Does God know the difference between good and evil?

[shnarkle]

Satan, we are informed, is the father of lies, and yet most people believe him when he tells Adam and Eve that eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will make them like God.

Why do we feel this need to believe Satan's claims? What reason could we possibly have to believe the father of lies? Does it make sense for God to know the difference between good and evil?

Does one have to know what is good to be good? Conversely, if one is good, does it then necessarily follow that one will know it?

We see all of creation placed before us and God says that it is all good, but the seas teaming with fish do not know they are good. Neither the bouquet of flowers nor the butterflies flittering from one to another know that they are good.

One would assume that God knows these things are good, but the fact is that for God to say anything is incoherent if there is no one to speak to in the first place.

An epistemology is not an ontology, and what can be known can never come close to approaching who God is. Existence trumps knowledge.

By the same token, conscious awareness is far more encompassing than mere knowledge. One can be aware of far more than they know. One can be aware of much that is completely incomprehensible.

Just as a good tree can only produce good fruit, God can only produce or create what is good. God can easily be aware of these facts without ever knowing it.

Christ is the only mediator necessary and adding the intellect in as an additional mediator is superfluous and completely unnecessary, and can probably only demean, dull or deprive one's conscious awareness of God's goodness and grace.

Additionally, transcendence necessarily must transcend the realm of ideas. Therefore, a transcendent God must as well. By the same token, transcendence can never descend to the roundtable of human morality. Only Satan would want to, and he wants to reign over human morality.

 

[Josheb]

Does God know the difference between good and evil?

Yes.

Why do we feel this need to believe Satan's claims? What reason could we possibly have to believe the father of lies? Does it make sense for God to know the difference between good and evil?

I don't believe those are the correct questions to ask. I don't think Adam or Eve felt a need to believe the serpent. They just did. It must be remembered Adam and Eve were sinless prior to their act(s) of disobedience. They were not like us; there was no sin already at work in them. The "reason" we have for believe satan after having become sinful is because our faculties of reason are compromised (Romans 1) and satan masquerades as an angel of light. Fundamentally, trying to place the burden on satan at the expense of our own sinful flesh is one of the many lies satan sells . We sin when we are dragged away and enticed by our own lusts (Jms. 1). Remember: satan too is enslaved to sin and dead in transgression. He is not a free agent who can do anything he likes whenever he wants for whatever reason he wants.

 

[shnarkle]

Yes.

I don't believe those are the correct questions to ask.

Why?

I don't think Adam or Eve felt a need to believe the serpent. They just did.

So while they had no prior knowledge, and really no idea what they were doing, and even though they felt no need to do what they did, they did it anyways? Why, without any prior knowledge, would they do what they felt no need to do in the first place?

It must be remembered Adam and Eve were sinless prior to their act(s) of disobedience.

And? I don't know anyone who would assume that Adam and Eve were sinful prior to actually sinning.

They were not like us; there was no sin already at work in them.

I'm familiar with the passage in question. What's your point?

The "reason" we have for believe satan after having become sinful is because our faculties of reason are compromised (Romans 1)

Speak for yourself. I'm not the one who believes his claims, and please reread the OP and note where I point that out.

and satan masquerades as an angel of light.

Perhaps you might want to reread those chapters again as Adam and Eve do not have the faculty of reason to begin with. No one can reason without knowing, and prior to the fall Adam and Even cannot know the difference between good and evil. If they could reason out the difference then they would know the difference between good and evil.

Not that it really matters to this discussion, but it is only Eve who is completely seduced by Satan, and Paul is referring to future events, not the events between our Grand Parents and Satan in the garden of Eden.

Fundamentally, trying to place the burden on satan at the expense of our own sinful flesh is one of the many lies satan sells .

Strawman argument. Relevance to the OP?

We sin when we are dragged away and enticed by our own lusts (Jms. 1). Remember: satan too is enslaved to sin and dead in transgression. He is not a free agent who can do anything he likes whenever he wants for whatever reason he wants.

This is all beside the point of this OP which is whether or not God knows the difference between good and evil.

