God's injustice towards Adam and Eve

[Tonus]

As noted, we're not given their thoughts, and as you agreed such thoughts could reasonably explain their actions.

Also note that the creation of the entire universe is covered in about a page. These accounts are not intended to be exhaustive. We're left, probably intentionally, to contemplate these things.

Right, and that's what I'm doing. Wondering what is missing that would make the story reasonable. I am left with the unsatisfying but nonetheless realistic possibility that either or both of them simply made illogical or irrational decisions, but even that is a bit of a minefield, which I think is made a bit worse by Paul's input.

Did you ever consider that Adam, not being deceived, was taking an intentional stance with Eve out of love for her and/or fear of being alone?

Yes, I considered that. Without Paul's input we could at least consider the possibility that the serpent's case was compelling enough to deceive them both, but Paul removes that possibility, so another option is what you propose. The problem with having Adam choose Eve over god is that shortly thereafter, when god is questioning them, Adam doesn't hesitate to throw Eve under the bus.

No, they still had time to consider the situation and change their understanding of it.

But their fate was sealed once they took the action.

First, fear of god is the beginning of wisdom.

I know that text, but I find the implications of it to be a bit troubling.

Second, if you focused on an episode in any relationship in which someone is found to have done wrong, it may seem as though fear were the total of the relationship.

But that's only part of the equation here. For starters, Eve seems nonplussed at the fact that a snake talks to her, and appears to have no issue taking its word over god's. The serpent doesn't do anything particularly clever, he just tells her that god has lied to them and withheld something of apparent value (although even that is questionable-- of what value is freedom in a paradise where the only apparent rules are to make babies and avoid one tree?). Eve accepts this without question and turns her back on god without much thought. We don't know Adam's reaction or thought process aside from the claim that he wasn't deceived, and therefore knew that he was choosing against god.

Children may fear a parent, but they can also feel love and admiration for them, and loyalty to them. If fear is the primary motivator for our relationships with those close to us, it strikes me as a bad relationship. Adam and Eve don't appear to have that moment where they wonder what god with think of their actions, or how god will feel, or what he might say. That detachment would seem odd for a human child who has a healthy relationship with his human parent. For a human "child" who presumably has a healthy relationship with his god, it's a detail that sticks out like a sore thumb.

[Mister Agenda]

Nice attempt at deflecting the question. In a purely natural Universe why would might not make right?

Because might does not make right in any universe. Might is irrelevant to what is morally good or justified, except that with great mightiness comes great responsibility.

How is that a non-sequitur? We use the exact same reasoning daily, Walt Disney owns Mickey Mouse. Makes perfect sense.

Mickey Mouse is a character, not a person. If you want a good analogy, think of an example where it's okay to own a person.

SW, sorry not to reply to your response to me in full. The gist of your position seems so like circular reasoning and presupposition to me that I can't fathom a way to interpret it otherwise.

Presupposition is not the same thing as circular reasoning so you’ll have to be more specific as to which I am invoking.

Both: "God is good because He is the ultimate standard of goodness, I start there not end there."--SW

If you're a presuppositionalist there's no point in trying to reason with you, you abandoned reason entirely when you decided it's okay to take assuming you're right as your axiom. That's a rabbit hole, and I don't see anything rational to be gained by following you down it.

Convenient. Everyone has axioms and there is nothing irrational about having them as long as they lead to a coherent and consistent conceptual scheme.

The rationality of an axiom depends on how self-evident it is, not the quality of the schemes you can erect on it.

Besides, you apparently believe we all secretly agree with you anyway, and what's the point of having a discussion with someone like that?

Everyone knows God exists that’s correct (Romans 1), I cannot figure out why you seem so surprised that you’re debating a Christian who actually believes what the Bible says.

