Did Yahweh Set Adam Up?

[Chad32]

Yes, Eve said Yahweh told her she would die if she ate the fruit. The snake said the apple wouldn't kill her. It would just grant knowledge of good and evil. Which is true. Yahweh even says now that they've eaten the fruit, they've become more like us, which is what the snake said. I don't know if the snake really thought he'd kick them out, and forbid them from eating from the Tree of Life, but he didn't lie, and neither of them thought to consult Yahweh about the snake, so there was a giant hole in Yahweh's plan. They were not prepared enough. I know you don't like having the story just taken at face value, without making presumptions that exonerate your god, but I'm just reading what's in the text. There is very little in the story other than setting the stage, having them eat the fruit, and get kicked out.

You admit that they wouldn't be able to understand what good and evil were, but still expect me to believe they would understand what punishment and death were, without having experienced it prior.

It's really hard to take the bible literally without seeing the holes, but if the stories of the book are to be taken metaphorically, I can just as easily take Yahweh metaphorically.

[Rhondazvous]

Gee, you're cute when you're angry. You really take that walk by faith not by sight thing to heart, don't you. Remember, the burden of proof is on you, not me and your coming in herewith your eyes wide shut, refusing to see what is made plain to you doesn't prove anything but your own density.. 

I guess some might consider that a good dodge, I on the other hand believe no dodge is good. First off you haven't the first clue what walking by faith is, you might if you had ever studied scripture used it as a contradiction but, it would have to be a very shallow study at best. The scriptures teach we can know God is real. As for the burden of proof goes, when you challenge me then the burden becomes your's.
When I'm angry I lose all my cuteness, so you'll know when I'm angry. For what I see, it's this, you wasted your money on an education at a Bible school.

GC

Okay, you win. . All your so-called questions were answered in the first post. It's you who have been dodging these answers. You're quite disingenuous and you're making me tired. I've no more time for your games. So you can have the last word here, as if what you say matters.

[robvalue]

All that is being demonstrated, over and over, is the argument from ignorance fallacy.

It's not a valid argument, no matter how many times you make it.

Whether or not we personally can prove a statement is wrong has no bearing on whether that statement is true. So putting forward that challenge does not make your argument rational. It does not follow that any particular person being unable to prove you wrong means you are right. For one thing, the truth of your claim then becomes subjective to the person you are making it to. It is right as long as they don't have the tools to prove you wrong? Truth is not subjective. If you think truth is subjective, you're dealing with a different version of truth than us, one that has no bearing on reality.

For anyone who regularly uses this argument, please learn that it is fallacious and demonstrates nothing other than you have no actual positive argument to back up your claim for which you have the burden of proof. See on my website:

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!argumen...lity/c1831

All you are "proving" is that you are making unfalisifiable claims. Such claims are always worthless because they rely entirely on the argument from ignorance, and are an admission that you cannot know they are true either. If a claim is unfalisifiable, it's contradictory claim is also unfalisifiable and all you are doing is arbitrarily choosing one position when you have no way of knowing which is true. That is where positive evidence for positions comes in to clear up this guessing game. And just because it may or may not be true, that doesn't mean it's 50/50 or even 1/99.

For one thing, all religions use this exact same argument to "prove" they are true. Yet they can't all be true. Therefor, the argument is invalid. Pretty simple.

[Rhondazvous]

All that is being demonstrated, over and over, is the argument from ignorance fallacy.

It's not a valid argument, no matter how many times you make it.

Whether or not we personally can prove a statement is wrong has no bearing on whether that statement is true. So putting forward that challenge does not make your argument rational. It does not follow that any particular person being unable to prove you wrong means you are right. For one thing, the truth of your claim then becomes subjective to the person you are making it to. It is right as long as they don't have the tools to prove you wrong? Truth is not subjective. If you think truth is subjective, you're dealing with a different version of truth than us, one that has no bearing on reality.

For anyone who regularly uses this argument, please learn that it is fallacious and demonstrates nothing other than you have no actual positive argument to back up your claim for which you have the burden of proof. See on my website:

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!argumen...lity/c1831

All you are "proving" is that you are making unfalisifiable claims. Such claims are always worthless because they rely entirely on the argument from ignorance, and are an admission that you cannot know they are true either. If a claim is unfalisifiable, it's contradictory claim is also unfalisifiable and all you are doing is arbitrarily choosing one position when you have no way of knowing which is true. That is where positive evidence for positions comes in to clear up this guessing game. And just because it may or may not be true, that doesn't mean it's 50/50 or even 1/99.

For one thing, all religions use this exact same argument to "prove" they are true. Yet they can't all be true. Therefor, the argument is invalid. Pretty simple.

And what makes this so stupid is no religion can truthfully make this argument. As I said in that other thread, a god may not be falsifiable as long as he remains uncodified, but the minute you put that god in a book and give him a place in history, false facts=false god.

Nobody can prove that the Great Purple Turkey doesn't exist. There aren't any stories about him, but I just feel that If people would just realize that when they say grace over Thanksgiving dinner they are really praying to the GPT. Then they could give credit where credit is due and the world would be such a better place. Turkeys are sacred. We should not eat them except the one sacrificial turkey on Thanksgiving Day.

Can I get a witness?