"Why Did God Create Mankind if He Knew Man Would Sin?"

[Kenny]

So God had no control of his creation at the time he designed it, or was it out of control the second he made everything, meaning he's not omnipotent and subject to the forces of nature beyond himself the same as us?

Don't understand how you came that conclussion

 

[Faithofchristian]

If Jehovah is omniscient, he already knew it would happen before it happened.

Where's your proof that God is all knowing.

There's no where in the Bible that this is written.
God being omniscient is man's teachings.

 

[Skwim]

Magnanimity.

As in, "Wow! thank you for bringing all the wars, conflicts, fights, and needless suffering to the world when you didn't have to"? I don't think so.

Though the evil which God permits he brings about the greater good. No crown without the cross.

So in effect you're saying that god was incapable of bringing about a greater good, whatever that is, without bringing evil into the world?

.

 

[Skwim]

If it's not written in the Bible, Then I don't follow it.

And to each his own.

.

 

[Windwalker]

Sin did not come into existence...it already existed. Sin was allowed to enter the world:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned-- (Romans 5:12)

So sin was existing prior to humans? Then who created it? How did it come into being? It must have had a creator, right? Was it God, or some other force or being outside of God? If some other force, than God is not omnipotent, as God did not create everything. If it was God, then God created sin. Which is it?

Sin is something God allows but it is never beyond His control.

Then why should he wish to eliminate it? Personal preference?

Sin is the state we are in when we operate outside the will of God.

What can be outside of God's will if God is omnipotent? There is something that came into existence outside of God, so he doesn't have all the power.

Since sin is not a physical entity occupying time and space it would be a mistake to characterize it as if it were.

Is God a physical entity? Do God have mass and occupy space and time? It sound like sin is this non-corporeal thing like God?

Sin does not affect God's omnipresence.

So then it exists within, our outside of God? Which?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Yes they would eat of it, but they had a choice not to. That is free will.

No it is not as they were incapable of making moral choices prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They could not make moral judgements thus their choices are not 'free'.

If they could not "actively 'obeyed' or 'disobeyed' " then God would not have bothered to tell them not to eat from the tree.

You're assuming your god - as portrayed in the Bible - doesn't engage in pointless endeavours which is incorrect. This is only the first of many such pointless endeavours; the Original Sin we apparently inherit from this pointless experiment of his is equally pointless; as is drowning the entire planetary population of humans bar one family because they were using their free will in a way your god doesn't like; as is the notion that an all-powerful being needs something as pointlessly elaborate as a third party to redeem us of the flaw he could cure us of with a thought if he so wished.

You are forgetting how Adam and Eve were made:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them.." (Genesis 1: 16-28)

​

Mankind was not made it the image of squirrels who have no moral compass but in the image of God who does. We were made in "our image, after our likeness" and neither His image or likeness is evil.

At this point Adam knows good...it's not something that he had to get from a tree.

This is a position your own scripture refutes:

Genesis 3:22 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.”

It directly states Adam got his knowledge of good and evil by eating from the Tree - implying he didn't have it to begin with.

"The man has now become like us, knowing good and evil."

Adam wouldn't have got knowledge of good from the tree if he already had that knowledge.

Further, in order for your god to remain omniscient (all-knowing), he would have to know everything including evil.

The verse itself even says that Yahweh knows evil!

By your own logic, this implies Yahweh created Adam knowing evil which would explain his ability to disobey Yahweh. This would simultaneously destroy the Christian claims that Yahweh is morally perfect while also explaining his own immoral acts.

If Yahweh cannot know something because it is evil, he cannot by definition be omniscient as there remains something outside his sphere of knowledge.

What Adam got from the tree was the "knowledge of good and evil", that is the opening of their eyes to sin.

You can't know good without also knowing evil as they define & oppose one another. 'Good' has no meaning when there is no presence of evil to oppose it.

No he doesn't. He doesn't know what evil is so he has nothing to counter balance the concept of 'good'. It's called the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Not the Tree of the Knowledge of Evil. Calling it this would be utterly redundant if the tree imparted knowledge of things Adam & Eve were created with.

