How would you prove the Universe is old?

[Freodin]

30-year-olds have more experience in the world, and know what will happen if they randomly shoot someone.

A 2-year-old has probably seen toy guns before, and nothing really happens if he points and shoots it at someone. Maybe just a noise.

Ah, thank you. And you found indeed the correct answer: experience.

So how much experience do you think Adam and Eve had with the results of eating forbidden fruit?

I know that it was AV who disagreed with the "2-year-old boy playing with gun" analogy... but perhaps he also will consider this: let´s indeed say it isn´t a 2-year-old in this room with the gun, but a 30-year-old married man... from, say, ancient Germany. He also has no experience with firearms, no more than a 2-year-old from his tribe. Now he is told by the wise time-travelling teacher: "You can use anything in this room, but don´t pull this little lever on this object here while pointing it at your head. Something really bad will happen else." And while the wise time-travelling teacher leaves the room, his evil sidekick enters: "Go on, pull that lever. He did not really mean that something bad will happen, did he? Rather, something really good will happen!"

What will our ancient German do? Of course, here also experience comes into play. Not directly with firearms, but with other people, and warnings and treachery and curiosity. He might be wary. He might weight the two statements he got. He might ask for advice and clarification.

But this experience is also lacking in Adam and Eve. Based on the "knowledge of good and evil" story, it is even debatable if they understood the difference between "do as this person says, don´t do as that person says." This also takes experience and the ability to wager good and bad based on information.

I´d say this whole "forbidden fruit" story is nothing but an attempt to explain why this world has (in the view of the authors) gone to crap without having to blame their worshipped deity.

 

[BananaSlug]

Since He created them, He has a right to rule over them and give them commands.

Can you think of anyone else who has more right to?

Then that is not free will. God wants us to have "free will" to do what he tells us to.

 

[Split Rock]

30-year-olds have more experience in the world, and know what will happen if they randomly shoot someone.

A 2-year-old has probably seen toy guns before, and nothing really happens if he points and shoots it at someone. Maybe just a noise.

This whole "Free-Will" argument is absurd. A few points.

1. What happens when you tell a child not to eat any cookies, and then you leave a jar of cookies right in front of him? He will eat a cookie! Are you telling me that God didn't understand this?? In any case, He knew what was going to happen before it did, anyway! Yes, it was a setup!

2. According to creationists here, God wants us to remain "child-like" and ignorant of bad, nasty knowledge like...science. That means He also should expect us to keep eating the cookies, since being child-like means you never grow up and understand the consequences of your actions. So which is it? Does God want us to be "child-like" or be an adult?

3. We are also told that God gave dominion of his Perfect Creation to Adam (certainly not to his "helpmeet," Eve) knowing full well he was giving his Perfect Creation over to a child, who was going to ruin everything by sinning. Knowing full well, that Adam would therefore give that dominion over to Satan. What does He do to prevent this? Nothing. So, now we have a situation where God gives his Dominion over to a child who, of course, screws that dominion up, just as He should have expected, and in fact knew, he would. What is the excuse for this monumental error in judgement? Freewill!

None of this makes any sense at all.

 

[BananaSlug]

This whole "Free-Will" argument is absurd. A few points.

1. What happens when you tell a child not to eat any cookies, and then you leave a jar of cookies right in front of him? He will eat a cookie! Are you telling me that God didn't understand this?? In any case, He knew what was going to happen before it did, anyway! Yes, it was a setup!

2. According to creationists here, God wants us to remain "child-like" and ignorant of bad, nasty knowledge like...science. That means He also should expect us to keep eating the cookies, since being child-like means you never grow up and understand the consequences of your actions. So which is it? Does God want us to be "child-like" or be an adult?

3. We are also told that God gave dominion of his Perfect Creation to Adam (certainly not to his "helpmeet," Eve) knowing full well he was giving his Perfect Creation over to a child, who was going to ruin everything by sinning. Knowing full well, that Adam would therefore give that dominion over to Satan. What does He do to prevent this? Nothing. So, now we have a situation where God gives his Dominion over to a child who, of course, screws that dominion up, just as He should have expected, and in fact knew, he would. What is the excuse for this monumental error in judgement? Freewill!

None of this makes any sense at all.

And that is why I am an atheist (especially #3).

 

[CoderHead]

And that is why I am an atheist.

+1

 

[AV1611VET]

Why should they have cared what God told them?

Because they weren't anarchists.

 

[Sanguis]

And that is why I am an atheist (especially #3).

+2.

Split, very well put.

 

[AV1611VET]

You forget that Adam and Eve did not know good from evil. For all practical reasons, they were as children. Your "30 year old" rebuttal fails based on that fact.

They didn't have experiential knowledge --- but they did have academic knowledge.

And are you suggesting that education takes precedence over obedience?

If I tell you not to get on the hood of my car, should I have to show you my registration first?

 

[AV1611VET]

What, because they are individuals with free will, is forcing them to acknowledge my authority? Or God's?

Love?

 

[Freodin]

Because they weren't anarchists.

How do you know? Is that somewhere in Genesis 1? Or 2? Or the rest of the Bible?

