The Instigator
JLMPilot
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Adam and Eve should've eaten the whole tree.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,547 times Debate No: 13397
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

JLMPilot

Pro

Because no one can agree what is good and what is evil I stand in agreement with the resolution that states: "There would be more good in the world if Adam and Eve had eaten more fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

Rules:
-It is assumed for the purpose of this debate that the bible is fact.
-"The World" is defined as the state of humanity at this point in time.

Definitions:
Good - moral righteousness (Random House Dictionary, 2010)

Contention One: The knowledge contained in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was spread out or not at once in every part of the tree.
Genesis 2:16-17
"But the Lord God waned him, "You may freely eat the fruit of every tree in the garden- except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die."
a) First off, the name. It isn't called the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, its the TREE. This name comes directly from the mouth of God so we must assume there is a reason for it. The tree as a whole contains the knowledge, not just one fruit.
b) From these verses we can see an obvious cause-effect relationship: Eat Fruit: Die.

Contention Two: Eating more fruit would provide more knowledge.
Genesis 3:22
"Then the Lord God said, 'Look, the human beings have become like us, knowing both good and evil. What if they reach out, take fruit from the tree of life, and eat it? Then they will live forever!'"
This clearly states that if more fruit were eaten knowledge or life would increase, possibly to the infinite. (If you're going "What? There's no evidence of a link!" just jump to my forth contention. Sorry I had to put my argument in this order.)

Contention Three: No one really knows what's good and what's evil.
If everyone knew what was right and wrong there would be no philosophy or arguments over laws or constitutional interpretations. Morals are subjective and, as I've heard said on this site, God is the only Judge, the only one who can really think objectively.

Contention Four: God is talking about spiritual life and death in the above scripture.
"...you are sure to die." "...they will live forever."
If you look at the context of these passages and what is meant by knowledge of good and evil then you will surely see that the kind of life God is talking about is eternal spiritual life. Let's look closer.
First you have to realize that God is truth. Therefore when he says to Adam that he will die, he's not lying. Notice that he never specifies what manner of death it will be. Then, when Adam and Eve eat the fruit, they don't die. This narrows down what kind of death this just was. If they had died physically then we would've known because we wouldn't exist. If they had died mentally, same result. Therefore, the only kind of death left is spiritual. They lost their connection with God.
We can therefore deduce that if it weren't for Jesus, we would all be spiritually dead, or condemned to hell. All because we didn't eat all the fruit (or maybe the whole tree?) and therefore didn't restore our spiritual life.
wjmelements

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate and his interesting proposition. I will start by addressing his case.

My opponent's first contention, the basis of his entire case, relies on a faulty semantic interpretation of the bible. Note counterexamples to my opponent's generalization: the apple tree, the plum tree, the mango tree, the banana tree, the avocado tree, and the almond tree. Obviously, fruit-bearing trees tend to be referred to by their fruit. Therefore, a tree of knowledge of good and evil would bear the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, and as one doesn't have to eat the entire apple tree to have an apple, one doesn't have to eat the entire tree of knowledge of good and evil to gain the knowledge of good and evil.

My opponent's second contention is reliant on his first, but he also provides additional evidence that, upon review, is irrelevant. It refers to a separate tree, and certainly does not infer that any benefit would come of eating more fruit of the same tree.
"And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
Genesis 2:9 http://www.biblegateway.com...
Therefore, my opponent's evidence is entirely irrelevant to the debate at hand outside distinguishing spiritual and physical death, which I will prove is also irrelevant.

My opponent's third contention, that no one has knowledge of good and evil, is a direct contradiction of the rules of this debate, that bible is to be deemed fact.
"And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.' "
Genesis 3:22 http://www.biblegateway.com...
Therefore, man does know good and evil. My opponent's observation, therefore, must be a flaw in his interpretation.

My opponent's fourth contention, that God was referring to spiritual death, is correct on the grounds of the otherwise contradicting conditions of the two fruits, not because Adam and Eve didn't die instantly after eating the fruit: God does not assure instant death, but death. However, this distinction is only evidence for my case.

