"Atheists Killed >140 millions" is Fallacious

[seeds]

I asked whether you give a knife to a psychopath knowing that he will kill you. God knew in advance that Adam and Eve would fail yet he created the tree and gave them access to it. God is omniscient, isn't He?

Okay, myth disssection it is then...

It's worse than what you are pointing out, bahman, for not only did the God in the Eden myth omnisciently "know" that Adam and Eve would not be able to resist the fruit of the tree that he created and made readily available to them,...

...but he, being the worse parent imaginable, allowed the evilest (most insidiously persuasive) demon in all of reality (Satan) uninhibited access to them.

In other words, it's the equivalent of human parents going out for dinner and a movie while knowing full well that the babysitter they hired is a convicted pedophile.

No, wait, it's the equivalent of human parents literally watching a pedophile abuse their children while not making the slightest effort to intervene in the crime.
_______

True. That was Satan who fooled Eve first by saying that the fruit makes you look like God and that God would never punish you for eating the fruit. I pointed out the existence of the Serpent several times in my previous posts but IC simply ignored it.

Actually (as per the the myth), Satan was being truthful,...

...for even God concurred that because they had eaten the fruit, Adam and Eve (like God and the occupants of heaven) had gained the knowledge of good and evil.

However, somehow, that educational benefit (or curse?) regarding the knowledge of good and evil seems to have been edited out of the gene pool from which IC is descended,...

...for he cannot seem to comprehend how profoundly evil it would be for him to not give one whit if his friends and loved ones are being savagely tortured in Hell for eternity, while he enjoys an eternity of pleasure and bliss in heaven.
_______

[bahman]

Creating an agent with free will is good indeed. I am however asking why God created a sinful situation in which He knew that Adam and Eve would fail. The fact that God knew that they would fail yet persisted in putting them in that condition means that God has an intention or purpose.

His intention was exactly what I was suggesting, I think: to create beings that had a choice of whether or not to know and love Him -- who had their own personalities, wills, choices, identities, and so on, and could thus be genuine companions, should they choose to do so.

Of course, the downside of that strategy is obvious: they might choose not to do so. That's the problem with free-will-having beings; they don't always do what you would desire them to do. But some would. As it is written in John 1:

"He [Jesus Christ] was the true Light that, coming into the world, enlightens every person.

He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and yet the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own people did not accept Him.

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name..."

God's intention is obvious. He wanted them to fail! And now, we children of Adam and Eve, living and suffering in a cursed world with doubt whether what you said is true or false! Honestly, that is not a thing that all wise, all love,... God would do.

By the way, you mentioned elsewhere that you experienced Jesus. Would you share your experience with us?

[bahman]

I pointed out the existence of the Serpent several times in my previous posts but IC simply ignored it.

Well, it's not relevant. The Tempter is merely the means by which Eve received the choice. It didn't make her make the choice she did. She was still fully responsible for what she did. And Genesis is quite clear about that, too.

It is very relevant. Eve was fooled by the Serpent so there is no excuse to punish her.

[Immanuel Can]

Creating an agent with free will is good indeed. I am however asking why God created a sinful situation in which He knew that Adam and Eve would fail. The fact that God knew that they would fail yet persisted in putting them in that condition means that God has an intention or purpose.

His intention was exactly what I was suggesting, I think: to create beings that had a choice of whether or not to know and love Him -- who had their own personalities, wills, choices, identities, and so on, and could thus be genuine companions, should they choose to do so.

Of course, the downside of that strategy is obvious: they might choose not to do so. That's the problem with free-will-having beings; they don't always do what you would desire them to do. But some would. As it is written in John 1:

"He [Jesus Christ] was the true Light that, coming into the world, enlightens every person.

He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and yet the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own people did not accept Him.

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name..."

God's intention is obvious. He wanted them to fail!

He didn't, actually. That's why He instructed them not to take from the tree. What He wanted them to do was to choose freely to obey. But again, when you give a creature free will...things can happen.

By the way, you mentioned elsewhere that you experienced Jesus. Would you share your experience with us?

I can't remember the context of the discussion, nor using that precise wording, which seems far too casual for me: it sounds like something said in a sort of hippy voice. Can you locate what you're referring to?

[bahman]

Okay, myth disssection it is then...

It's worse than what you are pointing out, bahman, for not only did the God in the Eden myth omnisciently "know" that Adam and Eve would not be able to resist the fruit of the tree that he created and made readily available to them,...

...but he, being the worse parent imaginable, allowed the evilest (most insidiously persuasive) demon in all of reality (Satan) uninhibited access to them.

In other words, it's the equivalent of human parents going out for dinner and a movie while knowing full well that the babysitter they hired is a convicted pedophile.

No, wait, it's the equivalent of human parents literally watching a pedophile abuse their children while not making the slightest effort to intervene in the crime.
_______

True. That was Satan who fooled Eve first by saying that the fruit makes you look like God and that God would never punish you for eating the fruit. I pointed out the existence of the Serpent several times in my previous posts but IC simply ignored it.

Actually (as per the the myth), Satan was being truthful,...

