God didn't keep his words

[Compassionist]

In Genesis 2:16 and 17 the Bible (New International Version) says:
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 from it you will certainly die.”

If after eating the forbidden fruits, Adam and Eve died just as God had said, then that would have been just and consistent with God's Words. However, after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruits, instead of just Adam and Eve just dying:
1. God evicted them from Eden.
2. God punished Eve and all her daughters (an estimated 54 billion and counting) with painful childbirths.
3. God evicted all the other species from Eden, too, and makes herbivores, parasites, carnivores and omnivores instead of making all the species non-consumers.
4. God punished humans with having to toil to survive.
5. God commanded humans to reproduce which leads to more suffering and death. Ruling over other creatures causes suffering and death to those creatures, too. "God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”" - Genesis 1:28, The Bible (NIV)

These acts are cruel and unjust and totally inconsistent with what God had said to Adam and Eve which was they would just die if they ate the forbidden fruits. God didn't keep his words to Adam and Eve.

I didn't ask to come into existence. No living thing does. I would have preferred it if I never existed. If God is real and actually did the things the Bible claims, then these cruel, unjust and inconsistent actions make the Biblical God evil.

[The Tanager]

This verse: “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 from it you will certainly die.” does not equal to the following actions because the following actions caused the suffering and deaths of trillions of sentient organisms who didn't deserve to suffer and die. God should have clearly stated to Adam and Eve that he would do the five things I have listed.

Why do you think God's warning of "you will certainly die" is only about a physical death? Why isn't it a wider concept of death that includes, the loss of Eden (#1) and broken relationships (#2, #4, #5)? And where do you get that God evicted all other species from Eden and created new species that consume each other because of Adam and Eve's disobedience?

You also didn't respond to why all suffering and death is bad. What principle do you base that on?

[Compassionist]

I would have preferred it if I never existed.

I find this very difficult to believe, given the fact that you are currently choosing to continue existing.

(I feel nervous writing that. No matter how remote, there is always the possibility that you would prefer it if you never existed and you are not just trying to justify yourself. If you actually mean what you wrote, and it is not just a line to win points in a debate, then please dial 988 for the suicide and crisis hotline.)

I have been thinking about suicide since the 9th of February, 1988. I think about it daily. The only reason I have not yet killed myself is because it will cause suffering to my loved ones e.g. my parents, uncles, aunts, cousins, nephews, nieces, etc. Once they have all died, I will kill myself.

[Compassionist]

This verse: “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 from it you will certainly die.” does not equal to the following actions because the following actions caused the suffering and deaths of trillions of sentient organisms who didn't deserve to suffer and die. God should have clearly stated to Adam and Eve that he would do the five things I have listed.

Why do you think God's warning of "you will certainly die" is only about a physical death? Why isn't it a wider concept of death that includes, the loss of Eden (#1) and broken relationships (#2, #4, #5)? And where do you get that God evicted all other species from Eden and created new species that consume each other because of Adam and Eve's disobedience?

You also didn't respond to why all suffering and death is bad. What principle do you base that on?

Why would we choose to interpret the verse I quoted in my original post as anything other than literally what it says? There is no rational justification for it to be interpreted in any other way.

According to the Bible, God made everything that exists. "Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so." - Genesis 1:29,30, The Bible (New International Version). According to these verses, all the living things were vegan when God made them. Yet, we find that there are non-vegan species on Earth. How did that happen? Who made the parasites, carnivores and omnivores? Why didn't God make all living things non-consumers? That would have prevented so much suffering and death. Is God evil or incompetent or both?

The fact that suffering and death are bad is self-evident. If suffering and death are so good, as you imply, why don't we all torture everyone to death?

There is also another issue. How do we know that Adam and Eve could have made a different choice? If anyone else had their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences, would they not also have eaten the forbidden fruit? Most likely.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #13]

Issue #1 - What does Gen 2:16-17 mean?

Your interpretation is not "literally what it says". The verse literally says "will certainly die", but you interpret that as meaning "will certainly and only physically die". Saying there is no other way to reasonably interpret it isn't an argument.

