If there were 10 million earth-like planets able to sustain life would God have to attend each one to make a life/creation plan?

He could grant free will but 'deliver mankind from temptation' you might think. And plant the tree of knowledge on top of a high mountain or hidden in a cave somewhere -if it is necessary to have one around at all. Could also be a little forgiving too if someone happens to screw up a little bit. 

The Tree of Knoweldge idea has so many implications.
I think it was specifically the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If so, then forbidding the fruit meant he wanted humans to remain not only innocent but amoral. If that were the case, we would be on a par with animals, responding instinctively, and never developing laws, or codes of conduct, and yet still running wild with free will. Adam and Eve would have remained immortal, perhaps propagating zillions of immortal offspring. The mind shudders.
So instead we could consider that, being omniscient, he knew that neither Adam nor Eve could resist the temptation. It was a set up. He never intended Paradise as the permanent abode. He intended humanity to become moral beings with moral choices, despite knowing that that would always be fallible. And he intended that shame, death, pain in childbirth, and suffering through life would be the penance of mankind for, if not quite eternity, certainly scores of centuries.
 There's an entirely difeerent line of thought if we consider it as just The Tree of Knowledge.

with you on most of that, except the source or basis for "Adam and Eve would have remained immortal". From my reading the pair had not eaten from the tree of everlasting life and God made sure that they wouldn't do so by banishing them from the garden where the tree of everlasting life was and putting guards around the tree.

The other one is a question of perspective. You view "death, pain in childbirth, and suffering through life" as penance I think it's possible to see them as trials, tribulations and tests of endurance and patience which are in themselves teachers and strengtheners.

Hello Hartfire. I've seen variations of what you said posted in threads on the internet for years. Apparently variations of something stated by Epicurus. 

When the Bible says something like God knows all, that doesn't necessarily mean that he has to choose to know every single minutia of a future persons life and such although he likely can. We have the ability to watch the last 5 minutes of a movie to see the outcome but I am pretty sure that most people don't otherwise movie producers would just be wasting their money on the first hour or two.

Jesus said we can know the truth. We have to pray for Holy Spirit to help our understanding, be humble, read with an open mind, and be willing to let go of any preconceived ideas as we find out that they are not really from the Bible. The Ethiopian Eunuch was humble enough to accept help from Philip and the Beroeans were humble enough to listen to Paul and check the scriptures closely to see if what Paul was saying was so as he reasoned with them from the scriptures.

(Acts 17:2) So according to Paul’s custom he went inside to them, and for three sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

Sometimes we need help like the Ethiopian eunuch. (Acts 8:26-40) We also need to consult all scriptures on a subject and let scripture interpret scripture.
(2 Timothy 3:16) All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,
(1 Thessalonians 5:21) Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine

As in the case of other verses in the Bible, 'all' doesn't necessarily mean without exception like 'all the Jews' did not mean without exception.

(Mark 7:3) (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands up to the elbow, clinging to the tradition of the men of former times,

good that. Followed you all the way to the final statement. "If he was good" made me halt. Do you mean the assumption until the last statement is that he is bad?
Also if "evil was not possible" would the word "good" have any sensible meaning?

Interesting thoughts. Thank you.

In Creation God screws up then blames mankind as the cause of sin suffering and death -and would never admit to inspiring bible story writers to write contradictory or any kind of fake stories.  in evolution greed, murder, theft everything that is bad is crude means of survival which in a world trying to become more civilized there are laws and police to enforce the law.

Hi, Kittigate.
As anyone who’s read my screeds can attest, I find the whole premise of the Abrahamic god absurd. If we examine the accounts of ”creation”, it is clear the ancients who contrived the story knew next to nothing at all about nature, the earth or the cosmos. 

If there is a singular, all-powerful creative force, I submit it is incapable of concern for what we do, what we think or believe, or that we exist at all. Whatever IT may be, IT bears no resemblance whatsoever to the petty and capricious gods presented by man’s fatuous religions. This post was edited by Don Barzini at February 3, 2018 7:40 AM MST

not clear whether you really mean "is incapable" or "appears to be incapable" If the former then how can you know?
same with "IT bears no resemblance whatsoever". If you don't qualify that with something like "maybe" then how can you tell for sure?

The Only qualifier is that this is my submission. What you read is my claim: ...IS incapable, and, ...bears NO resemblance. I await evidence to the contrary. 
The Bible, the HQ, etc, are other peoples‘ claims. I dispute them.
Wicked preachments. This post was edited by Don Barzini at February 11, 2018 7:12 AM MST

"The Bible, the HQ, etc, are other peoples‘ claims. I dispute them." is a separate issue. I did not bring that up or hint at it. We can exchange views on that whenever you are want to and feel amicable.


I posted my comment because I just wondered why you did not consider, or considered but dismissed, all shades of possibilities like, just as examples, "is capable but couldn't be bothered" or "is capable but didn't because it interfered with another objective" 

"IS incapable" sounds like an eye witness statement that he has, for example, now become a blob of jelly.

Anyway. Thanks for the response.

You’re welcome. I mentioned the books merely as examples of other claims in the same realm. 

Your suggestions of alternatives on -shall we say- God’s priority chart, are thoughtful, but what I’ve learned of nature is pretty convincing of how chaotically random life and it’s attendent reality is. The process works as it does, without gods. 

"...without gods." and without laws?

One is not dependent upon the other. Despite what certain beliefs would have us think. 

"One is not dependent upon the other." >>> maybe not. No one can guarantee that, But we can guarantee, we know for sure, that you are dependent on them, subject to them and have no option but to submit to them.