 

[Josheb]

So while they had no prior knowledge, and really no idea what they were doing, and even though they felt no need to do what they did, they did it anyways? Why, without any prior knowledge, would they do what they felt no need to do in the first place?

It is incorrect to say they had no prior knowledge of what they were doing, and I have already explained why they did what they did without prior knowledge of sin. What A&E did possess was a knowledge and experience of sinlessness, of goodness. No one since then has ever had that experience (except Christ). A&E knew good because they were good, and they know goodness from a pre-existing state of goodness, sinlessness, and unashamedness. They, therefore, had the capacity to recognize that which was not-good simply because it was not good. That did not stop them from having desires or lusts. Note the Genesis 3 text states Eve saw the fruit was desirable and good for learning. Some Christians misconstrue this as erroneous misperceptions on her part but the truth is the fruit was pleasing to look at and desirable for knowledge. The scripture is witnessing to the accuracy of her perception, not some pre-existing imperfection on her part. The problem occurs because despite the goodness of the fruit and the goodness of her disposition and faculties she chooses to disobey God anyway!

And then all hell breaks lose .

And? I don't know anyone who would assume that Adam and Eve were sinful prior to actually sinning.

I'm familiar with the passage in question. What's your point?

Stick around, because some in CARM have argued A&E were made sinful. The point being made is self-evident. I'm just covering bases preemeptively and if you don't assume A&E were inherently sinful and are familiar with the passage then that's a good thing and we can build from that consensus and familiarity.

Speak for yourself. I'm not the one who believes his claims, and please reread the OP and note where I point that out.

Perhaps you might want to reread those chapters again as Adam and Eve do not have the faculty of reason to begin with. No one can reason without knowing, and prior to the fall Adam and Even cannot know the difference between good and evil. If they could reason out the difference then they would know the difference between good and evil.

Not that it really matters to this discussion, but it is only Eve who is completely seduced by Satan, and Paul is referring to future events, not the events between our Grand Parents and Satan in the garden of Eden.

Strawman argument. Relevance to the OP?

This is all beside the point of this OP which is whether or not God knows the difference between good and evil.

Hmmmmm......

I always speak for myself. And if you're being snarky then do please let me know now because I don't do that. I thought we were embarking on a sincere conversation in answer to the questions asked in this op. I did not have time this morning to respond to every question and comment in the op, but I will do so as time permits.

So far, the thread is just you and me. Others will join in as time transpires. Why don't you tell me, and all the lurkers and eventual participants what is the basic thesis of this op. If you could summarize the basic point of commentary of discussion in a single sentence, what would it be?


I'll address the rest of the op in separate posts, and do so in the belief there's not some unstated agenda that would undermine cogent discourse. In the mean time tell us the thesis.

 

[Josheb]

Perhaps you might want to reread those chapters again as Adam and Eve do not have the faculty of reason to begin with.

That is incorrect and the logically necessary conclusion of that statement is God created creatures without the ability to reason and called it good. Not only is that enormously inconsistent with the scripture's report disclosing their reasoning (there could not be a report of reasoning if that faculty did not exist), but there are going to be significant contradictions ensuing from the implication reason occurs solely as a consequence of sin.

Genesis 2:23-24
The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Genesis 3:2-6
The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

These are two examples of A&E's ability to reason. They understand they actions and commands of God, they respond cognitively, emotionally, volitionally, and behaviorally to both God's actions, the circumstances of the moment, and the words and actions of the serpent. They do in fact possess the faculty of reason to begin with.


From where was the belief they lacked that faculty garnered? Waas that something perceived from reading the text? Something learned from another source?

 

[Miriam]

Satan, we are informed, is the father of lies, and yet most people believe him when he tells Adam and Eve that eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will make them like God.

Why do we feel this need to believe Satan's claims? What reason could we possibly have to believe the father of lies? Does it make sense for God to know the difference between good and evil?

Does one have to know what is good to be good? Conversely, if one is good, does it then necessarily follow that one will know it?

We see all of creation placed before us and God says that it is all good, but the seas teaming with fish do not know they are good. Neither the bouquet of flowers nor the butterflies flittering from one to another know that they are good.

One would assume that God knows these things are good, but the fact is that for God to say anything is incoherent if there is no one to speak to in the first place.

