That's a great idea Randall.

I agree with Randall and the Lady.

So you're not saying that being less than perfect lead to the choice to rebel? What is your point then?



Free will was in operation? That doesn't make any sense. Where is this free will coming from, that it's operative? If our decisions aren't based on past experience plus environmental factors, then you'll need to enlighten me. The placement of every single tree, every single dust molecule, every organism, every angle of light. The immense complexity is too great to comprehend, but it doesn't mean these factors don't influence our behavior in a deterministic fashion.

Give me an example of a choice you make that is completely free. Meaning, your choice isn't influenced by past experience nor anything in your environment. It would be a truly 'virgin' thought, with no precursor. Think long and hard, and give me such a thought.

Eliminating our past experience and environment from the influences for our decisions is impossible. These are constants in influencing our decisions, and are predetermined since they represent causes based on the laws of nature. The way the garden of eden was supposedly created, including each and every leaf on every tree, had an influence on their decision, even if they weren't consciously aware of it. There is no doubt that god set them up to fail, and this is clear as day if you understand the human mind, and how free will is merely an illusion.

I am in fact saying that being less than perfect did NOT lead to the choice to rebel. It merely meant that Adam had the capability to rebel.





Much of our behavior and choices are indeed based on conditioning but we are still free to make choices based on available options. In the case of Adam, there was no behavior conditioning. If anything he was predisposed to obey. If the immense complexity is too great to comprehend it does mean that our behavior is not determine. Your proposition that every dust particle and light angle play a role in determining what action we will take smacks of what I will call the 'hyperbole of desperation'. You want to prove your point so badly that you will warp the inputs to support your conclusion.



Didn't you learn the last time you tried this? Sounds a lot like the 'think of an original experiment'. I'll pass this time so the goal posts don't have to be moved again.



Nonsense. There is no way you can objectively defend this. You can't quantify the effects of each potential input. That is not the way the world works. That is not the way business works. Decisions are often based on incomplete and even contradictory information. To further complicate matters the fall was not an individual decision. It was the product of a committee meeting.

It is defended by the soundness of it's premise. Namely that each effect has a cause. We know this through induction. If you want to claim that there are effects without a cause, you are the one making a proposition that isn't supported. The cause for the decision of Adam and Eve is not one single factor, but a myriad of factors including the most minor nuances of their environment.

There is no way I could objectively defend the claim that a single item had an impact, such as a blade of grass. I wouldn't make that claim either, unless I was privy to inside information about Adam staring at a blade of grass, then thirsting for an apple after seeing a drop of dew run down it's rib. That is not my claim. My claim is that no matter what decision he made, it is grounded in a chain of cause and effect.

You mention that there were other trees. It doesn't matter, not in the least. It doesn't change the facts on the ground. If God is omniscient, he would have known how each and every environmental factor would influence the decision. Humans don't have the brainpower to see the causal chain behind each of our decisions, but the causal chain is there, and your decisions are predetermined as a result.



Actually, you said it was "Adam and Eve's first choice."(see below) As I've said, it's non-sequitur(being capable of rebelling is not the reason for rebelling. Capability and motive are two entirely different things). This also assumes that men had to be less than perfect. That is non-sequitur reasoning also. A perfect god does not require his creations to be perfect in the same ways as himself. Where in the definition of words are you seeing this? I truly cannot backtrack your reasoning.





Yes, it's precisely like the last one. The point isn't the answer. The point is your realization, while attempting to think of an answer, that every answer has prior influences. Every answer. At least, you wouldn't be able to think of one without prior influences, thus proving my point. The problem here is that I cannot see inside your head. Only you are able to perform this experiment, and if you believe you've made a choice that is absolutely free of prior influence, then there is nothing I can do to convince you.

The human brain is amazing. It's packed with neurons, and we can see them functioning while people are talking and doing things. We know it's a physical process, or at the very least it is primarily physical. When we think deep abstract thoughts, regions of our brain light up. In fact, every act or thought has it's representative neurons firing.

