What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[Al_Moritz]

I’m sorry you feel that way. I won’t bother you any more.

Much appreciated, thanks!

 

[magnet]

Science can reveal bad theology as theology reveals bad science.
Taking each area of knowledge beyond what it can describe leads to illusion.
That God created the universe, life and man cannot be known by science.
Man, as anything but a bag of skin containing biochemical processes, disappears if we rely solely on natural science for answers.

The trouble with Plato is that theory came before observations.

Then along came Aristotle, and, lo and behold, detailed observations began to reveal the actual world, not some wishful thinking invented by somebody with an overactive imagination.

Asserting that God created the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars and planets for the benefit of life is absurd. Certainly Earth was not created for sentient life, because the first forms of life were not sentient. Here I am referring to the ability to express pleasure and pain and to have abstract concepts about them.

Paleontology has revealed that the earth was not created 6,000 years ago as claimed by fundamentalist Bible readers. It has also revealed that humans were the last creatures to appear on Earth. If indeed, Earth was created as a home for humans, why did it take 350,000,000 years for humans to appear on Earth?

Science is based on observations of repeatable phenomena. If it is not repeatable, It is only anecdotal and therefore only one person’s experience.

 

[tdgesq]

Sure, just like the cave-men. I agreed that empiricism came first, which was then refined and adopted by science. What is your point?

You already know what my point is: empiricism and the scientific method are not the same thing. People can have knowledge of objective reality through empiricism without following the steps of the scientific method. It’s obvious you now realize this because you can’t make any sense out of “unconscious” questions, hypotheses, tests, analysis, etc. You don’t even try. Wasn’t it a clue when you discovered nobody else defines “empiricism” as the “scientific method”?

How do you know that your memory is accurate? I don’t doubt that it is probably accurate, but that does not help me to decide if your recollection is correct or not. Do you have an objective epistemological method to allow me to decide if your memory is accurate? If, yes, let me have it.

Sure, the same method you use to decide the accuracy of your own memory. Well, unless you want to propose that your own memory is inaccurate, in which case you’ve destroyed all knowledge of the past. By the way, why are you trusting the memory of all those scientists who write down their necessarily past observations and conclusions? You’ve lost Hee Zen.

Does the past “still” exist? Obviously, no. The objectively existing external reality encompasses everything that exists. Not what could exist, or what existed, or what could have existed…

Trying to redefine terms again I see. “Objective reality” doesn’t refer exclusively to the present. If it did then propositions like “Bob ate a ham sandwich for lunch yesterday” or “it’s true that I’ve had a cold for two weeks” would have no truth value, which they obviously do. Sure, you can state that it was the objective reality that Bob ate a ham sandwich for lunch yesterday, or you can state that it is the objective reality that Bob is eating a ham sandwich. Why are you pretending like the term “objective reality” can’t be used in the past tense?

Fortunately for us, many events leave a physical “footprint” behind so we can have a highly reliable estimate of “what might have happened”. But if there is no such physical evidence, it all boils down to testimony, which is either accurate of not.

This is gibberish. Physical footprint, seriously? The existence of physical evidence isn’t the problem. It’s how one could ever know that physical evidence exists. And it’s simply impossible to know it exists under your epistemic constraints. Unless you are sitting there staring unblinking at the “physical evidence,” you can’t know the objective reality of its existence because your memory of its existence might be flawed and none of your past experience qualifies as knowledge of objective existence. You’ve destroyed knowledge. Well played sir.

Why do you pretend not to understand what I wrote? There is a good reason for “past tense”.

So to get out of one quandary you now admit that “objective reality” can be used in the past tense? In any case, my reference to redefinition was aimed at your use of the term “scientific method” and all the component definitions that constitute it. Linguistically it’s impossible to apply the scientific method unconsciously such that it equals empiricism, which is why no one uses it this way. No formulation of the question, hypothesizing, testing or analysis go into one’s observation that Bob is eating a ham sandwich; much less for a rat than a human being. Strange that you don’t have any peer reviewed studies utilizing the scientific method to support your proposition considering that’s supposed to be the litmus test of all objective reality.

 

[Gregory_Olson]

Yes, his article is well written…

Hey again Hee Zen,

You made here the best and most famous case for atheism: “If God was really the caring, loving being we claim him to be, why would he, in all his infinite power, abandon his creation to its sin?”