This was not something forced on them by God, but a free choice made by both Adam and Eve.

Incorrect. Yahweh placed the tree in Eden knowing A & E were going to eat from it because, being omniscient, he already knew they would. Since he's already seen them do it, they were always going to do it. If your god holds all the cards he deserves all the blame. You can't have your cake and eat it.

I'm not following you here.

Evidently not because you're trying to refute my claims regarding omniscience with references to non-omniscient beings.

I'm trying to lose 10 pounds but just decided to eat some cookies that were better left on the shelf. Since I did that of my own free will, how did the Universe determine my actions?

The Universe didn't but your god's omniscience did (my mistake for mixing things up when I should have said 'reality' or 'creation'). If the Universe reality is deterministic (for the record I don't believe it is because I don't buy the notion that your god is omniscient) then you were always going to eat those cookies.

I'll go further. I knew I was going to eat the cookies before I ate them. The does not mean the universe became deterministic of my actions, it simply means I decided to exercise my free will.

Incorrect. You didn't know you were going to eat the cookies. You wanted to or you believed that you would. But some unforeseeable (from your perspective) circumstance could have arisen that would prevent you from eating the cookies. An allegedly omniscient god does not have this problem.

Not in Christian theology. God has both and neither are anathema.

This is the same Christian theology that says your god is both one and three at the same time; the same Christian theology that says God is morally perfect but plans to torture us for all eternity if we don't accept his sacrifice to himself as a sensible way of ameliorating the sin he designed us to have.

You'll forgive me for not viewing it as a benchmark for common sense; much less rationality.

In reasonable discourse; knowing what someone is going to do before they do it is anathema to free will because the future is determined before it happens i.e. determinism.

 

[Glaurung]

As in, "Wow! thank you for bringing all the wars, conflicts, fights, and needless suffering to the world when you didn't have to"? I don't think so.

No, it's magnanimity on God's part that we should exist at all.

So in effect you're saying that god was incapable of bringing about a greater good, whatever that is, without bringing evil into the world?

Strictly speaking there's no such thing as evil. Evil is the privation of the good which ultimately is none other than God. Evil is not something God has inflicted upon the world as evil only exists insofar as we are distanced from him. That he permits this distance is ultimately a good thing because by doing so he gives us the dignity of choice.

This imperfect world we experience now is but one part of a much, much larger picture. At some point it will end. And when it ends you will take your place, be it in never ending happiness with God or in never ending misery without him. Revelation 21:4

Ultimately, that this temporary state of affairs isn't how you would have it doesn't mean that it's a mistake. Job 38:4

 

[Furchizedek]

Wandering around Answers in Genesis again I came across the question above. Not unexpectedly, AiG's reply tiptoed around the question and never did address it. So, I'm asking you, Christians who regard god as omniscient, why do you think god created mankind if he knew man would sin"?

The only reasonable answer I can come up with is that he did know, and wanted it that way. God created mankind as a form of entertainment. It's flaws and all adding to the drama.

.

God is existential. In order for God to become experiential as well, He needs us. God experiences (becomes experiential) through us. Yes, God did know that some of us would use our free will to mistreat our fellow man but we can't have freewill any other way than being free to choose between right and wrong, and free will is God's gift to us.

 

[Skwim]

God is existential. In order for God to become experiential as well, He needs us. God experiences (becomes experiential) through us.

And you know this to be true because____________________________________________________________________ .

Yes, God did know that some of us would use our free will to mistreat our fellow man but we can't have freewill any other way than being free to choose between right and wrong, and free will is God's gift to us.

Not talking about right and wrong, but sin.

.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

When you say,

We cannot have been a random creation,

what exactly do you mean? Like, unique?

Hope to hear from you soon. If you'd prefer to carry this on in a private conversation, just start one, and we can go from there.

Take care.

 

[Furchizedek]

And you know this to be true because____________________________________________________________________

No one knows much of anything religious "to be true" to where they can "prove" something to someone else. These things are called beliefs for a reason.

