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.

[1213]

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

Why not look forward to the time when evil is removed and people are happy?

You don't have to do it, God will make it so.

And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes. And death shall be no longer, nor mourning, nor outcry, nor pain will be any longer; for the first things passed away.
Rev. 21:4

[Compassionist]

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

Why not look forward to the time when evil is removed and people are happy?

You don't have to do it, God will make it so.

And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes. And death shall be no longer, nor mourning, nor outcry, nor pain will be any longer; for the first things passed away.
Rev. 21:4

I am not looking for just humans to be happy. I am looking for all living things to be forever happy. 99.9% of all the species that have existed so far on Earth are already extinct. 100 billion out of the 108 billion humans born so far are already dead. I can't trust the Biblical God to make all living things forever happy because the Bible is fiction, and the Biblical God is imaginary and evil. If you can prove the Bible to be 100% true, please do.

[Compassionist]

[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.

You are confused, but it's not your fault. Both rational and irrational choices are determined because our perceptions, values, abilities, thoughts, emotions, memories, reasoning, and intentions are all produced by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. We are not free from causality. The brain that can read 2 + 2 = 4 and can conclude that this is true, does so due to the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences that led to being able to do this.

There is no evidence for the existence of souls, heaven, hell, etc. The person who jumps off a skyscraper because he believes angels will lift him up, does so because of his genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. The person who researches and finds a cure for cancer does so because of her genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. If you had my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences, you would be the one typing these words when and where I am typing these words. If I had your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences, I would be the one reading these words when and where you are reading these words.

There is no objective morality. Morality is always subjective. There is no actual culpability. Culpability is always assigned.

The child who believes in Santa Claus does so because of his genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. The child who does not believe in Santa Claus also does so due to a different set of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. We all have beliefs. Some beliefs are based on evidence, e.g. I believe that I am a human, not a cow. Other beliefs are based on faith, e.g. billions of people believe in various religions.

[mms20102]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #53]

Thank you — you've just confirmed that under determinism, every belief is nothing more than the product of biological machinery, including:

The belief that “souls don’t exist”

The belief that “God isn’t real”

Even your belief in determinism itself

So let’s be logically consistent:

If you believe what you believe only because of your genes, environment, and nutrients — not because it's actually true — then truth becomes irrelevant.
It’s just neurons firing, and you're no more “correct” than a feverish child hallucinating a dragon.

Here's where determinism collapses:

You say:

“If I had your genes and experiences, I’d be you.”

Exactly — and if that's true, then:

No belief can be judged “rationally better” than another

No one is morally responsible for anything they do

And no one can be praised for discovering truth, nor blamed for spreading lies

Even Nazism, genocide, or terrorism would just be “gene+environment outcomes” — not evil. And you just admitted:

“There is no objective morality… no actual culpability.”

Which makes justice impossible.
And yet, paradoxically, you're writing as if we should agree with you — as if your view is somehow better.

That’s not just self-contradictory.
That’s the death of reason itself.

The moment you say:

“You are confused.”

You’re admitting:

There’s a “you” and a “me”

There’s truth worth discovering

There’s an inner “chooser” that can accept or reject it

That’s a soul, whether you like it or not.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #53]

Thank you — you've just confirmed that under determinism, every belief is nothing more than the product of biological machinery, including:

The belief that “souls don’t exist”

The belief that “God isn’t real”

Even your belief in determinism itself

So let’s be logically consistent:

If you believe what you believe only because of your genes, environment, and nutrients — not because it's actually true — then truth becomes irrelevant.
It’s just neurons firing, and you're no more “correct” than a feverish child hallucinating a dragon.

Here's where determinism collapses:

You say:

“If I had your genes and experiences, I’d be you.”

Exactly — and if that's true, then:

No belief can be judged “rationally better” than another

No one is morally responsible for anything they do

And no one can be praised for discovering truth, nor blamed for spreading lies

Even Nazism, genocide, or terrorism would just be “gene+environment outcomes” — not evil. And you just admitted:

“There is no objective morality… no actual culpability.”

