God’s glitch in Eden. A & E had to break God’s second command to accomplish the first

Prove your last.

You cannot.


Ayn Rand says it well above. Have a look.

If you cannot follow a logic trail then I cannot help you.

If you cannot see that you must want and desire to pick up that rock before you pick it up ---- then what can I say.

Or do you go about picking up rocks and screwing without knowing why?

Regards
DL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That animals don't have the knowledge of good and evil? Everybody knows that. And it's the point of the story: man aquired the knowledge of good and evil which as childlike animals they had not had.

Yes, that would be ideal. Once again, that's the point of the story. Adam and Even went from a state of childlike innocence to adulthood with its ccompanying potential misery when they aquired the knowlwdge of good and evil.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And yet you think they were taking that childlike innocence and having sex before they ate of the tree of knowledge.

We are done.

You lose this one.

Regards
DL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I asked you if you saw The Blue Lagoon. It's quite plausible for youngsters to "invent" sex with no previous knowledge or desire, just like they might throw stones with no knowledge of the potential consequences. Practically every person "invents" masturbation exactly like that.

 

Earthworms cannot see, hear or talk. They have no brains, just a nerve cord that runs the length of their body and responds directly to stimuli. They cannot have any knowledge of good or evil because they cannot have any knowledge; they do not have the processing capability for abstract thought.

 

Thinking is electrical activity.

Put a worm with earth on one side and a mild electric shock on the other and you will see the worm think as it will always move away from the shock.

It knows it is evil as compared to the earth.

We cannot prove that it cannot think but we can prove that it seems to.

Regards
DL

 

If you do not know that A can be inserted into B for sex then you cannot invent it.
You need that knowledge

Even you should be bright enough to understand that concept.

Regards
DL

 

Correct. But all electrical activity is not thinking. My remote control car does not think.

No, it will react. My remote control car will move any way I push the stick. It does not think.

No, it is just reacting.

Actually we can prove it does not think, that it is just reacting to external stimuli. (Unless you are going to claim that remote control cars can think.)

However, if the earthworm analogy is too confusing, let's go with the following organisms that can also reproduce sexually:

Corn
Algae
Bacteria
Rotifers

Let's hope you will not try to claim that corn thinks.

 

It comes hardwired into every mammal. No need to "invent" anything, any more than babies need to "invent" how to poop, cry, nurse or vomit. Even you should be bright enough to understand that concept.

 

We are discussing Eden friends. Not biology.

I am going to ignore all that does not touch on Eden.

Regards
DL

 

Genesis 1: Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”

Most grasses have gender; they reproduce sexually. God made them, and clearly they have been reproducing.

Does grass think? They must not think very highly of you cutting them in half every week! Think you'll see an uprising?

 

Usually when people try to defend the logical consistency of creation stories they don't actually believe in they give some indication that it's all merely a purely intellectual exercise.

You're not just quoting the text, you're constructing arguments to support the manner in which you have elaborated upon it. It is those arguments I'm looking at. For example:

You keep referencing the real world to make sense of the fiction, so let's explore the real world a little bit:

"The following characteristics appear to be shared by humans and other mammals, including and especially the apes, monkeys, dolphins and whales: attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group." - The Science of Good and Evil, Michael Shermer

For further information and perspective see: altruism in animals, evolution of morality, Kindness and Sexual Behaviours in Bonobos, Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior, Morality: It's not just for humans, or any number of other articles, clips, snippets and tidbits that are within the reach of a quick and simple google search.

Sure, we aren't quite seeing the same degree of moral complexity here, or even necessarily reflection, but we certainly are seeing the same fundamental underlying mechanisms at work. The pertinent question is: what would we get if we added human intelligence to this equation? The psychological equivalent of Adam and Eve before the fall? I don't think so. If the capacity for real moral choice wasn't there already (and in some sense I think it's clear that it actually was), I'd say it strains credibility to suggest that it would still somehow magically be absent. My point here is that if you want to stick to referencing the real world to explain the narrative, you have to deal with the resulting considerations.

In fact what's funny about this is that not only do you seem to be inserting reality into the fiction, you're inserting the fiction into reality in the form of co-opting the concept of an objective moral code (as declared by the fictional character of "the creator") to contextualize issues of morality. Isn't that a bit circular? I mean really, what is "good and evil" without that contextualization? Is it essentially any different from the social morality practiced by other mammals?

 

Rav

For your files on the real world and not Eden.

[video=youtube;HBW5vdhr_PA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA[/video]

Regards
DL

 

Of course you can. Don't be silly. If what you claim was true, nothing would ever be invented.

You try one thing. If it works it works. If it doesn't, you try something else. It's called experimentation. It's called learning.

There is no need to start with knowledge. Yet again, the point of the story is the aquisition of knowledge.

 

I'm not talking about logical consistency at all. I'm just talking about what the story says.

I haven't elaborated on the story. I'm just pointing out that the elaborations in the OP are not in the story. I have suggested some possibilities of what might have happened but I'm not claiming that anything outsde the text did happen.

Yeah. Go figure.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The capacity for real moral choice was in the fruit. It couldn't be "internalized" until they ate the fruit.

You can only reference the real world when it doesn't contradict the text. As far as I know, the authors of Genesis didn't believe that any other animals would have aquired the capacity for real moral choice even if they did eat the fruit.

 

I see the point of the story as being that God is a prick for trying to deny man the knowledge of almost everything, if not everything, as most things I can think of are subject to good and evil. Especially sex. It is one of my----------

[video=youtube;33o32C0ogVM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33o32C0ogVM[/video]

Regards
DL

 

So let's see what we've learned so far from the real world:

Bacteria do not know right from wrong - and they have sex.
Babies DO know right from wrong - and they don't have sex. (Very much hope you don't argue with this one!)

Sounds like knowing right from wrong is unrelated to sex.

 

And clearly you don't actually want to explore the credibility of any of these suggested possibilities either, since you haven't actually properly responded to my own attempts to do so.

Not that you have to. We participate in discussion (or not) by choice after all.

 

That's your twist on the story, not the point that the author intended to make. If you read the story as written (or at least as it has been transmited to us) your claim isn't there.

 

I suggested the possibility that Adam and Eve did have sex before eating the fruit. I used The Blue Lagoon as an example of the credibility of that possibility. If you haven't seen the movie and can't Google it, I'll be happy to elaborate. If there's something I haven't responded to, feel free to specify and I'll elaborate on that too.