I'm not surprised by your belief in it, I'm surprised by your need to say it to us when it's obvious to any idiot it just makes you and other Christians sound like you never progressed past a playground level of argumentation. It's actually counter-productive, like telling me I'm going to go to hell if I don't convert: I already know your position on that, what would be news is if you DIDN'T think that, but hearing you say it reminds me that your religion requires you to believe that I'm consigned to eternal torture and that you agree that's my just fate, that it's what SHOULD happen to me. Watching you lot stumble around ignoring the rather good advice of Jesus to be 'as wise as serpents and harmless as doves' is actually gratifying as I could never do more to discredit theism than what the evangelists for it do. Jesus is never portrayed as trying to convince someone who didn't believe the rest of it that they'd go to hell if they don't accept him as their saviour, but what did he know, eh?

I do not see how that makes discussion pointless however. It’s a shame because you are one of the more enjoyable posters to engage with on here.

-

It would be easier to say the same about you if you weren't sniggering that I already believe you. Apparently you don't believe that 'a fool says in his heart, there is no God'. And if Paul were divinely inspired, you'd think he would come up with something better than the fallacy of affirming the consequent to make his case.

[Statler Waldorf]

Because might does not make right in any universe. Might is irrelevant to what is morally good or justified, except that with great mightiness comes great responsibility.

Ok, but you just restated my question. I am asking why might does not make right in a purely material Universe?

Mickey Mouse is a character, not a person. If you want a good analogy, think of an example where it's okay to own a person.

You’re distinction is irrelevant. If you create something you own it, God created us therefore God owns us. We cannot own other people because we did not create them, God did.

Both: "God is good because He is the ultimate standard of goodness, I start there not end there."—SW

Yes that’s reasoning from an axiom; that is not the same thing as circular reasoning (restating the premise in the conclusion). A meter stick is a meter long because it’s the standard of what a meter is, and God is good because His character is the standard of what goodness is.

The rationality of an axiom depends on how self-evident it is, not the quality of the schemes you can erect on it.

Well the attributes of God are self-evident (Romans 1) but axioms in logical reasoning are not necessarily self-evident, they are assumed to be true a prior. If they were all self-evident there’d be no reason to assume they were true ahead of time.

Axiom- Logic, Mathematics . a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it. (Webster’s)

I'm not surprised by your belief in it, I'm surprised by your need to say it to us when it's obvious to any idiot it just makes you and other Christians sound like you never progressed past a playground level of argumentation. It's actually counter-productive, like telling me I'm going to go to hell if I don't convert: I already know your position on that, what would be news is if you DIDN'T think that, but hearing you say it reminds me that your religion requires you to believe that I'm consigned to eternal torture and that you agree that's my just fate, that it's what SHOULD happen to me.

You really think that telling someone that they suppress that which they know to be true is as harsh as telling them they will spend eternity in Hell? Hardly.

Watching you lot stumble around ignoring the rather good advice of Jesus to be 'as wise as serpents and harmless as doves' is actually gratifying as I could never do more to discredit theism than what the evangelists for it do. Jesus is never portrayed as trying to convince someone who didn't believe the rest of it that they'd go to hell if they don't accept him as their saviour, but what did he know, eh?

Jesus was hardly as passive as you think. In the first half of the saying from Matthew that you did not quote he said that Christians will be like sheep amongst the wolves. Let’s look at some more since you brought Jesus up…

“There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”- Luke 13:1-5 ESV

“You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” –Matthew 12:34

“21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.”- Matthew 5:21-22 ESV

“29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.”- Matthew 5:29 ESV

“51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. 52 For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.” Luke 12:51-53 ESV

I am not here to tell anyone they are going to Hell, and I have never done so on here. However, let’s not pretend that Jesus never spoke harsh truths to people.

It would be easier to say the same about you if you weren't sniggering that I already believe you. Apparently you don't believe that 'a fool says in his heart, there is no God'. And if Paul were divinely inspired, you'd think he would come up with something better than the fallacy of affirming the consequent to make his case.