Not talking about right and wrong, but sin.
.

Like what sin? Do you have a laundry list of them? Does everyone agree with the list? Or are you talking about a specific one? Which one?

Absent such a laundry list that all agree on, sin has to be defined as the refusal to do the Father's will, God's will. And I don't know if this has any traction with an agnostic but the Father's will is that we love one another. Whatever we do to our fellow human beings that does not reflect the idea that we love one another, our brothers and sisters in God's family, is sin.

 

[Oeste]

Sorry, but I don't buy your equivocation.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's perspective) your stand alone, unsupported sweeping characterization does not show any of my prior assertions less true.

OTOH, if you seriously feel a specific point previously discussed was ambiguous, please elaborate on that point and I’ll do my best to address it specifically and make it clearer.

Assigning names isn't constructing a language.

Of course it is.

Nouns are the most fundamental grammatical category in all languages of the world, followed by verbs. There is no language without nouns. (Source: Maillart & Parisee, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Human Communication Sciences and Disorders. 2017)

Besides, god had already established a language.

Yes He did, as is evidenced by His prior statement: “Let us create man in our image”. However God did not assign names to his earthly creation…he left that to man, so I’m at a total loss as to why you feel Adam and Eve didn’t understand God when he told them not to eat the fruit of the tree.

Look, if Adam had said “Huh?” at least once I would concede you have a valid point, but I’m not reading that in Genesis. As such your theory that Adam and Eve didn’t understand God amounts to little more than unsupported conjecture.

It isn't scripture, but the two alternatives you are trying to establish as compatible.

Correct. It wasn’t scripture. You introduced the legal doctrine of “informed consent” and I responded with “Ignorantia juris non excusat”. You claimed informed consent excused Adam and Eve’s action, and I correctly pointed out such a doctrine would only mitigate, not excuse their action due to ignorantia juris non excusat.

Okay. In short, my point:

You claim god made A&E in his own image, presumably with the ability to understand everything he said, yet you also contend that despite being made in god's image this did not include the ability to make the right choice: not eat the apple.

Whoa! Let’s not misstate my position here. My position is that it being made in God’s image did include the ability to make the right choice and not eat the apple.

The idea that being made in god’s image it did not include the ability to make the right choice is your position, not mine. Let’s go back to Post 60:

So, with absolutely no clue as to what they were told, why should they be held accountable?

Why introduce the legal doctrine of “informed consent” if you believe, like I do, that A&E did have the capacity to make the right choice?

Look, if you agree with me, fine and welcome aboard! I just don’t want us needlessly debating over each other on a point we already agree on.

I'm saying you can't have it both ways because nowhere is it indicated that god qualified his making of A&E in his image: that he made them only partially in his image.

Thank you. Not only did you make your assertion but you also included a “why” (basis) for your assertion.

First, I would say that scripture tell us we were made in the image or likeness of God. It does not say we were made partially in His image. "Partial" image is foreign to the text. That's because we were made as men, not as Gods. If we were made as Gods then yes, we would have been made "partially" in his image because we never possessed the full attributes and/or characteristics of God even during our pre-fallen state.

Instead we were created as men. As men we were created in the image of God. As such, we possessed all the attributes and characteristics we were suppose to possess, no more and no less, so there is no "partial" image.

So what attributes and characteristics of God do we have? I would answer it this way: You only need compare the animals and bushes that were not created in God’s image, with man who was. Besides, the bible is replete with the characteristics God looks for in men but has never looked for in animals.

And you can't cherry pick which elements of his image A&E received and which of them they didn't.

You can’t be serious Skwim! I’m not “cherry picking” elements, you are. Did you forget your prior assertion? Let’s remind ourselves of it again:

So, either they were created wholly in god's image or they weren't created in god's image at all.

Here you tell us what that either A&E have all the elements or they don’t have them at all. Then you go on to say I “can’t cherry pick which elements” when you just did!

Do you see the inconsistency in your argument? Apparently only Skwim is authorized to tell us which elements are in “God’s image” and which are not. So while you measure the elements at your leisure you deny any such option for me.