An epistemology is not an ontology, and what can be known can never come close to approaching who God is. Existence trumps knowledge.

By the same token, conscious awareness is far more encompassing than mere knowledge. One can be aware of far more than they know. One can be aware of much that is completely incomprehensible.

Just as a good tree can only produce good fruit, God can only produce or create what is good. God can easily be aware of these facts without ever knowing it.

Christ is the only mediator necessary and adding the intellect in as an additional mediator is superfluous and completely unnecessary, and can probably only demean, dull or deprive one's conscious awareness of God's goodness and grace.

Additionally, transcendence necessarily must transcend the realm of ideas. Therefore, a transcendent God must as well. By the same token, transcendence can never descend to the roundtable of human morality. Only Satan would want to, and he wants to reign over human morality.

Maybe consider this per your initial observation. God is Satan.

Because God is the Sovereign, Omniscient, Omni-Present, Omnipotent creator-source of all that exists.

Psalm 139

Therefore, life unfolds from the beginning as God foreordained.

No thing that exists can be other than of and from God when God is the source of all things yesterday,today,forever.

Romans 11:36
Amplified Bible​

36 For from Him [all things originate] and through Him [all things live and exist] and to Him are all things [directed]. To Him be glory and honor forever! Amen.

Isaiah 45:7 I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things.

The aforementioned observation may seem outlandish to some readers. However, if so, I would ask this. If God is God and all that this is defined as, where would anything else originate from? If not from/of the only source of all things?
Isaiah 45: 6 “For the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts says this,

‘I am the First and I am the Last;
And there is no God besides Me."

 

[Josheb]

Does it make sense for God to know the difference between good and evil?

Yes, it makes sense for God to know the difference, but even if it did not makes sense that is the clear unqualified statement of scripture. We either believe it as stated or we do not.

Genesis 3:22
Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil....."

God does know. We might consider how God knows because God can't have an experiential knowledge based on His own wrongdoing. That would be contradictory to His being righteous and law-making, holy and perfect in all His ways, etc.

Does one have to know what is good to be good? Conversely, if one is good, does it then necessarily follow that one will know it?

Both questions can and should be answered in the affirmative from the perspective of Genesis 1:1-3:6. After Genesis 3:6 no one is good and therefore all knowledge of good is impartial or incomplete because it is not known or understood from a perspective of sinlessness. It is not known from the perspective of unadultered goodness or incorruption. From the sinless state we may know of good, but an incomplete knowledge is an imperfect knowledge, and it made worse by the fact the sinless state perverts the perception of good. Sin darkens the thinking and heart of the sinner (Rom. 1:21).

Your second question, however, implicitly speaks to some level of self-awareness and the self develops in the context of relationships. Since in the beginning there was only Adam and Eve (and God, and the serpent) we can reasonably assume A&E were in the process of developing the self and therefore developing self-awareness. Self-awareness develops one way in an unashamed state and a different way in an ashamed state. The contrast between God walking with Adam in the garden and Adam thinking he can hide from God is well articulated in something John wrote in his gospel,

John 3:20
"For everyone who does evil hates the light and does not come to the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed."

No one who does evil wants their deeds to be seen for what they really are.

 

[Miriam]

Why?

So while they had no prior knowledge, and really no idea what they were doing, and even though they felt no need to do what they did, they did it anyways? Why, without any prior knowledge, would they do what they felt no need to do in the first place?

And? I don't know anyone who would assume that Adam and Eve were sinful prior to actually sinning.

I'm familiar with the passage in question. What's your point?

Speak for yourself. I'm not the one who believes his claims, and please reread the OP and note where I point that out.

Perhaps you might want to reread those chapters again as Adam and Eve do not have the faculty of reason to begin with. No one can reason without knowing, and prior to the fall Adam and Even cannot know the difference between good and evil. If they could reason out the difference then they would know the difference between good and evil.

Not that it really matters to this discussion, but it is only Eve who is completely seduced by Satan, and Paul is referring to future events, not the events between our Grand Parents and Satan in the garden of Eden.

Strawman argument. Relevance to the OP?

