Pick and Choose Fundamentalism

No, he didn't. He knew his little lecture would fail. He told Adam, "Don't eat of this or you'll die." BUt as he did, he still knew that Adam would eat of the tree and, well not die, but be punished by God. So, God created the Universe, knowing Adam would disobey, and didn't create a different Universe in which Adam didn't disobey. He made a Universe where there was no other option but for Adam to disobey.If I know what I'm doing won't stop something bad from happening, and I know there's something I could do to stop it from happening, but I keep going along my impotent path, did I really do anything to stop it? In fact, did I let the bad thing happen by not doing what I knew would stop it rather than what I knew wouldn't? Don't I have at least a little responsibility for letting it happen when I could have stopped it, and knew it? I would argue this point as well, but maybe in a different thread. What deception? Are you refering to my anthropomorphization of God? It was an allegory to drive home the point that God could have done something, but didn't, knowing how things would turn out, and as such, nothing could have unfolded other than he created it to unfold. But the Bible could be wrong, or it could be a necessary illusion, so God, knowing we need to believe we have free will, tells us we do, knowing that we don't. Based on what the Bible implies, free will is impossible if the Bible is completely true. I don't understand what this has to do with the argument, unless free will is a dimension, but I don't see how that makes sense either. It includes all available information at hand. If there is more information out there, such that logic isn't a good way to suss out the workings of the Universe, then my conclusion might be wrong, but until we are shown that logic doesn't work, I don't see how my logic could follow from correct premises and be wrong.

Yeah, but you tell that error to get in line! There are a lot of errors that are knocking on the Wager's door!

But not for close to a thousand years, right? If I tell you, "Don't steal my stuff or you'll die." You then steal my stuff, and I say, "Ok, you're gonna get it!" But then I walk away and 50 years later, you're lying on your deathbed from old age, and I pop my head in and say, "See, I told you! What do you think about stealing my stuff now?!" Does that sound like I carried out my threat?God KNEW that Adam would disobey him if he created the Universe he created, right? God is omnipotent, and could have created a slightly different Universe where he knew Adam would choose not to eat the fruit, right? So, the fact that God, knowing what would happen, chose to make this Universe anyway means he set Adam up to fail. But, see, you're using the word choice. How can I choose contrary to what God knows I'll choose? If I do so, he's no longer omniscient. Given the 6000 years since he created the Universe, if people could choose contrary to what he knew (or in this case, it would be "thought," since "know" implies "is right") God would have little to no idea what was going to happen next, he'd be just like us. Not at all. It matters not what he can do, that's sort of implied by the word "omnipotent." I'm not concerned with that word. I'm concerned with the word "omniscient." It's the fact that he knows what will happen and yet doesn't do anything to stop it that makes him responsible. Do we share responsibility, I guess you could argue that, and I won't necessarily disagree, but you have to admit that God has some responsibility. Ok, show me where I missed available information, rather than just saying that if I had, my argument would be invalid, which is sort of implied.

So, somehow it's better to let the baby enter into a world full of pain, lies and the chance of being separated from God's glory and salvation for all eternity, rather than making it a certainty that the baby will never suffer for ever and ever amen? Doesn't that make your philosophy sort of sadistic?"I have a way to give a baby, and in fact all babies, eternal love and salvation, never having been touched with any little bit of corruption, but I won't do it because I feel it's better for them to feel corruption and fear and sadness." Sadisitc.

Can you quote me where it says Adam would have lived forever? If he would have, why would God have created the Tree of Life, which he worries Adam and Eve will eat from and live forever?

Ok, so they weren't created to live forever, God just placed the possibility somewhere in the Garden, but didn't tell them about it until they disobeyed, and he only told them about it to illustrate the fact that they were now cut off from it.So, in otherwords, Adam and Eve would have died anyway had they not stumbled upon the Tree of Life and decided to eat of it. So, again, how exactly did God kill Adam for eating of the Tree of Knowledge if Adam was going to die anyway, barring his eating from a particular tree. The best you could say is that God removed the merest possibility of living forever, but definitely did not kill Adam or Eve.

Then why was he worried that they would eat of the tree and become like gods, living forever? If the tree was a metaphor or a representation, then they could have eaten of it and not changed a thing. Ok, but that means everlasting life wasn't a given, it was just a possibility. By having god remove them from the garden, he removed the possibility, but that doesn't equate to killing someone. I would disagree with this interpretation. Again, if I threaten someone with death, having it come from old age 100s of years later doesn't mean I carried out my threat, even if I had the possibility to prolong their life. I didn't kill them, I just didn't stop them from dying.

So, if I take someone from a first world nation, where we have antibiotics and many good health increasing medicines, and take them to a third world nation, where there is less access to drugs and more cases of disease running unchecked, and 10 years later, they catch malaria and die, is it my fault because I removed them from the place where they would not have caught malaria or had good drugs to combat it?Or, perhaps closer to home, when England sent convicts to Australia and some of them died, was England responsible for their deaths?