Fools do say in their heart that there is no god, but they also know in their heart that there is a god. That’s why they are being so foolish, they are claiming to deny what they know to be true. It’s like the mother who says her son is a good boy who’d never steal anything but she for some reason hides her credit cards and money from him.
Affirming the consequent is a formal logical fallacy, Paul never presents a formal syllogism so it’s not possible for him to be committing that fallacy. If you’d be kind of enough to point me to what you are referring to I’d be more than happy to take a look at it though.

[Ryantology]

Is this really too much for you to grasp? The creator has the right over the created. Scripture is clear that this distinction is the reason God has the right to do with us as He pleases. I realize as an atheist you naturally gravitate towards a simple “might makes right” system of morality but this is far more sophisticated and internally consistent than that.

If I gravitated towards a simple 'might makes right' system, I would have never left Christianity behind, because that's precisely what you describe. I won't even bother asking you to justify this stupid idea that being a creation means I have no rights of any kind, because I know you can't do it. What I will bother asking you is, how can God enforce his alleged superiority over humanity? The Bible indicates plenty of examples, and every single one of them from start to finish involves asserting his power.

If Christianity isn't just 'might makes right' with decorative cake frosting on it, what compels us to give a damn about Christianity?

He’d have an eternity to do so with you, that’s a long time.

Can't do it while anybody's looking, though. That might indicate he's not the product of a mass delusion.

Nice attempt at deflecting the question. In a purely natural Universe why would might not make right?

Did I say it wouldn't? I just looked at my previous post and I feel quite sure that I said nothing about might not making right in our purely natural universe. Might will make right anywhere that enough people decide that it does, such as in the Christian religion.

Now, while I did not deflect the question, you completely did, as you ignored entirely the second part of that quoted segment in which I asked you a question.

That’s me, but where did I use the argument, “Well you cannot prove a negative so God exists”? I need a specific example. Me thinks you cannot provide one because you do not know what you’re talking about.

It's not about the existence of God, it's about all sorts of things.

One example from this thread:

How is it injustice? Merely asserting that does not make it so.

In response to the OP, which you gishgalloped in your characteristic fashion and should have noticed at some point that the entire post described my opinion at some length and detail. It's pointless going further on that particular score, because you've invented your own definition for the word "justice" designed specifically to absolve your god of any responsibility, and we're comparing two different kinds of tasty fruits here.

You don't frame it precisely as "it's true if you can't prove it's not". You tend to frame it as "Prove that this is injustice", as if justice is something that can be objectively quantified. It's "God is just unless you can prove he's not". Variations on a theme, almost certainly because you know better than to be blunt about it.

Since you can't offer a shred of proof that there is a God, that's some incredible nerve.

How is that a non-sequitur? We use the exact same reasoning daily, Walt Disney owns Mickey Mouse. Makes perfect sense.

The fact that you have to resort to an example featuring a fictional character, defend the actions of another fictional character, says all that needs to be said about how terrible an argument you make.

It’s not the same thing. The Nazis had power over the Jews but they did not create them or own them. It’s laughable you cannot understand the distinction there. Do you really just run around all day thinking that you own anyone you are stronger than? Do the police own you? Does America own France?

What you are saying, then, is that according to (your version of) Christian morality, the only detail that makes the Holocaust wrong is the fact that the Nazis didn't create the Jews.

[pocaracas]

Every time I see this thread popping up, I'm reminded of something completely unrelated...

---

But.... is it really unrelated?

---

Hey, stat! I see you're still up to your old tricks!
How's that eye?

[Minimalist]

Perhaps on a forum dedicated to those who claim to not believe in the existence of Hansel and Gretel but for some reason those online communities are hard to find even though atheists love to claim that the belief in God is no different than the belief in fairy tales.

Poor Waldork....reality shits in your face every day and you pretend its ice cream.

Do remember that there is precisely as much evidence for Hansel and Gretel as there is for your fucking jesus.

