God did not apply collective punishment to humanity for the rest of time for the transgressions of Adam and Eve. God acceded to Adam and Eve’s desire for knowledge, power, and freedom to live their lives as they see fit in the world. God is not outside morality. Perfect morality is a part of God.
What objections did Corvus and Tabemann raise that I didn’t address in my reply?
They didn’t. They’re just doodling, hoping that a letter will form by sheer luck. 
God know what He was doing. God could prevent it. God do care about human suffering. God’s original plan was for mankind to dwell in paradise, free from the pain, suffering, disease, hardship, and strife of human life. But God acceded to man’s desire for knowledge, power, and freedom to live his life as he sees fit in a world with pain, suffering, disease, hardship, and strife.
Correct. Desire could be for good or for evil.
It didn’t work because God chose not to destroy all mankind.
The perfect house is a part of the perfect God.
In problem 1, you are assuming God is like a human, capable of selfish and cruel acts. But God, by definition is not like this, so the rationale for him forbidding the knowledge of good and evil, must be incorrect. Perhaps God forbidding it was representative of the line being crossed by eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. That if one were to cross that line, one would be leaving the Garden of Eden, so to speak and could not return.
In problem 2, you are assuming it was God who set up the situation with a serpent coming down from the tree to tempt eve. But that assumption fails to understand that it was really Eve who was being tempted by the knowledge she now had by eating the fruit of the tree. The serpent represents the capacity for evil in that knowledge. So it wasn’t God introducing and failing to stop the serpent, but rather it was Eve introducing the serpent (by eating the fruit) and them succumbing to it’s inherent temptations.
@GregW I don’t follow the argument between you and other esteemed members, but God created Adam, Eve, Eden (including the tree of the forbidden fruit), and the serpent, + many more. It was perfect, the whole arrangement, until, it’s said, the serpent tempted Eve to partake of the aforementioned fruit. Adam also partook of the fruit and the rest is a natural conclusion to an all-too-familiar tale.
Perfection is a divine attribute. I present the dyad, (perfection, God), for consumption.
You are not answering the question, but keep repeating the old claims.
The questions suggest that you don’t understand my point. Is going from Happiness \implies God exists to dyads, (happiness, God), the latter an elucidation of the former, a repetition? 
You + others have consistently failed to acknowledge the scientific method’s formal fallacy, that of affirming the consequent (or converse fallacy) and for reasons I can’t fathom, you’ve conflated theory (of evolution) with fact. Popper (Einstein - the great’s - good friend) settled on the falsifiability criterion for good reasons. You either don’t know this fact or it’s something else.
On the other hand, you’ve simply not made the effort to consider my explanations philosophically. Trust me, the dyads are helpful. Other members have been able to craft their own interesting and powerful arguments based on mine (re the arguments from perfection and source). 
There is nothing new from your postings apart from keep repeating (happiness, God). There is no elucidation or elaboration in logical way, why they are associated.
Just claiming that they are, is not philosophical or scientific explanation.
It is like saying (stone, cheese), and they are related because they are dyads, or maybe the cheese was placed on the stone, or maybe the cheese is so old and became a stone, hence you think that they are related.
This is The Philosophy Forum (not Science or Religion), hence you will be asked why they are related in logical and rational method.
But just keep repeating the association is correct, and useful is meaningless.
1 Like
That is religion talking. It is not philosophical elucidation.
There is no evidence or reason to believe why what you are saying is true or making sense.
Surely if your God is of the God of perfect goodness and perfect power, the God should be able to make the bad people not able to do bad things.
He has not been doing that according to the state of the world, hence he couldn’t be perfect goodness and perfect power, could he?
But the rationale I gave is the rationale in the Bible.
If not God, who?
Well, clearly knowledge of good and evil is a good thing, since God, presumably, has it. The reason is obvious, it is the basis of morality. So God wants us to live in the state of moral innocence that the animals live in. There’s something very odd about this.
- Started off: Happiness \implies God exists
- Mentioned: PoS and PoH are co-arguments
- Explanation: Dyad (happiness, God)
- Reminder: 2
Repartees
- Refusing to accept science commits the converse fallacy.
- Refusing to accept clarificatory posts (2, 3, supra)
- False accusations of being nonphilosophical and/or repetition
Never seen any logical arguments like that before in any logic textbooks or philosophy books.
It looks like they are from some Cryptocurrency people trying to persuade folks to invest on their scheme.
There is nothing to refuse here. Just saying the whole thing doesn’t make any sense.
1 Like
You asked me, “Who is your God that gives you happiness?” I replied that the God that i am talking about is the God of perfection, the God of perfect goodness, perfect power, and perfect desire.
What do you say is philosophical elucidation?
What evidence or reason do you require to believe that what I am saying is true or making sense?
God is able to make bad people not able to do bad things. The problem is sometimes good people do bad things, “not good/not bad” people do “not good/not bad” things, and bad people do good things. Do we want God to make us do only good things? That is why we left paradise in the first place.
The state of the world is messy because the world is occupied by messy people. But God is still perfect goodness, perfect power, and perfect desire.
Knowledge can be used for good or for evil.
That was God’s original plan.
If you say what is very odd about this, then we can discuss it.
If the conception of an Abrahamic God as being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent were true, that God would have created the world as being perfect to begin with.
As mentioned, either there would be no serpent tempting Eve in the first place, God in His (if we are to anthropomorphize God as being male as Abrahamic religions typically do) power would have stopped the serpent, God would have made Adam and Eve resistant to temptation such that they would have ignored the serpent, God would have revealed His morality to Adam and Eve such that they would have refused the serpent’s temptation, or God would not have punished humanity for eternity after Eve’s temptation.
As within the Genesis story these things are not true, and because if God were omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent at least one of these things would be true provided the Genesis story holds any water at all, either God is not omnipotent, not omniscient, not omnibenevolent, or the Genesis story simply does not hold water to begin with.
1 Like
Animals are morally innocent (do not know good and evil), which means that nothing they do counts as deserving punishment. If God wants human beings to be morally innocent, not knowing good or evil, he wants them to be simply animals.
To put it another way, when the serpent tempted Eve, she was morally innocent - did not know good from evil - so she could not be punished for eating the apple.
To put it yet another way, when God forbade Adam from eating from the tree, Adam had no way of knowing right from wrong, so did not deserve punishment for breaking the rule. He could not have grasped its meaning.
To put it yet another way, by making a rule - do not eat the fruit of this tree - God has created the possibility of evil. He also created it by creating the serpent, which, as he must have known, would successfully tempt Eve.
EDIT After I wrote this, I realized that it was a mistake to describe the serpent as tempting Eve, which implies that the serpent knew that what it was doing was wrong. But the serpent does not appear to have been told that eating the apple is forbidden and anyway has no way of knowing right from wrong, any more the Adam or Eve. God’s punishment of the serpent is cruelty.
1 Like
The God of perfection, the God of perfect goodness, perfect power are all obscure words with no clear definitions. You need to clarify, which God of the religion is the God of all those descriptions. Or is your God someone or something else totally different from all the known religions? It is not clear.
You need also clarify what “perfection” and “perfect” means. Perfect sounds meaningless without clear description in what respect something is perfect.
And then you need to produce evidence in what respect the God is perfect goodness, perfect power, is perfection.
Just saying that it is what is, is not meaningful at all.
I wish to amplify this. It sums up the incoherence inherent in the Genesis myth.
1 Like