Tsk, Tsk!

You present me with a false dichotomy.

And one of your own making. I simply pointed it out.

Wait a minute…YOU presented the dichotomy, not me Skrim. Did you forget all ready? Let’s look at it again:

So, either they were created wholly in god's image or they weren't created in god's image at all.

At NO time did I make, present, or write YOUR false dichotomy as my own . I challenge you to quote where I did.

The dichotomy, whether you think it false or not, is yours. It was not a dichotomy “of my own making”.

And I never suggested as much.

Then you need to define what you mean by “wholly” as in your statement “So either they were created wholly in god’s image or they weren’t created in god’s image at all” rather than leaving it to the reader’s imagination.

Quite simply, if we were created “wholly” in God’s likeness "or not at all" then we are omniscient. Either that, or God is just as shortsighted as we are and confounded by a timeline He Himself created.

Truth be told, the word “wholly” is a foreign idea or concept that simply doesn’t appear in the biblical narrative. It only appears in your argument. You presented “wholly” with two “all or nothing” extremes, so OF COURSE you were suggesting that man was created with ALL of God’s attributes, including omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. Otherwise why drop in “wholly” when it never appeared in the Hebrew text?

This may not have been your intent Skrim but it was certainly “suggested” as such.

Let's avoid strawman arguments.

On this much we can agree.

I've answered and responded to your questions and included my reasoning or basis. So I would like to ask you a question. No, it's not a quick or "gotcha" question. It's a question designed to elicit not only your opinion but the "how" and "why" (pillars) of that opinion:

In Genesis we learn that man and the creatures of the earth were created by God, but only man was created "in the image of God". Contrary to your statement that man was either “wholly” created in the image of God or "not at all" (“wholly” (̔́λος holos) being a word foreign to the passage), I think it apparent to even the casual reader that man received SOMETHING that the other creatures did not. So I ask you…what do you think that "something" was, and can you support your statement within the biblical narrative? If not, then perhaps Judaic, historic or other sources?

.N

 

[Oeste]

So sin was existing prior to humans?

Yes.

Then who created it? How did it come into being?

Sin was allowed, not “created”. You are allowed to do good are you not? If God had to create good with the rest of creation then there was a time when God was not good because He hadn’t "created" it yet which is nonsense.

It must have had a creator, right?

No. Sin did not have a creator.

Was it God, or some other force or being outside of God? If some other force, than God is not omnipotent, as God did not create everything. If it was God, then God created sin. Which is it?

As stated, it was not created, so there was no "force" that came along to create sin.

Then why should he wish to eliminate it?

Because sin separates us from God.

Personal preference?

Ambiguous question. Whose personal preference are your referring to? God is good, man is sinful. So man’s fallen, personal preference is to sin, whilst God’s personal nature is good.

Sin is the state we are in when we operate outside the will of God.

What can be outside of God's will if God is omnipotent?

What does omnipotence have to do with sin? You need to elaborate more on what see as a perceived connection.

Sin is outside God’s will because it is not God’s will that we sin. This has nothing to do with omnipotence; it has to do with free will and the choices we make.

There is something that came into existence outside of God, so he doesn't have all the power.

Again, sin was not created so it didn’t “come into existence outside of God”. You are looking at sin as if it were an entity with GPS coordinates. Sin does not have a location so there are no GPS coordinates to "hone in" on sin.

Is God a physical entity?

God is Spirit (John 4:24) who also condescended to become man (John 1:1, 17:3).

Do God have mass and occupy space and time?

Mass, space and time exist within God’s creation, not the other way around. In other words creation exists within God. God doesn't exist within creation.

To make this clear here's a diagram I once drew:

It sound like sin is this non-corporeal thing like God?

You have sin just like I. What does sin sound or feel like to you?

So then it exists within, our outside of God? Which?

It exists within our fallen nature.

