Is this the BEST of all POSSIBLE WORLDS? Depends on this...! (page 2)

AuldSoul

"in the same manner" ....

Just figured I'd point out the exact part of LT's comment that went right past your hasty head.

You're welcome!

Terry

Both Adam and Eve lacked what they desired most.
Um ... I don't remember that part of the story. The woman saw that is was good for food and desirable to the eyes ... like a banana, or a pineapple upside-down cake. The man found that the woman had eaten it and chose her over life. You convert that narrative accounting into "what they desired most"?
Hilarious.

Really?

Let's take a look at that; shall we?

1. Warning from God: eat the fruit and you shall die!

2.The fruit was found desirable and they did eat of it.

Choice: Fruit means death. Mmmmm Fruit means death. Mmmmm Fruit means death. I THINK I'LL EAT OF THE FRUIT!

A sane person would only eat something that would end up killing them under what circumstance? The desire was more powerful than the consequence!

Ever know a drug addict or an alcoholic? They will risk and lose anything and anybody to satisfy their craving.

Nothing hilarious about that!

Narkissos

Both Adam and Eve lacked what they desired most. How is that the best of all possible worlds?
Wouldn't it be necessary at a minimum that the nature of humanity exactly match their limits?
In other words, if what was demanded of humanity exceeded their nature would that not guarantee their downfall?
Stated still another way; how can man desire unless he lacks what he desires? The desire and the lack were built-in, were they not?

I have some difficulty following the argument here...

Do you mean a desireless world (assuming that is possible) would be a better world?

AuldSoul

Narkissos,

To be fair, Terry wouldn't exactly be pitching a novel notion if you understand him correctly.

Terry

Terry:
God speaks for Himself, doesn't he?
Does He? In what manner? Is this an anti-sales pitch for "Bible God"?
His wisdom pours out of the text, does it not?
You make assumptions regarding the level of credance I give to musty tomes
You quote the book of Proverbs (which makes no claim to have been spoken by God) and Deuteronomy (which are the claims of one man commonly known as Moses). Can you verify that either of these sources were constructed at the instigation of, and expressed the will of, "God"?

Heh heh heh he

I was tempted to paste a definition of "begging the question".

Why don't you tell me which particular God we are discussing here and clarify your sources and we can continue.

Otherwise, you are playing both ends against the middle, you scalawag!

Terry

"in the same manner" ....
Just figured I'd point out the exact part of LT's comment that went right past your hasty head.
You're welcome!

Check your billing in front of the Vaudeville theatre where you two perform; who gets top billing anyway?

Little Toe is just doing a drive-by shoot-em-up. He isn't really interested in discussion anymore.

Terry

Both Adam and Eve lacked what they desired most. How is that the best of all possible worlds?
Wouldn't it be necessary at a minimum that the nature of humanity exactly match their limits?
In other words, if what was demanded of humanity exceeded their nature would that not guarantee their downfall?
Stated still another way; how can man desire unless he lacks what he desires? The desire and the lack were built-in, were they not?
I have some difficulty following the argument here...
Do you mean a desireless world (assuming that is possible) would be a better world?

I'm addressing human NATURE.

For example: if you are born homosexual it is your NATURE to be attracted to the same sex. A divine law against same-sex union is a stacked deck against your natural desire. You are doomed if you follow your nature.

So too with humanity. Humans have the NATURE God gave to them. Adam acted according to his Nature.

Consider too; were Adam "perfect" he would act perfectly. But, what would "perfect" mean if not perfect as created?!

Somehow the point is missed that Adam acted naturally and so did Eve. What is natural except in accord with one's nature?

To make SINNERS of Adam and Eve is to put them in opposition to GOD'S NATURE. God acts according to his own nature. But, Adam and Eve weren't gods and did not have what their Father in heaven had. This was their desire. That desire was built-in to them by God.

To seek that which they lacked and to become AS GOD is the nature of those first humans.

AuldSoul

1. Warning from God: eat the fruit and you shall die!
2.The fruit was found desirable and they did eat of it.

Heh-heh, nice try.

You are still missing a key element of the narrative. I mean, if you are going to present the narrative as argument against God you should at least include the other character in the narrative.

1. Warning from God: eat the fruit and you shall die!

2. A serpent spoke to Eve and convinced her that God was lying.

3. Eve contemplated eating the fruit long enough to convince herself that it was both desirable and good for food, proving she believed God was lying.

4. She ate it.

You grossly oversimplify the psychology involved in her decision making process. But then, I suspect your reason in posting this was not to present a cogent argument against God. You probably just hoped to stir up a believer's nest.

I hope anyone who reads what you wrote here actually considers how illogical it really is. Your argument is full of fallacy. You are so often sophistic in your argumentation and this is a great example. Thanks for sharing!

Clam

A sane person would only eat something that would end up killing them under what circumstance? The desire was more powerful than the consequence!

For the sake of arguement, Adam and Eve were childlike creatures who walked around in the nuddy giving animals names. They only came to knowledge after the fruit had done it work. When we warn a child it oftens forgets or ignores the warning in pursuit of its immediate craving. They often fail to weigh up the pros and cons.

Clam Nitpicker

AuldSoul

Consider too; were Adam "perfect" he would act perfectly.

Consider, does something created flawless of necessity remain so?

No. Nice try, again. Your sophistry is a nuisance. Easily deconstructing it is highly amusing.

Is this the BEST of all POSSIBLE WORLDS? Depends on this...!

Share this