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]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #27]

First, 100% certainty is an irrational standard except for in things like pure mathematics and definitions. Inferences to the best explanation is what we should be striving for.

Second, literal interpretations only work if the text is meant to be taken literally. Your interpretation is assuming the text is meant to be taken literally. That’s not the default, so you are not ‘not assuming’ anything beyond the literal words.

Third, you keep talking about examples that counter free will that don’t actually counter where people claim free will exists. Hardly any libertarian free will believer (if any at all) in these discussions uses free will to cover things like having the ability to post on a forum or grow a new head or tail, coming into existence, choosing their genes, etc. Talk about the actual cases of disagreement, like, say, an ethical decision.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to mms20102 in post #29]

Every text is vulnerable to misunderstanding; that's just the nature of language. Even literal texts are open to misunderstanding because of how terms get used to mean different things. Metaphorical texts do not open the door for each individual to tailor its meaning due to preference or cultural trend (at least not rationally so). We can still look at the contexts and come to a better interpretation that gets at an objective understanding of God.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #27]

First, 100% certainty is an irrational standard except for in things like pure mathematics and definitions. Inferences to the best explanation is what we should be striving for.

Second, literal interpretations only work if the text is meant to be taken literally. Your interpretation is assuming the text is meant to be taken literally. That’s not the default, so you are not ‘not assuming’ anything beyond the literal words.

Third, you keep talking about examples that counter free will that don’t actually counter where people claim free will exists. Hardly any libertarian free will believer (if any at all) in these discussions uses free will to cover things like having the ability to post on a forum or grow a new head or tail, coming into existence, choosing their genes, etc. Talk about the actual cases of disagreement, like, say, an ethical decision.

I disagree. I am 100% certain that if I behead myself, I will die. I am also 100% certain that if you behead yourself, you will die. I am also 100% certain that if anyone beheads a planarian, the planarian will grow a new head and brain instead of dying. This is entirely due to our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. I am 100% certain about many other things, e.g. if I speed in front of a speed camera when I am driving, I will get a speeding ticket. I could list trillions of such examples, but I won't because I have limited time and lots to do.

How do you know how the Bible is meant to be interpreted? Did you speak with the author? Did the author say to you that it must be interpreted literally or metaphorically or a combination of both? Which verses are to be taken literally? Which verses are to be taken metaphorically? Did the author give you a verse-by-verse guide on how to interpret each verse?

You keep trying to evade the fact that our choices are determined by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. I don't blame you or credit you because we don't deserve any blame or credit. I have already explained it in this thread, so I won't spend any more time explaining the same point.

You should read this thread: viewtopic.php?t=42426 and this thread: viewtopic.php?t=42425

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #33]

You are 100% certain that if you behead yourself, you will cease to exist (which you said was your definition of 'die')? How do you know that? Where is this 100% proof of no afterlife?

And is there no chance that the speed camera malfunctions and you don't end up getting the speeding ticket you deserve? No, you aren't 100% certain you'll get the speeding ticket. Yes, if everything works as it is supposed to, then the result will happen, but that’s basically just giving a definition of the process.

As to Gen 2:16-17, did you speak with the author of Genesis and they tell you that God told them all of that stuff literally happened in exactly the way they described it? Did you get a verse by verse guide? No, neither of us did. So, we look at the various reasons to interpret one way or the other. I’ve shared some reasons for my position and you simply assert your position is right.

As to God's choice to allow suffering and bad being wrong, which you seem to rest on determinism being true, I'm not evading our choices being determined. I'm asking for evidence of that. What you've offered are just assertions that determinism is true. Give evidence.

The threads you linked to, as far as I can tell, say nothing to any of the above issues. In one you simply offer a variety of frameworks and what would follow if they are true. In the other you talk about possible design flaws as a reason to not believe in God. In this thread, you made two claims that I'm questioning. Bringing up another critique doesn't support the claims you've made here.

[mms20102]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #34]


Thank you for engaging sincerely—I appreciate your effort to ground your reasoning.

However, I must admit, one part deeply troubled me. You mentioned that “100% certainty is only valid in math or definitions”, which, to me, sounds like it places mathematical logic above divine revelation.

While I agree that absolute certainty in worldly matters is rare, I believe that when it comes to God’s word, we must treat it as the highest source of truth—not something beneath human logic or subject to ever-changing inference standards.

If God has spoken, even once, then His word must carry more weight than any equation or philosophical method. Otherwise, aren’t we judging God’s message by human standards rather than submitting human reason to divine truth?

This is not about winning a debate—it’s about making sure we’re not unintentionally lowering God's word to something debatable like a scientific hypothesis.

Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to approach Scripture with the expectation of reverent clarity, rather than treating it as a puzzle that needs modern reinterpretation every generation?

That brings me to a sincere question—one I ask not to challenge, but to understand your framework:

What, in your view, is the correct method for understanding the Bible?
Is there an objective standard we can all apply to distinguish literal from metaphorical, or is it left to individual judgment? And if the latter, how can we avoid endless contradictions or subjective truths?

I genuinely want to know—because if we don’t have a consistent method, then what assurance do we have that anyone’s interpretation is reliable?

[Difflugia]

Why should I believe it is so in this case?

Because if you don't, you put yourself in the strange position of not being able to know what the Old Testament says. The same experts that are responsible for the translations you trust will tell you the same thing that I did. That's why I quoted a Hebrew grammar written by a Hebraist. Without the experts, all you have is your imagination.

I think your interpretation is wrong, because it is not logical.