Now, if you're going to claim that there is a step in our thought processes that is ethereal or non-physical(including energy), then you have a massive precedent to overcome. We already know how neurons work, and that regions of the brain correspond to thoughts and actions. We also know that damaging these areas of the brain reduces or eliminates function. All signs point to the conclusion that our thoughts and actions are directly descended from a series of deterministic processes. To overcome the precedent, you would need to show, precisely where and how, there is a "break" in the chain of cause and effect, where some "ethereal" essence intercepts a neuronal signal and hijacks it so that our "soul" can give it's input.

If such ethereal essence (or whatever your hypothesis is) is the cause of our decisions, then there is no need for the neurons. They are not merely the "carrier" vessels for our more "human" thoughts. They are, precisely analogous to transistors, the collective producers of our thoughts and actions.

REsponse being edited.

Interbane, I have to ask...

What's the point of arguing with someone who reasons from entirely different premises than you? It's like trying to play chess with a dust devil: You make your move, and it answers by trashing the board and soiling the pieces.

stahrwe not only has different axioms, but also accepts a different logic--a differing set of transition rules--among which is the most problematic one for me: If one doesn't like the conclusion, one is free to change one's 'logic' to suit the desired conclusion.

Thus, stahrwe can arrive at theorems which you will never be able to match, with your puny, fixed and immutable logical rules, and your hopelessly static set of axioms.

Your premise is not sound. It is false and fails. You would realize that if you would read Genesis 1-3.

First a trivial point. It was not an ‘apple’ though traditionally referred to as one and I will continue that practice for convenience sake, just know that apples were not forbidden. The actual tree is unknown to us.
Second, In order to desire something, one must have had experience with it. Your premise that Adam hankered (how often does one get to use that word) is indefensible; a) because he had no prior experience with one – Under your creative writing Adam would have sought out a tree which had previously satisfied his thirst – which brings up the second point; b) life in the garden was one of satisfaction and not want –Adam would not have been so overwhelmed with hunger or thirst that he would have violated his instruction; c) the entire garden was full of trees which were good for food, and d) we are not told that the fruit was used to satisfy thirst.

Confirmation of my statement that they had no experience with the Apple is this verse: Genesis 3:6 “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” The implication is that she had not previously considered it as a source of food or perhaps not even paid much attention to it.


But all of your above post is irrelevant. It is part of a diversion. The impetus of the disobedience was not physical desire but a spiritual conflict which had not yet manifested itself as disobedience. You can take the sum of all or your proposed infinite inputs and they have nothing to do with it. Whoever dreamed up that argument either does not understand what was going on or is deliberately trying to change the dynamic

Finally, your propose that God’s omniscience would have prevented Him from creating a world with people capable of failing. Why?
He created a world where humans have a free choice to decide to be with Him or not and He honors that choice. It seems pretty simple to me and all the contortions you engage in is really an effort to create a balm for your soul.






Bolded section makes no sense. What is the definition of perfection? The only perfection I am aware of is God. Why would God have different standards of perfection? If He has a different one for people is it uniform among people or are blue eyed and brown eyed people subject to different standards of perfection. Perfection is God, anything other than God is not perfect. It isn’t hard and has been explained before.



Ugh a type-o (their not there)
I am not writing a blow by blow of the events here but my meaning should be clear. As long as Adam and Eve did not choose to eat the ‘apple’ they were traveling along a spiritual road with God. They had free will in the truest sense of the word as they could remain in God’s will by essentially doing nothing, or could choose to move outside of God’s will through a conscious, deliberate act of their choosing.



So what? Adam and Eve were new to the world. They had no previous experiences so the above paragraph (I don’t even know how to categorize it other than ‘filler’) is irrelevant. And BTW, I am still waiting for you to make good on your promise from the last one.



More filler? Humans have three aspects to our being; flesh, soul, and spirit. The relationship among these aspects is powerful and certainly influences our choices.

Classic turtle behavior.

Yep, I'm turtles all the way down...

Although I'd appreciate it if you'd get my species correct: I'm a tortoise: That's T-o-r-t-o-i-s-e...

And you are a hare. Your flights of fancy that you call 'reasoning' are way, way faster than my plodding, deliberative style. But which one is more likely to get us to the finish line?

In point of fact, though a common error tortoise is not a designation for a species. .

Both turtles and tortoises have similar defensive behaviors and I specified turtle specifically to avoid the association with the old parable.

