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.

[Compassionist]

[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.

I am really consistent in my values and worldviews. I am a secular sentientist vegan. I am secular because religions rely on faith instead of evidence, and they are self-contradictory and mutually contradictory. I am using all of the following to live my life.:

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.

I reject any book that relies on faith instead of evidence. There are many religious books, and humans believe in many Gods. All of these are faith-based. I have never met any of the Gods of any of the many religions on Earth.

Scientists infer the existence of dark matter primarily through its gravitational effects on visible matter, as it doesn't interact with light. It is not faith-based, the way Gods, souls, heaven and hell are.

Determinism doesn't make rational argument impossible. It just means that the present is the result of the past. Everything that happened in the last 13.82 billion years has led to me typing these words where and when I am typing these words.

[mms20102]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #41]

You say you're consistent—but what you’ve just described actually unravels your entire framework.

You affirm determinism, meaning that everything—your beliefs, your reasoning, your values, even your typing this message—is just the result of prior causes, stretching back 13.8 billion years.

But if that’s true, then your belief in secular veganism isn’t true—it’s inevitable. Same goes for the person who believes in God or divine revelation. Under determinism, no one believes anything because it’s rational—only because the atoms made them.

If beliefs are fully determined by chemistry and physics, then “rationality” has no special status.

There’s no reason to say one belief is better than another—just that one happened. That doesn’t just undercut religion—it explodes almost all of science, which depends on the assumption that we can freely and rationally evaluate evidence, test ideas, and correct errors.

You can’t say:

“I believe in reason and evidence,”
while also saying:
“All beliefs—including those—are dictated by causes outside our control.”
That’s a contradiction—not consistency.

As for rejecting all religious books because they’re “faith-based”—that’s just circular. You’re assuming nothing exists beyond sensory verification, but that assumption itself can’t be verified through sensory data. So ironically, it’s a kind of faith too—just in materialism.

So let me ask honestly:
Are you truly following evidence wherever it leads?
Or only where your philosophical presuppositions allow it to go?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #41]

You say you're consistent—but what you’ve just described actually unravels your entire framework.

You affirm determinism, meaning that everything—your beliefs, your reasoning, your values, even your typing this message—is just the result of prior causes, stretching back 13.8 billion years.

But if that’s true, then your belief in secular veganism isn’t true—it’s inevitable. Same goes for the person who believes in God or divine revelation. Under determinism, no one believes anything because it’s rational—only because the atoms made them.

If beliefs are fully determined by chemistry and physics, then “rationality” has no special status.

There’s no reason to say one belief is better than another—just that one happened. That doesn’t just undercut religion—it explodes almost all of science, which depends on the assumption that we can freely and rationally evaluate evidence, test ideas, and correct errors.

You can’t say:

“I believe in reason and evidence,”
while also saying:
“All beliefs—including those—are dictated by causes outside our control.”
That’s a contradiction—not consistency.

As for rejecting all religious books because they’re “faith-based”—that’s just circular. You’re assuming nothing exists beyond sensory verification, but that assumption itself can’t be verified through sensory data. So ironically, it’s a kind of faith too—just in materialism.

So let me ask honestly:
Are you truly following evidence wherever it leads?
Or only where your philosophical presuppositions allow it to go?

Just because something is inevitable, it does not make it false. It is inevitable that I find one banana + one banana = two bananas to be rational. It doesn't make it false. I used to be religious because I was born into a religious family. My parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews, and nieces are all religious. It is inevitable that I was highly religious from the age of 4 to 18. I left religion because I found it to be cruel, unjust and false. It is also inevitable that I left religion. Just as it is inevitable that 86% of humans currently alive are religious.

Of course, there are many possibilities that we can't falsify. I created a thread about it where I describe 17 untestable possibilities: viewtopic.php?t=42426 Just because a possibility is unfalsifiable, it doesn't make it true.

Yes, I am truly following evidence wherever it leads. It's inevitable that we were born, it's inevitable that we are currently alive, it's inevitable that we will die. I will discuss Quantum Mechanics just in case you are interested.

