Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[idav]

God is simply the source of existence. It doesnt logically follow that the source for needs to explain itself. We exist but what started it all wasnt good enough, it didnt do it right or whatever, we sure are full of ourselves. Anyone owing explanations are the ones making purposeful harmful choices screwing up what little joy we might find being alive and breathing.

 

[1robin]

Agreed, but with Christianity it's a little different. Christians feel they have been to he north pole, er have had the experience of the Holy Spirit. I don't know if you've been out of Columbia but at least you might be able to produce a plane ticket for evidence. I have had my experiences as well. I also believe I was saved by the Holy Spirit strangely enough around about the same age. Teenagers always in crisis... No one who hasn't experienced it could fathom the reality of that experience.

Well now I'm lost. Your comments led me to believe you were either an agnostic or a committed non-theist with no experience of faith. Now I am confused. Are you saying you were born again outside of Christian belief or that you were born again and have since denied the experience.

You asked me what I meant by enough faith. I said it was enough when it provoked a response from the divine. I did not mean it was enough for another person for me to have the experience. It is not objective evidence but it is subjective proof, personally. I thought you asked a personal question not one about what was enough for everyone else. Faith is personal and does not transfer corporately so I have no response to the alternate question.

I don't describe my experiences as Judeo Christian but I also won't say they wouldn't fit that belief.

I cannot question whether you sincerely believe you have been born again. I do have some questions of how you account for it. No other major faith has any doctrinal promise of spiritual re-birth and you have no mentioned you were following any of them anyway. How can you account for the experience without adhering to what causes it?

I've come across a few that claim otherwise, but mostly you are correct. There is a lot of confusion among people, Christians as well.

In my thousands of debates I have ran across (outside traditional Christians) 2- people who claim to have been born again but no longer believe probably the most self contradictory position of any kind I have ever heard of), 1- Muslim who claim to have experienced Allah, and 2 - Hindus who had not but said they knew someone who had been enlightened. Out of literally thousands of people that is all. I am sure there are far more in existence but not in even the realm of numbers as Christians and to top it off lacking even the doctrinal justification to expect it in the first place. The evidence of experience is not proof but over 98% of it exists in Christian camps, even if those camps have some confusion they still have a common core.

However, I do understand.

However in elation to what?

Wouldn't dream of it. Ok, maybe I tried once or twice. Didn't stick though

.So to sum up you believe you have been born again through a non Judeo/Christian divine being. That is at the least unique in my experience.

Here is my issue with Christianity, I went to a number of Churches seeking to understand what I had experienced, I did not feel the Holy Spirit within these churches. I started looking elsewhere.

First you must know to start off with that what you experienced is the holy spirit. You do not agree with the only God which doctrinally promises it. Your denying it's source and so have little basis for accepting the quality or nature of your experience that I can see. I am not questioning your sincerity but only your rationalization. Second I have been in more churches where I did not feel the holy spirit than ones I have. They however do exist in large numbers, maybe you went to the wrong type of Church. Maybe what you felt was not what you think. Even if your experience was of the nature you describe maybe you were in a state where the Holy Spirit did not manifest it's self. Even in spiritual Churches I do not always feel God. Did you ever find a place that did accent or amplify your feelings?

 

[JM2C]

If it's part of our "specifications" to believe in God, then when we fail to believe in God, this means that God has failed.

Human failure is not an option here.

God specified either to believe or not to believe in Him. Either choice is neither a human failure nor God’s. Therefore, if one chooses not to believe in God, one does not necessarily failed, because one is just following God’s specs and those are, believe or not believe.

God said,

Jn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Very clear in this verse that either one, “He that believeth, and he that believeth not” is God’s command or specs to human. Therefore, if one follows either one, one wins or did not fail at all because one is just following God’s specs.

The inclination of the human mind is, if human do not follow God it’s a human failure and therefore God’s failure but that is not true at all because God gave us two specific choices to follow and either one should not result as a human failure nor God’s. Human failure is not an option at all therefore can not blame God. The question is who wants to go to hell forever?

