The Devil is on balance a better role model than God

:D 1. The true reason for the fall of man lies not in the acquisition of knowledge but the supposed transition from a postulated graceful innocence (see my Argument) to a defiance, a transgression of the set limit to human enterprise by God. A spiritual relationship was set between man and God that can be proposed across the gradient of the substantive argument; in designing man in his own likeness and image, God has certainly constructed a parallel across Him and man in spiritual terms [3, see Note], and is certainly the very basis of his inflicted power over others--the kingdoms of life (Genesis, 1: 28-29) and the earth itself, as well as supply man with his placement within Eden, making him the "Author of his bliss" [5]: God explicitly places his creation within an ideal paradise. The Book of Genesis offers the very nucleus of this happiness--the Tree of Life (Genesis, 2:9), a sign and seal to Adam that would, by personifying life at his disposal--in his grasp, assure him of the continuance of life and everlasting life and bliss there [5]. We should take note that the act (see bottom), not the acquisition of knowledge, is the chief mark and reason for such "punishments". Indeed, although God does openly recognize the acquired state of knowledge (Genesis, 1:22), it is the act of disobedience and the distortion of the spiritual relationship between man and god that is at the forefront*. It can, simply, be stated as an assumption resting within primal man that the obtained knowledge, and widened horizons of understanding, will initiate a transformation into godhood, an assumption of such seen in the very fact that Eve (Genesis, 3:6) accepted the Serpent's words of the food as ensuring wisdom, qualified as, per the serpent's words, a transition into a state similar to that of god, "knowing good and evil" (Genesis, 3:5) and. .. disobeyed God's command. Eve's sin demonstrates a defiance to God, and an unwillingness to accept her place as well as accept the indebtedness of man's state to God, the placement of her kin within the paradise, and most of all to the act of creation. Knowledge was not conveyed, of good or wrong, but of the act, and its disobedience to the authority (see my case CC2): "The moral effect lay rather in the conduct of man in regard to the tree, a thing prohibited" [3, p.154]: in other words, my argument is that it lies more than simply "breaking the rules" but an enormous defiance and refusal to accept indebtedness that, in retrospect, is the true horror, not a minor trifle. (Note that my opponent tries to suggest that God resented the revelation of knowledge, but his position cannot be held in light of a few powerful counters. One is that God, upon surveying his own creation, supposedly declared that "vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kind" were "good" (Genesis, 1:12), a range that encompasses the Tree of Conscience; thus God did not see opposition to it, and indeed, the punishments that my opponent describes are inflicted primarily on the basis of the deed [Genesis, 3:17 in particular, where he sterilizes man's ground and experience because he "llistened to. . [his] wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it']. As a result, I have at least destroyed my opponent's supposition of knowledge as a deciding factor in the narrative of the fall of man, for one part supposes an opposition to awakening, a transfiguration of being. It cannot be denied that there was an awakening (Genesis, 3:7) or a broadening of knowledge, but since knowledge can be shown secondary to the distortion of the spiritual relationship at hand that provoked the Fall. 1b. Note that my opponent has casually assumed that the Serpent in Eden was Satan. Although the definition postulated DOES state an association, associations. without evidence provided, do not stand in the context of a debate, especially when associations, by definition only mean of a correlation or connection [4], but not of sameness between two variables. ;) 2. a. Case. I will argue that the framework of a social process enables authority to be a candidate, and will, in an act of creativity; it should be noted that a social process, with two parties in interaction will benefit either tangibly or intangibly, as a way of harmonization[6], can be seen as the result of the spiritual relationship (see Clarifications) between god and man that can extend more to social terms, of which authority is a construct; the parallel between god and man, and their spiritual conformity that can be tied through the similar powers of reasoning between the two that have enabled communication between the Maker and his work--a conduit, and social interaction. There is, for such processes, a "norm of reciprocity" that there should be a balance of obligations within relationships [6]; God, as presented within the Bible, and within the spiritual relationship, is responsible for not only allowing man to enact a regent-status and sovereignty over what is, in nature, equal with him [3], and has conferred, to man, qualities that procure wisdom, intelligence, etc. And yet, it should be noted that God derives no benefit, neither from this or from the aspect of man, as the Book of Job states, "Can a wise man be of use to God? Or a wise man useful to himself? " (Job, 1: 22), and receives no benefit from such offices for such advantages rebound to the wielder, for personal and even societal reasons (in the context of human laws). (see previous counter-claim for more). The concession of authority may represent what may be offered, and the act of doing so, unlike Pro's admission, while implying a sense of collectivism as opposed to individualistic impulse, does not necessarily imply an overwhelming subjugation of such impulses; although individualism can easily be meant as of an unrestrained liberalism, with which it has become synonymous with, Pro has not offered reasons that would show individualism would override collectivism in benefit to society (since my opponent chose to subject God to a critique based on such a framework of intercourse, it is implied that the contention here is in social realms) in the dichotomy presented. I will be expanding the concept of reciprocity as a base for God's authority in the next few rounds. b. I will concede of the fact of the killings, but will be extending my argument on reciprocity and perhaps other societal notions (related to it) to justify that God's authority also rests on the control of the threshold between life. .. and death. :) Keep in mind, voters, that I will be responding to some points later; though I fragment my case, I do wish to respond (especially to the point about God's punishments) when it is more fully developed and when I have more space. ;) For the sources and note, see---> . http://www.debate.org...