1. Quantum Indeterminacy
What it means: Certain properties (like position, momentum, or time of decay) cannot be precisely predicted — only probabilities can be assigned.

Applies to: Fundamental particles like electrons, photons, etc.

Implication: There's no hidden variable or deterministic mechanism beneath (according to standard interpretations like Copenhagen).

2. Quantum Superposition
What it means: A particle can exist in multiple states (e.g., both spin-up and spin-down) simultaneously until it is measured.

Famous example: Schrödinger’s cat — alive and dead until observed.

3. Quantum Decoherence
What it means: Interaction with the environment (like air molecules or photons) destroys superpositions by entangling the quantum system with its surroundings.

Effect: The quantum system appears to "collapse" into a definite state without needing an observer.

Why it matters: This explains why macroscopic objects don't show superpositions — the quantum effects average out or become smeared by environmental interactions.

So What Happens at the Macroscopic Level?
Neurons, brains, cats, and humans are made up of trillions of particles.

The quantum randomness of individual particles is overwhelmed by the stability and interactions of billions of them — thanks to decoherence.

Hence, we don’t see quantum strangeness at our scale — only deterministic-like classical behavior.

Philosophical Implication:
Because of decoherence, quantum mechanics doesn't give us libertarian free will, nor does it falsify hard determinism at the level of human decisions. It just replaces classical predictability with probabilistic causality, which behaves deterministically on large scales.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to mms20102 in post #35]

Thank you for your kind response in sharing your concerns, mms20102. I believe logic is based in the very nature of God, so I couldn't be putting that over divine revelation; it's a part of divine revelation and a tool I believe God has given us to seek truth. The problem is in human limitations, which affects both receiving logical truths as well as revelational truths. The only way, it seems to me, to overcome that is for God to make us robots and control our thinking. But that seems to go against divine revelation to me.

I think that is part of the genius of Genesis in that it paints a picture of our need to rely on God's wisdom rather than what we can come up with on our own. We can't out know omniscience. But, you see, it's logic that even gets us to that kind of statement. We can't escape it.

So, where does that leave us with interpreting divine revelation? Yes, 100% certainty would be nice, but we aren't those kinds of creatures. I don't think this means Scripture can't be clear; it's just not technically 100% because of the possible flaws we bring to it. This doesn't mean it's all subjective, though. We need to understand the historical context, the cultural context, the linguistic context, the literary context, the religious context of texts. The better hold we have on the context, the more objectively true our interpretations will be.

I feel like that answers your question, but feel free to ask follow ups or clarify what I've misunderstood about your question.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #38]


There are 3 issues we've been talking about (with one affecting every issue we could talk about). Let's make sure we are clear on those before moving to others.

1. 100% certainty

So, are you saying 100% certainty is a good standard or not? In this post you seem to say it's more reasonable (but not 100% certain) that souls don't exist and that you'd get a speeding ticket if you sped in front of a speed camera.

Before moving to other issues, please clearly state whether you are now saying 100% certainty isn't a good standard for our issues or please support that it is a good standard.

2. Gen 2:16-17

Rather than supporting your interpretation, you are now saying it's silly to argue for any interpretation because the Bible is a fiction, although you don't have to support that, I've got to prove you wrong instead. I'm sorry, but I don't think that's a rational approach. If you want to talk about the Bible being a fiction, then support it with arguments and evidence.

I'm willing to assert my beliefs on soul, heaven, hell, the Bible, who uses faith, who is self-contradictory, etc. once we are done with the 3 issues we've started with. I don't like doing too much at once.

3. God creating a world with suffering and death is wrong

You seem to be resting your position on determinism being true. Your evidence continues to involve examples that those that believe in free will are not talking about. We don't say men with free will can choose to become pregnant. That isn't the determinism vs. free will debate. Stick with something like an ethical decision if you want to be relevant to the actual issue there. Show our ethical decisions are determined.