The problem with using a famous argument like this is that, more likely than not, one of the great Christian thinkers has been able to refute it. In this case I in fact have a multitude of these to choose from, but I’ve picked C.S. Lewis because he seems here to speak directly to you:

But [Christianity] also thinks that a great many things have gone wrong with the world that God made and that God insists, and insists very loudly, on our putting them right again.

And, of course, that raises a very big question. If a good God made the world why has it gone wrong? And for many years I simply refused to listen to the Christian answers to this question, because I kept on feeling “whatever you say, and however clever your arguments are, isn’t it much simpler and easier to say that the world was not made by any intelligent power? Aren’t all your arguments simply a complicated attempt to avoid the obvious?” But then that threw me back into another difficulty.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet.

Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality namely my idea of justice was full of sense.

Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

In addition, I had posted this on another thread which rehashes the statement above:

Christians see good and bad as ultimate truth, like a law of physics. This is only possible because there is an infinitely good Creator of the Universe, and, in our case and Satan’s, it is possible for his creation to choose to be less than good. I.e., something could have been “good” or “evil” long before mankind or ethics was around.
In contrast, if our sense of good and bad is a result of random, indifferent, natural process, then whether an action, thing, or person is “good” is totally subjective–it depends only on the chemistry of a given person’s brain. In fact, to call any given state of matter “better” than another is utter nonsense.
Thus, as we stray from Christianity, or at least Theism, morality becomes meaningless; we can define it however we like, and it can in no way be objectively true.

…As an atheist, your position should logically be that there is no morality, not that Christianity is immoral. The latter still implies that there is an objective right and wrong, good and bad. And for there to be any good, or lack of good, there must logically be a Perfect Good from which it came, which is what we call God, and also a perverter of good, which we call the Devil.

I know, this post is getting long, but I would add to these the following to directly address your post:

If Christianity is true, then there is lot more going on in, “above,” and possibly outside the universe then mankind and its physical needs. It would not only put bad and good in a different league, but change the whole ballgame, so that what was important as an atheist becomes inconsequential as a Christian, and what was immaterial becomes crucial. Taking your above example, there would be infinitely more to a deathly sick child than his physical infirmity. Would not God, being infinitely knowledgeable, care far more about the state of the child as a whole than whatever mechanical part of him was failing due to disease?

Say that we all truly do have souls that make up the essence of our true persons, and that these can vary anywhere from perfectly holy to utterly despondent. And say that the means by which these became less-than perfect truly is though the material world, including the human body. Well if you were God, would you fix all their bodily failures, or would you go ahead and allow the physical repercussions of their physical sins to take place? (Yes, disease is seen as a consequence of original sin.) By perfecting them physically, you would only widen the channel by which the Devil can get to them, and it would only be harder for them to turn back to you.
Many great saints, enormously gifted in all other ways, lived in extreme physical poverty.

In short, just because God doesn’t help people in the way you (or they) think is best for them, doesn’t mean he isn’t helping them. Don’t misunderstand me, but if Christianity is true, then physical suffering might in some cases be the healthiest thing for us.

-Greg

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Paleontology has revealed that the earth was not created 6,000 years ago as claimed by fundamentalist Bible readers. It has also revealed that humans were the last creatures to appear on Earth. If indeed, Earth was created as a home for humans, why did it take 350,000,000 years for humans to appear on Earth?

Science is based on observations of repeatable phenomena. If it is not repeatable, It is only anecdotal and therefore only one person’s experience.

You are impressed by the number of years it took for humans to appear. Well time is relative, isn’t it.

For God 350,000,000 years is as nothing because God does not exist in time.

For us 350,000,000 years is a long time, but think of what was accomplished by nature and God’s plan for nature in that time. Evolution has amassed a great treasury of fertile oceans and continents and creatures that keep humans alive and curious about their fate and the destiny of the entire universe.

Had there been no history to explore, how much duller we would be because there would be no reason to be curious about what happened before 6,000 years ago.

Yes, science is based upon repeatable phenomena, but some science is not. Abiogenesis, for example, was a one time phenomena that we cannot with all our human ingenuity repeat because the moment for repeating it has long passed and any attempt to recreate those conditions under which abiogenesis occurred would be speculative at best. And even if we recreated them, we could only do so by intelligently designing those conditions in the first place. Yet we can know that abiogenesis occurred, and that life has evolved from that moment on.

 

[Hee_Zen]

You already know what my point is: empiricism and the scientific method are not the same thing.

I never said that the are. The scientific method GREW out of empiricism.

Sure, the same method you use to decide the accuracy of your own memory. Well, unless you want to propose that your own memory is inaccurate, in which case you’ve destroyed all knowledge of the past.

