God doesn't understand iterative probability
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-05-2015, 02:24 PM
RE: God doesn't understand iterative probability
(07-05-2015 01:28 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I like RPGs (the games, although rocket launchers are cool, too), and one thing I've learned to pay attention to in them is iterative probability. In these games, each challenge you face has a non-zero chance of killing your character. Of course, even if this chance is pretty small, it means that the more challenges you face, the more likely it is your character dies. This is just a fundamental truth of statistics. You cannot get around that without reducing the chance to precisely zero. Otherwise, you have to hope it's low enough that you survive the campaign, hope you get lucky, or be blindly ignorant of how these things work.

Now, apply that to the Garden of Eden.

Genesis posits a physical place where Adam and Eve can hang around doing, presumably anything they want, so long as they don't eat from one tree. Now, I cannot fathom any reason why God needed to put that tree there in the first place. Some may say that God needed to test humanity (why?). Now, if that's the case, the only reason for a test is if there's a chance for failure. If humanity was supposed to stay in the garden, as time went on, the likelihood that someone would eat form that tree would approach near certainty. That's just how these things work.

What did God think was going to happen!?

I mean obviously, this is just one more point showing the absurdity of the myth, but how do apologists reconcile this? They blame free will for all of mankind's faults and refuse to make God culpable for making faulty humans. This situation was engineered by someone who wanted humans to fail or by someone who is woefully inept. That's it. There's no magical third option.

There's really no plausible path to omniscience if this story was true, another failure in Genesis, god neuters his omniscience and all of his other omni-qualities.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
07-05-2015, 02:32 PM
RE: God doesn't understand iterative probability
(07-05-2015 02:24 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(07-05-2015 01:28 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I like RPGs (the games, although rocket launchers are cool, too), and one thing I've learned to pay attention to in them is iterative probability. In these games, each challenge you face has a non-zero chance of killing your character. Of course, even if this chance is pretty small, it means that the more challenges you face, the more likely it is your character dies. This is just a fundamental truth of statistics. You cannot get around that without reducing the chance to precisely zero. Otherwise, you have to hope it's low enough that you survive the campaign, hope you get lucky, or be blindly ignorant of how these things work.

Now, apply that to the Garden of Eden.

Genesis posits a physical place where Adam and Eve can hang around doing, presumably anything they want, so long as they don't eat from one tree. Now, I cannot fathom any reason why God needed to put that tree there in the first place. Some may say that God needed to test humanity (why?). Now, if that's the case, the only reason for a test is if there's a chance for failure. If humanity was supposed to stay in the garden, as time went on, the likelihood that someone would eat form that tree would approach near certainty. That's just how these things work.

What did God think was going to happen!?

I mean obviously, this is just one more point showing the absurdity of the myth, but how do apologists reconcile this? They blame free will for all of mankind's faults and refuse to make God culpable for making faulty humans. This situation was engineered by someone who wanted humans to fail or by someone who is woefully inept. That's it. There's no magical third option.

There's really no plausible path to omniscience if this story was true, another failure in Genesis, god neuters his omniscience and all of his other omni-qualities.

I forgot to mention, god in this interpretation wasn't omniscient, though he planned on making Adam and Eve fertile by arranging things in such way that they will eat the fruit.

But of course plot hole persists - if he wanted them fertile why he used fuit and not made them so from the start.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2015, 02:33 PM
RE: God doesn't understand iterative probability
(07-05-2015 02:23 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(07-05-2015 02:18 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So why couldn't god make fertile human beings without the Rube Goldberg fruit eating as a condition of procreation?

I presume animals reproduced without any magical fruit eating in this reinterpretation of the myth.

Still problems with that interpretation IMO.....

Of course there are problems, this interpretation isn't perfect but better from standard one I think.

As for fertile humans who know? Maybe fruit is plot device? Maybe it's myth merging with reality - humans are not immortal but fertile, therefore they must have done something to be that way. And this something is eating the fruit, that made them so.

And if I recall corectly animals become fertile after Adam and Eve eat the fruit.

I read a book---title escapes me sorry-- no citations for Robbie Tongue --that talked about that one of the points of Genesis was to answer questions/explain why things were the way they were. Why do we reproduce? Why do people sin? Why do we wear clothes? Why do women experience pain during childbirth? The writers were trying to make sense of the world through story telling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
07-05-2015, 02:39 PM
RE: God doesn't understand iterative probability
(07-05-2015 02:32 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(07-05-2015 02:24 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  There's really no plausible path to omniscience if this story was true, another failure in Genesis, god neuters his omniscience and all of his other omni-qualities.

I forgot to mention, god in this interpretation wasn't omniscient, though he planned on making Adam and Eve fertile by arranging things in such way that they will eat the fruit.

But of course plot hole persists - if he wanted them fertile why he used fuit and not made them so from the start.