Which makes justice impossible.
And yet, paradoxically, you're writing as if we should agree with you — as if your view is somehow better.

That’s not just self-contradictory.
That’s the death of reason itself.

The moment you say:

“You are confused.”

You’re admitting:

There’s a “you” and a “me”

There’s truth worth discovering

There’s an inner “chooser” that can accept or reject it

That’s a soul, whether you like it or not.

I didn't say my view is better. I said my view is evidence-based. My genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences enable me to assess what is true, what is good, what is bad, etc. For example, I assess from my observations that biological organisms such as humans, cows, pigs, lambs, dogs, cats, chickens, fish, insects, etc. are sentient. Some are non-sentient biological organisms, e.g. trees, grass, bacteria, sponges, etc. They are alive, but they are not sentient. Your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences make you, you. The same goes for all sentient biological organisms.

You have lots of misconceptions about determinism and about what is true. There is no evidence for the existence of souls, heaven, hell, etc. If you abandon your misconceptions and replace them with evidence-based understanding of yourself, others, and the world, then your beliefs will be more aligned with what is true instead of religious delusions. Please read "Determined: Life Without Free Will" by Robert M. Sapolsky.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #49]

100% Certainty

Yes, desirable, but unattainable in most fields. You gave examples and I showed why they failed as successful examples. You didn’t push back and show my reasons to be false, but try to turn to new examples. With your new examples, I don’t think you can be 100% certain, either.

What if the world was just created, as you are reading this, with those memories in place, but you didn’t actually do those things? Maybe it just appears that we are breathing the air, but we are actually hooked up to a computer simulation breathing something else, having these illusions. Now, do I think these are true? Not at all. But we cannot be literally 100% certain because the scenarios all have the exact same evidences that would result if they were true.

Genesis 2:16-17

Your interpretation is not the most simplest or obvious interpretation. Why couldn't you eat an egg right now? Would you feel bad? Sure. But you could choose to eat one (assuming you have access to one, even if with some effort).

Other issues

There is no point in talking about the other things you bring up before settling the three things we’ve already been talking about. We’ll both simply think the other is making the same kind of errors in new avenues and not meeting our critiques.

[mms20102]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #55]

I didn't say my view is better. I said my view is evidence-based. My genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences enable me to assess what is true, what is good, what is bad, etc. For example, I assess from my observations that biological organisms such as humans, cows, pigs, lambs, dogs, cats, chickens, fish, insects, etc. are sentient. Some are non-sentient biological organisms, e.g. trees, grass, bacteria, sponges, etc. They are alive, but they are not sentient. Your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences make you, you. The same goes for all sentient biological organisms.

You have lots of misconceptions about determinism and about what is true. There is no evidence for the existence of souls, heaven, hell, etc. If you abandon your misconceptions and replace them with evidence-based understanding of yourself, others, and the world, then your beliefs will be more aligned with what is true instead of religious delusions. Please read "Determined: Life Without Free Will" by Robert M. Sapolsky.

Let’s break this down.

You say your view is “evidence-based,” but evidence requires a mind free to assess it.
If all your beliefs are determined by your genes and experiences, then even your trust in evidence is just a neural outcome, not a rational conclusion.

It’s like saying:

“I believe X because my biology makes me believe it.”

Well, guess what? So do cult members. So do serial killers. So did Hitler.

So on what grounds do you morally or intellectually criticize anyone?

You’ve replaced:

truth with causation

responsibility with chemical inevitability

justice with accident of biology

If “your genes made you do it,” then a rapist, murderer, or child abuser can use the exact same excuse.

“My neurons made me do it.”

By your logic:

There is no guilt, only genetics.

No evil, only environmental misfiring.

No justice, only imprisonment for safety, not punishment for wrongdoing.

Yet you still say:

“I assess what is good and bad.”

How? If morality is gene-coded like eye color, then why argue at all?
Would you argue with a tiger for killing a deer? Of course not. But you argue with me—because deep down you do believe in responsibility.