Of course it MIGHT be inaccurate. As I grow older, I discover that my memory is not as reliable as I would like it to be. There are many things that I cannot recall, and when others refer to those events, I cannot recall them.

Of course all this quibbling about the past is irrelevant. I already agreed that the past is NOT subject to observation (which is part of the scientific method). So what is your problem?

Trying to redefine terms again I see. “Objective reality” doesn’t refer exclusively to the present.

You seem to have overlooked what I said: “science is the arbiter of the proposition about the objectively existing external reality”. But the past does not exist any more!

If it did then propositions like “Bob ate a ham sandwich for lunch yesterday” or “it’s true that I’ve had a cold for two weeks” would have no truth value, which they obviously do. Sure, you can state that it was the objective reality that Bob ate a ham sandwich for lunch yesterday, or you can state that it is the objective reality that Bob is eating a ham sandwich. Why are you pretending like the term “objective reality” can’t be used in the past tense?

You missed the point again. The proposition “Bob ate a ham sandwich for lunch yesterday” may have a truth value to it, but how are you going to substantiate it?

 

[Hee_Zen]

The problem with using a famous argument like this is that, more likely than not, one of the great Christian thinkers has been able to refute it. In this case I in fact have a multitude of these to choose from, but I’ve picked C.S. Lewis because he seems here to speak directly to you:

Sorry, no “refutation” at all. Lewis is wrong on many levels. Quoting his own words: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust.” But the universe is neither cruel nor unjust… it is simply “neutral” or “uncaring” - as you would expect from some entity which is neither conscious nor able to think. An avalanche wiping out a village is neither “cruel” nor “unjust”, it is merely an inanimate force of nature. The major problem with Lewis and other apologists is that they try to “personify” the universe.

Furthermore, I will have to repeat: the atheists do not (or should not) argue against God’s existence… they must argue against the believers’ notion ABOUT God… namely that God cares about us and “loves” us.

If Christianity is true, then there is lot more going on in, “above,” and possibly outside the universe then mankind and its physical needs.

The operating word is “IF”. But the problem is much deeper. We live is THIS existence. There are lots of “seemingly” bad things going on here. You say that “maybe” our perception about these “seemingly” bad things are inaccurate, and they are “actually” the best things that can happen to us. Unfortunately this is called an empty reasoning. Unless you can point out why those “seemingly” bad things are actually not bad at all, you have no argument.

It would not only put bad and good in a different league, but change the whole ballgame, so that what was important as an atheist becomes inconsequential as a Christian, and what was immaterial becomes crucial. Taking your above example, there would be infinitely more to a deathly sick child than his physical infirmity. Would not God, being infinitely knowledgeable, care far more about the state of the child as a whole than whatever mechanical part of him was failing due to disease?

This is called the fallacy of “argumentum ad ignoratiam”. I suggest you read the The tale of the twelve officers, with emphasis on Officer number 5.

Well if you were God, would you fix all their bodily failures, or would you go ahead and allow the physical repercussions of their physical sins to take place? (Yes, disease is seen as a consequence of original sin.) By perfecting them physically, you would only widen the channel by which the Devil can get to them, and it would only be harder for them to turn back to you.

This would go much further, but I will give a simple answer: "If I were God, I would not create anything. But if I would decide to create other beings, I would create them directly into heaven, into eternal “bliss” (do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars). The idea to create beings with the freedom to “doom” themselves for eternity is a totally nonsensical idea. What is the point??? And to add insult to injury… allegedly God knows before these beings are created that they will be “fodders for the fires of hell” so he creates them to be “doomed”… why?

Christianity is plagued with contradictions… I would like to see some apologists to be willing to confront these contradictions head on. But if they would do that, they would cease to be Christians any more.

 

[magnet]

You are impressed by the number of years it took for humans to appear. Well time is relative, isn’t it.

For God 350,000,000 years is as nothing because God does not exist in time.

Chemical and physical processes have been in action all during this 350,000,000 years. Therefore time is absolute. Einstein has proposed that time is the fourth dimension.

For us 350,000,000 years is a long time, but think of what was accomplished by nature and God’s plan for nature in that time. Evolution has amassed a great treasury of fertile oceans and continents and creatures that keep humans alive and curious about their fate and the destiny of the entire universe.

Had there been no history to explore, how much duller we would be because there would be no reason to be curious about what happened before 6,000 years ago.