These are great questions and I hope my answers have answered or clarified at least some things regarding sin. Sin is not only around us but within us and manifested in various ways…murder, greed, envy, etc. As explained earlier, sin is disobedience or rebellion to God. It is something God allowed and not something He created. God IS omnipotent, and yes, He could impose His will on us, but He chooses not to do so because He bequeathed us with free will. When you have free will you have choices to make. You can follow God or not. When you don’t follow God you sin.

Sin is not something floating off in the cosmos ready to descend or engulf at a moment’s notice. It is not an entity in and of itself, though there are entities that are sinful. For example, in Christian theology Satan is evil and sinful, but he is not "Sin". Sin, in and of itself, is not something we can examine with a microscope, observe with a telescope, or analyze with a spectrometer. The works of sin are a different matter.

We all sin and this sin separates us from God. That doesn’t teleport the sinner to some spot “outside of God”, it simply means we are not obeying His commands. When we repent, ask forgiveness, and strive to operate within God’s laws our sins (purposeful/errant free will choices opposed to God) are forgiven. This does not mean God "created" the sin that He is forgiving us for.[/QUOTE]

 

[Skwim]

No one knows much of anything religious "to be true" to where they can "prove" something to someone else. These things are called beliefs for a reason.

Well, you just made several unequivocal statements, and with absolutely no hint whatsoever that they're beliefs.

1. God is existential.
2. In order for God to become experiential as well, He needs us.
3. God experiences (becomes experiential) through us.
​

So, I await: And you know this to be true because____________________________________________________________________ .

.

 

[Windwalker]

Sin was allowed, not “created”.

If God didn't create it, it had to come from somewhere outside of God into existence. What is that source? Did it exist eternally with God, but just not God?

If God had to create good with the rest of creation then there was a time when God was not good because He hadn’t "created" it yet which is nonsense.

God's nature is goodness. Goodness would not need to be created, as goodness is the being of God. But is sin too? If not, it had a beginning. What was that beginning? Is it eternal like God? If not, what or who created it?

No. Sin did not have a creator.

Then it is eternal self-existent, like God?

As stated, it was not created, so there was no "force" that came along to create sin.

Then where did it get its existence from? Who or what created it?

Because sin separates us from God.

So he was okay with sin, until he saw how it affected us? It's only evil because we weren't ready to handle it when we were naivie naked children in the garden of Eden? This is an interesting theology which makes one wonder. What exactly is sin then? It doesn't sound like it's anything that bothers God himself, only in that his human creation can't handle drinking from that bottle, so to speak.

Ambiguous question. Whose personal preference are your referring to? God is good, man is sinful. So man’s fallen, personal preference is to sin, whilst God’s personal nature is good.

Not what I was saying. Since it sounds like God was able to get along with sin existing prior to humans, then why want to get rid of it? Personal preference, like not liking pepperoni on your pizza?

BTW, if man was created in God's image, and man is sinful, then wouldn't sin be part of God's nature? Didn't God create everything that exists?

What does omnipotence have to do with sin? You need to elaborate more on what see as a perceived connection.

Sin is outside God’s will because it is not God’s will that we sin. This has nothing to do with omnipotence; it has to do with free will and the choices we make.

Sin is outside of God's will, therefore it has a power that God does not will. Therefore, God would not have all power, or be omnipotent, in other words.

Again, sin was not created so it didn’t “come into existence outside of God”. You are looking at sin as if it were an entity with GPS coordinates. Sin does not have a location so there are no GPS coordinates to "hone in" on sin.

Neither does God, yet we don't have a problem understanding God exists. Sin obviously has some form of existence in order for humans to drink from that source and offend God, right? If it doesn't, then sin does not exist and the whole thing is a charade for human imaginations, right?

God is Spirit (John 4:24) who also condescended to become man (John 1:1, 17:3).

That is interesting that you would call God becoming man a "condescension". If God created man good, without sin, and God became man without sin, then why is that a negative? This is very curious indeed. Do you hate God's creation?

But to the point, yes, God does not have physical mass, or GPS coordinates, and yet we say God exists. So sin must be like God too then, not having mass, yet existing. Is sin spirit? If it existed before humans, it has to have some essence of existence in order to call it something.

