Is there a possible world where Adam/Eve do not eat of the tree?

[Achilles6129]

Well, is there? And if not, why didn't God create that world? And is there a possible world where there is no heavenly rebellion either? Or is there a possible world where no-one rebels against God?

 

[Ken Behrens]

Philo of Alexandria (and the Jewish calendar) say that anyone before Enosh was an archetype. The first world you seek is the world of archetypes deep inside us. Since it is there, God created it.

I do not think the second world exists, since without some sin, God could not show His love in spite of sin.

The first world will be the new heavens and new earth before the defeat of Satan after a thousand years. The second world will be the rest of eternity after Satan's final defeat and consignment to the Lake of Fire.

 

[dhh712]

Well, is there? And if not, why didn't God create that world? And is there a possible world where there is no heavenly rebellion either? Or is there a possible world where no-one rebels against God?

I'm not sure why God decreed the fall. A pastor once explained that God's mercy and justice is better shown by the events that he has decreed, to the ultimate end of the salvation of many (he further demonstrated that against a neutral background, you really can't see something white very well yet it stands out well against a black background). Yet that still leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

I trust this is something we will learn about when we are with God for eternity. Unfortunately for now, God doesn't reveal all things for us--the reasons for why he does things; he leaves much of his perfect wisdom in the dark so that we wonder how can this be in the plan of God? It seems really contradictory to his plan. God only reveals to us what is necessary for our salvation. All the whys and hows of it is just shut up to us for now.

As obedient servants of Christ our Lord, it is not in our place to demand an explanation from him. We are to be grateful for what he has condescended to explain to us, and most of all, for the unexplainable of his Son to atone for all our sins. Why in the world would God, who owes us nothing, fulfill OUR debt which WE owe to HIM? We are the ones who owe the debt to him, yet he fulfills it by paying it for us. That is such an amazing Saviour. How someone can't, in the face of such a realization, fall on their face and cry, "Have mercy on me, Lord, a sinner!" I do not know.

Yet there are tons of unanswered questions which I trust we will spend eternity in learning about the wonderful wisdom of God. Such questions as, where did sin come from anyway, if not from God? This I haven't been able to grasp, nor can anyone, with our limited minds. Our flawed logic, from what I can understand, can only point to God. Yet as in his word it reveals to us that God cannot tolerate sin, we know that God has nothing to do with sin. So how can it be? Just another example of how the finite cannot comprehend the infinite.

Other things just seem wrong to me, such as how God can create anything for eternal damnation. Yet our ways are not his and we by our nature will call God unfair. Yet we can clearly see that we by no means can be completely fair since we are limited by our own perspective.

So there are many questions and many things that won't seem right; that is because we live in a a fallen world without the complete revelation of God's full counsel. We will only have that when we eternally fellowship with God, when he dwells among us in spirit and body. It is something to look forward to with great eagerness, and we should not let the trifles of a fleeting world weigh us down.

 

[Achilles6129]

@dhh712 - You believe that God decreed the fall? Doesn't the fact that he commanded them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good/evil speak against that?

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, is there? And if not, why didn't God create that world? And is there a possible world where there is no heavenly rebellion either? Or is there a possible world where no-one rebels against God?

Try reading C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy, specifically, Perelandra. There is also St. Augustine's City of God, but that's a heftier undertaking.

 

[a_ntv]

And is there a possible world where there is no heavenly rebellion either? Or is there a possible world where no-one rebels against God?

Yes, such worlds could have happened.
Rebellion was a decision of the rebel angels / Adam and Eve. They could have decided differently.

Many theologians (particularly Orthodox, such as Nicolas Cabasilas) state that is such a case the Second Person of the Holy Trinity had born (incarnate) in any case. Simply no cross.

 

[Achilles6129]

Yes, such worlds could have happened.
Rebellion was a decision of the rebel angels / Adam and Eve. They could have decided differently.

Many theologians (particularly Orthodox, such as Nicolas Cabasilas) state that is such a case the Second Person of the Holy Trinity had born (incarnate) in any case. Simply no cross.

How do you know that such worlds could have happened?

And also: if God could have created such worlds, why didn't he?