Much of religion concentrates on origins and ancient history. Existentialism concentrates on the here and now. Science is less concerned about origins than understanding cause-and-effect processes happening now. The great advances in medicine and biology have occurred through study of the present, and concentrating on origins is misplaced effort. However if study of the past improves our understanding of the present, it is a worthwhile effort.

There has been a TV documentary series on the origins of the universe that places more emphasis on statistical probabilities than stating categorically that God had a grand plan for the universe. Through the study of current evolutionary processes, the role of chance and probabilistic phenomena is placed far above any grand design. Grand design implies static ideas originally incorporated into the original result. No room is given to dynamic and constantly changing processes. It is so inflexible as to ignore that the universe was not created but is continuously changing and often in unexpected ways.

Yes, science is based upon repeatable phenomena, but some science is not. Abiogenesis, for example, was a one time phenomena that we cannot with all our human ingenuity repeat because the moment for repeating it has long passed and any attempt to recreate those conditions under which abiogenesis occurred would be speculative at best. And even if we recreated them, we could only do so by intelligently designing those conditions in the first place. Yet we can know that abiogenesis occurred, and that life has evolved from that moment on

.

Abiogenesis can be repeatable if someone discovers a process that results in abiogenesis, and he can demonstrate it repeatedly. That is one possible way for it to have happened. The fact that he did not witness the original abiogenesis, does not negate the worth of his achievement.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Asserting that God created the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars and planets for the benefit of life is absurd. Certainly Earth was not created for sentient life, because the first forms of life were not sentient. . . .

Actually the entire universe outside of man is a necessary byproduct, perhaps like the placenta, required for man to exist. And, what makes man so important, because of the incarnation of the Word. It was sufficient for Satan to rebel and create hell. It is the end that is the cause. Prove me wrong.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Christianity is plagued with contradictions… I would like to see some apologists to be willing to confront these contradictions head on. But if they would do that, they would cease to be Christians any more.

Not quite true.

If you assume God is only as bright as the run-of-the-mill human being, then the apparent “contradictions” may be insoluble for this caricature of a “god” that you and your limited mind can conjure. That, however, is your problem, not God’s.

If we are going to speak of God as having omniscience and omnipotence then we cannot continue to present our inabilities to understand as if it were identical to God’s omni-capacity to provide solutions. Your impatience does not direct God’s ways and means, regardless of how fixed you are in portraying your notions as if they create unresolvable barriers for God.

Merely because you see no way around suffering or evil does not entail no satisfactory explanation exists.

I feel no compulsion to make God out to be Hee_Zen writ large or Richard Dawkins projected into the heavens, in spite of the limitations you wish to place on God to suit your purposes.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Actually the entire universe outside of man is a necessary byproduct, perhaps like the placenta, required for man to exist. And, what makes man so important, because of the incarnation of the Word. It was sufficient for Satan to rebel and create hell. It is the end that is the cause. Prove me wrong.

Or perhaps the universe has the expansive dimensions it has for our sakes – to demonstrate in measurable ways the awesome grandeur and potential of God; a kind of object lesson or taste of what God CAN do but still kept within our capacity to grasp.

This would seem to defy Hee_Zen’s claim, that “…I will have to repeat: the atheists do not (or should not) argue against God’s existence… they must argue against the believers’ notion ABOUT God… namely that God cares about us and “loves” us.”

If God created an entire universe for us to demonstrate that he loves and cares enough about human beings to have done so, that would seem to far exceed Hee_Zen’s claim that suffering is an insurmountable argument against God. The gift of creation and existence itself would seem to far outweigh the tolerable suffering humans endure for a short time on Earth - especially given that most of the suffering that human beings have to bear is caused by other human beings.

Of course Hee_Zen will simply deny that the universe exists as a “gift” from God to human beings since he is primarily interested in making a judgement against God, not in a fair verdict.

This, I think would be Lewis’ point. An atheist interested in making a case against God will not let God stand in front of the judge’s bench until all the evidence is considered but will only allow the negative evidence (evil) to weigh in the verdict and will simply deny that the universe existing or all the good evident in it has anything at all to do with God.

This is why Hee_Zen insists that atheists must argue against the “believer’s notion ABOUT God” as if it is the believer that must defend God instead of the full body of evidence taken impartially.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Abiogenesis can be repeatable if someone discovers a process that results in abiogenesis, and he can demonstrate it repeatedly. That is one possible way for it to have happened. The fact that he did not witness the original abiogenesis, does not negate the worth of his achievement.