The first part of your post about the motives of Adam and Eve, and why, is irrelevant. The point isn't the nuts and bolts of their motives. The point is that their motive, being a behavioral catalyst, had it's roots in the physics of a deterministic system. So no matter how much you attempt to make this scenario seem difficult to conceptually traverse, it's not. It boils down to the root cause of all Adam and Eve's behavior linked directly to god's initial creative actions. Simply discussing their motive does not negate this fact.

To overcome the precedent, you'd need to show how and where Adam or Eve had a completely novel thought that was perfectly without influence from anything in their environment or past experience, or was "programmed in" when they were created.



Our decisions, even the most utterly "free" decisions, are based on a mixture of environment, past experience, and starting conditions. In your story, those 3 things are entirely resultant from god's will. There are infinite possible "environments" and "starting conditions" god could have chosen that would have zero effect upon "free will". Note that it's impossible to consider free will truly free, if each and every decision is based in the causal world of physics. But from our perspective, it is free. From Adam and Eve's perspective, they would be every bit as "free" in an environment that promoted the opposite behavior from what they displayed.



The bolded section makes perfect sense. The problem is that it is the lone fact that undoes one of your rationalizations, so you naturally deny it. Explain to me where in the definition of the concept of perfection it says that the characteristic is only a mutually exclusive one. That is a fabricated contingency.

To say that the only perfection you're aware of is backwards reasoning. So what if it's the only perfection you're aware of? That doesn't mean other perfection is excluded! If you're claiming it does, the onus is on you. Good luck, that would be proving a negative. Your position isn't tenable.



There isn't enough information there. Perfectly perfect, morally perfect, intellectually perfect... which one are you referring to? Men could be morally perfect, yet lack intellectual perfection. They would then be less than god.

Also, your statement above is merely an assumption. You have no support for it. Why do you return to this point after it's already been falsified? It's strange that you think your argument is still valid. Every single time I've pointed out the flaw, you've ignored it. There is nothing stopping multiple perfect entities from existing. Mutual exclusion is not a component of perfection.



The precedent is already in place that our decisions are the sum effect of a causal web that is anchored in deterministic systems. Based on that precedent, you have a massive onus to prove your claim above. You have to show that Adam and Eve weren't influence by their environment, by their states of mind upon creation, and their past experience. Why didn't god hide the apple? They would still have free will, but they wouldn't have been presented with a "choice" that god already knew they would fail. A simple difference that would have eliminated an eternity of pain and suffering for all of humanity!

You do realize it's goofy even discussing this. Of course our choices are rooted in the carrier system, and of course each and every single possible influence is directly the result of god's will. You really are misunderstanding what "free will" truly means, if you think Adam and Eve could have made a choice that wasn't predetermined. Where is this "randomness generator" within our heads that breaks from the deterministic mold. Or how does the ethereal "decision maker" within us do things differently than our neurons? Why do we even have neurons? Why not just an empty skull filled with "ethereal decision making stuff"? Because, the neurons do it all. There is no need to hypothesize anything else, because the current hypothesis completely and elegantly explains it all.



Prove it. You have a massive precedent to overcome, as I've said. It seems to be a precedent that much of the religious community isn't aware of. Stahrwe, we know enough about how the brain works to say confidently that the neurons do it all. There is enough evidence. If you're going to promote another hypothesis, you can't just make the claim then smile. You need to support it. Just don't commit the argument from authority fallacy.

Why? That would contradict the events recorded in Genesis or have you still not read it. Remember, the consumption of the 'apple' was suggested to Eve by a third party.

As far as the butterfly flapping its wings causes a hurricane chaos theory mumo jumbo, I don't think even you buy it. It's just fly paper.





More fly paper. Even in a system of influences decisions are still freely made among choices. Your world of determinism sound very Muslim to me. They are all about fate. Further, your theory sounds nice but is unprovable. You would have to start from the decision, find your Texas Sharpshooter, and work backwards to identify the inputs. Additionally you need to demonstrate that the decision maker perceived each of the inputs, valued them in some demonstrable way, and .... [as Junior Sample used to say, "You can't get there from here.





