Proving the Bible is false in few words.

[Scented Nectar]

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a different tree, that's the one they were denied access to, but chose to anyway - once tasted, never forgotten it seems.

How would they have known it would be evil to disobey God, until they had knowledge of good and evil by eating the apple?

[fr0d0]

Oh...so you don't believe that god is omnipotent then.

Yes I do. Omni potent doesn't mean impossi potent. See our excellent debates on the subject here : http://atheistforums.org/forum-25.html

Just out of interest, is there any particular reason for your thinking that god can't lie?

Yes. From the first conception the idea of God is a separation of good and evil. As a positive effect, God is defined as wholly good. This is the Christian concept.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a different tree, that's the one they were denied access to, but chose to anyway - once tasted, never forgotten it seems.

How would they have known it would be evil to disobey God, until they had knowledge of good and evil by eating the apple?

All they knew was that it was forbidden. The snake lied to them telling them it would be good for them. they knew it was wrong because they were ashamed when they next met God.

[Eilonnwy]

Fr0d0, interpretation of a scientific data is based on logic, however interpretation of a story will often be swayed by your own opinions and preconceived notions. So therefore, it cannot be "illogical" to interpret a story differently.

My interpretation is based on the words written there, backed up by specific passages. You have not provided any passages to back up the notion that it's spiritual death and/or physical death in the sense that they are not immortal, just your assertions that as a religious text that it must be the answer. The wording specifically states "and take also of the tree of life", which to me implies they have not eaten of it. There is no specific mention that they are immortal beforehand, and there is no stating in their punishments that dying a natural death is also a punishment. I understand that I am reading a translation, if you can prove in the original language that the words have different meanings, I'll gladly back down. Otherwise, words have meanings and the ones here are pretty clear. Besides, it someone says to me, "Eat this and you'll die" it's pretty obvious that it means "Immediately following the action".

Also, as far as Scented Nectar's point, I think you missed the point he was making, Fr0d0. You said so yourself, they were ashamed when they next met God. However, they could feel no shame in the act because they had no access to the knowledge of good and evil until once they had done it, and if I remember correctly, they were actually ashamed they were naked. Scented Nectar's point still stands.

And also you should know that saying many theologians agree with you is not going to sway me. Argument to popularity and all. I still think God lied and I think I have sufficiently shown why, based on the words themselves written in the Bible.

Ultimately, though, you are a Christian so you prefer your way of reading it and as atheist I prefer mine. However, I also understand that in the past this was considered a factual story for the creation of the earth and a reason why humans must be baptised to rid themselves of original sin. It never sat well for me as a true or metaphorical story as a reason for Jesus to exist, which is the whole reason Christianity exists. But hey, I was also raised Catholic, and I know you disagree with them a lot.

In the end, I feel I've made my points and at this point it's best to leave the discussion as it is. We're not getting anywhere fast.

[Caecilian]

Oh...so you don't believe that god is omnipotent then.

Yes I do. Omni potent doesn't mean impossi potent. See our excellent debates on the subject here : http://atheistforums.org/forum-25.html

I had a look at the debate. There seemed to be some confusion over the distinction between logical possibility and nomological possibility, but never mind. Surely any entity that is omnipotent is capable of doing anything that a lesser, finite being such as a human can do. Since humans can lie, and commit various acts of evil, then any putative omnipotent entity should also be able to do those things.

A further point: If god is incapable of doing evil, and is only capable of doing good, then clearly it is not a matter of choice or volition for him to do good. So in what sense can we actually say that he is good at all? It seems to me that goodness lies in the capacity to choose good over evil, which you rule out for god.

Yes. From the first conception the idea of God is a separation of good and evil. As a positive effect, God is defined as wholly good. This is the Christian concept.

Again, this seems curious to me. You seem to take it for granted that god's goodness is somehow prior to his omnipotence. Why not the other way around?

[Eilonnwy]

Caecilian, you make an excellent point. To be something is an action, and if God is Omnipotent than he can be a liar or evil, but omni-benevolence rules that out making, the two things logically contradicting.

[Caecilian]

Caecilian, you make an excellent point. To be something is an action, and if God is Omnipotent than he can be a liar or evil, but omni-benevolence rules that out making, the two things logically contradicting.

Yes. What I'm arguing is this:

1. The christian concept of god is incoherent (his attributes are contradictory.)

and

2. In any case, it doesn't make any sense to attribute 'goodness' to an entity that actually can't do evil. So the christian god's goodness is semantic nonsense.

[fr0d0]

Following Aquinas :

You can't attribute human failings to God, because what God creates is lesser than God. The earth isn't God, but god created earth. God is more than the sum of the earth. Working back God is the originating positive force necessarily positive because he couldn't create if he wasn't.

Now negativity is the opposite of God. What causes decay is in opposition to God.