You might claim that Adam and Eve were created to heed the word of their creator... but then one might with the same justification state that Adam and Eve were created to disregard the word of their creator... or to give the advice of any cunning animal the same respect than the word of their creator.

 

[AV1611VET]

Based on the "knowledge of good and evil" story, it is even debatable if they understood the difference between "do as this person says, don´t do as that person says." This also takes experience and the ability to wager good and bad based on information.

I don't think reducing Adam and Eve to ignoramuses is the way to go here.

God certainly didn't treat them as such.

 

[Sanguis]

Because they weren't anarchists.

But they were curious.

If nothing else, humanity is curious. We'll investigate anything and everything we can get our hands on. If God had to've actually told them, specifically, exactly what the fruit would've done, if they had to've eaten it, perhaps even click his magical fingers and let them experience a month living in Etheopia, or put them through a month of fighting the trenches of the Somme, or give them a little butchers at Hell, and didn't leave the purpose of the tree open as such an enigma, then there'd've been no desire for Adam or Eve to find out.

With true free will, one doesn't have to worry about the consequences of their actions. If God had really given Adam and Eve free will, then eating the apple would've had no bearing on their lives, whatsoever. The moment one has to worry about consequences, is the moment one relinquishes free will, because there are now restrictions on what they can/can't do.

I believe the children eating cookies analogy that has been mentioned is spot on.

 

[CoderHead]

When Eve was confronted by the talking serpent (notice the author didn't say anything about Satan or the devil or any demons; it's actually an animal), who was more cunning than other animals, she didn't shy away or rebuke it as evil. It's quite clear that she thought of the talking serpent (which should have been an oddity) as just another of God's creation. Given that serpents don't speak, Eve would have thought that one that does speak might have something important to say (in a later example, like Balaam's donkey). Given no real experience with death (either physical or spiritual) at this point, Eve determined that she may have misinterpreted God's instructions not to eat the fruit, as the serpent was leading her to believe ("You will not surely die").

Now, if God had told the two of them about Satan, why would she not recognize a talking serpent as such?
If she had recognized the serpent as Satan, why would she not have rebuked him, given that God let them know who and what he was?
If she didn't rebuke him, isn't it safe to say that she didn't know any better?
If she didn't know any better, isn't it safe to say that God never told her about Satan (probably intentionally)?
If God never told her about Satan, isn't it safe to say that God was orchestrating this whole thing and that no matter what free will choice the two of them made, it would have ended up the same way?

Now, can you still say that you worship a loving, just God?

 

[BananaSlug]

They didn't have experiential knowledge --- but they did have academic knowledge.

Wrong. Academic knowledge comes from learning, which is also a form of experience. Academic knowledge would show a history. Plus, you have 0 Biblical evidence.

And are you suggesting that education takes precedence over obedience?

I'm saying A&E didn't understand what death was (if there was no death), they did not understand good from evil, so essentially they were as children. Do you think a father should be let off because his two year old played with a gun and killed himself? The father told his son not to play with it. Are you saying the two year old's disobedience lets the father off of the hook?

If I tell you not to get on the hood of my car, should I have to show you my registration first?

I already know right from wrong, so that does not work. The knowledge of the difference between right from wrong is foundational to being an adult. We teach our children to differentiate between what behavior is okay and what behavior is not okay. In this regard, Adam and Eve were as toddlers, having no clue what was good and what was evil.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. What happens when you tell a child not to eat any cookies, and then you leave a jar of cookies right in front of him? He will eat a cookie! Are you telling me that God didn't understand this??

Would you go into a room marked BIO HAZARD or RADIATION HAZARD w/o the proper accouterments?

 

[Sanguis]

Would you go into a room marked BIO HAZARD or RADIATION HAZARD w/o the proper accouterments?

Yes, if I didn't know what biohazards, or radiation were.

 

[Freodin]

And are you suggesting that education takes precedence over obedience?

If that "God does not want robots" that we hear so often is to have any meaning, then, yes, education is more important than obedience.

 

[AV1611VET]

And that is why I am an atheist (especially #3).

+1

+2.

Interesting.

You're atheists because God...

That makes as much sense as saying I don't believe cars exist because my friend was killed in a traffic accident.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know? Is that somewhere in Genesis 1? Or 2? Or the rest of the Bible?

You might claim that Adam and Eve were created to heed the word of their creator... but then one might with the same justification state that Adam and Eve were created to disregard the word of their creator... or to give the advice of any cunning animal the same respect than the word of their creator.

I'm sure you guys are arguing this point just to have something to do.

I feel silly spending this much time trying to refute it.

But for the record, God didn't embed Murphy's Law into His creation.

 

[Freodin]

I don't think reducing Adam and Eve to ignoramuses is the way to go here.

God certainly didn't treat them as such.

You have admitted that you are ignorant regarding science. Now if one scientist tells you one thing and another scientist tells you the opposite... which one will you believe? Based on WHAT do you decide what to believe?

Decisions require knowledge. Knowledge is aquired by learning and experience. Without learning and experience, you might argue for some kind of "embedded knowledge"... but then you need to explain: why were Adam and Eve lacking that knowledge?