...for even God concurred that because they had eaten the fruit, Adam and Eve (like God and the occupants of heaven) had gained the knowledge of good and evil.

Satan fooled Eve by saying that God wouldn't punish you for eating the fruit so He lied.

However, somehow, that educational benefit (or curse?) regarding the knowledge of good and evil seems to have been edited out of the gene pool from which IC is descended,...

That is the result of the curse.

...for he cannot seem to comprehend how profoundly evil it would be for him to not give one whit if his friends and loved ones are being savagely tortured in Hell for eternity, while he enjoys an eternity of pleasure and bliss in heaven.
_______

True.

[bahman]

His intention was exactly what I was suggesting, I think: to create beings that had a choice of whether or not to know and love Him -- who had their own personalities, wills, choices, identities, and so on, and could thus be genuine companions, should they choose to do so.

Of course, the downside of that strategy is obvious: they might choose not to do so. That's the problem with free-will-having beings; they don't always do what you would desire them to do. But some would. As it is written in John 1:

"He [Jesus Christ] was the true Light that, coming into the world, enlightens every person.

He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and yet the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own people did not accept Him.

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name..."

God's intention is obvious. He wanted them to fail!

He didn't, actually. That's why He instructed them not to take from the tree. What He wanted them to do was to choose freely to obey. But again, when you give a creature free will...things can happen.

He knew that they would eat the fruit!

By the way, you mentioned elsewhere that you experienced Jesus. Would you share your experience with us?

I can't remember the context of the discussion, nor using that precise wording, which seems far too casual for me: it sounds like something said in a sort of hippy voice. Can you locate what you're referring to?

I cannot find it.

[Immanuel Can]

I pointed out the existence of the Serpent several times in my previous posts but IC simply ignored it.

Well, it's not relevant. The Tempter is merely the means by which Eve received the choice. It didn't make her make the choice she did. She was still fully responsible for what she did. And Genesis is quite clear about that, too.

It is very relevant. Eve was fooled by the Serpent so there is no excuse to punish her.

If she was fooled, it was not without her deliberate will and consent. The passage clearly says,

"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 some of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate." (Gen. 3:6)

It says she made her choice on three considerations: the tree looked good, it was appealing to the eyes, and that it would bring new information. She had her reasons, obviously, and for her, they were weighed against the commandment of God. She chose her rebellion.

However, her sin is later slightly -- but far from totally -- extenuated on the basis you mention...that she was at least a little bit fooled, but Adam knew fully what he was doing. The difference, however, is not great; nor is the difference in the result very great.

[bahman]

Well, it's not relevant. The Tempter is merely the means by which Eve received the choice. It didn't make her make the choice she did. She was still fully responsible for what she did. And Genesis is quite clear about that, too.

It is very relevant. Eve was fooled by the Serpent so there is no excuse to punish her.

If she was fooled, it was not without her deliberate will and consent. The passage clearly says,

"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 some of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate." (Gen. 3:6)

It says she made her choice on three considerations: the tree looked good, it was appealing to the eyes, and that it would bring new information. She had her reasons, obviously, and for her, they were weighed against the commandment of God. She chose her rebellion.

However, her sin is later slightly -- but far from totally -- extenuated on the basis you mention...that she was at least a little bit fooled, but Adam knew fully what he was doing. The difference, however, is not great; nor is the difference in the result very great.

I am talking about the verse that the Serpent said that God would not punish you if you eat from the tree.

[henry quirk]

even if my knowledge of your choice is 100% right, it wouldn't imply I made you choose anything.

Your knowledge is based on knowing me and what I've done. I may surprise you with what I choose to do next. God's knowledge, as you reckon Him, is absolute. He knows not only what I've done, but what I will do, even before I've made the choice.

I cannot be a libertarian free will if God has such perfect knowledge. I am a libertarian free will and He exists. Sumthin' (someone), as I say, has to give. I can't. Me, as a free will, can't be sumthin' else, or sumthin' less, and be a free will. So God chooses to deny himself knowledge of what I'll do, or, God is incapable of knowing.

So what God sees must be rather like a "web" of possibilities, along which we are free to travel in the direction we choose, among those choices really possible to us.

Yes. He knows all the possibilities of all the permutations of my yet to be made choice. He doesn't know -- by choice or by incapability -- which possibility, which permutation will come to be.

[Immanuel Can]

It is very relevant. Eve was fooled by the Serpent so there is no excuse to punish her.

If she was fooled, it was not without her deliberate will and consent. The passage clearly says,

"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 some of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate." (Gen. 3:6)

It says she made her choice on three considerations: the tree looked good, it was appealing to the eyes, and that it would bring new information. She had her reasons, obviously, and for her, they were weighed against the commandment of God. She chose her rebellion.

However, her sin is later slightly -- but far from totally -- extenuated on the basis you mention...that she was at least a little bit fooled, but Adam knew fully what he was doing. The difference, however, is not great; nor is the difference in the result very great.

I am talking about the verse that the Serpent said that God would not punish you if you eat from the tree.