[mms20102]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #43]

You're unintentionally proving the very contradiction I’ve been highlighting.

You say everything is inevitable—your birth, your beliefs, your rejection of religion—yet you speak as if you chose truth over falsehood. That doesn’t follow. If your shift from faith to atheism was inevitable, then so was the faith itself. Both become equally unchosen, equally meaningless in terms of truth or falsehood—just outputs of physical conditions.

So the idea that you “left religion because it was false” assumes you were capable of recognizing and preferring truth over error. But if you had no real agency in that process, then that’s not truth-seeking—it’s biochemical destiny. By your own logic, a religious believer is just as determined as you are—and neither of you can claim to have reasoned into your position.

You're not arguing for truth. You're just describing a deterministic outcome—like saying water boiled because it was heated, not because it wanted to bubble.

Then you moved to quantum mechanics—fair enough.

Yes, quantum indeterminacy exists at the particle level, but as you rightly said, it averages out via decoherence at the macroscopic level—so human brains act deterministically or probabilistically, but not freely. In other words, there’s no room for rational decision-making under your own model.

You appeal to reason, but determinism voids reason.

Reason implies the capacity to weigh evidence, consider alternatives, and freely assent to the better conclusion.

Determinism implies:

You only "accept" an idea because the causal chain made it impossible not to—not because it made better sense.

That makes rationality an illusion. And with it, science collapses—because science assumes we can freely test, doubt, and verify.

So tell me plainly:
Do you believe your atheism is true, or just inevitable?
Because if it’s merely inevitable, then so is every religion, every contradiction, every act of “delusion.”
And in that case, there’s no point in trying to persuade anyone of anything.
You’ve just dismantled the very foundation you’re standing on.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #43]

You're unintentionally proving the very contradiction I’ve been highlighting.

You say everything is inevitable—your birth, your beliefs, your rejection of religion—yet you speak as if you chose truth over falsehood. That doesn’t follow. If your shift from faith to atheism was inevitable, then so was the faith itself. Both become equally unchosen, equally meaningless in terms of truth or falsehood—just outputs of physical conditions.

So the idea that you “left religion because it was false” assumes you were capable of recognizing and preferring truth over error. But if you had no real agency in that process, then that’s not truth-seeking—it’s biochemical destiny. By your own logic, a religious believer is just as determined as you are—and neither of you can claim to have reasoned into your position.

You're not arguing for truth. You're just describing a deterministic outcome—like saying water boiled because it was heated, not because it wanted to bubble.

Then you moved to quantum mechanics—fair enough.

Yes, quantum indeterminacy exists at the particle level, but as you rightly said, it averages out via decoherence at the macroscopic level—so human brains act deterministically or probabilistically, but not freely. In other words, there’s no room for rational decision-making under your own model.

You appeal to reason, but determinism voids reason.

Reason implies the capacity to weigh evidence, consider alternatives, and freely assent to the better conclusion.

Determinism implies:

You only "accept" an idea because the causal chain made it impossible not to—not because it made better sense.

That makes rationality an illusion. And with it, science collapses—because science assumes we can freely test, doubt, and verify.

So tell me plainly:
Do you believe your atheism is true, or just inevitable?
Because if it’s merely inevitable, then so is every religion, every contradiction, every act of “delusion.”
And in that case, there’s no point in trying to persuade anyone of anything.
You’ve just dismantled the very foundation you’re standing on.

You have a mistaken notion that something inevitable is false. It's not. It's true. This website exists. I know this because I see it. It's an evidence-based conclusion. It's inevitable that I see it. Religious people are religious because of their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Secular people are secular because of their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Some secular people become religious due to new experiences. Some religious people become secular due to new experiences. Change happens according to causality. We are all prisoners of causality from conception to death. Everything is proceeding inevitably. Every choice is an inevitable choice, including my choice to type these words and your choice to read these words. I have agency, but it is not libertarian free agency. It's a determined and constrained agency. It's determined and constrained by my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. The same is true for all sentient living things. Your statement "there’s no room for rational decision-making under your own model" is false. Both my rational and irrational decisions occur according to causality. As do the rational and irrational decisions of other people. Determinism means that all events are determined by prior causes - that's all. My ability to see this website exists because of my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. If I were blinded by disease or injury, I would not be able to see this website. There are people who have been blinded by disease or injury, and thus they are unable to see this website. Determinism being true does not mean we can't make empirical observations. Determinism enables the observations in the first place.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to mms20102 in post #35]

