Does God know the difference between good and evil?

[Josheb]

If we compartmentalize being and knowing, what one may known can never come close to being despite the extent of their knowledge.

I completely agree and nothing I posted should be construed to say otherwise. Go back and re-read what was actually posted because with God knowing and being are inseparable. We do not compartmentalize God anthropomorphically.

Genesis 3:22 says man knew good and evil "like one of us". Do you read that to say God also broke His own law at some point and became sinful? In other words, is God's knowledge of sin experiential? If not then how does the holy, righteous, perfect lawmaker know sin as Adam and Eve then knew it?

 

[shnarkle]

I completely agree and nothing I posted should be construed to say otherwise. Go back and re-read what was actually posted because with God knowing and being are inseparable.

LOL! You just contradicted yourself. Knowing and being are most definitely separate. In fact, one may be, and not know anything at all. They can be separated to the point where knowing doesn't exist.

We do not compartmentalize God anthropomorphically.

That's exactly how God can be compartmentalized.

Genesis 3:22 says man knew good and evil "like one of us". Do you read that to say God also broke His own law at some point and became sinful?

No. Do you?

In other words, is God's knowledge of sin experiential?

What makes you ask this question? Do you think God experiences sin?

If not then how does the holy, righteous, perfect lawmaker know sin as Adam and Eve then knew it?

It doesn't say that. Look at what you just posted. It says: " "like one of us". Which one???? You do know that Lucifer is a god, right?

Job points out that "the sons of god" came and Satan is explicitly included by name with those very same sons of God. Please note that nowhere does God say, "Behold, they have become like ME".

 

[Josheb]

LOL! You just contradicted yourself.

No, I did not.

Knowing and being are most definitely separate.

Not with God. With humans, yes. Not so with God. He is one. This supposed distinction between divine ontology and divine epistemology one of the presuppositional errors in this op. God is one. His knowledge is not separate in any way from His omni-attributed being. Anthropomorphizing the externally existing God is a mistake.

 

[Josheb]

No. Do you?

No.

How then does God know good and evil as the post-disobedient Adam and Eve knew good and evil? And what scripture(s) reports that position?

 

[Miriam]

What are you talking about?

You have it listed below in your own post.

More specifically, it is the faculty itself. It literally means "all knowing".

False. Predestination is a logical necessity for omniscience, but they can't be synonymous. Look up these two terms if you don't believe me.

I never claimed the word had no relation to serpent. In fact, I pointed out the reason why these two terms are practically synonymous. Moreover, the word is actually "seraph" so there is no reason not to translate it as that very word.

Correction: as it pertains to your interpretation.

So you want me to consider the notion that Satan is God?

Given that God is the origin of everything, it does not then follow that God is everything. Paul points out that God is the origin while Christ is the means by which everything comes into existence. All things are created in, with, and through Christ. Christ points out that his own origin is in the father as well.

When Paul points out that there is no other mediator between God and humanity other than Christ, to then claim that everything created is God eliminates the necessity of Christ as mediator. God doesn't need to mediate reality or anything else if everything is already God.

Yes.

And Jesus origin of course was in the father. Because the father begat himself upon most highly favored Mary. To be born into the world as one known as, Emmanuel, meaning "God with us."

Jesus was God.

 

[Miriam]

The brain can't even tell when it's dreaming. smh. People get knocked out all the time, and know absolutely nothing. Take it one step further, and there is no reason why they would suddenly know they're dying.

You may want to study the brains activity in dreaming. It "knows".

No thing in human anatomy and physiology functions without brain activity.

Cessation of the brains electrical impulses is known as being brain dead. Which is why the anatomical and physiological bodily functions must be sustained through artificial means.

 

[Josheb]

You may want to study the brains activity in dreaming. It "knows".

No thing in human anatomy and physiology functions without brain activity.

Cessation of the brains electrical impulses is known as being brain dead. Which is why the anatomical and physiological bodily functions must be sustained through artificial means.

Amen.

But it is bigger than the brain. Through the process of mitosis everything we experience eventually gets recorded in every cell of our body. It takes about four years for every cell in the body to be replaced. With each "cycle" of replacement the entire body has a record of the individual's experience. Not just brain cells. Skins cells, too. Spleen cells. Synovial membrane cells. Eyeball cells. Chromosomes. In other words, knowledge becomes part of our being unawares and it becomes such at a cellular level. Changes everything we thought we knew about epistemology. Classical conversations are antiquated.