 

[1robin]

God is simply the source of existence. It doesnt logically follow that the source for needs to explain itself. We exist but what started it all wasnt good enough, it didnt do it right or whatever, we sure are full of ourselves. Anyone owing explanations are the ones making purposeful harmful choices screwing up what little joy we might find being alive and breathing.

Not if God is nature. Not one single thing in nature has the potential to produce existence it's self, not even it's own. God maybe the source of existence but you cannot find that in Deism or the logical outworking's of it. Deism by necessity is vacuous, the only thing you know is nature exists and everything else is grafted onto nature without sufficient justification. It is an assumption hat even if true is completely unknowable and unnecessary. The rest of your post appears to be a complaint or commentary that is not logically demonstrated by Deism/Pantheism. What you claimed is by far better explained and accounted for in Genesis and makes a person God absolutely necessary. Atoms do not have intentions, they are blindly following laws they do not explain themselves, they do not screw up, they simply are. Only intentional agents such as minds fail. God did not fail but nature can't fail. Your importing theism and grafting unjustifiably into Pantheism. What you said cannot be derived from Pantheism.

 

[idav]

Not if God is nature. Not one single thing in nature has the potential to produce existence it's self, not even it's own. God maybe the source of existence but you cannot find that in Deism or the logical outworking's of it. Deism by necessity is vacuous, the only thing you know is nature exists and everything else is grafted onto nature without sufficient justification. It is an assumption hat even if true is completely unknowable and unnecessary. The rest of your post appears to be a complaint or commentary that is not logically demonstrated by Deism/Pantheism. What you claimed is by far better explained and accounted for in Genesis and makes a person God absolutely necessary. Atoms do not have intentions, they are blindly following laws they do not explain themselves, they do not screw up, they simply are. Only intentional agents such as minds fail. God did not fail but nature can't fail. Your importing theism and grafting unjustifiably into Pantheism. What you said cannot be derived from Pantheism.

You cannot destroy pantheism because nature itself is self guiding and doesn't require some external intervener. If you find one the world is waiting to see it. Any external agent argument is blowing hot air. Pantheism will stand as science further illustrates that there are natural explanations for how everything works. Even if science found how god works tomorrow, the answer to why will always be theistic speculation.

 

[1robin]

You cannot destroy pantheism because nature itself is self guiding and doesn't require some external intervener. If you find one the world is waiting to see it. Any external agent argument is blowing hot air. Pantheism will stand as science further illustrates that there are natural explanations for how everything works. Even if science found how god works tomorrow, the answer to why will always be theistic speculation.

I do not have to destroy something that never existed rationally. I do not hate married bachelors. It has nothing to do with guidance (not in this context anyway). It has to do with the sufficiency of explanation. Nature doe snot have it, we MUST look beyond it to account for it. However the universe bears every mark of being guided by intelligence.


"The more I examine the universe, and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the Universe in some sense must have known we were coming." — Freeman Dyson1

"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." 5”

"A bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the Universe that is carefully fine-tuned — as if prescribed by an outside agency — or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, a mighty speculative notion to the generation of many different Universes, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see." — Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog2
What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”? | BioLogos

Yet again my faith accounts for reliable scientific reality and your defies it. The universe is balanced on a razors edge for not just us but any conceivable life at all. Some factors are balanced to one part in trillions of trillions. Your faith has no intentionality and agency that can even begin to explain this. Mine has everything necessary to perfectly account for it or the other thousand things in the universe that nature has no explanation for. This is getting to be a broken record and hard to justify. I give deductions, evidence, science, and logic which is only met by speculation and preference. I like you but this conversation is a long way beyond pathetic at this point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Human failure is not an option here.

God specified either to believe or not to believe in Him. Either choice is neither a human failure nor God’s. Therefore, if one chooses not to believe in God, one does not necessarily failed, because one is just following God’s specs and those are, believe or not believe.

God said,

Jn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Very clear in this verse that either one, “He that believeth, and he that believeth not” is God’s command or specs to human. Therefore, if one follows either one, one wins or did not fail at all because one is just following God’s specs.