It is really very simple
#1 perfection must be total you can't be partially perfect.
#2 nothing other than God can be perfect.
#3 There is only room for one infinite ultimately perfect being in the universe



The argument lies in the attributes a perfect being would possess. I have gone through the list before, you can look it up if you wish. In every case the perfect being must possess each attribute infintely otherwise another being could be better than him and more perfect. As one runs through the attributes, it soon becomes clear that the perfect being must also be unique.






Man not only could be morally perfect, he was morally perfect until he chose to sin.



I have not ignored it. Two points quickly prove you wrong:
Two infinite beings could not be omnipresent at the same time.
Two beings could not be omniscient as they would not know each other's thoughts unless they thought them at the same time.

If two infinite beings were omnipresent and omniscient they would be indistinguishable as far as humans are concerned and would be perceived as a single infinite being. If the manifestation of multiple infinite beings causes humans to incorrectly perceive them as a single being then our perception is imperfect and so are they. Therefore, there can be only one perfect being.





You need some new material. #1) I don't have to disprove your cock-a-mamy (another word I haven't had a chance to use that I can ever remember) theory, though I did above. #2) I already chided you for not reading the Bible. Adam and Eve very clearly DID interact with their environment to make their choice, and so what? You are actually doing what Adam did in terms of fixing blame. How ironic is that. Interbane and Adam using the same argument. Adam didn't get very far with it.



You are the one who fails to understand free will, predestination, and fate.





Ouch, out comes the fallacy sword. What I have always appreciated about nearly all fallacies is that they are a two edged sword -they cut both ways. In this case, your position is that I can't just make a statement and say it is true because someone, presumably with more authority than I have made it. And, Interbane is right, logic does fault that, on the otherhand it is also true that appeal to authority is an important part of informal logic since everyone cannot be an expert on everything, it is quite common to accept what an authoritative person, an expert on a subject, has to say. The fallacy comes in when the expert is claimed to be beyond reproach. Now, it seems that Interbane is being very reasonable in his challenge but he qualifies his challenge by cautioning me not to appeal to authority. That is typical of him and bogus. Can Interbane tell me that the neurons inside my brain are not powered by my spirit? I can go on with this line of questioning but let me cut it short. Interbane knows that I am going to appeal to the Bible. Why wouldn't I? Because Interbane claims it isn't authoritative? Hardly. He knows I will do so and is attempting to cut it off. As Olivia Munn used to say, 'it's time to get learned!'

Paraphrasing: God formed man out of the dust (man's body flesh) breathed into him the breath of life (spirit) and man became a living soul (soul).

No, it's a non-sequitur fallacy. The authority has no effect on the truthfulness of any given proposition. The proposition is true or false for reasons contained within the argument, not due to any characteristic of the speaker/writer.

The point you're trying to make is that someone who has a track record of giving truthful answers can be returned to for future answers. It is a heuristic that helps us to determine where we should find information. From sources known to have had truthful answers in the past - an agent or person of authority. But that does not mean anything with respect to the claim or proposition. It is true or false for reasons contained within, not due to characteristics of the person delivering the info.



If you can't make your point without committing a fallacy... well, there's your sign. Don't blame me.



In the same way you weren't properly taught the theory of evolution, you also didn't learn this concept properly. No one expects you to believe a butterfly has flapped it's wings to cause a hurricane. What you need to understand is that minor starting conditions can have exponential effects. One domino could destroy a city. Not that it WILL, only that it COULD, by a chain of cause and effect that is long, complex, and invisible in it's entirety.



Well, seeing as how my position is grounded in reason, and Genesis is just a story, I'd say things have worked out pretty much the way you'd expect. Stories contain contradictions.

Unless you mean I'm mistelling the story in a way that would defeat my point.



I will rephrase it for you. In a system where many choices are possible, the influences upon our decision are 100% responsible for the answer. At no part in the process do we require an additional hypothesis to explain the way in which we make decisions. After all, if it is something that isn't an influence, then by definition it has no influence upon our decisions!



Of course you can. A perfectly round object is not also perfectly square. You're making this up out of thin air, and it fails with barely a thought.



I don't want the list. I want the source of the list, and I don't mean any person. I mean the experiments or observations that directly premise the characteristics in question, or an untampered recording of god explaining himself. You are not agnostic towards these things, so you must have enough supporting evidence to warrant belief. Where is it?

Good point! Thanks for the correction.