Is God just teasing us? (page 5)

JosephAlward

It seems that the Christian God would have to be completely omniscient though. How can you decide what not to know, if you don't know what it is???

Joe Alward: If the god described in the Bible exists, then that god evidently just decided not to know the future--all of it, in order to give man free will.

Edited by - JosephAlward on 12 December 2002 3:47:55

funkyderek

The possibilities as I see them:

God is omniscient. He knew Adam and Eve would sin and what the consequences would be. This leads to the following possibilities:
a. God is omnipotent and could have created Adam and Eve in a way that they would not sin, and still retain free will but chose not to do so.
b. God is not omnipotent and had no power to prevent Adam and Eve from sinning. (This would mean that God does not have free will.)
c. God is not omnipotent and could have prevented Adam and Eve from sinning but not without sacrificing their free will. However, if God is omniscient, then they never really had free will and were predestined by God to sin.
God is not omniscient. He did not know that Adam and Eve would sin. This leads to the following possibilities:
a. God was not able to know. He could not foresee the consequences of his actions. Presumably he still can't.
b. God was not willing to know. He could have known but he chose not to, thereby dooming the human race to millennia of suffering

Would any of the Christians like to pick one of the above scenarios? I think I've covered all possibilities but if not, please feel free to add your own.

Edited by - funkyderek on 12 December 2002 5:6:5

Yizuman

I would like to ask the folks this question....

"Would have Adam and Eve committed a sin WITHOUT the Tree of Life?"

My answer to my own question would be, "Yes".

The reason is simple. It would not matter whether or not the Tree of Life was there for Adam and Eve to touch the forbidden fruit, they would have found a way to commit their first sin and they would have learned later in life what sin was and what the difference between good and evil on their own.

The Tree of Life was just a short cut for them to get there faster.

I have another question. Which sin did Adam and Eve committed first? Disobedience or eating the forbidden fruit?

God told Adam and Eve not to touch the forbidden fruit from the tree of life. So when Eve reached for the fruit, what was the very first rule did she break? She disobeyed God's command not to touch the fruit. She had already sinned against God prior to the touching of the fruit by her own disobediance.

God knew ahead of time what Adam and Eve, in order for God to be God, he has to be in control of everything and that includes knowing events before they happened. But God is never without a plan. He never sets things in motion without a plan already in place. So, it wouldn't have mattered if the Tree of Life was there or not. Adam and Eve would have found a way to commit a sin and set forth the motion to knowing the difference between good and evil, what is holy and what is sinful.

The Tree just served a purpose of getting them there sooner than later.

Another good question, was there a Tree of Life for Lucifer who was then an Arch Angel, the protector of God's throne? Was that tree available for Lucifer to take a bite out of the fruit that caused his downfall? No, Lucifer sinned w/o the tree and was subsequently thrown out along with 1/3 of the Angelic population that he had suckered to follow him.

Does any of that make sense?

Edited by - Yizuman on 12 December 2002 5:12:39

funkyderek

Does any of that make sense?

No

Yizuman

No

Sorry to hear that.

funkyderek

Sorry to hear that.

It's OK. If you try to read it as if you've never heard of any of the characters involved, you'll realise how ridiculous it all seems.

Any input on the five possibilities I mentioned above? Do you see any flaws in my logic, or am I missing something?

donkey

Great post Rem - falsifiability is totally necessary for a claim even to be considered IMO:

This is a basic example of an "irrefutable hypothesis", which basically means that there is no way to falsify the claim. If the claim cannot be falsified, then it is safe to ignore it. Why waste any time trying to understand an ad-hoc made-up theory that cannot be proven wrong?

Another point for those claiming God's impotence (oops I mean omipotence - sorry Lord): An Omnipotent or omniscient God cannot exercise faith!!!!

donkey

"Would have Adam and Eve committed a sin WITHOUT the Tree of Life?"

Well once a woman has had the experience of speninding time with a talking snake...

LucidSky

Joe Alward: If the god described in the Bible exists, then that god evidently just decided not to know the future--all of it, in order to give man free will.

Joe, does knowledge remove free will? What of the prophetic nature of the Bible? Or does God not know the future, but just shape it the way he wants?

Personally, I agree with Funky's 1a, that the Bible suggests:

God is omnipotent and could have created Adam and Eve in a way that they would not sin, and still retain free will but chose not to do so.

Not only did he choose not to create them in a way that would avoid sin, he purposely placed a catalyst before them (The Tree) so they would fail soon after. Same goes for Satan.

rem

I have another question. Which sin did Adam and Eve committed first? Disobedience or eating the forbidden fruit?

I just think it's hilarious that we are actually having a conversation about this story as if these were real people and the events actually happened.

Perhaps next we can discuss the role the Paranoid Android plays in our spirituality from the inspired work Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. hehe

rem

Is God just teasing us?

Share this