Thank you for your kind response in sharing your concerns, mms20102. I believe logic is based in the very nature of God, so I couldn't be putting that over divine revelation; it's a part of divine revelation and a tool I believe God has given us to seek truth. The problem is in human limitations, which affects both receiving logical truths as well as revelational truths. The only way, it seems to me, to overcome that is for God to make us robots and control our thinking. But that seems to go against divine revelation to me.

I think that is part of the genius of Genesis in that it paints a picture of our need to rely on God's wisdom rather than what we can come up with on our own. We can't out know omniscience. But, you see, it's logic that even gets us to that kind of statement. We can't escape it.

So, where does that leave us with interpreting divine revelation? Yes, 100% certainty would be nice, but we aren't those kinds of creatures. I don't think this means Scripture can't be clear; it's just not technically 100% because of the possible flaws we bring to it. This doesn't mean it's all subjective, though. We need to understand the historical context, the cultural context, the linguistic context, the literary context, the religious context of texts. The better hold we have on the context, the more objectively true our interpretations will be.

I feel like that answers your question, but feel free to ask follow ups or clarify what I've misunderstood about your question.

If the Biblical God is real, why didn't he make all living things all-knowing and all-powerful? Then we would all know and understand everything, and we wouldn't need to read religious books. I am 100% certain that all religious books were written by people. I am 100% certainty that the Biblical God is imaginary and evil. I am not at all certain about whether or not a Theist or Deist or Pantheist or Panentheist God exists because such Gods are unfalsifiable. I am an agnostic atheist because I don't know if such Gods exist or not.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #38]


There are 3 issues we've been talking about (with one affecting every issue we could talk about). Let's make sure we are clear on those before moving to others.

1. 100% certainty

So, are you saying 100% certainty is a good standard or not? In this post you seem to say it's more reasonable (but not 100% certain) that souls don't exist and that you'd get a speeding ticket if you sped in front of a speed camera.

Before moving to other issues, please clearly state whether you are now saying 100% certainty isn't a good standard for our issues or please support that it is a good standard.

2. Gen 2:16-17

Rather than supporting your interpretation, you are now saying it's silly to argue for any interpretation because the Bible is a fiction, although you don't have to support that, I've got to prove you wrong instead. I'm sorry, but I don't think that's a rational approach. If you want to talk about the Bible being a fiction, then support it with arguments and evidence.

I'm willing to assert my beliefs on soul, heaven, hell, the Bible, who uses faith, who is self-contradictory, etc. once we are done with the 3 issues we've started with. I don't like doing too much at once.

3. God creating a world with suffering and death is wrong

You seem to be resting your position on determinism being true. Your evidence continues to involve examples that those that believe in free will are not talking about. We don't say men with free will can choose to become pregnant. That isn't the determinism vs. free will debate. Stick with something like an ethical decision if you want to be relevant to the actual issue there. Show our ethical decisions are determined.

100% certainty is desirable. There are trillions of things I am 100% certain about. I have already given you some examples. Here are some more examples: I am 100% certain that I am typing these words. I am 100% certain that I did a poo today. I am 100% certain that I am breathing air. I am 100% certain that if someone sucked out all the air from this room I would die. I could go on and on like this, but I won't because I think you get my point.

My interpretation of Genesis 2:16,17 is literal because it's the simplest and most obvious interpretation. If God meant something else by his alleged words, why did he not say so clearly so there is no room for debate? Of course, I am 100% certain that the Biblical God does not exist and did not write the Bible. The Bible was written by liars and murderers who made up an evil God to justify their genocides. Please see: https://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-ho ... the-bible/

Why would a God who is supposed to be omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent and the creator of the universe and all living things, command murder? The answer is that God didn't command murder. Liars and murderers made up a God who commanded genocides so that they could rob the lands of other people in their God's name as God's Chosen People. Think about it. It's self-serving lies.