 

[a_ntv]

How do you know that such worlds could have happened?

And also: if God could have created such worlds, why didn't he?

God created just one world. It was a decision of others (angels/men) if such world took a way and not an other

 

[ExodusMe]

Well, is there? And if not, why didn't God create that world? And is there a possible world where there is no heavenly rebellion either? Or is there a possible world where no-one rebels against God?

Interesting question. It hinges on our beliefs about God and his purpose for the world. Most Christian's believe that God created the world with the intention of bringing as many person's as possible into relationship with himself, so the question isn't just "is it possible for the world to exist", because it clearly is possible. The question is if it is favorable for God to create such a world. If his desire is to bring as many persons into relationship with himself as possible the answer would be that it is not favorable for God to create such a world, because this world would be that world if it was possible.

I think a result is that some people may misinterpret what I have said and claim that I am making God the author of evil because evil becomes essential to his plan to bring humanity into relationship with himself, but that is not true. It just may be the case that there are no possible free-creatures that God can create who do not choose evil in the case of their own moral depravity from God and that would be what I would accept. I'm not a Calvinist either.

 

[Greg J.]

The idea that there are infinite universes is from science fiction. It doesn't even merit the label of scientific theory or hypothesis. It's just an idea at the level of, I hope a unicorn jumps out of an air balloon today and floats down to my lawn today to explain the Pythagorean theorem to me. It would explain how the knowledge of that theorem spread around the world.

It probably started when trying to figure out how to explain what would happen if someone traveled back in time and killed their father, which, by the way proves traveling back in time is impossible.

 

[Look Up]

Try reading C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy, specifically, Perelandra. ...

If memory serves, the narrator (or was it in the guise of the protagonist?) of Perelandra claims God is glorified by the Adam-ate world and by the Adam-didn't-eat world in different ways without "greater than/less than" comparison between the two.

 

[Look Up]

@dhh712 - You believe that God decreed the fall? Doesn't the fact that he commanded them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good/evil speak against that?

Doesn't the fact that God commanded Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the involved Jews and Gentiles not to murder speak against God planning (Acts 2:23) and predestining (4:28) the death of His holy Servant Jesus (cf. 4:27)?

But I fear to digress too far from the OP. Better save it for another thread. In the world that is, God intended to glorify His name (cf. John 17), in part through the cross of His Son that paid for sin.

 

[Look Up]

Well, is there? And if not, why didn't God create that world? And is there a possible world where there is no heavenly rebellion either? Or is there a possible world where no-one rebels against God?

We have no evidence that any other world exists than the visible and invisible one we know ("world" in the speculative parallel universe sense of astronomy circles), though in the Final State, no angel in heaven nor redeemed human there (in the new heavens and new earth) will rebel against God (contrary to the fallen angels and reprobate humans in hell). Whether a world of no rebellion could exist--whether it were possible--must remain a speculation, though in that Jesus knew what some people would have done, were events other than what they were (e.g., Sodom would have repented & remained if the miracles performed in Capernaum had been performed in Sodom) suggests God knows possible alternative histories to the existing history of our world.

 

[ExodusMe]

The idea that there are infinite universes is from science fiction. It doesn't even merit the label of scientific theory or hypothesis. It's just an idea at the level of, I hope a unicorn jumps out of an air balloon today and floats down to my lawn today to explain the Pythagorean theorem to me. It would explain how the knowledge of that theorem spread around the world.

It probably started when trying to figure out how to explain what would happen if someone traveled back in time and killed their father, which, by the way proves traveling back in time is impossible.

Possible world semantics is common in philosophy and used to express modal claims. It isn't meant to imply that such and such world exist, but only to determine whether it is possible or not. For instance, Unicorns would be a possible creature because there is nothing inherently contradictory about their existence. They are essentially a horse with a horn on it's head, but there could not exist a world where a square-circle exists. That is because a square is defined as a four sided-geometric object, while a circle has no sides but is round. Therefore, there is no possible world where a square-circle exists. Hopefully this helps.

TLDR: possible world semantics is not mean to show whether a world actually exists or not, but only whether it is possible.