[Statler Waldorf]

If I gravitated towards a simple 'might makes right' system, I would have never left Christianity behind, because that's precisely what you describe.

No it’s not.

I won't even bother asking you to justify this stupid idea that being a creation means I have no rights of any kind, because I know you can't do it.

Of course I can, where would your rights come from?...your creator. God created all things, including your rights.

Sounds familiar…
“All Men Are Endowed By Their Creator With Certain Unalienable Rights”

What I will bother asking you is, how can God enforce his alleged superiority over humanity? The Bible indicates plenty of examples, and every single one of them from start to finish involves asserting his power.

Yup, and he has the right to do this because He created us. You’re conflating a necessary condition with a sufficient condition, as our creator God is more powerful than us yes, but that is not why He has the right to do with us as He pleases. He has that right because as our creator He owns us.

If Christianity isn't just 'might makes right' with decorative cake frosting on it, what compels us to give a damn about Christianity?

Actually that’s backwards; sin compels you to not “give a damn about Christianity”. Those who have been washed of this sin want to follow Christ.

Can't do it while anybody's looking, though. That might indicate he's not the product of a mass delusion.

That’s also false; the unregenerate could see a dead man rise from the dead and still not believe their will is entirely in bondage to their sin (Luke 16).

Did I say it wouldn't? I just looked at my previous post and I feel quite sure that I said nothing about might not making right in our purely natural universe. Might will make right anywhere that enough people decide that it does, such as in the Christian religion.

So it was morally right for the Nazis to brutally kill six million Jews? It’s morally right for men to rape women since they are more powerful? It was morally right for OJ Simpson to kill his wife and her friend since he was more powerful? None of these things would be right in a Christian Universe; I’ll take that Universe any day.

Now, while I did not deflect the question, you completely did, as you ignored entirely the second part of that quoted segment in which I asked you a question.

Well you did not actually ask anything you merely made a statement. I already explained, you’re conflating necessary conditions with sufficient conditions, having might is not enough. It’d be like saying, “Well since fire requires oxygen anytime you have oxygen you also have fire.” “Since being a creator requires power, anytime you have power you are the creator.” That does not follow, you have to actually have the ability to create something to have the creator/creature distinction and not simply have more power.

It's not about the existence of God, it's about all sorts of things.

One example from this thread:

How is it injustice? Merely asserting that does not make it so.

In response to the OP, which you gishgalloped in your characteristic fashion and should have noticed at some point that the entire post described my opinion at some length and detail. It's pointless going further on that particular score, because you've invented your own definition for the word "justice" designed specifically to absolve your god of any responsibility, and we're comparing two different kinds of tasty fruits here.

[Emphasis added by SW]

That’s your example? Yes, it was quite easy to dismiss your entire OP because as you have correctly noted it was merely your opinion. Of course, your opinion does not prove anything in the realm of logical reasoning and proof. I tried to point this out, but alas.

God has to be the ultimate standard of justice because that’s an analytical truth that comes with being defined as a god; supremacy. If God was bound to some exterior definition of justice that did not derive from Himself then He’d not be a god.

You don't frame it precisely as "it's true if you can't prove it's not".

I know.

You tend to frame it as "Prove that this is injustice", as if justice is something that can be objectively quantified.

If you’re going to start a thread completely concerning the injustice of God I am going to expect that you are at least able to prove or demonstrate that He is indeed unjust with more than your mere opinion. Too much to ask for?

It's "God is just unless you can prove he's not".

No it’s “God is just by definition.” Your objection to me asking for actual proof seems to assume that, “God is unjust until proven otherwise.” You’re guilty of the very sin you’re whining about here.

Since you can't offer a shred of proof that there is a God, that's some incredible nerve.

That’s the red herring fallacy; this thread is concerning the injustice of God not the existence of God. You have failed at demonstrating that even the concept of Yahweh-whether real or not-is unjust.

