Probability of Sin in the Garden

[aemcpa]

Would you accept choosing or not choosing to eat fruit in the garden positive probabilities?

No, I wouldn’t. Choice is not probabilistic. It is nonsensical to say “there is a 60% chance I will make Choice A and a 40% chance I will make Choice B”, much less to say “if given the choice twice, there is a 36% chance I will make Choice A twice, 16% I will make Choice B twice, and 48% that I will make each choice once.”

 

[fhansen]

How about this: They were fed a different set of ideas/beliefs by satan -someone who they may not have necessarily known was a bad guy -, and their senses (sight, smell) confirmed that those ideas/beliefs were true. People do this everyday. It’s too bad that senses are not always 100% reliable. A choice like this doesn’t require malice.

But that would mean a simple mistake got them kicked out of the garden while it sounds as if they were actually held to a higher accountability than that.

 

[MPat]

Would you accept choosing or not choosing to eat fruit in the garden positive probabilities?

Unfortunately, “choosing or not choosing to eat fruit in the garden” is not an event (nor a pair of events). It is still too vague.

Would you agree that every arguement carries some assumptions? The classic syllogism of Socrates being a man carries assumptions as well, but we don’t question that so much.

Yes, by itself there is nothing wrong with dependence on some assumptions. But in this case the assumption is not stated explicitly. And if it was, we would see that it might even be easier to accept the conclusion with no argument, than to accept this assumption. And that makes the argument rather unpersuasive.

We don’t have to, but it sure is fun to try!

Sure. But it is possible to do so without that argument.