The inclination of the human mind is, if human do not follow God it’s a human failure and therefore God’s failure but that is not true at all because God gave us two specific choices to follow and either one should not result as a human failure nor God’s. Human failure is not an option at all therefore can not blame God. The question is who wants to go to hell forever?

So sin is in line with God's intended design?

 

[JM2C]

And that is what makes no sense of any kind - at least, it doesn't if god exists.
If god exists, what possible reason could it have for hiding itself and having humans play a guessing game about its existence?

What's more, why should it devise a guessing game with such appalling consequences for those who guess wrong?

Where it makes excellent sense, of course, is as a doctrine for believers to cling to if god does not exist - not only does it explain 'his' otherwise inconvenient absence from the world stage, it gives those believers a comforting sense of entitlement to a massive reward while seeing the heathens come to grief. What's not to like?

Of course, it will not make sense to you because of your unbelief and that is understandable.

You theory or analysis is a very good example of unbelief and therefore can not be considered as a human failure like this guy was suggesting here,

If it's part of our "specifications" to believe in God, then when we fail to believe in God, this means that God has failed.

You did not fail at all as a human, in fact you followed God’s command or specs and that is,
Jn 3:18 but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[idav]

I do not have to destroy something that never existed rationally. I do not hate married bachelors. It has nothing to do with guidance (not in this context anyway). It has to do with the sufficiency of explanation. Nature doe snot have it, we MUST look beyond it to account for it. However the universe bears every mark of being guided by intelligence.


"The more I examine the universe, and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the Universe in some sense must have known we were coming." — Freeman Dyson1

"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." 5”

"A bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the Universe that is carefully fine-tuned — as if prescribed by an outside agency — or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, a mighty speculative notion to the generation of many different Universes, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see." — Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog2
What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”? | BioLogos

Yet again my faith accounts for reliable scientific reality and your defies it. The universe is balanced on a razors edge for not just us but any conceivable life at all. Some factors are balanced to one part in trillions of trillions. Your faith has no intentionality and agency that can even begin to explain this. Mine has everything necessary to perfectly account for it or the other thousand things in the universe that nature has no explanation for. This is getting to be a broken record and hard to justify. I give deductions, evidence, science, and logic which is only met by speculation and preference. I like you but this conversation is a long way beyond pathetic at this point.

The reality is those quotes support a pantheism worldview and not that of an external creator that intervenes when it wants. Just the term natural itself is self sufficient in of itself, it naturally happens, is naturally so.

I will give this evidence one more time. Look at the delayed choice experiment and you will see that intelligence exists at a deep level, an omipresence and omniscieence which is the very reason for the potential for intelligence. I dont have to look very far to show that, qm is nature it isnt magic and can be logically deduced.

Nothing needs an explanation from an external agent, that thought alone is logically inconsistent. What exists, exists necessarily, just like you suppose of god I simply suppose of existence itself which must apply to god or it dont exist.

 

[1robin]

So sin is in line with God's intended design?

I must have explained this a hundred times. The contrived justifications for plausible deniability are apparently more valuable than explanations. God's design was primarily for freewill. It was not his intent for rebellion but it was a potentiality which could not be avoided. The possibility of sin was inherent in the necessity of freewill. I just can't go through the doctrines of passive and active will and the explanations again when the other resists them on principle.

 

[1robin]

The reality is those quotes support a pantheism worldview and not that of an external creator that intervenes when it wants. Just the term natural itself is self sufficient in of itself, it naturally happens, is naturally so.

No one thing I quoted is consistent with the blind unintentional forces of nature being God. I also noted you took those quotes out of their causal context and place them in a periodic intervention context.

1. It is a distinction without difference.
2. It is an unjustifiable distinction to begin with.
3. There are hundreds of thousand of claims to the miraculous, probably millions. In what universe is that no evidence?

I will give this evidence one more time. Look at the delayed choice experiment and you will see that intelligence exists at a deep level, an omipresence and omniscieence which is the very reason for the potential for intelligence. I dont have to look very far to show that, qm is nature it isnt magic and can be logically deduced.