My opponent's syllogism fails in the ways I've already described, with the addition of the non-sequitur that consuming more of the fruit, even if it did grant more knowledge, would somehow remove the condition of death to the human race.

Because my opponent's proposal would have had the same result as what happened historically, with the addition of more effort, it is less preferable to what happened historically, and the resolution is negated.

Because the resolution considers what Adam and Eve should have done, I will offer some viable alternatives:
1. Adam and Eve should not have eaten any of either of the trees.
This would remove the spiritual death that is worth more than the knowledge of good and evil. Ignorance is bliss; in this case, ignorance is life.
2. Adam should have used Eve as a "Guinea Pig" for the consumption of the fruit.
Because Eve had already consumed the fruit at the point he became involved, he should have sat and waited for the fruit to ingest and note the consequences.
3. Adam should have turned Eve in.
By tattling on Eve and refusing the temptation of his godless wife, Adam would have won the favor of the most powerful entity in existence and escaped the bickering of women and the toil of work for the whole of eternity.

All of these scenarios are better than what happened. Because my opponent is proposing has an equal result to what happened, all of these scenarios are better than what my opponent proposed. Therefore, the resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
JLMPilot

Pro

First, I would like to thank my opponent for taking this very odd challenge. I will start by backing my own case.

My opponent attacks my first contention by stating examples of fruit tree names. Unfortunately, he fails to notice the unique origin and format of the name "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". To start, while all of the examples given by my opponent were names created by humans, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is one of the few names ever created directly from the mouth of God. Since God is the only being who can see and judge objectively, all other names are misnomers. My opponent also ignores a gargantuan difference in his example names. While most other fruit tree names state the fruit first and the word tree second, this particular tree follows a completely different style. Therefore, all analytics on this comparison are null.

On my second contention I would like to start by conceding defeat on the relevancy of my evidence. I did not read the verse as carefully as I should have. This does not however, mean the contention is defeated. To replace the original evidence I offer the following familiar verse in its stead.
"And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
http://www.biblegateway.com...
Notice that God says that Adam will die if he eats OF the tree. Of in this case implies that only a small portion being eaten will cause death. The corollary to this, combined with my other points, is that eating the whole tree would provide more or all knowledge.

My opponent's argument to my third contention relies completely on an incorrect analysis of the evidence.
"And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.' "
Genesis 3:22 http://www.biblegateway.com...
Note that God says, "...knowing good and evil." My opponent's supposition would be correct had God said, "...knowing OF good and evil," but he doesn't. God is stating that we as humans have had a taste of knowledge, but we have not attained complete comprehension.
know
verb, knew, known, know�ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.
2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here?
3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it.
4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor.
"know." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 22 Oct. 2010. http://dictionary.reference.com...;.
Further research (the above definition) shows definitively that unless an "of" is after the word "know" it means to know of. In the Spanish language the word "conocer" would replace the "know" in this context.

"God does not assure instant death, but death. However, this distinction is only evidence for my case."
How the distinction between death, instant death, and spiritual death benefits my opponent's case is beyond me. Let us follow his flawed logic. If God just meant to say that if Adam ate of the fruit he would die of age, then that means if Adam didn't eat it he would live forever. That would be awesome for Adam, but this conflicts with a point my opponent brought up: only if Adam eats of the tree of life will he live forever. Otherwise, what would be the point of having a tree of life when everyone is immortal anyways. You can see how this logic quickly runs into itself.

After covering my case my opponent offered several alternative actions that, while humorous, in no way support his case. The topic was simply stated and in no way offers points for alternate actions, so while I understand what my opponent was trying to do judges cannot vote him up for this.

Finally, I would like to again thank my opponent and the followers of this debate for providing me with a very interesting first challenge. Please vote pro.
wjmelements

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

My opponent's first contention only needs two observations to refute. First, God did not speak English, so by my opponent's statement of misnomers, the entire English language is a misnomer. The English language is entirely man-made and developed ab chao [1] from Celtic, German, and French [2]. Second, the transformation of a noun-adjective combination to a descriptive prepositional phrase is valid. For example, the Second World War could be restated as the Second War of the World and a Tree of Apples could be restated as an Apple Tree. This nullifies my opponent's semantic rebuttal. Regardless, for my opponent to prove that it was the entire tree that contained the entire knowledge of good and evil, he would have to refer to earlier translations of the Bible, closer to those conceded to be not misnomers.