Mass, space and time exist within God’s creation, not the other way around. In other words creation exists within God. God doesn't exist within creation.

To make this clear here's a diagram I once drew:

View attachment 21373

Your map is interesting. However, I could make a number of points about it I see problematic, but that would prove to be even more challenging to grapple with than this simple question about the existence of sin and its origin. It does make me want to have that discussion though. Briefly, you are trying to impose a dualistic reality on a nondualistic one, and it will run into inherent contradictions doing that. If all time exists within God, then God also exists within time. There can be no separation. If God is omnipresent, he would exist both inside and outside time equally.

You have sin just like I. What does sin sound or feel like to you?

What does God sound or feel like? I would say God feels healing and full of life and vitality, connection and internal and external Peace. "Sin" is the state of self-contraction where we don't see or experience God. But then, sin really isn't a thing, is it? More just a state. But then how could that exist before humans? Do animals know sin?

It exists within our fallen nature.

From where outside of ourselves? Also, I don't buy that humans have a fallen nature. The fact that we can receive God, seems to indicate otherwise. A fallen nature would have no interest in God at any moment. Yet we do. There must be a God nature there too, or as our core nature, right? Like seeks like, and all of that?

We all sin and this sin separates us from God. That doesn’t teleport the sinner to some spot “outside of God”, it simply means we are not obeying His commands. When we repent, ask forgiveness, and strive to operate within God’s laws our sins (purposeful/errant free will choices opposed to God) are forgiven. This does not mean God "created" the sin that He is forgiving us for.

The real problem is when you say sin existed before humans. If you say sin is simply a state of our minds, which closes us off to God, I don't have an issue with that. We can all blind ourselves to what is before us at all times through the darkness of our own imaginations, believing we are isolated and alone, outside of life, separated as it were from God. That perceptual reality has the effect of cutting ourselves off from that wellspring that creates our own being, and the result of that is sickness of soul and mind and body. I have no problem with any of that.

But then sin doesn't actually exist as a thing. We don't have a sinful "nature". We are not "sinners". We are humans who struggle with the unawareness of God. And that unawareness, is what "falls short of the mark". So why then do you see sin as existing before humans, and is not specifically a human state? You must believe that animals sin too then, the fishes of the sea, the birds of air, the creatures of land above and below, and so forth. Are they in a state of separation from God too?

 

[tempogain]

When you say,

what exactly do you mean? Like, unique?

Hope to hear from you soon. If you'd prefer to carry this on in a private conversation, just start one, and we can go from there.

Take care.

I'm fine here if you are!

I mean, when he created us I presume he had a conception for our character, created us deliberately in that fashion, and didn't just create a new random type of sapient hominid. That is relevant because it means he should have known we were fully capable of pulling off a stunt like the one that got us almost immediately kicked out of the garden, and the idea of "selective foreknowledge" which you mentioned earlier in the thread wouldn't apply.

 

[Oeste]

If you leave a steak on the floor in room, and leave it with a dog, it is the dog's fault for having ate the steak when you return, or your fault for not doing something when you reasonably know what the outcome will be?

That would be my fault for leaving the steak on the floor. I’m sure there were animals who ate from the tree, but none of them, save man, were condemned by God.

 

[Oeste]

No it is not as they were incapable of making moral choices prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They could not make moral judgements thus their choices are not 'free'.

I don’t see why. Adam was not sinful prior to eating the fruit (disobeying) God. God is not sinful either. Do you believe God incapable of making moral judgement because He never sins and if not, why Adam?

You're assuming your god - as portrayed in the Bible - doesn't engage in pointless endeavours which is incorrect.

Your’re assuming God – as portrayed in the Bible – does engage in pointless endeavours, which is not correct.

This is only the first of many such pointless endeavours; the Original Sin we apparently inherit from this pointless experiment of his is equally pointless; as is drowning the entire planetary population of humans bar one family because they were using their free will in a way your god doesn't like;

Contrary to your claim I think those endeavors drove home His point, so they weren’t pointless at all.

as is the notion that an all-powerful being needs something as pointlessly elaborate as a third party to redeem us of the flaw he could cure us of with a thought if he so wished.

