top 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 18 points 7 months ago (21 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago (13 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago (12 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago* (11 children)

    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"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    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.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    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"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    So, subatomic particles have free will, but humans don't?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    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).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    That is my point. I can be near a rock and an ant can be closer to the rock. The observer dependent position of the ant does not affect my proximity to the rock. We would have to agree on a frame of reference before we could begin debating my absolute position relative to said rock.

    Your post and the previous are making the materialist argument (which in real life I agree with.) I was trying to further explain the Christian argument for free will in a world where omniscience is possible. An omniscient observer doesn't affect the lived experience of free will for anything else. The watchmaker god theory is a popular way to reconcile this point. Even if free will as a discrete and measurable phenomenon does not exist e.g. one cannot show me they have x units of free will or whenever, that does not change the experience of free will for the individual.

    Arguing for or against some imagined omniscience by switching the frame of reference to that of an imagined all knowing system or all encompassing formula and then using that framing to invalidate choice isn't very sound reasoning. It may or may not be correct and it is falsifiable but we can't test it in any meaningful way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I think we generally agree with each other. The existence of an omniscient AI or deity doesn't change the "experience" of free will. It doesn't "invalidate choice" from the point of view of the observed. It does "invalidate choice" from the point of view of the observer, who can now say "This thing exhibits no unpredictable behavior to me". You and I both think we have free will, because we can't predict our own behavior. Our experience is unchanged, whether or not some other observer exists or could exist that could predict our behavior.

    Agreeing on a frame of reference is exactly my point. "Does something have free will?" requires the follow-up question, "According to whom?". Just like "I'm far from that rock" requires the followup question, "According to whom?". The ant might think you're far from the rock, something else might think you're near the rock.

    To boil it down a bit more, my point is just that you can always replace the phrase "free will" in speech with "unpredictable behavior" without loss of meaning, because that is what people actually mean when they say it, whether they realize that or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    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".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    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"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago

    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).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 30 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Yeah, that story has a lot of plot holes.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 7 months ago (12 children)

    It was a test, but if he was omniscient, he would have known the results without having to run it. 😉

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] [S] 23 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    See how i didnt mention he is also "benevolent."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    There's quite a bit of evidence to argue he is actually malevolent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Try telling that to a Christian and you'll hear the battered wife type arguments come out sooooo quick.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago

    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?"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (11 children)

    And while we're at it, wouldn't the Reality Stone trump all the others because reality is all there is and contains everything the other stones represent?

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago*

    It is by far the most powerful one in the comics, though most beings are not able to use it because it's use is too abstract.

    Notably The Magus was given a fake one for his Infinity Gauntlet and didn't even notice.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 4 points 7 months ago* (9 children)

    Only in reality? Doesn't your theory fall apart with the fact that Marvel is not reality?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    Oh, are you starting to get the picture?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 7 months ago* (7 children)

    As far as I know, reality doesnt actually contain the reality of the marvel universe. Only an imagined one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    Yes, correct, the logic of reality does not apply to works of fiction, which may have their own rules that may or may not be logical or internally consistent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    So the reality stone is limited to only the reality where it exists. The other stones could exist in a reality that doesnt require the reality stone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    You'd think so, but get this: all the stones only work in the reality they're from, and are worthless trinkets in any other reality. It's ridiculous! They're not called the "infinity (of only this reality) stones" ffs!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    I mean the Judeo-Christian god is also omniscient so he did so knowing they wouldn't, meaning them eating the apple was the point in the first place. Otherwise he just wouldn't have created the tree.

    PS: I'm Muslim and this story is a bit different in Islam but I'm pretty sure I got it right.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (8 children)

    Free will. The idea is that for free will to exist you must be able to choose the wrong action.

    If a supreme being rules out all wrong actions or prevented you from taking wrong actions, how could there be free will? How could you even be responsible for your own thoughts and actions. How are you not just a puppet?