"I for one, am confident that life exists in other distant places, just as I am confident that no deity that man has thus far described is responsible" >>> there's an irony somewhere in there. "Confident that life exists in other distant places" despite there being not the slightest shadow of any evidence whatsoever for it, direct or inferential and "confident that no deity that man has thus far described is responsible" despite there being inferential evidence that allows the possibility of such a deity [whether man has got its description wrong is neither here nor there, and "wrong" by whose criteria anyway?] and despite the certainty that we can never rule out that there is a god of some sort somewhere.

How’s your reading comprehension?
No hidden semantics here, I stated MY position, there it is. I ruled out all the supernatural deities man has as yet presented. Frauds all. Deal with it. 
I am as certain of my position as you could possibly be with yours. One would be gravely in error to think this view was reached absent an open mind.

The possibilities that life in the cosmos exists, intelligent or otherwise, based on the sheer numbers, the chances are good. We may never know, but I like the odds.  

The odds that ignorant Bronze age tribes who knew nothing about the world outside their brief lives in the Middle Eastern desert got their portrayal of a Creator of the universe accurate, even remotely so, are, in my view, not worth the breath that spoke it, nor the paper they eventually wrote it on.

“God” is an ever-receding pocket of our ignorance.
While I’m on this, submitting to one (or more) of these god constructs in the light of available arguments, defines willful ignorance. Also my claim. 



This post was edited by Don Barzini at February 11, 2018 11:22 AM MST

One tires after a while, doesn't one?---I can empathize.

Sometimes. It’s my mission, Tom. Lol. 

Clurt has shown to be at least worthy of a clarification here, but if what I provided is still inadequate for his understanding, I may revise that opinion. 

Regards. This post was edited by Don Barzini at February 10, 2018 7:37 PM MST

Hmmm ... "How’s your reading comprehension?" coupled with "Clurt has shown to be at least worthy of a clarification here, but if what I provided is still inadequate for his understanding, I may revise that opinion." >>> don't know much about ranking in the higher echelons of the atheist priesthood [what do you expect from someone with a questionable reading comprehension and potentially inadequate understanding] but those two quotes sound like they come from someone on quite a high perch in that hierarchy, an oracle, even.

The JWs shun rebels and dissidents so looks like I'm headed that way for my doubting, questioning, impertinence and audacity.

Be that as it may, I will need convincing that DB has any more authority or absolute certainty on the subject of the existence or otherwise of God than a non-ranked I.

"The odds that ignorant Bronze age tribes who knew nothing about the world outside their brief lives in the Middle Eastern desert got their portrayal of a Creator of the universe accurate, even remotely so, are, in my view, not worth the breath that spoke it, nor the paper they eventually wrote it on. submitting to one (or more) of these god constructs in the light of available arguments, defines willful ignorance.  I ruled out all the supernatural deities man has as yet presented. Frauds all. Deal with it."  All that sounds like a public pronouncement made by the oracle to the crowd patiently waiting on the lawn outside to hear the official ruling on their presentations. One can imagine a whispered conversation between two in the gathered crowd: A- "He acknowledges them as Bronze age, yet appears to expects space age portrayals from them. Where's the logic in that?" B- "Shh.... they're ALWAYS right, and their plain clothes thought police are everywhere"

Funny that

Anyway.

I don't understand the sophisticated language of "God is a pocket", so if I may be allowed to rephrase that statement to something simpler like - “God” hides in the ever-receding zone of human ignorance - then I'd marvel at how perfectly that reflects a reasonable view. If we don't let go of that reason and don't slip into arrogance then we might admit that we don't unfortunately know yet how deep that zone is. That is further complicated by the fact that the more we know the more we realise how little we know. Once, if ever, our investigators have pushed the frontiers of human knowledge such that the zone of ignorance is no more and all investigators are without a job, then the dark hidden zone will be no more and our eyes will see where they have never seen before. Or, according to what came from the lips of a Middle Eastern desert dweller, we'll be told on that day, “You were indeed in total unawareness of this, so we removed all the veils from you and thus is your vision today incisive like steel" [HQ 50:22] It is then, and only then, that I think we will know with absolute certainty whether or not God is.

I know, I'm no longer worthy of any clarifications, but as I said, I'm doubting, questioning, impertinent and audacious. So I'll continue to challenge anyway.

Have a nice day

Can’t say I didn’t try.
You stiil seem to avoid or miscontrue the crux of unbelief. Until SOMETHING of tangible significance is presented in terms of proof, there is no reason to keep open a window that unicorns, or fairies or demons or invisible omnipotent gods exist. Ruled out pending corroborating data. Evidence tends to exclude them at every turn. 

One need not be an oracle to assert this position, only widely read, and I hope your reference to “atheist priesthood” is purely metaphorical, or I have truly wasted my clarifications.

Quoting the HQ (I have read the English Version, but refrain from pontificating that it’s only accurate in Arabic —how convenient!) is no more convincing than Texasescimo’s endless rectitations of his favorite version of the Christian Bible. 
As Shakespeare wrote, “The devil can quote scripture for his purpose”.  As do the both of you, equally absent even the basic levels of evidence that would commonly shape our views on every other facet of life. 

Funny that.

No amout of odious scripture or the insinuation of it into science or other topics is remotely convincing, simply because I understand where it comes from, and I speak as one who does. I suggest it may be worthwhile to do more than just parrot my words, and allot them some sober research. 

As I tire of chasing this thread in this slow, tedious forum, I’ll close with this last thought:
Chances are great —in fact I’d wager on it— that my studies of theist beliefs far exceed yours, in breadth of material and time committed. Hence the measure of my confidence in my position. Would that you or Texas had a comparable reservior of data to draw from.      Out.

This post was edited by Don Barzini at February 11, 2021 12:03 AM MST