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 #49]

100% Certainty

Yes, desirable, but unattainable in most fields. You gave examples and I showed why they failed as successful examples. You didnt push back and show my reasons to be false, but try to turn to new examples. With your new examples, I dont 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 didnt 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 weve already been talking about. Well both simply think the other is making the same kind of errors in new avenues and not meeting our critiques.

Solipsism is also unfalsifiable, but that doesn't mean it's true. The statements you make are interesting possibilities, but they are just unfalsifiable, untestable and ultimately pointless ideas. No sentient biological organism lives believing those things to be true. In terms of daily living, it's 100% certain that if you behead humans, they die. Just as it is 100% certain that I did a poo today, etc.

I wouldn't buy an egg, so I wouldn't have access to one. Even if you gave me one for free, I still wouldn't eat it. I would rather give it back to the chicken that laid it. Maybe then it will hatch into a fluffy chick. The reason I went vegan is that I want to avoid causing suffering and death. This deep desire to avoid causing suffering and death is produced by the interaction of my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. If I had the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences of my parents (and the billions of other omnivorous humans), I would not be able to have such a desire.

Why isn't my interpretation the simplest and the most obvious one?

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. These are 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!

"The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have createdand with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the groundfor I regret that I have made them."" - Genesis 6:6,7, The Bible (New International Version). This is not the behaviour of an all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful being. Such beings, if they existed, would always make perfect choices and they would never regret anything.

These are the reasons I am 100% certain 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.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #61]

100% certainty

Yes, solipsism, the 5-minute universe, living in a simulation, arent the most rational positions to hold, but they arent 100% disprovable. So, no, its not 100% certain that you did a poo today, although it is the most reasonable thing to believe. If you disagree, show the 100% undeniable proof that the 5-minute universe view is false.

You also need to 100% prove that souls dont exist for your claim that its "100% certain that if you behead humans, they die" where you defined die as "cease to exist".

Genesis 2:16-17

We have been talking about this verse, not the other ones you later have brought up (although they are good ones to pursue, I just dont think doing a ton of things at once is helpful). You claimed your hyper literal interpretation of these two verses (that God is saying Adam and Eve will cease to exist and nothing else will happen) was the simplest and most obvious. I gave reasons it wasnt. Please respond to that before we talk of other verses.

God creating a world with suffering and death is wrong

I didnt say you would eat the egg if you had one available to you, I said you could eat it. You absolutely could choose to eat it. Saying you would rather do something else is irrelevant. On top of this, your claim on this is unfalsifiable. Before you became a vegan, if we had this conversation while you were a hard determinist (whether you converted to hard determinism before or after becoming a vegan is irrelevant) you would say you were not able to have such a desire because of your genes, environment, etc. But now you can have that desire because of your genes, environment, etc. No matter what happens, you will simply say its because of your genes, environment, etc. You are just begging the question, not offering any support.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #61]

100% certainty

Yes, solipsism, the 5-minute universe, living in a simulation, arent the most rational positions to hold, but they arent 100% disprovable. So, no, its not 100% certain that you did a poo today, although it is the most reasonable thing to believe. If you disagree, show the 100% undeniable proof that the 5-minute universe view is false.

You also need to 100% prove that souls dont exist for your claim that its "100% certain that if you behead humans, they die" where you defined die as "cease to exist".

Genesis 2:16-17

We have been talking about this verse, not the other ones you later have brought up (although they are good ones to pursue, I just dont think doing a ton of things at once is helpful). You claimed your hyper literal interpretation of these two verses (that God is saying Adam and Eve will cease to exist and nothing else will happen) was the simplest and most obvious. I gave reasons it wasnt. Please respond to that before we talk of other verses.

God creating a world with suffering and death is wrong

I didnt say you would eat the egg if you had one available to you, I said you could eat it. You absolutely could choose to eat it. Saying you would rather do something else is irrelevant. On top of this, your claim on this is unfalsifiable. Before you became a vegan, if we had this conversation while you were a hard determinist (whether you converted to hard determinism before or after becoming a vegan is irrelevant) you would say you were not able to have such a desire because of your genes, environment, etc. But now you can have that desire because of your genes, environment, etc. No matter what happens, you will simply say its because of your genes, environment, etc. You are just begging the question, not offering any support.

