Because he doesn’t exist, so even questioning it is irrelevant
When one person believes a delusion, it’s schizophrenia. When millions do, it’s religion.
because he was a pussy
it sounds like you’re flirting with the Epicurean Paradox
I understand the epicurean paradox but I also understand for god to exist as some believe it would have to be paradoxical. I also understand that any true religion, anything not just societally and culturally forced, would not take hold as a probability based on geographical location of birth. I believe in a god that can give humans divine inspiration but I do not believe in a religion that is just a long tradition of group think. Any god that choses to create these structures of religion and call them right and just is of no interest to me.
I like that guy jesus, tho. He was a bro.
Ey Eve, bet you are too scared to try this apple.
Because he is a jealous god. He told people this.
The story was adulterated, & that is visible in the text of that part of the bible, there was no apple.
“women ate of the fruit of the knowledge of Good & Evil ( MORAL UNDERSTANDING ), & shared that with men”.
Yes, mothering enforces more moral-understanding than does male-ego-persuits, traditional or modern.
As women have noticed, & evidence absolutely does back it, women bring life into the world, & men persue killing, consistently more than women do.
( the insecurity displayed by the “god” of that story is idiotic, & the blunt fact that help has been provided to humankind, repeatedly, since then, falsifies the message in that part of their bible that “god” wants us kept down, as pets: it investes in our evolving, & there’s even a book specifically on that, though from an Abrahamic-religion perspective, called “The Evolution of God”, which … isn’t written by a believer, but comes to the conclusion that someone has been cultivating evolution, consistently, among the peoples of that “god”. )
The “grace” left-behind by ones who experience moral-anxiety is the “grace” of being mere-animals, who don’t have moral-anxieties.
This is an absolutely-factual metaphor/parable about the mere-animal ancestors of humankind vs the moral-anxiety/moral-difficulties condition of our “generation”.
Also, there’s another corroboration, but much more recent…
there’s a yt vid on how Gobekli Tepe somehow was a metropolis without agriculture: Natural Abundance was sufficient for them to do that, & they didn’t break their ecology, the way we do…
But you’ve still got the “grace”/“non-grace” difference between the people who just lived in natural-abundance & didn’t break their ecology vs our-generation…
Oh, & as far as I can tell, the Abrahamic-religion authorities are looking totally at the wrong frame-of-reference, in trying to discern where the “Garden of Eden” was: it means Earth, not some limited-locale of it.
Earth was pristine, lush, drenchingly-alive ( I’ve read that the cod were sooo thick in off the Atlantic coast of Canada, that the fishermen said you could walk from ship to ship … exageration, certainly, but … the fish were, on average, 80y old, back then, & huge. Nowadays, they’re … a few years old, 8yo was what I’d read last century, & then we broke the coral-forests they breed in, & the cod-fishery collapsed, & never recovered. We’re incompetent at preserving natural-wealth, & we do it in ALL contexts, all fisheries, all forests, … where’s all the BEST farmland on Earth? under concrete, because we converted it all to cities, since that was where the people were.
Idiocy ).
We’re destroying the Garden of Eden, globally.
No matter: The Great Filter, our species-puberty, will force-exterminate our race, if we won’t grow-up quick enough, completely enough.
Natural Selection, but at planet-scale.
& finally, free-will requires ability-to-choose-wrong.
Puppets aren’t what we are.
( it is continuums/souls which are ChildrenOfG-D/CellsOfG-D, it isn’t our-lives/incarnations: those are children-of-souls, so grandchildren-of-G-D )
_ /\ _
It was a test, but if he was omniscient, he would have known the results without having to run it. 😉
See how i didnt mention he is also “benevolent.”
There’s quite a bit of evidence to argue he is actually malevolent.
Christians then start applying “ends justifies the means” logic.
Calvin ball. Its all just Calvin ball.
Try telling that to a Christian and you’ll hear the battered wife type arguments come out sooooo quick.
I really enjoy reminding them that Satan only kills about 10 people in the Bible. He temps others to do things, but he’s only responsible for a handful.