I did not mention magic and this statement is incoherent.

Nothing needs an explanation from an external agent, that thought alone is logically inconsistent. What exists, exists necessarily, just like you suppose of god I simply suppose of existence itself which must apply to god or it dont exist.

Not according to philosophy. Not only does everything (even God) have to have an explanation for it's existence either within it' self (which God does and nature does not), everything ever observed actually has an explanation. That is what the entire field of science is about.


Your arguments have become a slightly more sophisticated version of Mont Pythons "no it isn't". There is no weapon ever formed that has any effect on cognitive dissonance. You do not share the common ground of reason, logical scientific deduction, philosophic principles which have no known exception, etc... with me and I have little desire to contend with preference. I do not thin this is productive or even challenging.

 

[idav]

No one thing I quoted is consistent with the blind unintentional forces of nature being God. I also noted you took those quotes out of their causal context and place them in a periodic intervention context.

1. It is a distinction without difference.
2. It is an unjustifiable distinction to begin with.
3. There are hundreds of thousand of claims to the miraculous, probably millions. In what universe is that no evidence?

I did not mention magic and this statement is incoherent.

Not according to philosophy. Not only does everything (even God) have to have an explanation for it's existence either within it' self (which God does and nature does not), everything ever observed actually has an explanation. That is what the entire field of science is about.


Your arguments have become a slightly more sophisticated version of Mont Pythons "no it isn't". There is no weapon ever formed that has any effect on cognitive dissonance. You do not share the common ground of reason, logical scientific deduction, philosophic principles which have no known exception, etc... with me and I have little desire to contend with preference. I do not thin this is productive or even challenging.

We are still talking about theism which is ultimately faith based. You say you need a creator for a creation. I can kinda agree with that but pantheism poses the creator became the creation, which is to say existence exists due to itself, just like you would pose of a creator type god, that god is responsible for itself. A major advantage pantheism, particularly naturalist pantheism, is it never has to disagree with science and just chalk it up to a magically existing being. Science does and will continue to explain away the supernatural or magic or whatever you want to call it.

 

[JM2C]

So sin is in line with God's intended design?

If we follow the events that took place in Genesis

Ge 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Ge 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Ge 2:17 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.

Sin from here to chapter 3 in none existence. Therefore, God did not design human to be sinners in the beginning.

 

[idav]

I did not mention magic and this statement is incoherent.

You don't have to mention magic its what your proposal amounts to. I gave the evidence and you just say its incoherent. It isn't. I gave a natural, experimentally verified, explanation for omnipresence and omniscience. You want to explain to me that the experiment doesn't show it, then explain it to me, don't just say its incoherent when you choose not to understand it.

Her it is again. To Be is to be Percieved.

The thing that causes people to argue about when and how the photon learns that the experimental apparatus is in a certain configuration and then changes from wave to particle to fit the demands of the experiment's configuration is the assumption that a photon had some physical form before the astronomers observed it. Either it was a wave or a particle; either it went both ways around the galaxy or only one way. Actually, quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured. In a sense, the British philosopher Bishop Berkeley was right when he asserted two centuries ago "to be is to be perceived."[3]
Wheeler's delayed choice experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[1robin]

You don't have to mention magic its what your proposal amounts to. I gave the evidence and you just say its incoherent. It isn't. I gave a natural, experimentally verified, explanation for omnipresence and omniscience. You want to explain to me that the experiment doesn't show it, then explain it to me, don't just say its incoherent when you choose not to understand it.

Magic has nothing to do with the supernatural nor ever has. It is disingenuous labeling of Christianity by whatever terms you require in order to have the possibility of denouncing it that make me specious of your sincerity. There is no need to resort to unjustifiable semantic tactics if false then you could argue using biblical terminology that is accurate and justifiable. I saw little evidence of any kind, coherent or incoherent. I certainly do not recall you scientifically quantifying Omni-anything as that is logically impossible. It is impossibly to describe infinites by appeal to finites.

Her it is again. To Be is to be Percieved.