    Alternately you can think of it as a leveling up. It seems like the Apple is always represented as “knowledge of good and evil”. So originally they’re just animals. They take actions but there is no morality, nothing is good or bad. But if they use their free will to take this one forbidden step, they receive the knowledge of good and evil, they can act good or act bad, they know it’s good or bad, and they have the free will to choose their path. And they are accountable for those choices. Now they’re human

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Ahh so the real original sin is entrapment. Got it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago*

    Ford Prefect: Your God person puts an apple tree in the middle of a garden and says, do what you like guys, oh, but don’t eat the apple. Surprise surprise, they eat it and he leaps out from behind a bush shouting ‘Gotcha.’ It wouldn’t have made any difference if they hadn’t eaten it.

    Arthur Dent: Why not?

    Ford Prefect: Because if you’re dealing with somebody who has the sort of mentality which likes leaving hats on the pavement with bricks under them you know perfectly well they won’t give up. They’ll get you in the end.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    But if god is omniscient, then he knows what they're going to do. And if he already knows that, then do they really have free will? Or do they just think they do?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    There's 3 philosophies I've seen on that question.

    One is the planned domino effect, which another commentator already mentioned.

    The next is the "paradoxical being" one, which is that something that is omniscient is paradoxical by default, therefore it can both know what will happen and simultaneously not know what will happen.

    The last is the "unknown destiny" one, which is that even if we don't actually have free will, as long as we think we do and can't prove we don't, then does it matter? Because ultimately it would be no different to us than if we actually did have it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Interesting, thanks.

    Addressed the first one on that other comment.

    The second one just seems contradictory tbh, how can it be both?

    The third one is interesting - but subjectively feeling like we have free will isn't the same as objectively having it.

    And if there was a god and he was allowing (in fact, causing) us to believe we had free will, when we actually didn't, would just create the situation where god had misled us.

    I think the best way out is that we do have free will, but god isn't omniscient (if he exists at all).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    The second one just seems contradictory tbh, how can it be both?

    Well that's the nature of paradoxes, isn't it? But paradox philosophy is a whole 'nother can of worms and a very long discussion in of itself, though you've probably encountered some examples before, such as this one:

    The next sentence is true. The prior sentence is false.

    It results in an endless loop. Contradictory, yes, yet both sentences still exist, and are sentences.

    The third one is interesting - but subjectively feeling like we have free will isn't the same as objectively having it.

    Yes, true, but the point of that third one is that the result would be the same in the sense that in both cases, humans believe they have free will, and therefore their actions are determined by that, whether or not that path was outlined beforehand by a being we cannot fathom / fully comprehend or not. The actions will still become as they are.

    I've also heard this third argument combined a bit with the second one as an attempt to better make sense of the paradox (although by doing so, it's really not a paradox anymore), and that is that God knows all possible paths humans would take, but not necessarily which one / God made infinite path he knows the outcome of but we are free to pick which one we take.

    This issue I have with that one is that it's no longer a truly full omniscient being at that point.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    This s is where you have the argument that a supreme being might have set the universe in motion but deliberately does not interfere with the way it evolves. The conditions are as close to even as possible so things can go either way …. For an infinite number of decisions for an infinite time

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    It's not a question of interfering or not though, it's about foreknowledge.

    Either god had foreknowledge of their choice, and therefore A&E couldn't have made any other decision than they did, or they had genuine free will meaning he wasn't omniscient.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Aha! The question that has many pastors digging deep to get a good answer too. And usually they end up with the age old “mysterious ways”.

    The “best” one is usually along the lines of: god wanted a relationship which involves choice and free will, so he had to create a division that would allow humankind to have a choice in the matter.

    So god feels lonely, causes all misery on earth that ever was and ever will be. Because free will… On top of that he also indirectly (oh screw it, it’s god) directly causes eternal torture in the afterlife for a vast majority of humankind. Because also, free will (I keep stressing that because that in itself is a huge problem for theologians).

    And then all that leads to god killing itself in the form of its own son. Because some of you touch your own genitalia in glee.