Huh. I'm apparently a prophet.

[1213]

The world is full of suffering, injustice and death. I am so sad and horrified by the past and the present. I long to go back in time and prevent all suffering, injustice and death, but I can't. I long to make all living things forever happy, but I can't. I am constantly doing things I don't want to do. I can't do what I want to do. That's why I would have preferred never existing.

Yet you say that you would not want to be in a perfect place that has no suffering?

Sorry, I don't think people ever do things they don't want to do. If one truly doesn't want to do something, he doesn't do so.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #33]

You are 100% certain that if you behead yourself, you will cease to exist (which you said was your definition of 'die')? How do you know that? Where is this 100% proof of no afterlife?

And is there no chance that the speed camera malfunctions and you don't end up getting the speeding ticket you deserve? No, you aren't 100% certain you'll get the speeding ticket. Yes, if everything works as it is supposed to, then the result will happen, but that’s basically just giving a definition of the process.

As to Gen 2:16-17, did you speak with the author of Genesis and they tell you that God told them all of that stuff literally happened in exactly the way they described it? Did you get a verse by verse guide? No, neither of us did. So, we look at the various reasons to interpret one way or the other. I’ve shared some reasons for my position and you simply assert your position is right.

As to God's choice to allow suffering and bad being wrong, which you seem to rest on determinism being true, I'm not evading our choices being determined. I'm asking for evidence of that. What you've offered are just assertions that determinism is true. Give evidence.

The threads you linked to, as far as I can tell, say nothing to any of the above issues. In one you simply offer a variety of frameworks and what would follow if they are true. In the other you talk about possible design flaws as a reason to not believe in God. In this thread, you made two claims that I'm questioning. Bringing up another critique doesn't support the claims you've made here.

I am just going by evidence. There is no evidence for the existence of souls and afterlife. If you can prove to me that souls exist and go to heaven or hell after death, please do.

Since I never speed, I won't get a speeding ticket, regardless of the state of the speed camera. Yes, it's possible that some people get away with speeding due to malfunctioning speed camera. However, I know several people who have gotten speeding tickets. So, the speed cameras do function most of the time.

No, I didn't get a verse-by-verse guide to interpreting the Bible. The Bible is fiction. It's pointless to debate how to interpret it. If you disagree, please prove that the Biblical God is real, that souls exist, that heaven and hell are real, that Adam and Eve existed and ate the forbidden fruit, etc.

I already gave you evidence for genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determining choices in living things. Why do you want more evidence? If you behead a planarian, he or she will grow the head and brain back. If you behead a human, he or she will die. This is entirely due to the difference in the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences of planarians and humans. Women can choose to carry a baby in their wombs but men can't. This is entirely due to the fact that women and men differ in terms of their genes. Women are women because they inherit the XX chromosome. Men are men because they inherit the XY chromosomes. 95% of the convicted murderers on Earth are men. Being a man greatly increases the likelihood of violent choices.

I am using all of the following to live my life. I am secular because religions rely on faith instead of evidence, and they are self-contradictory and mutually contradictory:

Empiricism says reality is what can be observed and tested.

Rationalism says reality is what can be logically deduced.

Phenomenology says reality is what appears in conscious experience.

Pragmatism says reality is what works — what lets you survive and make decisions.

[Compassionist]

The world is full of suffering, injustice and death. I am so sad and horrified by the past and the present. I long to go back in time and prevent all suffering, injustice and death, but I can't. I long to make all living things forever happy, but I can't. I am constantly doing things I don't want to do. I can't do what I want to do. That's why I would have preferred never existing.

Yet you say that you would not want to be in a perfect place that has no suffering?

Sorry, I don't think people ever do things they don't want to do. If one truly doesn't want to do something, he doesn't do so.

A perfect place that has no suffering, injustice, and death does not exist.

Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:

1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events
26. Forget some events
27. Die

Here are some things I really want to do, but I can't do:

1. Go back in time and prevent all suffering and death.
2. Make all living things forever happy.

So, I am constantly doing things I don't want to do and can't do what I really want to do. I am clearly not free. I clearly don't have free will. I am clearly constrained by forces outside my control. Yet, I am never free from the consequences of my choices. Just as I am never free from the consequences of other people's choices.

I wish I had never existed. I didn't ask for existence. I didn't consent to existing.

[mms20102]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #38]

You say souls, the afterlife, and God aren’t real because they can’t be directly observed.

But here's a challenge: do you apply that same standard consistently?

You believe in minds, consciousness, rational will, identity, and even morality—yet none of those are directly observable in a lab. They are inferred, not seen. Just like dark matter in physics or the multiverse in some cosmological theories, souls are an explanatory hypothesis, not a visual object.

When you say genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine all choices, you've already crossed into determinism—which makes rational argument itself impossible. Why? Because if you're not free to choose your beliefs, and I’m not free to assess yours, then none of us are reasoning—we’re just biological dominoes falling.

So my question to you is:
Why trust reason at all, if every belief—including your atheism—is just chemically predetermined?

As for Scripture: if you dismiss the Bible as fiction without offering a standard for judging truth in historical texts, then that’s not reason—that’s dogma. Would you reject all ancient documents that speak of the divine? Or only the ones that contradict your worldview?

You appeal to empiricism, rationalism, phenomenology, and pragmatism—but each of these gives partial truths at best, and together they often contradict each other. Faith, in its classical form, isn’t blind belief—it’s trust built on cumulative signs, consistent with reason and open to testing in lived experience.