I've already given a reason to interpret it another way, which you haven't responded to. I've shared that the principle of charity should cause us to not treat the author like an idiot. The author clearly has a high view of God and to then write God as saying one thing and doing something completely different and offering that as a great thing just doesn't make sense. It makes sense to connect what is said will be done with what is actually listed as being done.

Issue #2 - Is all suffering and death bad?

You believe it is. Your support? It's self-evident. In other words, just claiming you are right. No, it's not self-evidently bad. A dentist taking a tooth out causes some suffering, but the dentist should rightly take the bad tooth out, right?

You also misunderstand what I'm saying. I am, in no way, implying that all suffering and death is "so good" and, therefore, we should pursue inflicting it on others as much as we can. I am questioning that a good creator would necessarily not create a physical world like ours that has suffering and death as part of it. Bear your burden and offer reasons you are right

Yes, a world without free will (as traditionally understood, which isn't unlimited freedom in everything), but that contains suffering and death may be a problem, but then you've got to bear your burden of showing that free will doesn't exist and that our choices are determined by genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

In fact, if they are determined by those factors, then on what basis is it rational to think that there is such a thing as objective good and bad at all, by which you are judging the Biblical God against?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #13]

Issue #1 - What does Gen 2:16-17 mean?

Your interpretation is not "literally what it says". The verse literally says "will certainly die", but you interpret that as meaning "will certainly and only physically die". Saying there is no other way to reasonably interpret it isn't an argument.

I've already given a reason to interpret it another way, which you haven't responded to. I've shared that the principle of charity should cause us to not treat the author like an idiot. The author clearly has a high view of God and to then write God as saying one thing and doing something completely different and offering that as a great thing just doesn't make sense. It makes sense to connect what is said will be done with what is actually listed as being done.

Issue #2 - Is all suffering and death bad?

You believe it is. Your support? It's self-evident. In other words, just claiming you are right. No, it's not self-evidently bad. A dentist taking a tooth out causes some suffering, but the dentist should rightly take the bad tooth out, right?

You also misunderstand what I'm saying. I am, in no way, implying that all suffering and death is "so good" and, therefore, we should pursue inflicting it on others as much as we can. I am questioning that a good creator would necessarily not create a physical world like ours that has suffering and death as part of it. Bear your burden and offer reasons you are right

Yes, a world without free will (as traditionally understood, which isn't unlimited freedom in everything), but that contains suffering and death may be a problem, but then you've got to bear your burden of showing that free will doesn't exist and that our choices are determined by genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

In fact, if they are determined by those factors, then on what basis is it rational to think that there is such a thing as objective good and bad at all, by which you are judging the Biblical God against?

My interpretation is die = die. Nothing else. You are adding the extra bits i.e. physically die.

There is no such thing as a principle of charity when it comes to examining a claim. Are you going to examine a research paper on the efficacy of a medication using the principle of charity? Of course not. The Bible makes many claims e.g. God exists and God made Adam and Eve, etc. These claims must be examined without bias. How do you know anything the Bible says is true? How do you know anything is true? I am 100% certain that if you behead yourself, you will die. This is based on the evidence that all beheaded humans have died. You are a human, so if you behead yourself, you will also die.

Suffering and death are self-evidently bad - that's why we don't torture everyone to death.

The dentist only removes a bad tooth to prevent even greater suffering which is caused by a bad tooth. He prioritises lesser suffering over greater suffering because suffering is bad. In fact, he uses local anaesthesia to reduce the suffering even further, instead of just pulling out the bad tooth without any local anaesthesia.

I have already shown that free will does not exist in several of my threads on this forum. You can look at my latest thread on this: viewtopic.php?t=42421

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #15]

Issue #1 - Gen 2:16-17

Are you not claiming that “die” means physical death? What do you think “die” means, then?

The principle of charity is about being charitable on what is being claimed or argued for, not on if the claim is true. Your interpretation makes the author of Genesis out to be an idiot that doesn’t realize a glaring contradiction within the span of a few verses. That isn’t a rational way to interpret a text.