God is our Savior so I don’t see a “third party” involved. As for the cure it’s our choice whether we want to take it or not. Your idea of God forcing a remedy on us runs contrary to free will.

This is a position your own scripture refutes:

Genesis 3:22 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.”

It directly states Adam got his knowledge of good and evil by eating from the Tree - implying he didn't have it to begin with.

"The man has now become like us, knowing good and evil."

Adam wouldn't have got knowledge of good from the tree if he already had that knowledge.

But I just showed you scripture (Genesis 1: 16-28) where Adam did have that knowledge, otherwise he could not have been called good.

You apparently wish to isolate on one scriptural passage while ignoring the rest, a study tactic commonly referred to as “proof texting”. I can’t do that. I follow biblical exegesis which means I must not only read the text but its context and follow, to the extent possible, proper grammatical, literal, historical, synthesis, and practical principles.

If your statement is true you need to explain why God called Adam good while you pronounce him amoral.

Further, in order for your god to remain omniscient (all-knowing), he would have to know everything including evil.

The verse itself even says that Yahweh knows evil!

I’m not following you here. Knowing and practicing evil are two different things. Are you claiming they're the same? On what basis?

By your own logic, this implies Yahweh created Adam knowing evil which would explain his ability to disobey Yahweh. This would simultaneously destroy the Christian claims that Yahweh is morally perfect while also explaining his own immoral acts.

That’s one amazing jump, hop, and leap of "logic" EOM! God created Adam with free will. He also created Adam “good”. Adams ability to obey or disobey simply means Adam had free will, just like God. I’m afraid I got lost when you jumped from there to an immoral God

If Yahweh cannot know something because it is evil, he cannot by definition be omniscient as there remains something outside his sphere of knowledge.

God is able to examine all hearts, not just good ones.

 

[Oeste]

You can't know good without also knowing evil as they define & oppose one another. 'Good' has no meaning when there is no presence of evil to oppose it.

Good is being in the presence of God. That is, when we are in harmony with God. Evil is when we are in opposition to God. Evil cannot “oppose” God because God is omnipotent.

No he doesn't. He doesn't know what evil is so he has nothing to counter balance the concept of 'good'. It's called the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Not the Tree of the Knowledge of Evil. Calling it this would be utterly redundant if the tree imparted knowledge of things Adam & Eve were created with.

Incorrect. Again you’re concentrating on a single verse and not considering the balance of scripture. You wish to elevate one text while ignoring others. That’s an extremely tenuous position to place yourself in. If your statement is true then kindly tell us why God called his entire creation good when no one had eaten from the tree. Follow this with your reasoned explanation of why the same Hebrew word , kavos, is used to describe both God's creation and His tree.

To be honest, I am simply unaware of any traditional Christian religion that supports your theory of a magical tree in their doctrine. As such it appears to be the preferred theory of skeptics.

Calling the Tree the Knowledge of Good and Evil would be redundant if the tree had something to impart, which it did not.

So there is nothing “redundant” about the tree. The tree is appropriately named. It is called the tree of “Good and Evil” because it signifies our free will choice to obey God and be good, or to defy God and be evil. There is no magical fruit in the tree. There is the free will choice to obey or rebel against God.

Yahweh placed the tree in Eden knowing A & E were going to eat from it because, being omniscient, he already knew they would.

Absolutely! I’m glad we can agree on this.

Since he's already seen them do it, they were always going to do it. If your god holds all the cards he deserves all the blame. You can't have your cake and eat it.

The “cards” to follow or rebel against God are held by us. He has “seen” what we will do not because He forced us to do it, but because He knows what our choice will be.

I'm not following you here

Evidently not because you're trying to refute my claims regarding omniscience with references to non-omniscient beings.

No. I’m trying to understand your basis that if an omniscient being knows the future its fatalism, but if a non-omniscient person knows the future it is not. I don’t accept your premise that there’s a difference between an omniscient being knowing what will happen tomorrow and a non-omniscient being who knows the same. Both know the future but neither has determined it.