If abiogenesis occurred once at some past time under less than optimal conditions, why has it not occurred again and again in more favourable conditions? It would seem that conditions that favour sustaining life would or could be just as favourable to creating it. Why are we not witnessing it today, or, at least, why not numerous times in the past?

It seems to me that the claim that times when life was supposed to have originated weren’t very favourable for sustaining the life that came to be and the times favourable for sustaining life are claimed to not have been favourable for creating it. It just seems odd that conditions could go from favourable for creating, to favourable for sustaining, so quickly, when those conditions just seem so radically different.

But, of course, the atheist will claim that had to be the case since we have life today, without thereby taking on the burden of accounting for it. Why should the theist have all the fun?

If you think abiogenesis is what occurred, then provide an accounting for it, otherwise we have no warrant for thinking it to be true by default. We have no reason to presume it to be true, so let’s, at least, do the honest thing and stop pretending that was what happened.

 

[magnet]

If God is good and created Earth primarily as a home for humans, why did He create earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, deserts, ice caps, and 75% of an earth surface covered by oceans, which are unsuitable for human habitation? Why is it that only 10% of the earth’s land surface is suitable for cultivated agriculture?

 

[Peter_Plato]

If God is good and created Earth primarily as a home for humans, why did He create earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, deserts, ice caps, and 75% of an earth surface covered by oceans, which are unsuitable for human habitation? Why is it that only 10% of the earth’s land surface is suitable for cultivated agriculture?

We’d get bored otherwise?

God wanted to fashion a robust race?

Perhaps other personality, moral and character traits are more important than those formed by living a life of opulence and privilege?

I know I would, personally, much rather spend time with the average peasant farmer than a Donald Trump or Paris Hilton; but, hey, that’s just me. :ehh:

I suspect the Beatitudes are a pretty clear break down of where God stands viv a vis human aspirations. Notice, opulence, ease, power, celebrity, thinking highly of yourself or having a lot of stuff are NOT mentioned. Hmmm. I wonder why?

 

[Hee_Zen]

If you assume God is only as bright as the run-of-the-mill human being, then the apparent “contradictions” may be insoluble for this caricature of a “god” that you and your limited mind can conjure. That, however, is your problem, not God’s.

This is what the “Fifth officer” said here. There is nothing new under the Sun.

If we are going to speak of God as having omniscience and omnipotence then we cannot continue to present our inabilities to understand as if it were identical to God’s omni-capacity to provide solutions.

These omni-attributes are simple human concoctions. We value knowledge and ability, so these attributes are magnified into ridiculous proportions. The problem is that they are meaningless. No one could give a good definition just what omnipotence and omniscience might be.

Your impatience does not direct God’s ways and means, regardless of how fixed you are in portraying your notions as if they create unresolvable barriers for God.

Merely because you see no way around suffering or evil does not entail no satisfactory explanation exists.

Another boring example of “argumentum ad ignoratiam”.

I feel no compulsion to make God out to be Hee_Zen writ large or Richard Dawkins projected into the heavens, in spite of the limitations you wish to place on God to suit your purposes.

Maybe one of these days it will sink in (though I will not hold by breath): When I talk about “God”, I talk about this human concept “OF God” - which is plagued with contradictions - and as such it cannot have a referent in reality; just like there cannot be “married bachelors”. The apologists try to use human concepts (what else?) but when their nose is rubbed into their “creation”, they quickly “paddle backwards” and point out that the concepts are not to be taken “literally”, after all our finite mind cannot describe “infinity”.

 

[Gorgias]

If God is good and created Earth primarily as a home for humans, why did He create earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, deserts, ice caps, and 75% of an earth surface covered by oceans, which are unsuitable for human habitation? Why is it that only 10% of the earth’s land surface is suitable for cultivated agriculture?

Aquinas would argue that God didn’t ‘create’ these natural evils, but that they follow (theologically) from the imperfections that proceeded from the sin of Adam. A philosophical, not scientific, answer, to be sure… but then, you asked a philosophical question.

In any case, why does the presence of the oceans speak against God? I’m not certain I’d agree with the proposition that “God created earth primarily as a home for humans”, but playing the devil’s advocate, why would your observation argue against that? It seems that you’re positing a God who necessarily creates a perfect paradise for his human creation. Oh wait… He did. We just messed it up.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Aquinas would argue that God didn’t ‘create’ these natural evils, but that they follow (theologically) from the imperfections that proceeded from the sin of Adam. A philosophical, not scientific, answer, to be sure… but then, you asked a philosophical question.