Issue #2 - Suffering and death being bad

I agree that we believe that inflicting unneeded suffering and death on others is bad. That’s why we are okay with a dentist removing a bad tooth (something needed for a greater good), but not in torturing others to death (it’s unnecessary). So why do you think God creating a physical world that involves the ability to cause damage is unnecessary?

At least part of your reasoning seems to be that you think free will is an illusion. I don’t see how the thread you linked to shows that is true. I agree we are made of molecules. I agree we don’t choose to come into existence, what our genes are, what environment we are born into, what nutrients we get early on, and various factors of our experiences. That doesn’t equal determinism.

Yes, other variables definitely affect us, but why think they determine what we do? Why think everyone would have made the same decisions as Hitler or Curie? All you offered was “wouldn’t that be the case” and it’s “most likely”, but you didn’t give any support and then admitted we can’t actually compare that to come to a decision. So that’s not evidence at all.

You also misunderstand what “free will” traditionally means. It doesn’t mean having to choose every breath, to sleep, to sneeze or not, etc. It doesn’t mean being able to go back in time if one wants, choose whether you come into existence or not, being free from the logical consequences of your actions, etc.

[mms20102]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

I have prepared this discussion long time ago but Compassionist was faster than me

let's start by this nice verse

“He is the Rock, His work is perfect,
for all His ways are justice.
A God of faithfulness and without iniquity,
just and upright is He.” — Deuteronomy 32 : 4
Amen

1. Adam’s origin: dust → dust

Genesis 2 : 7 — “The LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.”

Genesis 3 : 19 — “You are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

2. Why was Adam created? — To work Eden

“The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.” — Genesis 2 : 15 (cf. 2 : 10‑14, rivers of Eden)

3. Adam was created on earth, not in heaven

“Ask … since the day that God created man on the earth …” — Deuteronomy 4 : 32

4. A limited life‑span was built in

“Therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.” — Genesis 3 : 23

5. Mandated dominion over the earth

“Let Us make man … and let them have dominion over fish, birds, livestock, and over all the earth.” — Genesis 1 : 26‑28

6. The original commands

Genesis 1 : 28 — “Be fruitful … fill the earth and subdue it.”

Genesis 2 : 16‑17 — “From the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat; in the day you eat of it you shall surely die.”

7. Creation of Eve

Genesis 2 : 18‑23 — Eve fashioned as a helper; Adam’s solitary state declared “not good.”

8. Adam names the animals (no prior moral knowledge implied)

Genesis 2 : 19‑20 — By naming, Adam discovers rather than receives innate knowledge.




Problems & Questions

• Is eating the fruit the cause of death, or is sin?

Adam lived 930 years (Genesis 5 : 5); he did not drop dead “that day.”

• What exactly was “the law,” and how could death have occurred?

If sin brings death:

Adam did not know good from evil.

He did not know obedience was required.

He did not know nakedness (or disobedience) was evil.

He did not grasp what “death” meant.

Circular dilemma: knowledge of good/evil comes only by eating, yet ignorance is punished.

• Did Adam understand “punishment” at all?

• How was Adam punished when Eve initiated the act and he lacked knowledge of the fruit’s source?

• Who proved more truthful — the serpent or God?

The serpent’s claim vs. God’s word
Genesis 3 : 1‑5 — The serpent (described as “crafty”) says, “You will not surely die … your eyes will be opened.”
How did an omniscient God not “know” where Adam and Eve were? (Genesis 3 : 9)

• Where is justice when a law is enforced without evidence and punishment spreads to all?

God:

Created the serpent yet gave no warning.

Gave Adam no moral immunity.

Left the serpent inside Eden.

Created Eve and foreknew the outcome, yet issued no caution.

No visual mark distinguished the forbidden fruit; Adam could eat in ignorance.

Punishment terms shifted after the act:

Serpent: 4 curses (Genesis 3 : 14‑15)

Eve: 4 pains (3 : 16)

Adam: 4 hardships (3 : 17‑19)

Earth itself cursed

Yet we find in the bible Ezekiel 18 : 20 — “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father …”


Adam expelled because God feared he might eat from the tree of life (Genesis 3 : 22):

• Does this mean the only barriers to god‑status are knowledge and immortality?

• Did Adam Eat with the knowledge of God by force or without his knowledge? since eating will result in being like God

• God posted guards at the tree of life (Genesis 3 : 24) — does Omnipotence need sentries?

• Eve is punished, yet why do all animals suffer the same fallen order?

• Is a woman’s desire for her husband a “punishment”? (Genesis 3 : 16)
  By parity, is male desire now an added curse?

• Serpents do not eat dust (3 : 14) — was the sentence later rescinded, or is there a “serpent savior”?

• If God’s reckoning makes Adam’s 930‑year life “dying in the same day,” then why do all humanity and creation still bear the expanded punishments meant for Adam alone? And why humanity is suffering extra punishment while the main punishment is fulfilled!!

Adam was going to die anyway unless he ate from the tree of life; thus “death” in 2 : 17 must mean immediate death, not eventual mortality.
 “Day” as a thousand years
Psalm 90 : 4 — “A thousand years in Your sight are like a day that has just gone by.”

2 Peter 3 : 8 — “With the Lord one day is as a thousand years …”

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #15]

Issue #1 - Gen 2:16-17

Are you not claiming that “die” means physical death? What do you think “die” means, then?

The principle of charity is about being charitable on what is being claimed or argued for, not on if the claim is true. Your interpretation makes the author of Genesis out to be an idiot that doesn’t realize a glaring contradiction within the span of a few verses. That isn’t a rational way to interpret a text.

Issue #2 - Suffering and death being bad

I agree that we believe that inflicting unneeded suffering and death on others is bad. That’s why we are okay with a dentist removing a bad tooth (something needed for a greater good), but not in torturing others to death (it’s unnecessary). So why do you think God creating a physical world that involves the ability to cause damage is unnecessary?

At least part of your reasoning seems to be that you think free will is an illusion. I don’t see how the thread you linked to shows that is true. I agree we are made of molecules. I agree we don’t choose to come into existence, what our genes are, what environment we are born into, what nutrients we get early on, and various factors of our experiences. That doesn’t equal determinism.

Yes, other variables definitely affect us, but why think they determine what we do? Why think everyone would have made the same decisions as Hitler or Curie? All you offered was “wouldn’t that be the case” and it’s “most likely”, but you didn’t give any support and then admitted we can’t actually compare that to come to a decision. So that’s not evidence at all.

You also misunderstand what “free will” traditionally means. It doesn’t mean having to choose every breath, to sleep, to sneeze or not, etc. It doesn’t mean being able to go back in time if one wants, choose whether you come into existence or not, being free from the logical consequences of your actions, etc.

By die, I mean ceasing to exist. For example, Adolf Hitler and Marie Curie died. They have ceased to exist. Their sentience and personality are gone forever. I know that Christians believe in souls and that souls go to heaven or hell, but I am not convinced that souls, heaven and hell exist. If you can prove to me that souls, heaven, and hell exist, please do.

I have never heard of the principle of charity being used when evaluating claims. I certainly don't use it for evaluating anything. I use evidence and reasoning to figure out what is true. The Bible does not provide us with any evidence for the claims it makes, e.g. God exists, Adam and Eve existed and ate from the forbidden tree, etc. I am almost 100% certain that the Biblical God does not exist. I am 100% certain, because of the way the Biblical God behaves, that he is evil. If anyone else behaved in such a manner, I would consider him or her evil, too. Please see: https://www.evilbible.com

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20will free will means:

1
: voluntary choice or decision
I do this of my own free will

2
: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

I agree that we make voluntary choices. For example, no one is coercing me to type these words.

When I say that we don't have free will, what I mean is that we do not have the freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. We don't choose to come into existence and we don't choose our genes, our early environments, our early nutrients and our early experiences. These unchosen variables determine and constrain our choices. For example, if you behead a human, his or her head will not grow back, and he or she will die. However, Planarians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian can regenerate an entire body - including a new head with a brain - from just a small body fragment. If beheaded, both the head and tail pieces can regenerate the missing parts. Neither humans, nor planarians, have free will. Both species make choices which are determined by their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Have you read "Determined: Life Without Free Will" by Robert M Sapolsky? If not, I most highly recommend that you do.

While I can't compare two individuals with 100% identical genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences because such identical beings don't exist, I did examine the effects of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences on decision making. That's how I came to the conclusion that if anyone else had the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences of Adolf Hitler or Marie Curie, they would, most likely, make the same choices as Adolf Hitler or Marie Curie.

1. Heritability of Decision-Making Traits
Twin studies have demonstrated that decision-making traits such as impulsivity and delay discounting (the preference for immediate over delayed rewards) have a significant genetic component. For instance, a study on adolescent twins found that genetic factors accounted for approximately 40% of the variance in delay discounting at age 16, increasing to about 60% by age 18. Another study in middle childhood reported heritability estimates for delay discounting ranging from 30% to 50%.

2. Candidate Gene Associations
DRD4 (Dopamine Receptor D4): Variants of the DRD4 gene, particularly the 7-repeat allele (7R+), have been linked to increased financial risk-taking. Individuals with this variant tend to be more risk-seeking, possibly due to lower dopamine sensitivity, which leads them to seek greater stimulation to achieve typical dopaminergic activity.

COMT (Catechol-O-methyltransferase): The Val158Met polymorphism in the COMT gene affects dopamine metabolism in the prefrontal cortex. The Met allele is associated with reduced COMT activity, resulting in higher dopamine levels and influencing executive functions. Studies have linked the Met allele to increased impulsivity and altered decision-making processes.

5-HTTLPR (Serotonin Transporter Gene): Polymorphisms in the 5-HTTLPR gene affect serotonin transport and have been associated with decision-making under ambiguity and risk. For example, individuals with certain variants may exhibit different behaviors in tasks like the Iowa Gambling Task, reflecting variations in risk assessment and impulsivity.

3. Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS)
Large-scale GWAS have identified numerous genetic loci associated with decision-making-related traits:

A GWAS involving approximately 3 million individuals identified 3,952 genome-wide significant single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with educational attainment, a proxy for future-oriented decision-making. The polygenic index derived from these SNPs explained 12–16% of the variance in educational attainment.

Another GWAS focusing on delay discounting identified 14 genome-wide significant loci, reinforcing the genetic basis of this decision-making trait.

4. Neurogenetics and Brain Imaging
Genetic variations influence the structure and function of brain regions involved in decision-making:

COMT Val158Met Polymorphism: This variant affects dopamine levels in the prefrontal cortex, a region critical for executive functions. Functional MRI studies have shown that individuals with the Met allele exhibit different activation patterns in the prefrontal cortex during cognitive tasks, suggesting a genetic influence on brain activity related to decision-making.

5. Gene–Environment Interactions and Epigenetics
Genetic predispositions interact with environmental factors to shape decision-making behaviours:

Epigenetic Mechanisms: Environmental influences such as stress, diet, and exposure to toxins can lead to epigenetic modifications (e.g., DNA methylation) that alter gene expression without changing the DNA sequence. These changes can affect neural circuits involved in decision-making and may even be transmitted across generations.

Gene–Environment Interactions: For instance, the impact of the COMT Val158Met polymorphism on decision-making can be moderated by environmental stressors, highlighting the complex interplay between genes and the environment in shaping behaviour.

Both the physical environment and the social environment determine our neural pathways which in turn make choices.

For example, if you were placed in a 200 degrees Celsius environment without any protective gear, you would die.

1. Learning and Experience
Social learning (observing others' behaviour and outcomes) helps shape personal decision rules.

Past experiences condition reward and punishment associations, guiding future decisions (e.g., through operant and classical conditioning).

Cognitive schemas, formed from early life experiences, influence how situations are perceived and how options are weighed.

2. Social and Cultural Context
Norms, expectations, and values from families, communities, religions, and cultures strongly affect moral judgments and choices.

Cultures vary in individualism vs collectivism, risk tolerance, emphasis on long-term planning, and more.

Peer pressure and social conformity can override personal preferences, especially in adolescents.

3. Economic and Physical Environment
Scarcity and stress (e.g., poverty, food insecurity) can narrow decision-making to short-term survival and limit cognitive bandwidth (a concept known as the scarcity mindset).