I think a god without any omni qualities is more believable, but then that will run into Epicurus' question- Then why call him god?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2015, 02:39 PM (This post was last modified: 07-05-2015 02:43 PM by Szuchow.)
RE: God doesn't understand iterative probability
(07-05-2015 02:33 PM)jennybee Wrote:  
(07-05-2015 02:23 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  Of course there are problems, this interpretation isn't perfect but better from standard one I think.

As for fertile humans who know? Maybe fruit is plot device? Maybe it's myth merging with reality - humans are not immortal but fertile, therefore they must have done something to be that way. And this something is eating the fruit, that made them so.

And if I recall corectly animals become fertile after Adam and Eve eat the fruit.

I read a book---title escapes me sorry-- no citations for Robbie Tongue --that talked about that one of the points of Genesis was to answer questions/explain why things were the way they were. Why do we reproduce? Why do people sin? Why do we wear clothes? Why do women experience pain during childbirth? The writers were trying to make sense of the world through story telling.

Exactly. As I said myth merges with reality and offer answers understandable to audience.

This is why some of biblical peoples lived when there was no reason for which god should spare them. Real people named X lived then god obviously spared him. Story of Cain could be example - god spared him cause he was only possible protoplast of human race (as writer didn't imagined Seth yet).

(07-05-2015 02:39 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(07-05-2015 02:32 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  I forgot to mention, god in this interpretation wasn't omniscient, though he planned on making Adam and Eve fertile by arranging things in such way that they will eat the fruit.

But of course plot hole persists - if he wanted them fertile why he used fuit and not made them so from the start.

I think a god without any omni qualities is more believable, but then that will run into Epicurus' question- Then why call him god?

If so god must be omni. However if one were to take away the omnibenevolence then suddenly god become kinda believable, cause it is theodicy that is one of greatest problem with benevolent god. Not so good god wouldn't have such trouble.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
07-05-2015, 02:48 PM
RE: God doesn't understand iterative probability
(07-05-2015 01:48 PM)dirtstar Wrote:  
(07-05-2015 01:43 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  What if it wasn't a test of Eve, but rather the snake? Or an experiment to see which silly animal would jump up and volunteer to be the Adversary? Evil_monster

I can take the self debating of mythological characters but why do you have my girlfriend as your avatar? That's moreso disturbing. Big Grin

Because it's an excellent picture of an excellent girl, and suits my attitude. Big Grin

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2015, 02:52 PM
RE: God doesn't understand iterative probability
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.


This would suggest to me that prior to eating the fruit, neither Adam nor. Eve had any concept of good and evil. It would logically follow that they therefore have no concept of right or wrong either.

So how can you expect 2 people with no concept of right, wrong, good or evil to follow your commands then punish the entire human race because they did something wrong?

Logic? Unsure

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too"? - Douglas Adams Bechased
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like LostLegend's post
07-05-2015, 02:53 PM
RE: God doesn't understand iterative probability
(07-05-2015 02:52 PM)LostLegend Wrote:  17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.


This would suggest to me that prior to eating the fruit, neither Adam nor. Eve had any concept of good and evil. It would logically follow that they therefore have no concept of right or wrong either.

So how can you expect 2 people with no concept of right, wrong, good or evil to follow your commands then punish the entire human race because they did something wrong?

Logic? Unsure

Logic? in the Bible? Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2015, 02:59 PM
RE: God doesn't understand iterative probability
(07-05-2015 02:52 PM)LostLegend Wrote:  17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.


This would suggest to me that prior to eating the fruit, neither Adam nor. Eve had any concept of good and evil. It would logically follow that they therefore have no concept of right or wrong either.

So how can you expect 2 people with no concept of right, wrong, good or evil to follow your commands then punish the entire human race because they did something wrong?

Logic? Unsure

Well, they could have been aware that god commands aren't supposed to be questioned, not because of any sense of right and wrong but because he is ultimate authority, which would fit with the biblical theme I think.

As for expectations, you can not but I think one should not expect too much thought from biblical god.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2015, 03:09 PM
RE: God doesn't understand iterative probability
(07-05-2015 02:59 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(07-05-2015 02:52 PM)LostLegend Wrote:  17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.


This would suggest to me that prior to eating the fruit, neither Adam nor. Eve had any concept of good and evil. It would logically follow that they therefore have no concept of right or wrong either.

So how can you expect 2 people with no concept of right, wrong, good or evil to follow your commands then punish the entire human race because they did something wrong?

Logic? Unsure

Well, they could have been aware that god commands aren't supposed to be questioned, not because of any sense of right and wrong but because he is ultimate authority, which would fit with the biblical theme I think.

As for expectations, you can not but I think one should not expect too much thought from biblical god.

That's another thing in Genesis, at no other time is a magical fruit needed to impart knowledge. In fact the story is internally contradictory, YHWH tells Adam not to do something thereby imparting knowledge by spoken instruction. Adam already knew what good and evil comprised of -obedience to YHWH's instruction, without eating the magical fruit.

Of course this would break the story narrative, the fruit was a plot device to drive the story and create a clear,dramatic situation of choice. It's obviously myth-making, it's a shame so many people can't see this blatant story-telling as nothing but a fairytale.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: