options, so that's what he did.

Ad hominems are like that. They show that someone is feeling "pursued," and in the course of the discussion has simply run out of logical "bullets." Having nothing left in his "gun," he throw a "Yeah, well you're a..." kind of statement. But it's the end of options.

Ad hominems signal the capitulation of reason to emotion. They show the break down of logic. They show that the sender has stopped thinking and started raging, deflecting or trying to escape, so any measure has become good enough. That's why they never bother me. They're just a noise made by the fleeing.

I'm sympathetic to the anxiety of the put-to-flight. But I'm not chasing you here personally, atto. I'm just working out a logical argument, chasing down an answer. You can hold onto your gun. And if you feel uncomfortable, then godspeed to you. That's not my purpose.

Good luck, atto.

Look, you really need to understand the difference between mans evil and Gods evil.

[Immanuel Can]

Look, far be it from me to be an asshole, but you really need to understand the difference between mans evil and Gods evil.

If God were evil, atto, or if He did evil, then there simply would be no such thing as evil. In fact, then what you call evil is then "good," for it would describe the purposes for which the Supreme Being who created the universe created it, and it would be consonant with his character. There would be no larger or prior set of criteria to which any of us could refer that would give us a basis for identifying anything as "evil."

The Gnostics figured that out. That's why they had to suppose the existence of a secondary creator-god who was smaller than their absolute "god," and below him by a whole hierarchy of "beings." They called him "the Demiurge." That way, they could say that "evil," such as might exist, was the fault of the Demiurge. If it were the fault of the ultimate god, they knew, evil itself would cease to have any meaning.

Would that be your position, then? Or do you think the Gnostics were nuts?