God can't choose to do evil, because his nature is pure good. He is the epicentre of goodness... the point at which that choice doesn't exist.

---

@ Eilonwy : Let me try to summise too then

Fr0d0, interpretation of a scientific data is based on logic, however interpretation of a story will often be swayed by your own opinions and preconceived notions. So therefore, it cannot be "illogical" to interpret a story differently.

This story is fixed and known. It isn't a variable. It's been the subject of analysis for a very long time. Yes it's complex and the meaning is obscure in places. But never so obscure that Christians can't all agree on it's core meaning, for example.

My interpretation is based on the words written there, backed up by specific passages. You have not provided any passages to back up the notion that it's spiritual death and/or physical death in the sense that they are not immortal, just your assertions that as a religious text that it must be the answer. The wording specifically states "and take also of the tree of life", which to me implies they have not eaten of it. There is no specific mention that they are immortal beforehand, and there is no stating in their punishments that dying a natural death is also a punishment. I understand that I am reading a translation, if you can prove in the original language that the words have different meanings, I'll gladly back down. Otherwise, words have meanings and the ones here are pretty clear. Besides, it someone says to me, "Eat this and you'll die" it's pretty obvious that it means "Immediately following the action".

You're taking words literally and out of context. you're backup passages cover a different subject : another tree entirely.

I've searched the web and can only find evidence of theological study that refers to either spiritual death or the literalist interpretation of the beginning of physical death. I'd challenge you to find coherent theological study that states the contrary. Suffice to say, there's no way in hell your accusation of lying towards God is defensible in the slightest.

I don't know, but I don't think there's much doubt about that line "you will die". What there is overwhelming evidence for, is the theme of the whole bible being spiritual health. Reading it in context, It's very clear to me that the Adam and Eve story is an analogy for the human condition.

Also, as far as Scented Nectar's point, I think you missed the point he was making, Fr0d0. You said so yourself, they were ashamed when they next met God. However, they could feel no shame in the act because they had no access to the knowledge of good and evil until once they had done it, and if I remember correctly, they were actually ashamed they were naked. Scented Nectar's point still stands.

They didn't know what evil was before they did it, no. They knew from the direct information given to them that it was wrong. Scented Nectar's question was about how they would know. That's how.

That they were ashamed was the consequence of their knowledge of good and evil. They were embarrassed to be naked because they now had knowledge of sin. This automatically earned them a permanent restriction order on the Tree of Life.

Interestingly in the rest of the bible ultimate spirituality is tantamount to immortality. Take Elijah for example.

I dunno maybe you'd find this interesting : http://www.learnthebible.org/the-tree-of...ledge.html

Ultimately, though, you are a Christian so you prefer your way of reading it and as atheist I prefer mine. However, I also understand that in the past this was considered a factual story for the creation of the earth and a reason why humans must be baptised to rid themselves of original sin. It never sat well for me as a true or metaphorical story as a reason for Jesus to exist, which is the whole reason Christianity exists. But hey, I was also raised Catholic, and I know you disagree with them a lot.

I'm finding that I agree with Catholics more and more. But your words there are very confusing. 'The past' was a brief and relatively modern interlude of ignorance and oppression. And 'original sin' is a myth of literalist proportions.

As always it's been a pleasure to have discussed with you. I learned some stuffz.

[Caecilian]

Following Aquinas :

You can't attribute human failings to God, because what God creates is lesser than God. The earth isn't God, but god created earth. God is more than the sum of the earth. Working back God is the originating positive force necessarily positive because he couldn't create if he wasn't.

If you can't attribute human failings to god, then what makes you think that you can attribute human virtues to him- goodness, mercy and so on?

Now negativity is the opposite of God. What causes decay is in opposition to God

.

We live in a Universe in which decay is steady and unrelenting. Any increase in order can only be local, for within any closed system (such as the Universe), disorder must increase over time. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Entropy 1 God 0

God can't choose to do evil, because his nature is pure good. He is the epicentre of goodness... the point at which that choice doesn't exist.

And because of this, the christian god is clearly not omnipotent.

To illustrate my point, lets try a quick thought experiment. Lets think of a being called Schmod. Schmod is omnipotent except that he has no ability to affect anything that is coloured purple. The 'can't affect purple' clause is part of how we define Schmod, so it would be logically contradictory if he could do anything to purple stuff.

Schmod is clearly a very powerful entity. But limited, finite beings can affect purple things, thus any putative omnipotent being must also be able to do so. So by definition Schmod isn't omnipotent.

So fr0d0: how is god different from Schmod?

[Eilonnwy]

I disagree, but I'm going to leave it there.

[Xyster]

Heh god cant lie..lolz whatever Frodo.. But he will do it by proxy wich makes him just as guilty 1 kings 22:23 so same damn thing