    Genius.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago

    And if Yahweh is omniscient, he knew they would eat it, so he put the situation together so that they could be "punished",

    Yahweh is a sadist.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago

    It's a judeo-christian-muslim god.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Just some light tomfoolery.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    Ah the good old epicurean paradox :3. The christian god can't be all loving, all knowing, all powerful, and all present all at once, otherwise the whole religion makes no sense. If you solve that one you may become the new messiah, but otherwise the answer is "no reason" because none of it makes sense

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago* (4 children)

    I actually came up with a solution! Somehow it was missed by all the theologians over the years, but I'm quite sure it is a correct solution and out of the many solutions I've read, this is the only one that seems valid.

    What if God is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good but just... isn't very smart? He's doing his best, okay?

    You may wonder, if he's omnipotent, couldn't he increase his intelligence to solve this? Yes. Yes he could. If only he was smart enough to realise that =(

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    But omniscient means having knowledge of everything, so he can't be dumb, cause then it would mean there's something he doesn't know :3

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Do you want snakes with legs? Because this is how you get snakes with legs.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago

    Bad character and plot writing. The Bible was written by hacks and scabs.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago

    Original scapegoat

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Because that god is a crazy tyrant that had to prove he had total control over his creations (despite giving them free will), and threw a tantrum like a child when they disobeyed. And we have another example of his childish tantrums when he flooded the world because his toys weren't playing the way he wanted.

    It explains a lot of why Christianity is so fucked up

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    Fanfiction/Please permit me to make wild allegations, I was also looking at this yesterday and wondered: is it the apple of knowledge of sexual reproduction? (I know the book says good and evil, I get it)

    The other tree was the fruit of eternal life. They did not consume this fruit.

    So, as for the story, humans could neither sexually reproduce nor live forever/a long time prior to eating the fruit of the knowledge of sexual reproduction. Life and death. Good and evil.

    They ate it, wanted to have sex with each other and were ashamed and covered themselves to avoid sexual arousal.

    The free will they received was the ability to sexually reproduce.

    In the story, angels cannot sexually reproduce with each other?, but seemingly live forever/a long time, and angels supposedly did get very excited that they could now sexually reproduce with humans: nephelim. Hybrids. There are no female angels.

    Two different technology trees: humans with sexual reproduction and limited lifespan and angels with longevity/eternal life/angel powers/no females.

    This gave the world a third (unintended?) hybrid nephelim class and this upset the balance of power on earth/the creation.

    The chaos that ensued inspired yahweh to flood his creation and try again?

    Wild shit! For me these are the chaotic and confused retelling of a story of extraterrestrial influence on the development of the human species.

    This particular chapter is focused on origins and bloodlines of humanity so it makes sense to me in that way 🙃

    Thank you for your time.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Because he doesn't exist, so even questioning it is irrelevant

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    God is a kind of a lazy bitch

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    Something, something lego movie

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    As in all theological questions, it really requires faith.

    If you have faith then you don't need to worry about the details.

    If you don't have faith then none of it makes any sense.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago

    Faith comes up with answers and then tries to explain those answers. Faith changes reasons as necessary to keep the believed ideas believed.

    Science tries to explain observations and confirm theories. Science updates beliefs based on new information.

    Faith will always be wrong, behind the times, out of date. Science is constantly improving.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago

    Christianity is only one of the many interpretations of reality. Not reality itself. Other doctrines like gnosticism, hinduism, etc... Will give you another view.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    God is also supposedly an all-knowing being, while at the same time excuses his shitty decisions and faulty creations with not being responsible for men's actions and decisions, and also free will is a thing.

    Pick a lane. Either god is all-knowing and knows what every single human being who ever lived/lives/will live did/will do in their lifetimes and free will is an illusion, or he's not an all-knowing being.

    Or... hear me out on this... He's not real! Crazy, I know.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    same reason you can have anal sex and still be a virgin!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›