I think we have very different view of what is certain. There have been many beheadings on Earth. Every time a human has been beheaded, that human died. No exceptions. I am a human. Therefore, if you behead me, I will die. I am 100% certain of this. If you don't consider this line of reasoning to be sufficient, that's fine by me. By "ceasing to exit" I mean that their brain functions will stop and their sentience, personality, character, values, aspirations, etc. will cease to exist because these things are the product of brain functions which arise due to genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. By "ceasing to exist" I don't mean their dead body will vanish the way Yoda's body vanished when he died in Star Wars.

No, I couldn't choose to eat the egg because I wouldn't have the desire to do so. In fact, I feel horrified at the thought of it. If you had my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences, you would think and feel as I do and vice versa. I don't have anything else to say. My time is precious, and I am not going to spend any more time on this forum. Thank you for all your posts. I wish you all the best.

[mms20102]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #63]

Thank you for the clarity in your parting message. I wish you well too.

However, Id like to gently note that your deterministic framework"if you had my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences, you would think as I do"is not as airtight as it may seem.

Identical twins are a perfect case study. They share genes. They grow up in the same home, often eat the same food, and experience similar environments. Yet over time, they often develop different personalities, values, and decisions. Why?

Because human consciousness isnt a passive reaction to inputs. It involves choice, reflection, interpretationand yes, free will.

Also, while beheading is a clinical way to show the link between the brain and consciousness, it doesnt prove that the self or soul ceases to existonly that observable functions stop. We dont know what happens after. And unless we deny every metaphysical possibility, we cant be 100% certain that cessation of brain activity equals total nonexistence of personhood.

Thats where the question of revelation and worldview enters. Not just logic, but meaning.

I respect your decision to move on from the forum, but if ever you return, Ill be herestill open to discussing the deeper questions of consciousness, identity, and destiny.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #63]

You are definitely free to move on from this forum or just this discussion. I do appreciate your thoughts and challenges along the way. If you chose to respond or read the following, here are my thoughts:

Are you equivocating on "die"? Earlier you defined it as "cease to exist" which seemed to include one's soul not living on past the death of the body. Is that how you mean die or do you simply mean that the body experiences death?

If you mean "cease to exist", then please give the 100% proof that souls do not exist. If you mean the body dies, then all you are doing is defining the term and I already agreed that we can be 100% about definitions.

I do things I don't strongly desire to do (I just had a colonoscopy, for one). You can go against your desire, too, and eat an egg. You, 100% certain because I'm just working out the definition here, could try to eat an egg in spite of your strong desire against it and, unimpeded, would actually eat it.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #63]

Thank you for the clarity in your parting message. I wish you well too.

However, Id like to gently note that your deterministic framework"if you had my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences, you would think as I do"is not as airtight as it may seem.

Identical twins are a perfect case study. They share genes. They grow up in the same home, often eat the same food, and experience similar environments. Yet over time, they often develop different personalities, values, and decisions. Why?

Because human consciousness isnt a passive reaction to inputs. It involves choice, reflection, interpretationand yes, free will.

Also, while beheading is a clinical way to show the link between the brain and consciousness, it doesnt prove that the self or soul ceases to existonly that observable functions stop. We dont know what happens after. And unless we deny every metaphysical possibility, we cant be 100% certain that cessation of brain activity equals total nonexistence of personhood.

Thats where the question of revelation and worldview enters. Not just logic, but meaning.

I respect your decision to move on from the forum, but if ever you return, Ill be herestill open to discussing the deeper questions of consciousness, identity, and destiny.

My curiosity got the better of me, so I am back on this forum. Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful response. I appreciate that you’ve engaged with the reasoning rather than dismissing it.

Identical twins share genes and environments, yet develop different personalities. Therefore, consciousness involves choice and free will.

It’s true that identical twins often diverge in personality and decisions, but this does not refute determinism. It actually illustrates it more precisely.

First, even so-called identical twins are not genetically identical. Modern genomic research shows that twins have hundreds of post-zygotic genetic mutations that arise after the first cell divisions in the embryo. They also differ epigenetically - meaning that environmental and developmental factors switch certain genes on or off differently in each twin. So, from the start, their biology already diverges.