The fact that you have to resort to an example featuring a fictional character, defend the actions of another fictional character, says all that needs to be said about how terrible an argument you make.

The red herring fallacy again. You can choose whatever analogy you like- Bowerman and Knight owning Nike in the 1970s is a good one- but if you create something you own it. God created us, God owns us.

What you are saying, then, is that according to (your version of) Christian morality, the only detail that makes the Holocaust wrong is the fact that the Nazis didn't create the Jews.

No, the fact that the Nazis were violating the decreed will of He who did own the Jews. According to you what the Nazis did would have not even been morally wrong if they had won the war since societies determine their own morality, pretty disgusting when you think about it.

Every time I see this thread popping up, I'm reminded of something completely unrelated...

…
But.... is it really unrelated?

Hey, stat! I see you're still up to your old tricks!
How's that eye?

Hey buddy! Yup, I am still fighting the good fight The eye is great, healed up and vision is better than it was pre-surgery. Pretty exciting stuff. I hope you are well and having a fantastic Summer.

Poor Waldork....reality shits in your face every day and you pretend its ice cream.

Do remember that there is precisely as much evidence for Hansel and Gretel as there is for your fucking jesus.

Poor Min, he spends his entire time on a forum dedicated to the non-existence of an entity he claims to know does not exist. How ridiculous is that? “I spent years of my life on a forum dedicated to the non-existence of Santa Claus!” Ridiculous. Obviously he spends so much time on here because he knows God exists. It's classic self-deception.

[Ryantology]

No it’s not.

To very slightly paraphrase a recently-seen retort:
"How is it not? Merely asserting that does not make it so."

Of course I can, where would your rights come from?...your creator. God created all things, including your rights.

My rights don't "come" from anywhere. They are standards groups of people agree to recognize.

Yup, and he has the right to do this because He created us. You’re conflating a necessary condition with a sufficient condition, as our creator God is more powerful than us yes, but that is not why He has the right to do with us as He pleases. He has that right because as our creator He owns us.

Who says he has that right? I have no say in it. I don't have the power to disagree. And that's precisely the point. Whatever stupid and false justification you come up with, God's status as creator means nothing on its own.

If I create an artificial heart, do I have the right to destroy it after it is installed in someone else's body? If I create a skyscraper, do I have the right to blow it up?

Actually that’s backwards; sin compels you to not “give a damn about Christianity”. Those who have been washed of this sin want to follow Christ.

Those who want heavenly rewards and/or avoid eternal punishment (but it's totally not about power!!), or those who were brought up to do so, follow Christ.

That’s also false; the unregenerate could see a dead man rise from the dead and still not believe their will is entirely in bondage to their sin (Luke 16).

Yeah, except when I'm bored and on Netflix, I see about as many dead walking as I see gods existing.

So it was morally right for the Nazis to brutally kill six million Jews? It’s morally right for men to rape women since they are more powerful? It was morally right for OJ Simpson to kill his wife and her friend since he was more powerful?

I personally do not think any of these things is morally right. Obviously, there are many who don't share my moral standards.

None of these things would be right in a Christian Universe; I’ll take that Universe any day.

All of these things are right in your mythical Christian universe, as long as God is the one doing them. All of these things are acts that are entirely unacceptable to anybody, regardless of any qualifications, in a universe alleged to contain objective and inviolable moral standards. I guess you get an exception if you make the rules, just like in a totalitarian regime.

Well you did not actually ask anything you merely made a statement.

A statement which is obviously inviting a response in the same respect as a question, Semantic Waldorf.

I already explained, you’re conflating necessary conditions with sufficient conditions, having might is not enough. It’d be like saying, “Well since fire requires oxygen anytime you have oxygen you also have fire.” “Since being a creator requires power, anytime you have power you are the creator.” That does not follow, you have to actually have the ability to create something to have the creator/creature distinction and not simply have more power.