I am very well aware of the double slit theory. I have responded to it in detail. It is not evidence because it has never ever occurred. It is a thought experiment that exists no where in reality. It is sort of logical paradox that is self refuting. It only has relevance in this context if both events can occur simultaneously, they can't, or that they require some kind of intent of a particle, they do not. It is an interesting paradox but not relevant to anything I have said. Again let me point out that every single argument that uses science to deny theism always comes from the most extreme and least reliable parts of theoretical science. Again why are you hiding in ambiguity. None of my arguments rely on anything that is not true of every single experiment and observation ever done. Truth does not need to seek the darkest shadows but withstands the brightest light.

I have to leave, can't take it anymore. Have a good one.

 

[idav]

Magic has nothing to do with the supernatural nor ever has. It is disingenuous labeling of Christianity by whatever terms you require in order to have the possibility of denouncing it that make me specious of your sincerity. There is no need to resort to unjustifiable semantic tactics if false then you could argue using biblical terminology that is accurate and justifiable. I saw little evidence of any kind, coherent or incoherent. I certainly do not recall you scientifically quantifying Omni-anything as that is logically impossible. It is impossibly to describe infinites by appeal to finites.



I am very well aware of the double slit theory. I have responded to it in detail. It is not evidence because it has never ever occurred. It is a thought experiment that exists no where in reality. It is sort of logical paradox that is self refuting. It only has relevance in this context if both events can occur simultaneously, they can't, or that they require some kind of intent of a particle, they do not. It is an interesting paradox but not relevant to anything I have said. Again let me point out that every single argument that uses science to deny theism always comes from the most extreme and least reliable parts of theoretical science. Again why are you hiding in ambiguity. None of my arguments rely on anything that is not true of every single experiment and observation ever done. Truth does not need to seek the darkest shadows but withstands the brightest light.

I have to leave, can't take it anymore. Have a good one.

1Robin they are more than thought experiments. They strive to perform the stuff too only to confirm the predictions.

A*delayed choice quantum eraser, first performed by Yoon-Ho Kim, R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y.H. Shih and*Marlan O. Scully,[1]*and reported in early 1999, is an elaboration on thequantum eraser experiment*that incorporates concepts considered in*Wheeler's delayed choice experiment.*

Delayed choice quantum eraser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can choose to ignore it but qm is the most successful theory to predict results cause its all true.

 

[Nakosis]

Well now I'm lost. Your comments led me to believe you were either an agnostic or a committed non-theist with no experience of faith. Now I am confused. Are you saying you were born again outside of Christian belief or that you were born again and have since denied the experience.

My comments are usually something I find to be truthful, just putting it out there for attack, or designed to get someone else to question the truth of something.

Paul was not a Christian when he had this experience, so being a Christian is not a requirement.

8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

You asked me what I meant by enough faith. I said it was enough when it provoked a response from the divine. I did not mean it was enough for another person for me to have the experience. It is not objective evidence but it is subjective proof, personally. I thought you asked a personal question not one about what was enough for everyone else. Faith is personal and does not transfer corporately so I have no response to the alternate question.

I just meant the same as you. Reading about the north pole is not the same as being their. A person is capable of fooling themselves into believing they've been to the north pole. I'm just saying this in general, not about anyone specific.

I cannot question whether you sincerely believe you have been born again. I do have some questions of how you account for it. No other major faith has any doctrinal promise of spiritual re-birth and you have no mentioned you were following any of them anyway. How can you account for the experience without adhering to what causes it?

I believe God is capable of providing the answers I need when I need them. A mistake I've made is in assuming I can rely on my own thinking. This include my own thinking with regards to the Bible as well. I do it still, but I don't rely on it, nor your (no offense) nor Paul's. I can see people guessing. I can see where assumptions are made. For myself, I just remain honest about it.

