subjective science

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Think about this when Adam and Eve sinned, it was not a question of is God real they had walked with Him. It was not a matter of special knowledge. They sinned in disobedience and they did it by not taking God at His Word and believing a lie even while having been exposed to the truth. Nothing was hidden from them.

This is another case; they knew G-d is existent and yet they were deceived.

Do you imply one should believe blindly that, although to one G-d is non-existent for specific reasons, the Scripture is the perfect evidence for the existence of this supernatural entity? Does one must under all circumstances accept blindly that one is deceived, to take a leap of faith and start cultivating his view from there?
😵

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
"Nothing was hidden from them."


How then do you explain God forbidding them from eating from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"?

God knows good and evil because there isn’t anything He doesn’t know. He was protecting them by telling them to not eat of that tree. Now I don’t know if there was something in the fruit or the fact they disobeyed, they ended up knowing evil by having it introduced into their (our) nature. None of that was hidden, they were warned.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Very clear.

As regards my stance, I do not cultivate faith. To assess that you are honest, you have to demonstrate the virtue of honesty. When I see that you demonstrate it here and now, I may or I may not decide that this demonstration of honesty is genuine. When I will get to know that I really see honesty, I will trust you, keeping in mind that ...[text shortened]... and cross-check it constantly.

So if we stay here, we simply have to agree that we disagree😵

I agree we disagree! 😉

Originally posted by @kellyjay
God knows good and evil because there isn’t anything He doesn’t know. He was protecting them by telling them to not eat of that tree. ...

So something was hidden.

Originally posted by @apathist
So something was hidden.

There was danger, a warning sharing what would occur. They discounted the warning for the lie, there wasn’t anything hidden it was clear. Many will believe a lie over the truth if they don’t like the sound of one and desire the other. Satan basically uses the same bag of tricks over and over.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
God knows good and evil because there isn’t anything He doesn’t know. He was protecting them by telling them to not eat of that tree. Now I don’t know if there was something in the fruit or the fact they disobeyed, they ended up knowing evil by having it introduced into their (our) nature. None of that was hidden, they were warned.

So, just to clarify, Adam and Eve were free to choose between good and evil, but not allowed access to the tree that would have provided knowledge about what constituted good and evil?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
So, just to clarify, Adam and Eve were free to choose between good and evil, but not allowed access to the tree that would have provided knowledge about what constituted good and evil?

They didn’t know evil, they were innocent. The lure used was to be like God, to know good and evil. The choice to believe and obey God was the door, they could have responded differently it was an option just not one they took.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
They didn’t know evil, they were innocent. The lure used was to be like God, to know good and evil. The choice to believe and obey God was the door, they could have responded differently it was an option just not one they took.

Do you think they might have acted differently, had God allowed them access to the tree of knowledge?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
They didn’t know evil, they were innocent. The lure used was to be like God, to know good and evil. The choice to believe and obey God was the door, they could have responded differently it was an option just not one they took.

Was it a good or bad thing for them to "be like god".

And was their decision good or bad?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Do you think they might have acted differently, had God allowed them access to the tree of knowledge?

They took it without permission, actually against God’ warning. Now God didn’t forbid anything else to them so I can only imagine He warned them off because they were not able to handle it.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I agree we disagree! 😉

We disagree big time!

So you explained clearly and in detail how and by what means you live on the basis of faith. I understood in full your points and I conclude that this is the case as regards your sensemaking and knowledge mechanism. I do not adopt this stance but I accept that you manage to live alright the way you want.

I explained too in detail how and by what means I live on the basis of the constant evaluation of the mind, where faith is not required. Do you see now that this way of living is based on a viable sensemaking and knowledge mechanism too?
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
We disagree big time!

So you explained clearly and in detail how and by what means you live on the basis of faith. I understood in full your points and I conclude that this is the case as regards your sensemaking and knowledge mechanism. I do not adopt this stance but I accept that you manage to live alright the way you want.

I explained too in d ...[text shortened]... ee now that this way of living is based on a viable sensemaking and knowledge mechanism too?
😵

You choose for the reasons you felt/feel/reasoned out. Your of the opinion you can know it is as you reason it all to be. Right or wrong, if you have an actual grasp the truth or not. You don’t believe you can be in error because it isn’t a matter of faith for you, if it is possible you could be wrong than what? Are you trusting in anything that are not facts, but instead things that could change with new information?

I get we disagree. I know I am trusting in things I cannot prove to round out my world views. I acknowledge I am putting my faith in God.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You choose for the reasons you felt/feel/reasoned out. Your of the opinion you can know it is as you reason it all to be. Right or wrong, if you have an actual grasp the truth or not. You don’t believe you can be in error because it isn’t a matter of faith for you, if it is possible you could be wrong than what? Are you trusting in anything that are not fa ...[text shortened]... n things I cannot prove to round out my world views. I acknowledge I am putting my faith in God.

Edit: "You don’t believe you can be in error because it isn’t a matter of faith for you, if it is possible you could be wrong than what?"

It is always possible I could be wrong, I am fallible. In this case, I conduct extreme ownership for the results of my false evaluation and I accept the consequences.



Edit: "Are you trusting in anything that are not facts, but instead things that could change with new information?"

No, I do not trust in anything unproven as factual in practice. I simply decide what gives after an evaluation of all the possible outcomes of my decision, grounded on the fact that my decision could turn out to be accurate or false because the case as regards "anything", as you said, remains inconclusive.

So, the difference of our views is established. Do you see now that my way of living is based on a viable sensemaking and knowledge mechanism, too? Or do you still believe that my approach does not provide a viable sensemaking and knowledge mechanism?
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Edit: "You don’t believe you can be in error because it isn’t a matter of faith for you, if it is possible you could be wrong than what?"

It is always possible I could be wrong, I am fallible. In this case, I conduct extreme ownership for the results of my false evaluation and I accept the consequences.



Edit: "Are you trusting in anything th ...[text shortened]... till believe that my approach does not provide a viable sensemaking and knowledge mechanism?
😵

You accept ownership of the errors, who doesn’t? The point isn’t we are responsible or not, it is are we ordering our lives based on something we trust is worthy of our faith.

You just admitted you have to accept responsibility for false evaluations so you seem to be in conflict when it comes to not trusting anything unproven.

I see you living your life exactly as I do except you are aghast that the word faith can be used to describe you too. You must really despise religion to go to such mental hoops avoiding that word.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You accept ownership of the errors, who doesn’t? The point isn’t we are responsible or not, it is are we ordering our lives based on something we trust is worthy of our faith.

You just admitted you have to accept responsibility for false evaluations so you seem to be in conflict when it comes to not trusting anything unproven.

I see you living your ...[text shortened]... escribe you too. You must really despise religion to go to such mental hoops avoiding that word.

Edit: You just admitted you have to accept responsibility for false evaluations so you seem to be in conflict when it comes to not trusting anything unproven.

There is no conflict. My false evaluations are not caused because they are grounded on faith, nor because I trust something unproven. They are caused because I fail to assess properly the given known and the given unknown parameters of the case under evaluation.


Edit: I see you living your life exactly as I do except you are aghast that the word faith can be used to describe you too.

Faith is merely the first –and not necessary under all causes and conditions– step; one has to expand.


Edit: You must really despise religion to go to such mental hoops avoiding that word.

I avoid faith because it does not work for me; other persons are perfectly well balanced on their dogmas. It’s OK.
I used arguments against the necessity of faith in order to demonstrate how and by what means its absence does not mean that one’s sensemaking and knowledge procedures are problematic. On the contrary, they are OK.
😵