I conflate nothing. You insist that I have no rights of any kind simply because I am a created object. You have so far justified this by referring to the relationship between creators and inanimate objects, or creators and fictional characters, justifying atrocities by dehumanizing everybody and insisting that it's okay to do these things as long as the proper relationship exists. You're insisting that God does not justify himself by his power, yet you cite God's power of creation as the justification for everything he does. A pre-schooler could spot the logical contradiction here.

That’s your example? Yes, it was quite easy to dismiss your entire OP because as you have correctly noted it was merely your opinion. Of course, your opinion does not prove anything in the realm of logical reasoning and proof. I tried to point this out, but alas.

Since you have done nothing but retort with opinions of your own, we're quite on even ground here.

God has to be the ultimate standard of justice because that’s an analytical truth that comes with being defined as a god; supremacy. If God was bound to some exterior definition of justice that did not derive from Himself then He’d not be a god.

God and I have two different ideas of justice. Since it is not his power, what objectively-observable phenomena justifies the idea that his is superior to mine?

If you’re going to start a thread completely concerning the injustice of God I am going to expect that you are at least able to prove or demonstrate that He is indeed unjust with more than your mere opinion. Too much to ask for?

Yes. Asking to objectively prove injustice is nonsensical and invalid. There is no such thing as an objective standard of justice.

No it’s “God is just by definition.” Your objection to me asking for actual proof seems to assume that, “God is unjust until proven otherwise.” You’re guilty of the very sin you’re whining about here.

Since you seem to think it is possible to objectively prove justice, it's not a 'sin' to ask you to justify your position by objectively proving that he is just. If you can't do it, it's only because it can't be done.

That’s the red herring fallacy; this thread is concerning the injustice of God not the existence of God. You have failed at demonstrating that even the concept of Yahweh-whether real or not-is unjust.

Is it really a red herring? I'm not asking you specifically to prove his existence here. I'm just pointing out that you can't prove the foundation of your assertions, and yet you make those assertions as if they are obviously and factually true.

The red herring fallacy again. You can choose whatever analogy you like- Bowerman and Knight owning Nike in the 1970s is a good one- but if you create something you own it. God created us, God owns us.

Dodge, dodge, dodge. Nike is not a human being and dismantling a company is not the equivalent of killing a human being. Can you try proving your point without comparing human beings to inanimate objects?

No, the fact that the Nazis were violating the decreed will of He who did own the Jews.

It doesn't matter what meaningless justification you come up with. Had God told Hitler to massacre Jews in death camps, you would believe it was not just okay, but a moral imperative.

According to you what the Nazis did would have not even been morally wrong if they had won the war since societies determine their own morality, pretty disgusting when you think about it.

According to me, it is immoral to harm another human being except in self-defense. My personal moral code is not the moral code of the universe. I do not personally believe that might justifies anything at all. I think people who justify actions based upon might are wrong. But, there is nothing objective which makes my morals (or anyone else's) objectively superior, or inferior, to such a person's. Unlike you, I don't pretend that my morals are the standard by which all should be judged.

It really boils down to what defines morals and justice. You define your god's morals and justice as being based solely upon his whims, where the opinions of his creations mean nothing.

One hypothetical precept of my moral code would be that, if I had the power and ability to create a being with human-level sentience, that would not give me the right to destroy it. Obviously, I have the right to destroy, for instance, the text of this post, as it is my creation. Unlike you, I don't morally equivocate human beings with objects that aren't alive, have no will and feel no pain. I don't accept that simply being a creator gives one a blanket justification to harm or destroy absolutely anything one creates, because that's just a way of saying "might makes right" without using those three specific words.

[Esquilax]

You’re distinction is irrelevant. If you create something you own it, God created us therefore God owns us. We cannot own other people because we did not create them, God did.