God on the other hand… much more direct and merciless. Doesn’t really seem to give a shit at all about killing people actually. Like a kid with a magnifying glass burning ants.
I love the story where he kills everyone in the world except for that one disfunctional family.
I don’t quite have the urge to believe this, you could say I have a demiurge
beat me to it
He wanted the result, but needed it to be our ‘fault’ for weird passive aggressive reasons and so he could hold it over our heads for eaons. “Sorry son, I’d drive you to the store but you ate that apple. Remember the apple I told you not to eat?”
Embarrassment kink followed by the lack of emotional regulation to handle the outcome of a scenario they asked asked for.
The god character in Oglaf is probably the most accurate representation of God.
If I’ve learned something from listening History in the Bible podcast is that Yaweh is an asshole and that there are layers of bad translations.
Evangelicals sweep that all under the rug with “divine inspiration.”
Yet here we are with rich assholes running the world and chasing the Antichrist story and trying to summon the end of the world.
You’d think they’d be more intelligent.
Yeah, that story has a lot of plot holes.
…talking snakes?
Fuck you, Zootopia 2 was a masterpiece.
Yeah that was a weird chapter in the bible
Why are there two different creation stories in the Bible? If Cain and Abel were the first sons of Adam and Eve, how could Cain come upon a city while he was wandering the earth? Why are there two conflicting versions of the Ten Commandments? Etc. Etc.
…if you are Christian, it doesn’t matter, it isn’t your book. It is reference for what IS your book. The one that says god’s son came to earth and told us to love one another leading to his nailing to a tree…err…
If you’re not looking for a genuine answer from a Christian, skip this.
First thing: the translation of “the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil” isn’t really that good of a translation. It’s closer to "the right to define good and evil. That means that eating the fruit is basically saying “fuck you, God. Imma do my own thing”. That’s not how God designed humans to live, and is incompatible to living alongside someone as powerful as God, which is why God told them not to eat it.
But why create that tree in the first place? Essentially, choice. When you’re in the supermarket and you see 50 different flavors, but everything is from the same brand, do you really have any choice? Same thing with God. Unless you have the option of rejecting God, choosing to him means nothing.
Couldn’t he have created the world in a way where all that is not necessary? Or one where there would be no bad choices?
Seems kinda evil on his part to design for the option of evil.
You don’t have to agree with the poster but they already answered that. There can be no acceptance without the ability to reject. Consent is meaningless without the capacity for dissent. Theodicy is a different matter.
There can be no acceptance without the ability to reject. Consent is meaningless without the capacity for dissent.
If god is all-powerful, then that is a choice, not a natural restriction.
So the answer is “because god is a jerk”?
If god is all powerful everything is a choice and there are no natural restrictions. Why an omniscient and supposedly loving deity created us to suffer and die is a question of theodicy and that is separate from the question of free will. Because god is a jerk is a likely and valid argument in this framework.
A better example for the god is a jerk is Satan/Lucifer. Angels were not given free will and are servants of God by design. Still, Satan and his host were cast down and separated from the light of God’s love for their rebellion. Not being endowed with free will, the angels were apparently set up. In this situation, god made beings a certain way and then punished them for it while not giving them access to the tools of salvation (free will.)
Free will is incompatible with omniscience. People really want it to work, but it doesn’t.
Free will is observer-dependent, and is short for “I can’t predict the behavior of this thing”. For an omniscient observer, there is no thing that it can say that about.
Free will is not an inherent property of a thing, and that’s what trips people up so much.
To ponder it a bit, does a rock have free will? A dog? A human? A super-intelligent AI that we can’t hope to comprehend? Why or why not for each step?
The definition above explains it all. Of course a rock doesn’t, we can predict its behavior with physics! Maybe a monkey does, people disagree on that. Of course human do though, because I do!
Now ponder what the super-intelligent AI would think. “Of course the first three don’t have free will, their behavior is entirely predictable with physics”
So, subatomic particles have free will, but humans don’t?
Why not? It might seem absurd, but can you prove they don’t “choose” to flit about here or there? A super-intelligent AI might also be able to “pierce the veil” and determine the underlying mechanics, like a video game character determining the math behind the random number generator that powers their world.