Living in unsafe or chaotic environments can increase impulsivity and reduce perceived control.

Access to resources, education, and opportunities enables better-informed and more reflective decisions.

4. Parenting and Upbringing
Attachment styles, parenting consistency, emotional attunement, and discipline methods shape emotion regulation and delay of gratification.

Children in nurturing environments often develop better executive function, leading to more adaptive decision-making.

5. Trauma and Adversity
Exposure to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) can disrupt brain development (especially the prefrontal cortex and amygdala), leading to:

Impulsivity

Hypervigilance

Poor risk assessment

Traumatised individuals may default to fight/flight/freeze responses rather than reflective decision-making.

6. Educational Environment
Quality of schooling influences cognitive development, critical thinking, and self-regulation.

Growth mindset education can improve persistence and resilience in decision-making.

Exposure to diverse perspectives expands cognitive flexibility and ethical reasoning.

7. Digital and Media Influence
Algorithms on social media, news cycles, and advertising can manipulate attention, emotions, and perceptions, steering decisions unconsciously.

Repeated exposure to misinformation or polarised content can affect belief systems and choices.

8. Situational Factors and Framing
Decisions are often context-sensitive:

How a choice is framed (gain vs. loss) can change the outcome (the framing effect).

Time pressure, fatigue, or distractions reduce deliberation and increase errors or biases.

Group dynamics (e.g., groupthink) can distort personal judgment.

Nutrients play a vital but often underappreciated role in decision-making by affecting brain development, neurotransmitter balance, energy metabolism, and cognitive functioning. Nutritional status directly impacts how we process information, regulate emotions, and make judgments — and its effects begin even before birth.

Here’s how nutrients influence decision-making across the lifespan:

1. Brain Development and Structure
Critical nutrients during pregnancy and early childhood (e.g., omega-3 fatty acids, iron, iodine, zinc, choline, B-vitamins) shape brain architecture, especially:

Prefrontal cortex (planning, inhibition, executive function)

Hippocampus (memory and learning)

Amygdala (emotional regulation)

Deficiencies can lead to permanent deficits in decision-making capacity due to altered neurodevelopment.

2. Neurotransmitter Synthesis and Regulation
Nutrients are precursors or cofactors for key brain chemicals involved in decision-making:

Tryptophan → Serotonin (mood, patience, impulse control)

Tyrosine → Dopamine (motivation, reward evaluation)

Choline → Acetylcholine (attention, memory)

Iron, zinc, magnesium, and B-vitamins support neurotransmitter function and neural signalling.

Deficiencies can cause:

Irritability

Poor impulse control

Cognitive fatigue

Reduced capacity for delayed gratification

3. Energy Supply and Glucose Regulation
The brain uses 20–25% of the body’s energy, mainly from glucose.

Hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) impairs judgment, increases irritability, and leads to impulsive or short-sighted decisions.

Stable blood sugar (via balanced meals with fibre and protein) supports sustained attention and better decision quality.

4. Gut-Brain Axis
The gut microbiome, shaped by diet (especially fibre, fermented foods, and polyphenols), communicates with the brain through:

Immune signaling

Vagus nerve activity

Metabolites like short-chain fatty acids

Dysbiosis (microbial imbalance) can promote anxiety, brain fog, and poor decision-making.

Emerging studies show links between the microbiome and risk-taking, social behaviour, and reward processing.

5. Inflammation and Oxidative Stress
Diets high in processed foods, sugar, and trans fats increase inflammation and oxidative stress, which impair brain function.

Chronic inflammation is linked to:

Reduced executive function

Depressive symptoms

Impaired impulse control

Anti-inflammatory diets (rich in fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and omega-3s) support clearer, more rational thinking.

6. Mood and Emotional Regulation
Nutrients influence mood, which strongly biases decisions:

Low B12 and folate can contribute to depression.

Vitamin D deficiency is linked to low mood and cognitive decline.

Omega-3s support emotional resilience and reduce impulsivity.