 

[shnarkle]

No, I did not.

Not with God. With humans, yes.

Prove it. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Not so with God. He is one.

Being one is not the same as knowing one. Regardless, your need to indulge in some sort of subtle new unarticulated meanings for words doesn't prove anything.

This supposed distinction between divine ontology and divine epistemology one of the presuppositional errors in this op.

Interesting claim. How about elaborating on this thesis of yours?

God is one.

Yeah, we got that part already. What God may know is still within the realm of ideas. You haven't provided any evidence which suggests how or why what can be known can be one with God.

His knowledge is not separate in any way from His omni-attributed being.

So you keep saying, but the definitions of these terms refutes these ideas. Knowledge: "1 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association. (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique. b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something."


We can be aware of something without knowing or understanding anything about it so that last definition seems to be stretching the definition as well as the etymology of the word. Whatever the intellect may recognize or understand is by definition derived from the thing understood, and that thing cannot be what is intellectually understood.

Moreover, we're just assuming God understands, but assuming the fact doesn't prove or provide us with any evidence to support this assumption.

Anthropomorphizing the externally existing God is a mistake.

The externally existing God??? What is that supposed to mean? God exists externally from himself? He exists outside of reality? What?

 

[shnarkle]

No.

How then does God know good and evil as the post-disobedient Adam and Eve knew good and evil?

He doesn't. I never claimed he does, and I don't see where the bible states that either.

And what scripture(s) reports that position?

You tell me. I'm not making that claim.

 

[e v e 21]

since this corruted perishable body is a result of adam's disobedience,
and not the body in Eden..
then... it's a bit ridiculous to care what "it" - the ape body - "records."

It (the fleshbody as Paul calls it) cannot enter His Heaven.

 

[shnarkle]

Yes.

Yes, what?

And Jesus origin of course was in the father. Because the father begat himself upon most highly favored Mary.

The Father does not beget himself. Again, Paul distinguishes between God and Christ, the father and the son, and the origin and the means in 1 Corinthians 8:6, and these distinctions negate the possibility of the father begetting himself because Paul points out that the father begets the son just as the origin begets the means, and Christ comes from God.

To be born into the world as one known as, Emmanuel, meaning "God with us."

Except that he wasn't known as Emmanuel. He was given the name Jesus, and that is how he was known.

Jesus was God.

And this has nothing to do with the OP. There are plenty of topics dealing with the divinity of Jesus. Making this claim has nothing to with this OP. It is a pointless distraction.

 

[shnarkle]

You may want to study the brains activity in dreaming. It "knows".

It doesn't always know it's dreaming which is the point you keep ignoring.

No thing in human anatomy and physiology functions without brain activity.

False. You can take an individual cell, and place it into a petri dish hooked to a monitor and see it produce electrical impulses. Scientists have added minute doses of cocaine, and found that this single cell will (without ANY suggestions from any brains) begin to produce these electrical impulses more often to be rewarded with more cocaine.

Cessation of the brains electrical impulses is known as being brain dead.

Yep, and they say this because the body can continue to live without the brain.

Which is why the anatomical and physiological bodily functions must be sustained through artificial means.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of examples of people who are brain dead, and still alive without any external means sustaining them. They are commonly referred to as "vegetables".

There are a number of tests that have been done where electrodes are hooked to a subject's brain and stomach. They're then presented with images and told to click a "like" or "dislike" after seeing each image flashed upon a screen in front of them. What they discovered is that the stomach produces the first electrical impulse which travels to the brain to tell the brain to click the "like" or "dislike" button.

The bible points out this same empirical fact as well.

 

[Josheb]

He doesn't. I never claimed he does, and I don't see where the bible states that either.

According to Genes 3:22,

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

I'm not claiming you said it. I am demonstrating God said it in His own word.

You tell me. I'm not making that claim.

No, there will be no attempts at shifting the onus. I am asking a valid op-relevant question and I am doing so firmly based on something scripture plainly reports.

How does God know good and evil as the post-disobedient Adam and Eve knew good and evil?