This is all beside the point of this OP which is whether or not God knows the difference between good and evil.

I agree. Adam and Eve were without knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil. They were not cognizant , capable, of discernment because they did not know the dual nature of reality as we do now. Because all things were good. (On the sixth day of creation God looked at his creation and judged it good.)

The gateway to the dual nature, the opposite of the whole good, was afforded within the tree of knowledge God planted in the center of the garden.
Where the serpent had arrived, obviously knowing the particulars as related to that one tree.

 

[Josheb]

We see all of creation placed before us and God says that it is all good, but the seas teaming with fish do not know they are good. Neither the bouquet of flowers nor the butterflies flittering from one to another know that they are good.

One would assume that God knows these things are good, but the fact is that for God to say anything is incoherent if there is no one to speak to in the first place.

An epistemology is not an ontology, and what can be known can never come close to approaching who God is. Existence trumps knowledge.

By the same token, conscious awareness is far more encompassing than mere knowledge. One can be aware of far more than they know. One can be aware of much that is completely incomprehensible.

Just as a good tree can only produce good fruit, God can only produce or create what is good.

There are several factual errors and false dichotomies in this portion of the op.

Fish and flowers are not moral agents. To assign morality to them is to create a red herring. To argue against the red herring is to create a straw man. Neither do flora and fauna possess the same degree of sentience either God or humans possess. Any implication of parity creates a false equivalence. One should not assume they are good in all ways identical.

1 Corinthians 15:38-40
But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another.

It's also very important to understand for God ontology and epistemology are not wholly separable. For humans there is also a significant overlap because an ontologically good, unashamed, and sinless human has a very different epistemological existence than does the ontologically not-good, ashamed, and sinful human.

Luke 6:43-44 is hyperbole. Plenty of otherwise good trees bear fine, healthy, good fruit and plenty of diseased trees bear otherwise fine and good fruit. Jesus knows that. So too does his audience. A legalistic reading of that text leads to errors in thinking, then doctrine and then practice. Note Jesus is talking in a post-disobedient world about post-disobedient conditions to a post-disobedient people. There are very real, significant and important differences between that world and the one existing prior to Genesis 3:6. As a consequence there are also very real limitations in comparison.

The term "good" and "goodness" have diverse meaning. Utilitarian good is not identical to moral good. Both must exist in pre-Genesis 3:6 good, because God cannot declare something "good" absent both. Everything after Genesis 3:6 changes and that includes the definitions and measures of "good." Every qualification of "good" occurring after Genesis 3:6 inherently occurs within the over-arching context of sin having entered the world and affected everything.

 

[shnarkle]

It is incorrect to say they had no prior knowledge of what they were doing,

It is most definitely correct and accurate to say they had no prior knowledge of what they were doing. In fact, they couldn't have had any prior knowledge. Moreover, to have knowledge of good and evil runs the entire spectrum of the faculty, hence they couldn't have possessed the faculty to begin with.

and I have already explained why they did what they did without prior knowledge of sin.

And I addressed your explanation. Are you going to address my points, or just repeat yourself?

What A&E did possess was a knowledge and experience of sinlessness, of goodness.

Sinlessness is good. Would you agree or not? If it is good to be sinless, then they couldn't have had any knowledge of it as they had no knowledge of good to begin with. This is explicitly stated in the text. They had never eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil prior to their trespass. The text doesn't claim they should not eat of the tree of knowledge of evil, but "GOOD and evil"

No one since then has ever had that experience (except Christ). A&E knew good because they were good,

False. This is the fallacy of Begging the Question, not to mention ignoring the explicit facts presented in the text itself.

and they know goodness from a pre-existing state of goodness, sinlessness, and unashamedness.

They knew nothing! They couldn't know good without the knowledge of good which they could never know unless or until they actually ate of the tree of knowledge of GOOD and evil.

They, therefore, had the capacity to recognize that which was not-good simply because it was not good.

Fallacy of the Non Sequitur. And still Begging the Question.

That did not stop them from having desires or lusts.

This seems to contradict your previous claim that they felt no need to eat from the tree to begin with. These are synonymous terms

Note the Genesis 3 text states Eve saw the fruit was desirable and good for learning.