In my thousands of debates I have ran across (outside traditional Christians) 2- people who claim to have been born again but no longer believe probably the most self contradictory position of any kind I have ever heard of), 1- Muslim who claim to have experienced Allah, and 2 - Hindus who had not but said they knew someone who had been enlightened. Out of literally thousands of people that is all. I am sure there are far more in existence but not in even the realm of numbers as Christians and to top it off lacking even the doctrinal justification to expect it in the first place. The evidence of experience is not proof but over 98% of it exists in Christian camps, even if those camps have some confusion they still have a common core.

Fine, it doesn't mean they are free of assumptions.

However in elation to what?

You don't have to explain what you experienced to me.

.So to sum up you believe you have been born again through a non Judeo/Christian divine being. That is at the least unique in my experience.

I don't assume to define it. It seems to me similar to what Paul experienced. However in interpreting his words I have to rely on what I experienced.

First you must know to start off with that what you experienced is the holy spirit. You do not agree with the only God which doctrinally promises it. Your denying it's source and so have little basis for accepting the quality or nature of your experience that I can see. I am not questioning your sincerity but only your rationalization.

I question my rationalization. I am quite capable of providing an interpretation of the Bible I am comfortable with. I see people rationalizing the Bible to fit a truth they have no knowledge of. I believe God is capable of providing the answers we need. Meanwhile I go here and there trying to figure things out. Test ideas until the truth resolves itself.

Do you trust God to reveal the truth to you or do you think it is something you have to figure out for yourself? If it is the latter I'm in trouble because I'm really bad at it.

Second I have been in more churches where I did not feel the holy spirit than ones I have. They however do exist in large numbers, maybe you went to the wrong type of Church. Maybe what you felt was not what you think. Even if your experience was of the nature you describe maybe you were in a state where the Holy Spirit did not manifest it's self. Even in spiritual Churches I do not always feel God. Did you ever find a place that did accent or amplify your feelings?

Well there actually was a Catholic Deacon once. Generally though people disappoint. They want you to trust them, not God.

You find the Holy Spirit in the strangest places, like while riding a bike.

 

[CG Didymus]

...If god exists, what possible reason could it have for hiding itself and having humans play a guessing game about its existence? What's more, why should it devise a guessing game with such appalling consequences for those who guess wrong?

Where it makes excellent sense, of course, is as a doctrine for believers to cling to if god does not exist - not only does it explain 'his' otherwise inconvenient absence from the world stage, it gives those believers a comforting sense of entitlement to a massive reward while seeing the heathens come to grief. What's not to like?

Hide? He walked in the garden. He showed his back to Moses. He wrote things in stone. He wrote on a wall. He spoke from heaven. As the second person of the trinity, he incarnated in to a human body. As the third person of the trinity, he lives inside the hearts of believers. In countless fulfilled prophecies, that were mostly written after the event happened, he proves that he's there watching. In sending satan down to Earth to confuse us and cause us to turn away from him, God shows that he is real because all non-believers are confused and have turned away from him. By the proofs of the "gifts" of the spirit, God shows that he is in his people working his miracles, like healings and speaking in tongues. And those healings are tangible proof that something magical has happened, so it must be God. So, therefore, he's real... just invisible, except for Jesus... who was visible but bodily floated away into space and is now invisible until he comes back. Which we know he will because people who saw him and talked to him said that he said he would. So what do you mean "guessing game"?

 

[CG Didymus]

I do not debate Semitic Jews.

Wait a minute, you let them keep believing that Jesus was not their Messiah? Don't you believe in telling them the "good news" of personal salvation... That they can have their sins washed away by the blood of Jesus? That they don't need to keep trying, in vain, to keep the Law? That without Jesus, they will be condemned to an eternity in hell? Huh?

But what does that have to do with lucifer being a real name for The Satan? The Hebrew word used in Isaiah should be the real name, if it's a name at all.

 

[CG Didymus]

Ge 2:17 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.

Sin from here to chapter 3 in none existence. Therefore, God did not design human to be sinners in the beginning.

He didn't design humans to be sinners? What is this "knowledge" of evil about? It did exist, but why the knowledge of it in the fruit of a tree? And, if they hadn't eaten the fruit, they wouldn't have known what evil was? Sounds very metaphoric to me.