What would the would be like without the tree?
I would say the choices are that it either wounldn't be, couldn't be, or would be but without without man. My personal choice is the 2nd.
The question itself seems flawed in that is acknowledges one worldview (theism), while super imposing a conflicting worldview (naturalism) over the top as the superior starting point of reasoning. It really does depend on our starting point. If we look at the world through a naturalists lens, then the error is presupposing that the world we are in is the result of unguided, chance processes. And thus, there are multiple possibilities for 'other' outcomes. Thus, a 'what if?"
Funny how nature is so fine tuned, that if just any factor (of which there are hundreds or more) were changed by a fraction, life could not exist. Not just intelligent, self-aware life, but any life.
So, when one ask the question, "what would the world be like without, the tree? It would be like asking, 'what would the world be like without gravity, oxygen, etc.?' No one would be here to ask. And further assumes that God's motives are as arbitrary as random chance. It is entering the discussion with a bent towards naturalism. That there
are multiple possibilites. I think is one of the biggest failures of modern science. Presupposing that naturalism (not science) is the best starting point to ask questions. It is prejudicially bent towards atheism all while in the guise of science. Its' really self-defeating. Science is a search for causes. But, how can anyone attempt to seek out meaning, if their wolrldview can not account for the meaning of their own existence, much less the existence of anything at all? No wonder the science community is so hostile towards Intelligent design. And thus, 'science' is seen as the neutral starting point, when it is really anything but. It isn't science, but naturalism masquerading as an objective lens through which to view the world. Science is NOT a worldview.
Thus we have the conflict earlier in the thread. You had a bunch of people trying to give explanations, (many not sure themselves) with evidential (actually opinion) arguments. Free will, choice, etc. Stuff that is never actually mentioned in the Bible. Not saying it isn't true, or conceptually there, but just that it wasn't a productive discussion. Why? Your starting point. You probably assume that you are open minded, just wanting answers. But, you are no more open minded than myself. The same mistake that modern science makes. That naturalism is the objective starting point for examination. It isn't. This leads to all kinds of issues. In fact I believe it leads to all kinds of issues withing Christianity. Many of which you saw revealed in this thread. You saw conflicting explanations regarding the tree. You were wise to notice these conflicts. That is why I didn't bother trying to rationalize an explanation, knowing that most here don't agree, or don't really know to begin with, yet still attempt an answer. And in those answers we see that some acknowlegdge theism, yet unknowlingly allow naturalism to hold dominion over their thinking.
A transcendent, intelligent, pusposeful creator is not simply rolling the dice and playing the odds, so that an outcome is not THE reality but just a possible reality. It seems to be the equivalent of saying God has 1 million dice, and he is rolling them over and over until all come up on six. What are the odds of this happening? And then so, we deduce that the other rolls are actual possibilities. If that is the case, then God is not the 'creator' that is revealed in the scriptures. He is some hypothetical gambler who, BTW, would still be rolling the dice, hoping for the correct outcome.
So, say we don't like the idea of a tree. Is our reaction to it, evidence for a better alternative? Not really. Say, I don't like gravity. It would be much better if I could jump from Knoxville to Chattanooga. Surely, God could have created a world in which I could because I would prefer it, and it would be 'better' in my eyes. Life without the tree would be as absurd a concept as life on earth withouth gravity, or the proper mixture of oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen. And yet still try to rationalize the existance of man into this imaginary, never existant world.
We see the multiverse option being proposed and actually considered. An absurd alternative that presupposes some universe producing factory cranking out endless possibilities. Yet, with no evidence or ability to account for such a factory. I think it is fruitless to ask the question, 'what if,' because it presupposes the naturalists worldview (one that offers no purposeful meaning or reason for, Why?) is a superior position to interpret the theistic worldview. It is destined to fail before it gets out of the gate. And for most people, this is all happening ignorantly. The naturalists starting point is so ingrained that it almost seems absurd for most to even question their methods of thinking. And so where does that leave you. Frustrated with Christians who claim to know truth, but don't even agree amongst themselves. Worse off than you were before. And then all the Christians saying, "He's just anti Christian." All because they thought it wise in their own eyes to abandon the solid ground of theism to be open minded and give credibility to a worldview that is non-sense and offer ZERO hope for meaning in anything.
I wasn't planning on writing this long of a response, but it all seemed to be neceassary in the end.
I also loose interest when the argument steers away to, "I don't like it so" and so on and so forth. I mean what can you debate, from there onwards.