Here's what it actually states: "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for FOOD, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise,"

Some Christians misconstrue this as erroneous misperceptions on her part but the truth is the fruit was pleasing to look at and desirable for knowledge.

How could she know anything was good if she had yet to eat of the tree of knowledge of good...etc.? What the text actually states is that Eve "saw", and what she saw was "pleasing" and "desirable". Nowhere does the text indicate that she knew anything. The faculty doesn't exist prior to her violation of God's command.

The scripture is witnessing to the accuracy of her perception,

Yes, and perceptions are not knowledge. Perceptions have nothing to do with the intellect.

not some pre-existing imperfection on her part.

Strawman argument. The burden of proof is upon you to make an argument as to why a lack of knowledge necessarily creates an imperfection in someone.

The problem occurs because despite the goodness of the fruit and the goodness of her disposition and faculties she chooses to disobey God anyway!

She doesn't know if the fruit is good or not. She only perceives with her senses what her senses indicate to her as pleasant and desirable.

And then all hell breaks lose .

Stick around, because some in CARM have argued A&E were made sinful.

I'm not making that argument. Please try and stick to the focus of this OP.

I always speak for myself. And if you're being snarky then do please let me know now because I don't do that.

I'm making some very legitimate observations, i.e. the fact that you're ignoring the OP and the points I'm presenting. I don't mean to be snarky, but as much as I appreciate someone actually posting on this thread, I would genuinely like to see someone actually address the OP itself as well as the points I've presented.

I'm just covering bases preemeptively

You're not covering the bases I pre-emptively presented. You're presenting bases that don't seem to have much, if anything to do with this OP. If you see some sort of connection, please elaborate on how this all fits together.

I thought we were embarking on a sincere conversation in answer to the questions asked in this op.

That would be the case if you had actually addressed what was presented in the OP. Again, the question is: "Does God know the difference between good and evil?" Additionally, I'd appreciate some reasons why God would know the difference, or why this is necessarily the case.

I did not have time this morning to respond to every question and comment in the op, but I will do so as time permits.

I'm not asking you to respond to each and every question and comment. You can take each of them one at a time, or pick your favorite one as time permits. Ignoring them altogether and bringing up other topics doesn't address or answer the points presented in the OP. If I am mistaken, please be so kind as to elaborate on these subtle distinctions which reconcile my confusion.

So far, the thread is just you and me. Others will join in as time transpires. Why don't you tell me, and all the lurkers and eventual participants what is the basic thesis of this op.

What is it about the OP that blinds you to the basic thesis of the OP?

If you could summarize the basic point of commentary of discussion in a single sentence, what would it be?

God doesn't know the difference between good and evil, and doesn't need to either.

 

[Josheb]

I agree. Adam and Eve were without knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil.

Ignorance is good?

Genesis 1:31
God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.

Does "all" mean all in this verse?

 

[Josheb]

It is most definitely correct and accurate to say they had no prior knowledge of what they were doing.

Then my response to that is the same to Miriam's position.

Ignorance is good?

Genesis 1:31
God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.

Does "all" mean all in this verse?

 

[Josheb]

Christ is the only mediator necessary and adding the intellect in as an additional mediator is superfluous and completely unnecessary, and can probably only demean, dull or deprive one's conscious awareness of God's goodness and grace.

Who holds the position intellect is a necessary additional mediator? As far as I know no one within the pale of orthodox or mainstream Christianity holds such a position. It is a particularly Gnostic view and Gnosticism is not Christianity.

 

[shnarkle]

That is incorrect

Why?

and the logically necessary conclusion of that statement is God created creatures without the ability to reason and called it good.

Agreed.

Not only is that enormously inconsistent with the scripture's report

Please document from the texts.

disclosing their reasoning (there could not be a report of reasoning if that faculty did not exist),

Where does it say they exercised reason?

but there are going to be significant contradictions ensuing from the implication reason occurs solely as a consequence of sin.

Perhaps you'll provide some reasons why you think this is the case?

Genesis 2:23-24
The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Note that this is after the fall.