You say I have “religious delusions,” but even that insult assumes I could choose otherwise.
In your worldview, I believe what I believe inevitably, so why mock me?

Unless—of course—you just stepped outside your own determinism to hold me morally accountable.

And that’s where it collapses.

And by your own logic, you’ve just stripped yourself of the right to criticize anyone who believes in God, the Bible, the Qur’an, or even Santa Claus — because their genes, environments, and nutrients made them believe just like yours made you an atheist.

So if you’re consistent, you can’t say:

“You’re wrong.”

“You’re deluded.”

“You need to change.”

Because under determinism, no one can choose differently.

So the next time you mock a believer, just remember:

You’re mocking DNA sequences.

Is that what you call reason and morality?

You either believe in free moral agency and allow room for responsibility and truth...
Or you admit that all beliefs — including yours — are just chemical inevitabilities.

You can’t have it both ways.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #55]

I didn't say my view is better. I said my view is evidence-based. My genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences enable me to assess what is true, what is good, what is bad, etc. For example, I assess from my observations that biological organisms such as humans, cows, pigs, lambs, dogs, cats, chickens, fish, insects, etc. are sentient. Some are non-sentient biological organisms, e.g. trees, grass, bacteria, sponges, etc. They are alive, but they are not sentient. Your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences make you, you. The same goes for all sentient biological organisms.

You have lots of misconceptions about determinism and about what is true. There is no evidence for the existence of souls, heaven, hell, etc. If you abandon your misconceptions and replace them with evidence-based understanding of yourself, others, and the world, then your beliefs will be more aligned with what is true instead of religious delusions. Please read "Determined: Life Without Free Will" by Robert M. Sapolsky.

Let’s break this down.

You say your view is “evidence-based,” but evidence requires a mind free to assess it.
If all your beliefs are determined by your genes and experiences, then even your trust in evidence is just a neural outcome, not a rational conclusion.

It’s like saying:

“I believe X because my biology makes me believe it.”

Well, guess what? So do cult members. So do serial killers. So did Hitler.

So on what grounds do you morally or intellectually criticize anyone?

You’ve replaced:

truth with causation

responsibility with chemical inevitability

justice with accident of biology

If “your genes made you do it,” then a rapist, murderer, or child abuser can use the exact same excuse.

“My neurons made me do it.”

By your logic:

There is no guilt, only genetics.

No evil, only environmental misfiring.

No justice, only imprisonment for safety, not punishment for wrongdoing.

Yet you still say:

“I assess what is good and bad.”

How? If morality is gene-coded like eye color, then why argue at all?
Would you argue with a tiger for killing a deer? Of course not. But you argue with me—because deep down you do believe in responsibility.

You say I have “religious delusions,” but even that insult assumes I could choose otherwise.
In your worldview, I believe what I believe inevitably, so why mock me?

Unless—of course—you just stepped outside your own determinism to hold me morally accountable.

And that’s where it collapses.

And by your own logic, you’ve just stripped yourself of the right to criticize anyone who believes in God, the Bible, the Qur’an, or even Santa Claus — because their genes, environments, and nutrients made them believe just like yours made you an atheist.

So if you’re consistent, you can’t say:

“You’re wrong.”

“You’re deluded.”

“You need to change.”

Because under determinism, no one can choose differently.

So the next time you mock a believer, just remember:

You’re mocking DNA sequences.

Is that what you call reason and morality?

You either believe in free moral agency and allow room for responsibility and truth...
Or you admit that all beliefs — including yours — are just chemical inevitabilities.

You can’t have it both ways.

It's not your fault that your preconceptions are getting in the way of understanding causality. You need to empty your mind of your preconceptions before you can fill it with true conceptions about reality. You are misquoting me. If you are going to quote me, please do it accurately. I didn't mock you. You clearly don't understand determinism. Did you read the book I asked you to read? It doesn't sound like you did. In any case, I don't blame you.

[King Phenomenon]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #41]

You are lost my friend

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #41]

You are lost my friend

Hello, my friend, it looks like you found me.