Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 9:59 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 9:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 9:54 pm
He knows. He's trusting you to do the right thing, but taking the chance you won't do the right thing, because your relationship of trust with him is more important. Is he evil?

What do you mean that he is trusting me?

He has been good to you. You have everything you need. You don't need his money. There's every reason he should be able to trust you with such a choice. And his allowing of you the freedom to do the right thing and the wrong thing bespeaks the honesty of his intention toward you.

As I said the act of leaving his wallet on the table is evil if he knew that I was tempted to steal his money and I would steal his money.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 9:59 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 9:27 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 9:19 pm
That is a sinful choice. It's not a sinful situation: there's nothing sinful about the fact of having a choice. Choice itself is a great good. But every choice has two sides: the good and the bad choice.

I don't understand why you cannot see the obvious. Think of a situation in which there was not a tree of good and evil. They were still free to choose but only good was available to them. That is the definition of a good situation. But God has its plan knowing that they fail. He created the tree, gave Adam and Eve access to it on top of that allowed the Serpent to fool Eve...

If God has knowledge of the future, then placing the tree there is extremely stupid of God.

Unless God intended them to eat from the tree, as some interpret the story.

If God is intended them to eat from the tree then His intention was evil.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 9:59 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 9:57 pm
What do you mean that he is trusting me?

He has been good to you. You have everything you need. You don't need his money. There's every reason he should be able to trust you with such a choice. And his allowing of you the freedom to do the right thing and the wrong thing bespeaks the honesty of his intention toward you.

As I said the act of leaving his wallet on the table is evil if he knew that I was tempted to steal his money and I would steal his money.

You're a free will being. Even if he suspected you would steal, or knew you would, who is the thief? It's not him. You didn't have to do it. You chose to, or you chose not to.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:06 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 9:59 pm
He has been good to you. You have everything you need. You don't need his money. There's every reason he should be able to trust you with such a choice. And his allowing of you the freedom to do the right thing and the wrong thing bespeaks the honesty of his intention toward you.

As I said the act of leaving his wallet on the table is evil if he knew that I was tempted to steal his money and I would steal his money.

You're a free will being. Even if he suspected you would steal, or knew you would, who is the thief? It's not him. You didn't have to do it. You chose to, or you chose not to.

Yes, I am free but my brother knows that I would steal his money! Whose fault it is, me or my brother or both?

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:06 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:04 pm
As I said the act of leaving his wallet on the table is evil if he knew that I was tempted to steal his money and I would steal his money.

You're a free will being. Even if he suspected you would steal, or knew you would, who is the thief? It's not him. You didn't have to do it. You chose to, or you chose not to.

Yes, I am free but my brother knows that I would steal his money! Whose fault it is, me or my brother or both?

Yours, obviously. There's only one thief.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:05 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 9:59 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 9:27 pm
I don't understand why you cannot see the obvious. Think of a situation in which there was not a tree of good and evil. They were still free to choose but only good was available to them. That is the definition of a good situation. But God has its plan knowing that they fail. He created the tree, gave Adam and Eve access to it on top of that allowed the Serpent to fool Eve...

If God has knowledge of the future, then placing the tree there is extremely stupid of God.

Unless God intended them to eat from the tree, as some interpret the story.

If God is intended them to eat from the tree then His intention was evil.

Only if eating from the tree is evil.

Again, some interpretations consider it to be good. The knowledge that comes from the tree is useful and necessary. It represents another step in human development.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:02 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 9:59 pm If God has knowledge of the future, then placing the tree there is extremely stupid of God.

Not "stupid." It's analytically necessary.

For if there is not one choice in the universe -- just one, at a minimum -- that man could make for himself, and choose either the right or the wrong of his own volition, then it isn't clear that there would have been any sense in which he was a being with a will of his own. And beings with no will cannot be in a free-will relationship.

Making the tree inaccessible to them would only remove one choice. They would still have lots of other choices to make.

It's like parents leaving a box of rat poison on the floor where their toddler can get into it. Locking up the box doesn't remove "free-will". It removes a dangerous situation.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:02 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 9:59 pm If God has knowledge of the future, then placing the tree there is extremely stupid of God.

Not "stupid." It's analytically necessary.

For if there is not one choice in the universe -- just one, at a minimum -- that man could make for himself, and choose either the right or the wrong of his own volition, then it isn't clear that there would have been any sense in which he was a being with a will of his own. And beings with no will cannot be in a free-will relationship.

Making the tree inaccessible to them would only remove one choice. They would still have lots of other choices to make.

Yes, but none that involved a free choice to honour God rather than to seek their own way. That's the choice that really matters.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:32 pm Yes, but none that involved a free choice to honour God rather than to seek their own way. That's the choice that really matters.

But what if God had no need for an obedient flock of sheep? What if he wanted his "children" to become pioneers who bravely challenge the unknown without fear of possible sacrifices and difficulties (like Jacob's struggle with the angel), and that's why he deliberately led them to this choice? But the devil is a faithful helper of God who sifts the strong from the weak, leaving this world for the strong and promising the kingdom of God for the weak.
It is impossible to temper your good side without encountering evil, growing in a greenhouse, and only those who have gone through tempering with evil without succumbing to it can be considered truly good. After all, even Jesus was tempted by evil.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:12 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:06 pm
You're a free will being. Even if he suspected you would steal, or knew you would, who is the thief? It's not him. You didn't have to do it. You chose to, or you chose not to.

Yes, I am free but my brother knows that I would steal his money! Whose fault it is, me or my brother or both?

Yours, obviously. There's only one thief.

Amazingly, you cannot see the simple fact, that we both committed evil!

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:18 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:05 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 9:59 pm If God has knowledge of the future, then placing the tree there is extremely stupid of God.

Unless God intended them to eat from the tree, as some interpret the story.

If God is intended them to eat from the tree then His intention was evil.

Only if eating from the tree is evil.

Again, some interpretations consider it to be good. The knowledge that comes from the tree is useful and necessary. It represents another step in human development.

The act was evil since God prohibited it, at least with Christian belief.

Yes, but none that involved a free choice to honour God rather than to seek their own way. That's the choice that really matters.

I'm sure there are better ways of handling this.

God could have made himself a bagel and lox lunch and told them not to eat it.

Then the serpent tempts them by pointing out how tasty it looks and that God can just make himself another lunch.

If they did eat it, God can teach them something or punish them in some small way. If they don't eat it, God has been honored.

The act was evil since God prohibited it, at least with Christian belief.

Why does God prohibit it?

What are the actual consequences of eating the fruit? Aside from pissing off God.

What is "knowledge of good and evil"?

Many interpretations are possible.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:52 pm

The act was evil since God prohibited it, at least with Christian belief.

Why does God prohibit it?

How knows? IC would say whatever God says is objective!

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:52 pm What are the actual consequences of eating the fruit? Aside from pissing off God.

According to the name, they could know the knowledge of good and evil. According to the Serpent, they look like God.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:52 pm What is "knowledge of good and evil"?

I think what the name says.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:52 pm Many interpretations are possible.

True. Some Christians believe that that was God's plan and God did it for the greater good.