Sorry Stat, I missed your response the first time around. That said, I don't find this a particularly compelling point, because exceptions do exist for things. I would argue that sentience and consciousness past a certain level of complexity would count as a good exception to this rule of yours, even assuming I decide to play ball with what is, at its heart, a bare assertion to begin with.

I would also ask how you're using the word "create" here, because there seems to be some inconsistencies. You say that god created me, but really he didn't; my parents created me in the usual way, without god having to do any of his usual creative magic in the process. How did god have any hand in that at all? Christians like to bring up free will as a reason why we sin, but doesn't that same free will prevent god from having any guiding hand in my conception at all? You've either got a god who respects free will, in which case he had no bearing on my parents deciding to procreate and have me, or you've got a god that doesn't respect free will, in which case he mind controlled my parents to procreate and have me against their wills, which is in itself pretty screwed up.

You might argue that god provided the initial materials and the process of procreation, but in that argument your example of Walt Disney and Mickey Mouse goes right out the window, as the initial materials used in the creation of Mickey belong to god too, and hence in that example the creator doesn't own his creation, someone else does. Moreover, this point- should you choose to raise it- isn't even true: we routinely allow intellectual property rights to fall to the creator of a thing, even when it was made on "borrowed" materials. All violin music isn't property of the inventor of the violin, after all.

[John V]

Right, and that's what I'm doing. Wondering what is missing that would make the story reasonable. I am left with the unsatisfying but nonetheless realistic possibility that either or both of them simply made illogical or irrational decisions, but even that is a bit of a minefield, which I think is made a bit worse by Paul's input.

Yes, illogical/irrational decisions is one possibility. Whether that's "satisfying" is personal opinion, but decisions based on emotions rather than logic/reason are very common. One can then contemplate the possible emotions involved, as we started doing with Adam.

Yes, I considered that. Without Paul's input we could at least consider the possibility that the serpent's case was compelling enough to deceive them both, but Paul removes that possibility, so another option is what you propose. The problem with having Adam choose Eve over god is that shortly thereafter, when god is questioning them, Adam doesn't hesitate to throw Eve under the bus.

How is that a problem? That a person could succumb to peer pressure to fit in, then blame others when found out, isn't unusual in my experience.

But that's only part of the equation here. For starters, Eve seems nonplussed at the fact that a snake talks to her, and appears to have no issue taking its word over god's. The serpent doesn't do anything particularly clever, he just tells her that god has lied to them and withheld something of apparent value (although even that is questionable-- of what value is freedom in a paradise where the only apparent rules are to make babies and avoid one tree?). Eve accepts this without question and turns her back on god without much thought. We don't know Adam's reaction or thought process aside from the claim that he wasn't deceived, and therefore knew that he was choosing against god.

As already discussed, we're not given her thoughts, and the first few chapters of Genesis do not give any indication that they were intended as exhaustive accounts - just the opposite. We can consider her possible thoughts and emotions.

Children may fear a parent, but they can also feel love and admiration for them, and loyalty to them. If fear is the primary motivator for our relationships with those close to us, it strikes me as a bad relationship. Adam and Eve don't appear to have that moment where they wonder what god with think of their actions, or how god will feel, or what he might say. That detachment would seem odd for a human child who has a healthy relationship with his human parent. For a human "child" who presumably has a healthy relationship with his god, it's a detail that sticks out like a sore thumb.

I guess your experience is different from mine. I had a good relationship with my parents. Schools had given us the anti-drug talks, and my friends and I had said we would never do drugs. Then one day, one of those friends said he had tried pot and asked if I wanted to. I agreed, without thinking of how my parents would feel, or what they might say or do. Afterwards, when I had to go home, I sure thought of those things, and tried to hide it. So from my experience, the account seems very plausible.

---

I would argue that sentience and consciousness past a certain level of complexity would count as a good exception to this rule of yours, even assuming I decide to play ball with what is, at its heart, a bare assertion to begin with.

Could not god make a similar argument, but draw the line somewhere above us and below/at himself?