Second, their experiences are never truly identical. Each twin’s sensory inputs, micro-interactions, emotional reactions, and random environmental exposures vary moment by moment. These tiny differences accumulate, shaping unique neural pathways over time. Complex determinism, not uncaused freedom, explains why they diverge.

Saying “we choose” doesn’t solve the problem, because our choices are determined by our desires, reasoning capacities, and experiences - none of which we originally chose. You didn’t choose your genes, parents, language, or early experiences, yet they all shaped your mind and preferences.

Beheading shows brain-dependence but doesn’t prove the soul ceases to exist.

True - but neither does it provide any evidence that consciousness continues. The consistent pattern is that when the brain is damaged, consciousness is altered; when the brain stops, consciousness ceases. There’s no verified case of awareness persisting after complete brain death. The burden of proof lies on those claiming continuation beyond all observation.

That’s where revelation and worldview enter. Not just logic, but meaning.

Meaning is important, but meaning and truth are distinct. People can find deep meaning in myths, music, or metaphors without believing they are literal. Revelation is a claim, not evidence — and claims must still be tested against what we can observe and verify.

From a Compassionist perspective (i.e. compassion for all sentient beings), recognising that our thoughts and actions are shaped by countless prior causes doesn’t make life meaningless. It makes us more understanding. If no one truly created their own nature, then compassion, not condemnation, becomes the most rational moral response.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #65]

Thank you for your reply. Let me clarify the points you’ve raised.

Are you equivocating on “die”?

No. When I say a person “dies,” I mean that their conscious self ceases to exist - not merely that the body stops functioning. Every verifiable observation links consciousness to brain activity. When the brain stops, awareness, memory, and subjectivity stop. There is no empirical evidence that any part of the person continues.

This isn’t “100 % proof” in the mathematical sense, but it is the highest available degree of evidence: perfect correlation between brain function and consciousness, with zero counter-examples of conscious survival after total brain death. The burden of proof rests with those asserting a soul’s existence, not with those observing its absence. If you can prove the existence of souls, please do.

You can’t prove souls don’t exist.

True - just as we can’t prove there are no invisible dragons flying around us. But rational inquiry works from evidence, not from the mere possibility of unfalsifiable entities. When all observable data supports natural explanations, and none support supernatural ones, the reasonable conclusion is non-existence until evidence appears.

I sometimes act against my desires; therefore I have free will.

It might feel like that, but introspection is misleading. When you underwent the colonoscopy, you still acted according to a stronger desire - the desire to protect your health outweighed the discomfort. What we call “self-control” is simply one desire overriding another, both shaped by prior causes: your knowledge of what colonoscopy entails, your fear of illness, your doctor’s advice, your sense of responsibility. At no point did an uncaused chooser appear.

In deterministic terms, every action flows from the total state of the organism and its environment at that moment. You did exactly what those causal factors made you most likely to do. Complexity doesn’t equal freedom; it only makes the chain of causes harder to see. I created the following images to explain what I mean.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #67]

Thank you for your reply. Let me clarify the points you’ve raised.

Thanks for coming back to the conversation!

When I say a person “dies,” I mean that their conscious self ceases to exist - not merely that the body stops functioning. Every verifiable observation links consciousness to brain activity. When the brain stops, awareness, memory, and subjectivity stop. There is no empirical evidence that any part of the person continues.

This isn’t “100 % proof” in the mathematical sense, but it is the highest available degree of evidence: perfect correlation between brain function and consciousness, with zero counter-examples of conscious survival after total brain death. The burden of proof rests with those asserting a soul’s existence, not with those observing its absence. If you can prove the existence of souls, please do.

Can we have empirical evidence of something that is not physical? If so, how? If not, then what kinds of evidence would "prove" the existence of souls?

When you underwent the colonoscopy, you still acted according to a stronger desire - the desire to protect your health outweighed the discomfort. What we call “self-control” is simply one desire overriding another, both shaped by prior causes: your knowledge of what colonoscopy entails, your fear of illness, your doctor’s advice, your sense of responsibility. At no point did an uncaused chooser appear.