My opponent's second-contention rebuttal is an invalid non-sequitur. To say that because eating of the tree results in death, eating the tree results in knowledge, doesn't follow. I refer again to the verse:
http://www.biblegateway.com...
"The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.' "
My opponent cannot derive his point, that eating more of the tree would yield more knowledge, from this verse.

My opponent's third-contention rebuttal tries to construe the word "know" so that it refers to acquaintance (definition 4) rather than the other three definitions, yet my opponent himself makes a critical error. To say "I know of evil" refers to acquaintance, while "I know evil" refers to apprehending "clearly and with certainty" (definition 1). My opponent's "further research" does not verify any of his claims, because none of the entries [3] use "of" in their context quotes or state the use of "know of" in comparison with "know." Further, none of the definitions, provided or not [3], suggest my opponent's assertion, that "we have not attained complete comprehension." Lastly, for my opponent to construe the meaning of God, he should have sourced an earlier, non-English manuscript, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

It is understood by both sides that eating of the tree brings spiritual death.

My opponent has not demonstrated

To my case:

My opponent asserts that the resolution is not to be compared to other courses of action, yet it contains the word should, which has, in context, the following meaning [4]:
"must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that."
To make a recommendation favors one course of action over others [5]; therefore, the other courses of action must be considered in the context of the resolution. My opponent addresses none of them because he knows them to be better courses of action, because my opponent's recommendation trades one's spiritual life for knowledge.

My first alternative is objectively better than my opponent's because God, the omniscient omnibenevolent creator would know the best course of action for Adam and Eve.
http://www.biblegateway.com...
"The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.' "

My second alternative is also better than my opponents because Eve would gain all the knowledge of good and evil to share to Adam while Adam could retain his spiritual life.

My third alternative is also better than my opponent's because Adam would retain his spiritual knowledge and retain God's favor.

All of my alternatives spare Adam his punishment:
"To Adam he said, 'Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, "You must not eat of it," Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.' "
http://www.biblegateway.com...
My first alternative would spare Eve her punishment:
" 'I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.' "

So, by following my suggestion, Adam could have spared the toil of life. By following my first suggestion, Eve would have had less painful childbirths and sexism would have developed to a much lesser degree. Because the resolution inflicts these punishments and causes spiritual death only for knowledge an all-knowing all-loving God would prefer man not have, Adam and Eve should not have eaten any of the tree, much less the whole tree.
The resolution is negated.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.englishclub.com...
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vickynoh 6 years ago
vickynoh
I really liked this debate haha.
Posted by JLMPilot 6 years ago
JLMPilot
No big wjmelements... I kinda figured thats what you were doing.
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
This debate is epic!
Posted by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
Oh my God.... I haven't read this yet, but the resolution made me laugh so hard.
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
Oh, I was contending "Adam and Eve should've eaten the whole tree." My bad.
Posted by JLMPilot 6 years ago
JLMPilot
That resolution definitely does not contain the word should.
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
He would have gotten a different companion, probably. Not necessarily male. At least he wouldn't have been doomed to a life of work and a mate with a monthly period.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
Lol, wjmelements

If Adam turned in Eve and had her thrown from the Garden of Eden alone, wouldn't it have to be "Adam and Steve" instead?
Posted by JLMPilot 6 years ago
JLMPilot
haha that's a debate for another day bluesteel. I can't tell how much they would have to eat to attain enlightenment but its possible they would've been making wood sandwiches
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
lol, interesting analysis

are you arguing they should eat the bark too, cuz that's gross
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
JLMPilotwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
JLMPilotwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
JLMPilotwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by The_Learner 6 years ago
The_Learner
JLMPilotwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
JLMPilotwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05