Christian's struggle with this because they always revert to "well did God make it?", but that isn't the point in possible world philosophy. It is just used to examine whether something is possible regardless of whether it exists or not.

 

[JoeP222w]

No. There are no parallel universes or alternative realities.

 

[Greg J.]

Possible world semantics is common in philosophy and used to express modal claims. It isn't meant to imply that such and such world exist, but only to determine whether it is possible or not. For instance, Unicorns would be a possible creature because there is nothing inherently contradictory about their existence. They are essentially a horse with a horn on it's head,

I referred to a levitating or flying unicorn who could think and speak. Is it possible? There is the set of people who like to bolster their claim by looking at the fact that practically nothing has a zero mathematical probability. I prefer to just call such things "impossible," since for the purpose of common communication we use that word for things that are significantly more possible.

 

[ExodusMe]

I referred to a levitating or flying unicorn who could think and speak. Is it possible? There is the set of people who like to bolster their claim by looking at the fact that practically nothing has a zero mathematical probability. I prefer to just call such things "impossible," since for the purpose of common communication we use that word for things that are significantly more possible.

I don't want to beat a dead unicorn (PUN!), but statistical probability and possible worlds philosophy have ZERO% in common. It is strictly the logical possibility of the world existing. The OP's question is meant to be examined by answering questions like 1) If God could create a world without sin why wouldn't He? 2) What would the world be like if God did? 3) Would that world fit God's ultimate purpose? etc....

If you look at my response I stated that a world where Adam and Eve do not eat of the tree in the midst of the garden is not possible because I do not think it is possible for God to create a world where free-creatures do not eventually choose evil. In my case, I have determined that God creating free creatures and those free creatures being morally perfect forever (at least in the manner that God created us and maintains a relationship with us) as logically incompatible.

 

[Greg J.]

Not to beat a dead pun, but what they have in common is that I use the word "impossible" for both of them.

Well, is there? And if not, why didn't God create that world? And is there a possible world where there is no heavenly rebellion either? Or is there a possible world where no-one rebels against God?

That is the world that God created. The question is not why God didn't create one, but why did man choose to destroy God's creation? Making us in his image means Adam and the rest of us had/have free will. If we all had chosen to obey, we would have the world you envision. Your question requires one to believe that God was/is responsible for our choices, but he is not. Don't assign blame to God for our choices. It's like dropping a bowling ball on your friend's foot, and then asking why God chose to drop the ball on your friend's foot.

(Edited)

 

[Achilles6129]

It's clear that God can create a world where the majority of creatures choose to obey his commands. This is clear because the heavenly world only had 1/3 of the angels rebel, while 2/3 of the angels remained with God (see Rev. 12:4). So God is capable of making such a world, but it appears as though this world is not such a world (see Mt. 7:13-14). The question is why this world is not such a world.

 

[Look Up]

It's clear that God can create a world where the majority of creatures choose to obey his commands. This is clear because the heavenly world only had 1/3 of the angels rebel, while 2/3 of the angels remained with God (see Rev. 12:4). So God is capable of making such a world, but it appears as though this world is not such a world (see Mt. 7:13-14). The question is why this world is not such a world.

There remains the suggestion that our world with its redeemed and damned demonstrates something of the divine mercy (toward redeemed humans) and justice (toward reprobate humans and demons) that a world with no rebels (human, angelic, or otherwise sentient and accountable) would have no opportunity/occasion to demonstrate. God glorifies His name in our world in no small measure via displays of His justice and mercy.

One might postulate that it would be possible for God to display His justice against rebellion with no mercy to any (in such a world or scenario). Presumably or reasonably, display of both justice and mercy shows greater glory to God than justice without mercy. But then one then wonders if it is within the divine nature to display justice with no mercy on any (as if all in our world were angels, some holy and others fallen, with no humans).

Displays of mercy without justice save that poured out in wrath on Jesus--universal salvation of a sort--presumably would not display divine justice in the same way or extent as in our world/history; it would seem to cheapen our understanding of mercy and accountability. Displays of universal fiat mercy (with no substitutionary atonement) would in the end make God complicit in sin, which is impossible for God as He is.