In deterministic terms, every action flows from the total state of the organism and its environment at that moment. You did exactly what those causal factors made you most likely to do. Complexity doesn’t equal freedom; it only makes the chain of causes harder to see.

I created the following images to explain what I mean.

The images didn't come through for me, but, again, all you've seemed to do here is give the deterministic narrative of the situation, not shared why that narrative is true.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #68]

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

All you've done is give the deterministic narrative, not shown why it’s true.

Let me explain why the deterministic framework isn’t just a narrative but the best-supported model we currently have:

1. Causal Regularity Is Empirically Verified Everywhere.
Every physical event we have ever observed follows causal laws. Chemical reactions, neuronal firings, muscle contractions, even human decisions - all correlate with prior states of matter and energy. We have no verified instance of a mental or physical event occurring without causal antecedents.

2. Neuroscience Demonstrates Causal Dependence of Mind on Brain.
When the brain is injured, drugged, or stimulated, consciousness changes accordingly. Split-brain experiments, anesthesia, and even magnetic stimulation show that altering brain states alters subjective experience. This makes the “uncaused mental will” hypothesis redundant and unsupported.

3. Determinism Is a Parsimonious Model.
It explains human behavior without positing extra, unverifiable entities (like an immaterial “will” that can override physics). Occam’s Razor favors the model that requires fewer assumptions.

4. Apparent Freedom Is Explained by Complexity.
Determinism doesn’t mean predictability. Complex deterministic systems (like weather or brains) can behave in ways that seem spontaneous, yet they still follow causal patterns. This is why we experience choice - because multiple competing neural processes are resolving dynamically - but none are uncaused.

5. No Counter-Evidence Exists.
If free will or an immaterial soul could alter matter independently of physical causation, we would expect measurable violations of conservation laws or non-local causal effects. None have ever been detected.

In short, determinism isn’t just a “story”; it’s an inference drawn from the totality of empirical evidence. It can, of course, be falsified - if anyone can show a case where a conscious intention changes matter without any corresponding physical mechanism. Until then, determinism remains the best explanatory model.

Please click on the following links to view the images I created:
https://postimg.cc/7GPq62Yb
https://postimg.cc/JHQrvvsY

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #69]

Unfortunately, Chrome didn't allow me to load your image links due to security issues. I would like to see the images, but it doesn't seem to be working. To your thoughts (and thanks for sharing them):

In your summary you wrote "if anyone can show a case where a conscious intention changes matter without any corresponding physical mechanism" then determinism could be falsified. First, I don't think that's a true if-then. I think there is good evidence that God (a mind) created the physical world (a change) without a physical mechanism (being the creation of all material). But even assuming that were true, God could still have created this world to be physically determined. More importantly, I think this is a misunderstanding of non-determinism (of the free will variety at least). I'm not claiming that the mind of a human works without any corresponding physical mechanism. The human will does have corresponding physical movements because the human is a physical being.

Onto the five supports you offered for determinism:

1. Causal Regularity Is Empirically Verified Everywhere.

Free will doesn't go against causal regularity; it just says that wills are one of the kinds of causes in existence. So, this isn't a point for determinism against free will.

If the emphasis here is on 'empirical' verification, then why would we expect to have empirical evidence of something that is not physical? And why would we fault it for not having so?

2. Neuroscience Demonstrates Causal Dependence of Mind on Brain.

I agree that affecting the brain can affect consciousness (the examples you gave), but that's not the same as saying the brain determines the mind/will.

3. Determinism Is a Parsimonious Model.

If it's about the "extra", it's not simpler because it still has to explain the "extra" layer of the illusion of free will.

If it's about the soul being unverifiable, that's simply not true. It's not empirically verifiable, but that isn't the only valid kind of verification and would be illogical in this case.

4. Apparent Freedom Is Explained by Complexity.

Apparent determinism is explained within the free will framework, too.

5. No Counter-Evidence Exists.

I'm not claiming that the will acts independently of the brain (in physical beings). I do think the mind can have physical affects, though. I don't see why this would result in measurable violations of conservation laws or non-local causal effects. Can you explain that connection better?