Genesis 3:2-6
The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

These are two examples of A&E's ability to reason.

No. they aren't. Satan is the one making these claims. The burden of proof is upon you to prove that Satan is telling the truth.

They understand they actions and commands of God,

Where does it say this in the text?

they respond cognitively,

Again, nothing in the text indicates this is the case.

emotionally, volitionally, and behaviorally to both God's actions, the circumstances of the moment, and the words and actions of the serpent.

Yes, emotionally, and through their other senses.

They do in fact possess the faculty of reason to begin with.

This is the fallacy of Begging the Question. It also ignores the text which explicitly states that they have yet to eat of the tree of KNOWLEDGE.

From where was the belief they lacked that faculty garnered?

From the text which clearly points out that they have not yet eaten of the tree of KNOWLEDGE.

Waas that something perceived from reading the text?

Yes. See above.

Something learned from another source?

Nope. Just the text itself.

 

[Josheb]

What is it about the OP that blinds you to the basic thesis of the OP?

Hmmmm....

So I am blind.


Thank you for your time. In the absence of correcting that ad hominem I will be moving on to other ops and discussions where posters can refrain from such comments.

 

[Miriam]

Ignorance is good?

Genesis 1:31
God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.

Does "all" mean all in this verse?

I think you responded to the wrong poster.

My remarks do not show my saying ignorance is good.

 

[shnarkle]

I agree. Adam and Eve were without knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil. They were not cognizant , capable, of discernment because they did not know the dual nature of reality as we do now. Because all things were good. (On the sixth day of creation God looked at his creation and judged it good.)

So would you agree that knowledge of the dual nature of reality is unnecessary? Do you see it as being superior to a non-dual nature of reality? Why or why not?

This brings up yet another issue, i.e. the non-dual nature of reality versus the knowledge of the non-dual nature of reality. I'm inclined to see the non-dual nature of reality as something intrinsically beyond the intellectual faculties. It is more immediate than the intellect.

The gateway to the dual nature, the opposite of the whole good, was afforded within the tree of knowledge God planted in the center of the garden.
Where the serpent had arrived, obviously knowing the particulars as related to that one tree.

Perhaps. I'm not so sure that's a safe assumption. However, those closest to the truth are the best liars.

 

[e v e 21]

Satan, we are informed, is the father of lies, and yet most people believe him when he tells Adam and Eve that eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will make them like God.

Why do we feel this need to believe Satan's claims? What reason could we possibly have to believe the father of lies? Does it make sense for God to know the difference between good and evil?

Does one have to know what is good to be good? Conversely, if one is good, does it then necessarily follow that one will know it?

We see all of creation placed before us and God says that it is all good, but the seas teaming with fish do not know they are good. Neither the bouquet of flowers nor the butterflies flittering from one to another know that they are good.

One would assume that God knows these things are good, but the fact is that for God to say anything is incoherent if there is no one to speak to in the first place.

An epistemology is not an ontology, and what can be known can never come close to approaching who God is. Existence trumps knowledge.

By the same token, conscious awareness is far more encompassing than mere knowledge. One can be aware of far more than they know. One can be aware of much that is completely incomprehensible.

Just as a good tree can only produce good fruit, God can only produce or create what is good. God can easily be aware of these facts without ever knowing it.

Christ is the only mediator necessary and adding the intellect in as an additional mediator is superfluous and completely unnecessary, and can probably only demean, dull or deprive one's conscious awareness of God's goodness and grace.

Additionally, transcendence necessarily must transcend the realm of ideas. Therefore, a transcendent God must as well. By the same token, transcendence can never descend to the roundtable of human morality. Only Satan would want to, and he wants to reign over human morality.

nothing of nature here is good. lions devour lambs.

 

[shnarkle]

Then my response to that is the same to Miriam's position.

Ignorance is good?

Ignoring God is never good, but one doesn't have to know anything to focus one's attention on God. Adam and Eve weren't focusing on God. They were focusing on Satan.

Genesis 1:31
God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.

Does "all" mean all in this verse?

If you have a point to make, please make it. Yes all means all.

 

[e v e 21]

adam was given dominion… rule over eden.

that is not ignorance.