In any case, why does the presence of the oceans speak against God? I’m not certain I’d agree with the proposition that “God created earth primarily as a home for humans”, but playing the devil’s advocate, why would your observation argue against that? It seems that you’re positing a God who necessarily creates a perfect paradise for his human creation. Oh wait… He did. We just messed it up.

Your beliefs conflict with what we know through the scientific method. The fall is not a good explanation of natural evil. Its difficult to understand why it is even a good explanation of moral evil. If the only reason people are running around sinning in fallen world is because God punished Adam and eve then i fail to see why Post-Eden people should take responsibility for their actions.

In fact it is the very fact of having a “self” that is a temptation to selfishness.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Your beliefs conflict with what we know through the scientific method. The fall is not a good explanation of natural evil. Its difficult to understand why it is even a good explanation of moral evil. If the only reason people are running around sinning in fallen world is because God punished Adam and eve then i fail to see why Post-Eden people should take responsibility for their actions.

In fact it is the very fact of having a “self” that is a temptation to selfishness.

I didn’t realize that the scientific method had anything “privileged” to say about evil, nor that it treated seriously “the fall” as a plausible hypothesis for the existence of evil. I have never seen research into the question in any peer reviewed scientific journal. Hopefully, you can provide a source?

“Post-Eden people” are perhaps given the same choice as Adam and Eve with regards to the “knowledge of good and evil?” So our responsibility is for our own actions, although Adam and Eve created the scenario for our having the unmitigated responsibility for making our own choice.

See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. (Deut 30:15)

It wouldn’t be much of a “choice,” now would it, if God made it a choice between robust, full-flavored, ontological good and merely hypothetical or theoretical evil? He sets before us “death and evil” on the same plate as “life and good,” then says, “Choose! Your mother and father ordered this meal for you in Eden. You can now decide for yourself, where your own preference is.” We have nothing to blame Adam and Eve for, except ordering the meal - we still must choose what goes down our gullet.

It seems to me that deciding to eat from the tree of the full-bodied knowledge of good and evil entails having a complete and unmitigated “knowledge” or experience of evil, down into our bones so that we come to know it intimately. At that point, God says, "Okay, now choose, which will it be, life and good or death and evil? The choice is one we must make with our “whole self” not merely superficially or conditional upon “which pays better at this moment in time.”

I disagree, by the way that the “self” is necessarily, as self, prone towards evil. What we have in our day-to-day experience are selves that are in midst of making that God-ordained determination set before each of us, deciding which we will choose. Some go decidedly one way, (saints) others the opposite, (reprobates) but most, in the words of a once popular song, are “stuck in middle with you.”

We haven’t been given responsibility for the actions of Adam and Eve, although as the progeny of Adam and Eve we have inherited the state of evil that was a logical consequence of their actions.

Choosing knowledge of good and evil meant that the ontology of nature changed - it had to. Evil does not and cannot persist anywhere, it is self-destructive. It is also parasitic on the good, therefore the introduction of evil means the natural good must be altered to accommodate it but also fail-safed to ameliorate it. The good in nature must respond to keep in check the spread of evil at the same time as permitting it to exist temporarily. As the angel with the fiery sword was placed at the gates of Eden to prevent the re-entrance of evil into Eden, nature has the fiery sword of balance in place to keep it from becoming disordered and out of balance - one of the perversions of evil.

Now God has to permit some evil to proliferate in nature because that natural evil keeps humanity in check, it also is there like a deranged chef serving up the dish of “evil” full-strength for our discernment, to meet God’s command from Deuteronomy. The question is, “Will we spit it out, disgusted by the taste of the horrendous stuff; gorge on it and devour it whole; or merely nibble around the edges trying to avoid the entire question by engaging God in polite conversation about whether his existence can be proved and whether the challenge, RE: choosing between good vs evil, is a real, fictional or optional one?”

 

[CrossofChrist]

Your beliefs conflict with what we know through the scientific method…

In fact it is the very fact of having a “self” that is a temptation to selfishness.

How does the scientific method prove that being–something metaphysics addresses, not science–is inherently neutral with regard to good and evil?

Quick answer: Being is inherently good, but that can’t be found using science.

 

[Peter_Plato]

These omni-attributes are simple human concoctions. We value knowledge and ability, so these attributes are magnified into ridiculous proportions. The problem is that they are meaningless. No one could give a good definition just what omnipotence and omniscience might be.

I’m not sure what you would accept as a “good” definition, but not being able to encapsulate a reality into the boundaries of an “adequate definition” is not an argument against the reality, merely an argument for the inadequacy or limitations of language.