That’s also only one interpretation of quantum mechanics, mechanistic interpretations aren’t ruled out (though a number of variants have been).
If free will is observer dependent than why would the omniscience of some other observer relieve us, the observer who is not omniscient, of free will? Something else being able to predict my actions has no effect on my ability to predict the actions of others.
We’re not “relieved” of free will. It’s not an intrinsic property that one “has”. It would be like having “big” or “near”. You don’t “have” big, it’s a relative term.
It’s simply a description of observed behavior. That’s all it really is in the end, even though people treat it as this super mysterious thing.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
if there was a god, there wouldn’t be a trump. That’s all the proof i need that god doesn’t exist.
His design was flawed, then, if humans managed to do something they were not designed to do.
I’ve never heard that translation, how does that justify them noticing they’re naked as a bad thing? The idea there is simple with the fruit granting the knowledge, but doesn’t make sense with a fruit that allows you to define good and evil. But even then there’s another thing you got wrong, they’re not kicked out of paradise for eating from the tree, they get punished for that but the reason why they’re kicked out is so that they don’t eat from the immortality tree:
22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever”.
the reason they’re kicked out is so that they don’t eat from the immortality tree
I said that having eaten from the tree of good and evil put them in a state that humans were not designed to be in, so by kicking them out God is basically saying “it’s better for them to die than it is for them to live forever like this”
Well, as a descendant from someone who ate of the tree and understands good and evil I would say that’s pretty evil and egotistical, he expulsed them so they don’t become like him in two fields since they were already like him on one.
Also, you didn’t explained how they knew to cover themselves.
This boils down to the best of all possible worlds argument, already well-skewered in Candide centuries ago.
Why create the world exactly the way it was? Is it impossible to create it, so that of their own free will, one more person makes the “right” choice? That’s some sorry omnipotence if so. If not one person, why not two? And so on, until you face the question of, “Why not create the world so that everyone, of their own free will, makes the ‘right’ decision”.
Calvinists are intellectually brave enough to accept the metaphysical consequences of their beliefs. Others, not so much.
I’d like to see some citations on that. They’re are several scholarly theories about the what the tree represents, but I’ve never heard this one.
In a really generalised way, the tree and the fruit is kind of a metaphor.
If you live the life style I tell you to, then live in this garden and I will care for you. If you want to make your own rules then you’re on your own.
I’ve never seen it this way before but this actually makes sense really.
Just to add to the great answers already given by others, another aspect to it all is that the mythology that developed into Judaism/Christianity/Islam was originally polytheistic. The god known as YHWH/Yahweh was one of many, but had a dedicated cult (not unlike Greco-Roman deities that often had cults of their own, revering one specific god to the exclusion of others who were nevertheless acknowledged).
So in that sense, the idea of Yahweh being omnipotent and omniscient is a bit of a retcon, meant to highlight the superiority of Yahweh over other gods as his henotheistic sect gradually developed into a more zealous monotheistic religion that rejected the legitimacy of all other gods entirely
That being said, the idea of Satan as a sort of antagonist character to tempt humans towards sin did not emerge until much later either, after the aforementioned omnipotent/omniscient revision of Yahweh. It really just boils down to whatever plot contrivances were convenient for the successive works of religious fan fiction that would later come to be canonized within each Abrahamic religion.
Worth remembering about the Gospels, which were all written decades later and served the purpose for which they were written (which was to speak to different groups at the time, which is why they all emphasized different things).
Don’t try to apply reason/common sense/logic to ANY religion. You’ll end up with more questions than answers.
Besides, I was told that the point of the story was resisting temptation. God wanted to see if Adam and Eve could do that. Spoiler: they couldn’t.
Even though he new exactly what they would do beforehand. Being all-knowing.
The usual explanation is because God wanted humans to have free will, so interfering in their ability to self-determine would negate that.
The reality is because it makes no fucking sense, like much of the Bible.
Bad character and plot writing. The Bible was written by hacks and scabs.