Acts 16: 16-24 describes a slave girl who had a demon allowing her to know the future. So not only did the girl know the future (via the demon), but God knew it too. Are you claiming the demon pre-determined each future event it knew?

If the demon knew the future but didn’t pre-determine the future then obviously knowing the future doesn’t predetermine it.

The Universe didn't but your god's omniscience did (my mistake for mixing things up when I should have said 'reality' or 'creation'). If the Universe reality is deterministic (for the record I don't believe it is because I don't buy the notion that your god is omniscient) then you were always going to eat those cookies.

So I was always going to eat those cookies unless I decided not to eat those cookies, in which case I was always not going to eat those cookies.

Either way it sounds like my choice and not the choice of reality because in reality it was always my choice.

I'll go further. I knew I was going to eat the cookies before I ate them. The does not mean the universe became deterministic of my actions, it simply means I decided to exercise my free will.

Incorrect. You didn't know you were going to eat the cookies. You wanted to or you believed that you would.

Of course I did, and I proved it by eating the cookies.

But some unforeseeable (from your perspective) circumstance could have arisen that would prevent you from eating the cookies.

Your perspective is too linear.

I not only know that I will eat the cookies but I also happen to know that I won’t eat the cookies if there is an intervening event, like a tornado. In other words, it’s not that I don’t know one or the other, because I happen to know both.

An allegedly omniscient god does not have this problem.

I know I will eat the cookies unless there is an intervening event, and God knows I will come into judgment unless I repent. In the first instance the intervening event is a tornado, in the second it is free will. You’ll have to elaborate on why you see the first as indeterminate, and the second as anathema.

If God determines I will eat the cookies then I will eat the cookies whether I want to eat the cookies or not. Nothing in the universe will stop me from eating the cookies. However God has not determined what I do but has given me free choice on what I do. God simply knows what choice I will make because He can see the entire time line.

This is the same Christian theology that says your god is both one and three at the same time; the same Christian theology that says God is morally perfect but plans to torture us for all eternity if we don't accept his sacrifice to himself as a sensible way of ameliorating the sin he designed us to have.

We were discussing whether free will and omniscience can coexist, and I stated they coexist within God. I’m not sure how we jump from there to Sabellianism and hell. Those are good interesting subjects but they’re off thread theme

You'll forgive me for not viewing it as a benchmark for common sense; much less rationality.

Of course! As fallen creatures I know we all prefer to have sin without consequence or judgment. In any case I’m sure you’ll forgive me if I find your theories of determinism and fatalism much the same.

In reasonable discourse; knowing what someone is going to do before they do it is anathema to free will because the future is determined before it happens i.e. determinism.

Look at it this way EOM:

Deciding whether to walk down the aisle with Jane or Sue...that is a free choice option. When Jane’s dad shows up with 3 sons carrying rifles in the back of his pick-up truck...that is determinism. But when God pops into the scene with a 12 gauge shotgun…only here has your future been “predetermined”.​

God has not pointed a shotgun at my free will choice; He simply knows what my choice will be. As such, it is unreasonable to state free will choices have been “predetermined”.

BTW, this sounds like a modern update to the Greek Fates, specifically Clotho who spun the “thread” of human fate and Lachesis who dispensed it…a notion anathema to Christian theology. The only difference I see is that you have spun the mythical roles from the Fates and now attempt to bundle them into our Creator.

 

[Furchizedek]

Well, you just made several unequivocal statements, and with absolutely no hint whatsoever that they're beliefs.

1. God is existential.
2. In order for God to become experiential as well, He needs us.
3. God experiences (becomes experiential) through us.
​

So, I await: And you know this to be true because____________________________________________________________________ .

.

LOL! Of course they're "beliefs." What else could they be? They are my beliefs/opinions. And while I believe they are true, I don't think I ever said that they were true, or that I said I could prove anything. If they make sense, you can adopt them. If not, just reject them and move on.