He doesn't say that, actually. His lie is more subtle. It's that he calls into question God's motivation for prohibiting Eve from getting knowledge that there are such things as good and evil. He tells her that she will "be like" God, if she knows these things.

And in one sense, that's actually true: God does know what the difference between good and evil is; but where the Tempter lied is when he said, "You shall not surely die." That much is a plain lie.

But Eve did not need to believe the lie. She could have believed God, instead. But she didn't. As we saw, she had her own reasons for preferring what she was hearing. And that's why her choice was not just a choice of a fruit, but rather a decision to sever her own choice from God, and thus to rupture her formerly benign relationship with God.

[seeds]

It is very relevant. Eve was fooled by the Serpent so there is no excuse to punish her.

If she was fooled, it was not without her deliberate will and consent. The passage clearly says,

"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 some of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate." (Gen. 3:6)

It says she made her choice on three considerations: the tree looked good, it was appealing to the eyes, and that it would bring new information. She had her reasons, obviously, and for her, they were weighed against the commandment of God. She chose her rebellion.

However, her sin is later slightly -- but far from totally -- extenuated on the basis you mention...that she was at least a little bit fooled, but Adam knew fully what he was doing. The difference, however, is not great; nor is the difference in the result very great.

I am talking about the verse that the Serpent said that God would not punish you if you eat from the tree.

Keeping in mind that we are debating the details of a myth, as in something that never actually took place in any real sense,...

...the question is, how can beings who do not yet possess the knowledge of good and evil (right from wrong) be held accountable for their actions, especially when the one making the big stink about it (God) did absolutely nothing to protect such clueless beings from, again, the evilest most insidiously persuasive demon in all of reality?

Should we punish a toddler because an adult pedophile talked her into allowing the pedophile to sexually abuse her?
_______

[Immanuel Can]

I cannot be a libertarian free will if God has such perfect knowledge.

I don't think that's the case at all. I think you very much can be.

I say again, for what it's worth, "know" and "make" are very different verbs. To say God knows what you will do does not even remotely imply He makes you do it. If they were the same verbs, you and I could make things simply by knowing about them.

So what God sees must be rather like a "web" of possibilities, along which we are free to travel in the direction we choose, among those choices really possible to us.

Yes. He knows all the possibilities of all the permutations of my yet to be made choice. He doesn't know -- by choice or by incapability -- which possibility, which permutation which actually will come to be.[/quote]
Some people have aimed for an explanation like that. They go by different names: Process Theologians, Open God Theologians. I think they're wrong, because they're fretting about a thing that simply does not logically follow, and thus they're having to deny God's omniscience in order to save their commitment to human freedom.

They're arguing backwards, and don't maybe realize it. They're arguing from the premise, "I want to think I'm free," to the conclusion, "Therefore, God can't know in advance what I will do." But there's no premise capable of connecting those two claims, I think...at least none that is even remotely possible to believe. Even if I want something, that doesn't mean I get it. And God knowing in advance what I will do has no impact on whether or not I'm free, even if I don't understand that fact.

You knowing I'd respond to this didn't make me do it. And you were 100% correct.

[Immanuel Can]

Should we punish a toddler because an adult pedophile talked her into allowing the pedophile to sexually abuse her?

Toddlers have insufficient judgment to make decisions. Eve clearly was capable of deliberation and of finding her own reasons to do whatever she chose to do. And she was informed of and knew the full consequences in advance, as well; that, toddlers do not do. So the analogy really doesn't fit at all.

[henry quirk]

If God knows absolutely what I will do: I cannot be a free will.

I am a free will and God exists.

So: He chooses to deny Himself knowledge of what I will do, or, He is incapable of knowing what I'll do.

In the first (which I favor) God can but does not. In the second (which I disfavor) God simply cannot.

No other options presented, so far, make a lick of sense to me.

[bahman]

If she was fooled, it was not without her deliberate will and consent. The passage clearly says,

"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 some of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate." (Gen. 3:6)

It says she made her choice on three considerations: the tree looked good, it was appealing to the eyes, and that it would bring new information. She had her reasons, obviously, and for her, they were weighed against the commandment of God. She chose her rebellion.

However, her sin is later slightly -- but far from totally -- extenuated on the basis you mention...that she was at least a little bit fooled, but Adam knew fully what he was doing. The difference, however, is not great; nor is the difference in the result very great.

I am talking about the verse that the Serpent said that God would not punish you if you eat from the tree.

He doesn't say that, actually. His lie is more subtle. It's that he calls into question God's motivation for prohibiting Eve from getting knowledge that there are such things as good and evil. He tells her that she will "be like" God, if she knows these things.

And in one sense, that's actually true: God does know what the difference between good and evil is; but where the Tempter lied is when he said, "You shall not surely die." That much is a plain lie.

But Eve did not need to believe the lie. She could have believed God, instead. But she didn't. As we saw, she had her own reasons for preferring what she was hearing. And that's why her choice was not just a choice of a fruit, but rather a decision to sever her own choice from God, and thus to rupture her formerly benign relationship with God.

He certainly said that you won't die if you eat the fruit opposite of what God said. Here are the verses from Genesis 3:

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,
3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ ”
4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.
5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”