God says Adam has become like Him, knowing good and evil. How then does God know good and evil. Think because this is one of the very first comments God makes about His own knowledge. Many more things are said throughout scripture but this is among the first. If the scripture's statement is denied then not only is that going to be a problem for the readers (I doubt anyone here will take seriously anything you have to post if the clear statements of scripture are denied). Denying this verse disqualifies the denier from having a whole understanding and therefore a full-informed position to assert for discussion. Alternatively, if God's knowledge is denied then so too is His omniscience.... unless there is a forthcoming explanation reconciling that lack of knowledge with omniscience.

Show up for the conversation.

Answer the question(s) asked without pawning off.

How does God know good and evil as the post-disobedient Adam and Eve knew good and evil?

 

[shnarkle]

Amen.

But it is bigger than the brain. Through the process of mitosis everything we experience eventually gets recorded in every cell of our body. It takes about four years for every cell in the body to be replaced. With each "cycle" of replacement the entire body has a record of the individual's experience.

You're describing the process of cloning, and by definition a clone is not the original. It is a copy.

Not just brain cells. Skins cells, too. Spleen cells. Synovial membrane cells. Eyeball cells. Chromosomes. In other words, knowledge becomes part of our being unawares and it becomes such at a cellular level.

Knowledge becomes part of the clone's being, not the original's.

Changes everything we thought we knew about epistemology.

Everything about ontology.

Classical conversations are antiquated.

Post modern are nonsense. You are literally, and biologically not the same person you were five years ago. You are literally and biologically a clone. You are a biological copy of someone else.

 

[Josheb]

Prove it. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

This is laughable because you are the only one here making claims absent evidence. With every post this thread looks increasingly like a huge troll.

God exists outside of time and space. This is self-evident in the opening statement of scripture: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and elsewhere scripture tells us all that was made was made by God such that things that were not were made. Time is simply the measure of cause and effect, and God is The Causal Agent of all causes and all effects, either directly or indirectly. It all starts with Him. God does not exist solely within the singularity. We do. He is not in any way, shape, or form (no pun intended ) bound by the limits of anything in creation, including time and space.

We are.

We are finite. He is infinite. So when you limit God to a finite condition such as the limits between ontology and epistemology the onus is not on me to prove otherwise. The onus is on you to prove God is God and not human. You are the one applying finite human terms anthropomorphically on the infinite God and doing so without any evidence for doing so.

God's knowledge is an extension of His being; He knows all things knowable and that knowledge is constituent to his omni-attributed nature. Humans exist in ignorance. Humans exist in many forms of ignorance. God is not.

Stop placing limits on God.

Or evidence the limitations.

Stop trying to shift the onus onto others. This is your op. Show up for the conversation, and show up with evidence.

 

[shnarkle]

According to Genes 3:22,

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

I'm not claiming you said it. I am demonstrating God said it in His own word.

And I addressed this already by pointing out that God never says that man has become like HIM. He explicitly states that the man has become like one of the gods. I then asked you which one???? You ignored that quite relevant question, and instead decided to just repeat yourself which doesn't advance the discussion in the slightest. I've addressed and refuted your point.

No, there will be no attempts at shifting the onus. I am asking a valid op-relevant question

No. You're plainly not.

and I am doing so firmly based on something scripture plainly reports.

Something you assume scripture plainly reports, but as I have already pointed out, it plainly says no such thing. Are you going to address the facts presented for your edification, or continue to ignore them?

How does God know good and evil as the post-disobedient Adam and Eve knew good and evil?

He doesn't! You are committing the fallacy of Begging the Question. You are ASSUMING that when God refers to "one of us", he must necessarily be referring to himself. This is quite blatantly your assumption, and your assumptions don't prove anything.

God says Adam has become like Him,

NO. He doesn't. He says that Adam has become like "one of us".

if God's knowledge is denied then so too is His omniscience.... unless there is a forthcoming explanation reconciling that lack of knowledge with omniscience.

Omniscience, by definition, cannot be known as it is "all-knowing". It is the faculty itself rather than whatever can be known or even with respect to a Knower. As Christ says, "Only God is good". Nowhere do we find the bible suggesting that knowledge is good. In the case under discussion here, it plainly points out that it is not (ontologically speaking) good, but knowledge OF good...etc.

Show up for the conversation.

I haven't gone anywhere.

Answer the question(s) asked without pawning off.

Addressed, answered, and refuted.

How does God know good and evil as the post-disobedient Adam and Eve knew good and evil?

