The world was not perfect. You are confusing this world, the world we live in, with the perfect world/realm of God.
How did God mess it up?
No. I am suggesting that God did not want Adam and Eve to have knowledge of good and evil because God knew that mankind with knowledge, power, and freedom will create evil.
Are you saying that, if God didn’t want Adam and Eve to have knowledge, then He shouldn’t have created knowledge in the first place?
The serpent was advocating for Adam and Eve to disobey God.
Roughly, ought. In contrast to descriptive statements. Instead of telling us how things are, normative statements tell us how things ought be.
“Ought” enters the story, not with the creation of Adam and Eve, which is just a description, but apparently with the introduction of “Thou ought not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge”. If god had been indifferent to eating the fruit, or simply made it unpalatable, there would not be a moral issue.
The possibility of transgression was built in to the story by the author - God.
How do you know what says in the Bible is true, and happened in reality? How do you know the God is the Creator of the beautiful and good? Where does the ugly and bad come from?
A circle is perefct IFF it is not some polygon. No chiliagons or higher n-gons qualify as circles. Perfection transcends perception and is pure intellect. So the God of circles would be a perfect circle or simply, a circle.
Really? Aren’t you aware that there is a reason why ancient, or medieval societies had myths and story’s. It’s how they transferred important information about their world through the generations. They didn’t have formal teaching, or knowledge, academia.
They lived in a world dominated by superstition and primitive animalistic, or shamanistic religions. Transmitting important societal, or cultural information was done through story’s like we find in the Old Testament.
Why should the genesis story be any different?
You’ve answered your own question here. Yes the lesson in the Bible is about our rational and irrational nature, which puts us apart from other animals in nature (outside the garden of Eden). We can’t now rely on the evolutionary forces in our environment to direct our lives, like animals have done for millions of years. Because we are too clever, we mess it up, not realising how the ecosystem is structured in a fine balance between resources and evolutionary niches. We cut the forest down, rather than nurturing and living in harmony within it.
We banished ourselves from the Garden of Eden, by our actions, actions decided on with our new found knowledge (from the tree of knowledge), we found we had when our brains developed intellect.
Ok, but the point I intended on was that God’s perfection is an intellectual matter and not something else. God’s perfection is apparent to those who see it. I’m not among them and looks like some here aren’t as well.
“Thou ought not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge”.
The normative argument is:
“If God had been indifferent to eating the fruit, or simply made it unpalatable,” then God would not have made the rule to forbid the eating of the fruit. No rule, no broken rule, there would not be a moral issue.
But the issue is not the rule forbidding the eating of the fruit. The issue is the eating of the fruit itself. By eating the fruit of knowledge, Adam and Eve gained the knowledge, power, and freedom that would lead mankind to evil.
So it proves that all your claims in this thread is based on the stories you don’t know for sure, and carries no evidence which are mysterious fables. Is this correct?
Common definitions don’t have proof which is logically making sense, or true.
No that doesn’t make sense. The question was, if the God is what you claim to be, then he or she couldn’t have created ugly and bad. Why had he?
The 3-ad/3-tuple, (God, perfect (happiness), happiness) also makes a lot of sense.
Perfection, Merriam-Webster says, is to be without flaws/defects/satisfying all requirements. Given our circumstances, the dyad/2-tuple, (God, perfection) jumps out at us.
These are very common n-ads IMHO and though there can be cultural/personal habits, they stand well. Compare the aforementioned n-ads/n-tuples to the pseudo-n-tuple (archaeology, soccer). Yes?
I don’t get the logic behind those here who are saying that “because X exists, perfect X must exist”.
After all, one can say that Good exists in our world, but because Evil also exists in our world, our world (and thus its creator, if one assumes such) cannot be perfectly Good.