When mood is dysregulated, people tend to make:

Emotion-driven, short-term decisions

Riskier or avoidant choices

Less consistent judgments

7. Cognitive Ageing
Long-term nutrition affects decision-making later in life.

Antioxidants, flavonoids, and omega-3s protect against cognitive decline and support wise decision-making in older adults.

Poor nutrition can accelerate cognitive rigidity and indecision.

Nutrients are not just fuel — they are foundational regulators of the cognitive and emotional processes that drive decision-making.

Experiences play a central and dynamic role in decision-making, as they are the foundation on which individuals build knowledge, expectations, emotional responses, and behavioural patterns. While genes, environment, and nutrients provide the structure and tools, it is through experience that these elements are activated, refined, or redirected.

Here’s a breakdown of how experiences influence decision-making:

1. Learning from Consequences

Operant conditioning (rewards and punishments) teaches us which actions are beneficial or harmful.

Positive outcomes encourage repetition.
Negative outcomes lead to avoidance.
These learning patterns create heuristics (mental shortcuts) that guide future decisions.

2. Formation of Habits and Biases

Repeated experiences form habitual responses (e.g., reaching for a snack when stressed).
Cognitive biases like confirmation bias, availability bias, and optimism bias develop from how past experiences are stored and recalled.

3. Emotional Conditioning and Memory

Emotionally intense experiences (e.g., trauma or joy) strongly influence future decisions:

Fear-based learning can lead to avoidance or hypervigilance.
Positive reinforcement enhances risk-taking or pro-social behaviour.
These are often stored in the amygdala and hippocampus, affecting rapid or unconscious choices.

4. Development of Values and Beliefs

Life experiences shape personal values, beliefs, and worldviews, which in turn filter how decisions are made.

For example, growing up in a cooperative community may foster pro-social decision-making.
Negative experiences with authority may lead to scepticism and resistance.

5. Social Modelling and Observation

Observational learning (e.g., watching parents, peers, media figures) teaches decision patterns without direct experience.

Role models can inspire ethical, rational, or aspirational decisions.
Witnessing others' failures or successes influences risk assessment and planning.

6. Executive Function and Cognitive Development

Early and ongoing cognitive stimulation (e.g., puzzles, conversations, exploration) builds decision-making capacity.

Experiences of autonomy help strengthen executive skills like planning, weighing options, and delaying gratification.
Conversely, neglect or deprivation can stunt these faculties.

7. Trauma and Adverse Experiences

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), abuse, or chronic stress impair decision-making by:

Damaging neural pathways in the prefrontal cortex (reasoning) and hippocampus (memory)
Overactivating the amygdala (fear response)
This leads to impulsivity, mistrust, indecisiveness, or learned helplessness.

8. Self-Efficacy and Confidence

Experiences of success, failure, and feedback shape a person’s confidence in their ability to make good decisions.

High self-efficacy leads to greater risk tolerance, perseverance, and reflective decision-making.
Low self-efficacy results in avoidance, indecision, or over-reliance on others.

9. Cultural and Life Milestones

Key experiences (e.g., immigration, grief, love, betrayal, education, activism) can dramatically reshape decision-making frameworks.

A person who once made selfish choices may become altruistic after a transformative experience. For example, I used to be a vegetarian. I met two vegans in August 2006 - I had never heard of veganism until they told me about it. I became a vegan based on this experience. If I had not met them, I would not have known about veganism and would not have gone vegan. We all make choices, but our choices are never free from determinants, constraints and consequences.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to mms20102 in post #17]

Thank you for your detailed reply. I find the Bible to be full of cruelties, injustices, contradictions and inaccuracies. Please see https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com and https://www.evilbible.com

[mms20102]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #19]

I know the Bible contains passages that appear contradictory, yet I still see a quiet beauty in the truths that remain within it. I believe God breathed inspiration into parts of these writings, and because of that, I feel drawn to keep searching—patiently and lovingly—to uncover whatever goodness they hold.

In the past, my instinct was to clash with any viewpoint that differed from my own. Now I’m learning to pursue truth itself, even when it challenges my preferences is my ultimate goal.

Harboring resentment toward the Bible won’t bring real answers; patient reflection and thoughtful study, however, can deepen both knowledge and understanding.