Garden of Eden was a setup...

[abaris]

See what I mean?

Of course.

[Esquilax]

But I'm amazed at how many people still do defend it.

Why do I need to defend God? If that's what he wanted to do then he could do it. Who knows? Maybe there actually was a good reason for what he did.

Ah, the appeal to vague possible reasons again. Or, more fairly, the presupposition that there was a good reason for every bad thing god has ever done. It's not even actually an argument, and can be summarily dismissed; if you don't know what the good reason was, you are not rationally justified in believing there was one. That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Obviously, he wanted to test Adam and Eve, and they failed the test. Fortunately, he also decided to redeem them.

Why does an omniscient being need to test anything if he already knows the outcome? For that matter, why does a god capable of creating anything he wants create a being that requires testing at all, or for which a failure state is even possible?

This is just you making up ad hoc excuses for what's present, not a logical progression of events that actually happened. In the real world what you're claiming just would not make sense as a chronological series.

[Lek]

Why does an omniscient being need to test anything if he already knows the outcome? For that matter, why does a god capable of creating anything he wants create a being that requires testing at all, or for which a failure state is even possible?

You're not omniscient, so you don't know why he would do what he does. You're a person of limited knowledge and understanding judging the actions of an omniscient God.

This is just you making up ad hoc excuses for what's present, not a logical progression of events that actually happened. In the real world what you're claiming just would not make sense as a chronological series.

I'm not making up excuses at all. In fact, I said that I don't need to defend God's actions. He can do what he wants to do. He's the one who knows it all. Not me. You ask why an omniscient god would do this or that. Why do you claim to know better than he does?

[Minimalist]

I'm not making up excuses at all.

Right. You are puking up old excuses which have been ridiculed countless times before.

[Esquilax]

Why does an omniscient being need to test anything if he already knows the outcome? For that matter, why does a god capable of creating anything he wants create a being that requires testing at all, or for which a failure state is even possible?

You're not omniscient, so you don't know why he would do what he does. You're a person of limited knowledge and understanding judging the actions of an omniscient God.

Three thoughts: this is the same appeal to vague possible reasons crap I dismissed earlier. Repeating it doesn't make it any more based in evidence rather than wishful thinking.

Also? Your argument cuts both ways. You're working from exactly the same brain setup that I am, you have exactly the same limits on your knowledge, and you're judging god's actions too. Why is it that it's perfectly acceptable to judge when it agrees with what you want to be true, but when someone else says something that disagrees, they're dismissed and told they cannot judge? I smell a double standard.

Lastly, let's say you're exactly right: it doesn't matter one bit. Would you let a murderer off the hook on the basis of "maybe he has reasons! Who are we to judge his mind?" What if it's just a man accused of murder, who has evidence that would exonerate him but just won't show anyone else because "who are we to judge?" How could we possibly be to blame for following the evidence where it leads, when key evidence (that we're just assuming to exist here, let's not forget you haven't presented a whiff of evidence for your position yet) is being actively hidden from us?

Your position is not only hypocritical and baseless, it misunderstands the very basis of conducting rational investigations to come to conclusions.

I'm not making up excuses at all. In fact, I said that I don't need to defend God's actions. He can do what he wants to do.

That doesn't mean he's right or rational to do it.

He's the one who knows it all. Not me.

Claims to know it all. He's the one who claims to know it all. In reality, omniscience is both unfalsifiable and impossible. So, at best, your god is wrong. At worst, he's a liar.

You ask why an omniscient god would do this or that. Why do you claim to know better than he does?

Why just assume god's position is superior? If he's wrong, he's wrong; you're not going to appeal to authority with me, and just assuming that there's a good reason because you want there to be isn't going to get us anywhere. The factual case as it stands demonstrates that god was acting irrationally and redundantly. Your sole response has just been to assume there's a good reason, and to attack me for daring to question god, as though his authority means anything. But character assassination and presuppositions aren't arguments, they are, as I said before, ad hoc excuses made to avoid answering for obvious inconsistencies.

[Chad32]

Why should a creator, who refuses to make himself undeniably known, get a free pass on anything? Because he created the world? Well good for him, but that doesn't excuse everything he does afterwards. My parents created me, but they don't have the right to do whatever they want with me. They get a lot of leeway for having created me, and raised me, but if they decided to set me on fire and kill me they wouldn't get a pass for that.

No you shouldn't have to defend him. He should come down and defend himself. And without the beating around the bush that he did with Job. Yet he doesn't show up, and all we have is three books filled with atrocities and contradictions, and a bunch of followers who can't come to a unanimous decision on what it means. You have the jews, christians, and muslims, and all the smaller denominations within them, and the only consensus we've come to after thousands of years of this is evidence that these tales were taken from older myths, and that virgin births were not all that uncommon in those times, and much of the world doesn't believe Yahweh exists any more than Zeus.

The Eden story is faulty, much like the other stories. You have two people who didn't know right from wrong because the knowledge of good and evil was kept from them, and they were told if they ate the fruit that something that had never happened before would happen to them.

[JaceDeanLove]

Why should a creator, who refuses to make himself undeniably known, get a free pass on anything? Because he created the world? Well good for him, but that doesn't excuse everything he does afterwards. My parents created me, but they don't have the right to do whatever they want with me. They get a lot of leeway for having created me, and raised me, but if they decided to set me on fire and kill me they wouldn't get a pass for that.

No you shouldn't have to defend him. He should come down and defend himself. And without the beating around the bush that he did with Job. Yet he doesn't show up, and all we have is three books filled with atrocities and contradictions, and a bunch of followers who can't come to a unanimous decision on what it means. You have the jews, christians, and muslims, and all the smaller denominations within them, and the only consensus we've come to after thousands of years of this is evidence that these tales were taken from older myths, and that virgin births were not all that uncommon in those times, and much of the world doesn't believe Yahweh exists any more than Zeus.

The Eden story is faulty, much like the other stories. You have two people who didn't know right from wrong because the knowledge of good and evil was kept from them, and they were told if they ate the fruit that something that had never happened before would happen to them.

You summed that up perfectly! Thanks.

[Simon Moon]

I'm not making up excuses at all. In fact, I said that I don't need to defend God's actions. He can do what he wants to do. He's the one who knows it all. Not me. You ask why an omniscient god would do this or that. Why do you claim to know better than he does?

So then, 'might makes right', according to you.

How is that not totalitarianism?

How do you know that the deity that you worship is the good one?

[abaris]

Right. You are puking up old excuses which have been ridiculed countless times before.

He's not making excuses. He's doing something much worse. Arguing as a robot, taking everything the bible throws at him at face value and basically saying god works in misterious ways.

That's a knockout argument, since it requires no brain and no personal judgment.

[C4RM5]

I believe God put the tree there as a test. God would have known as he is all-knowning. However Adam and Eve were not all-knowing they didn't know what the outcome was until they took the fruit.