"On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:
“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.
So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,
” - Joshua 10: 12 - 14, The Bible (New International Version).

Yet: "The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron." - Judges 1:19, The Bible (New International Version).

So, this God made the sun stand still and the moon stand still so that his Chosen People could murder more, but couldn't defeat the people with chariots fitted with iron!

I am 100% certain that the Biblical God is imaginary and evil.

Hard determinism means all events are determined by prior causes; free will is an illusion. Let's examine my choice to become a vegan. In August 2006, I met two vegans. Until I met them and they told me about veganism, I did not know there was such a thing. I was a vegetarian than and thought that being a vegetarian was the most ethical position a human can have. They explained to me about the harm caused by the dairy and egg industries, and I immediately became a vegan. I don't claim any credit or blame for this choice. If anyone else had my genes, my environments, my nutrients, and my experiences, they would have made the same choice. More than 99% of the 8.2 billion humans currently alive are not yet vegan. I don't blame them for this. They are prisoners of causality. They lack libertarian free will. Just as I do. Both the choice to go vegan and the choice to be an omnivore are inevitable and occur entirely according to causality.

[mms20102]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #47]

You're affirming determinism while still acting as if “rationality” means something objective and normatively superior to irrationality. That’s where your position breaks down.

Let me walk you through the issue logically—not theologically:

1. You say all actions and beliefs—including rational ones—are inevitable.

Okay, let’s grant that for argument’s sake.

That would mean someone believes 2+2=4 not because it’s true, but because it was caused by prior conditions to believe so.

And someone else believes 2+2=5 for the same reason.



2. Now the key question:

> Why is one belief “right” and the other “wrong” if both were equally inevitable?




3. Under determinism, truth becomes secondary to causality.

What is “rational” to you is just what your neurons were going to conclude anyway.

You didn’t reach that conclusion because it made more sense. You reached it because the dominoes fell that way in your biology and context.



4. So what happens to reason itself?

If you say “I believe X because it was causally determined,” then your belief has no epistemic merit. It’s not “better” than the opposite belief—it’s just a different outcome of different wiring.




You might say:

> “Yes, but science still works, observation still works.”



Of course it functions. But you're mistaking function for justification.

A calculator can spit out the right answer—it doesn't know it’s right.

Under your view, you're that calculator. So is a conspiracy theorist.

Both are just running programs. One happens to align with physical facts, but neither has any rational obligation to truth. Because “ought” doesn’t exist in causality. It only “is.”

If you're right, then you didn’t choose to believe any of this.
I didn’t choose to disagree with you.
And you have no reason to persuade me—because under your model, persuasion itself is an illusion.
We're just watching the machinery unfold.



So either:

We are rational agents capable of comparing and preferring truth over error…

Or we're puppets of causality, and “truth” is just another chemical byproduct with no special status.


You can’t have both.

What I see in your responses is someone trying to fill a spiritual emptiness with fragments—determinism here, rationalism there, a bit of quantum randomness to soften the fatalism, a nod to observation, and a rejection of meaning. But these don’t form a coherent whole. You’re not building a foundation—you’re stitching together contradictions.

You say:

All beliefs are inevitable…

Yet you claim yours are “rational.”

You reject free will…

Yet speak as if you chose truth over error.

You believe in moral concern (veganism, justice)…

Yet deny any objective moral foundation.


It’s like watching a man deny the existence of wood while sitting in a wooden chair—then insisting he's the only one being "evidence-based."

But spiritual thirst can’t be quenched with philosophical puzzles. And deep down, we both know that meaning isn't found in chemistry or genes—it’s sought in what transcends them.

You're not a machine typing. You're a soul searching. But you're feeding it formulas instead of light.