He doesn't know good and evil. He is good. Only God is good. Unless you're referring to a god of your own imagination, God isn't even intelligible to begin with. Q.E.D.

 

[Josheb]

You're describing the process of cloning, and by definition a clone is not the original. It is a copy.

No, I am not. I am describing the process of cellular mitosis and biopsychogenesis.

 

[Josheb]

Knowledge becomes part of the clone's being, not the original's.

lol.

No, in cloning it is a copy of knowledge. You've got the order reversed. My clone may have a record of all my knowledge but none of my actual experience.

 

[Josheb]

Post modern are nonsense. You are literally, and biologically not the same person you were five years ago. You are literally and biologically a clone. You are a biological copy of someone else.

And you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I am not different. I am more. I am not a clone. I am who and what I have always been plus more. Biblically speaking (since this is a Christian discussion in a Christian discussion board being had at least in part by Christians) my existence is eternal, I will eventually be transformed from being corruptible and mortal to being incorruptible and immortal. I will always be Josh; I was knit together by God and my name is written in the lamb's book of life for all eternity. I will never not be Josh.

Not a clone. Not a copy.


Let me recommend a pair of readings for you. First, try "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose and then the trilogy by Francis Schaeffer. Penrose addresses the problems of cloning that you've broached (along with a number of other cosmological cul de sacs in contemporary knowledge) and Schaeffer traces the history of change from the Judeo-Christian worldview to postmodernism. For the record, we're not in a postmodern world. We're in a post-postmodern world.

We also live in a world of ten or eleven dimensions where on the quantum level it is quite possible for two or more things to occupy the same space at the same time. Shouldn't surprise Christians to learn this. The Bible has been teaching this in its own way since the beginning.

You're also losing track of your own op.

God does know the difference between good and evil. He knows all things, but the infinite Creator is not bound by the limits of the finite creature when it comes to knowing. It is a presuppositional mistake to anthropomorphize God.

 

[shnarkle]

This is laughable because you are the only one here making claims absent evidence.

I've presented evidence, and arguments to back up my position.

With every post this thread looks increasingly like a huge troll.

You're projecting.

God exists outside of time and space.

So you say, but what does that have to do with knowledge?

This is self-evident in the opening statement of scripture: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and elsewhere scripture tells us all that was made was made by God such that things that were not were made. Time is simply the measure of cause and effect, and God is The Causal Agent of all causes and all effects, either directly or indirectly. It all starts with Him. God does not exist solely within the singularity. We do. He is not in any way, shape, or form (no pun intended ) bound by the limits of anything in creation, including time and space.

Given that knowledge would be included in your "anything", it stands to reason that God cannot be bound by the limitations of knowledge. Again, only God is good, and therefore, the ontological reality in no way requires any additional mediators, but most especially knowledge of good.

We are.

We are finite. He is infinite. So when you limit God

Strawman argument. I'm not limiting God.

to a finite condition such as the limits between ontology and epistemology

There are no limits to being, but there are limits to knowledge; the most notable being the fact that the faculty of knowing can never be what it knows. That's a severe limitation YOU are placing on God, not me.

Being or existence is eternal. This is a logical necessity due to the fact that to articulate the opposite leads inevitably to a violation of the law of non-contradiction, e.g. existence doesn't exist; nothing exists.

the onus is not on me to prove otherwise.

See above.

The onus is on you to prove God is God and not human.

No. That's another topic for another discussion. This topic is about whether or not God can know the difference between good and evil.

You are the one applying finite human terms anthropomorphically on the infinite God and doing so without any evidence for doing so.

Okay, I'll play. Transcendence must necessarily transcend all understanding as well as everything that exists including the one common denominator of everything that exists, i.e. existence itself.

By definition, omniscience is without any regard to a Knower or whatever can be known, but exclusively to the faculty itself. Therefore it cannot be known. Nothing can ever be known about omniscience.

In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul points out that God is the origin while Christ is the means by which everything comes into existence including Christ who affirms this fact when he says that he comes from the Father. Again, if the means by which everything comes into existence originates in God, then God logically cannot exist. God only exists conceptually, but God is not a concept. The concept of God is not God. Therefore there can be no referent for God other than the term itself. As John puts it, "the Word".

God's knowledge is an extension of His being;

This is your assumption, and you have yet to supply any arguments supporting this assumption.