Thread: why

Imagine how boring it would be if you knew everything that was about to happen.
Just because God CAN know something, doesn't mean he wants to take advantage of that foresight.

I looked up some info. It's a bit to read, but it might help...

"Does God know in advance everything that people will do?

The question then arises: Is his exercise of foreknowledge infinite, without limit? Does he foresee and foreknow all future actions of all his creatures, spirit and human? And does he foreordain such actions or even predestinate what shall be the final destiny of all his creatures, even doing so before they have come into existence?

Or, is God’s exercise of foreknowledge selective and discretionary, so that whatever he chooses to foresee and foreknow, he does, but what he does not choose to foresee or foreknow, he does not? And, instead of preceding their existence, does God’s determination of his creatures’ eternal destiny await his judgment of their course of life and of their proved attitude under test? The answers to these questions must necessarily come from the Scriptures themselves and the information they provide concerning God’s actions and dealings with his creatures, including what has been revealed through his Son, Christ Jesus.—1Co 2:16.

Predestinarian view. The view that God’s exercise of his foreknowledge is infinite and that he does foreordain the course and destiny of all individuals is known as predestinarianism. Its advocates reason that God’s divinity and perfection require that he be omniscient (all-knowing), not only respecting the past and present but also regarding the future. According to this concept, for him not to foreknow all matters in their minutest detail would evidence imperfection. Examples such as the case of Isaac’s twin sons, Esau and Jacob, are presented as evidence of God’s foreordaining creatures before their birth (Ro 9:10-13); and texts such as Ephesians 1:4,*5 are cited as evidence that God foreknew and foreordained the future of all his creatures even before the start of creation.

To be correct, this view would, of course, have to harmonize with all the factors previously mentioned, including the Scriptural presentation of God’s qualities, standards, and purposes, as well as his righteous ways in dealing with his creatures. (Re 15:3,*4) We may properly consider, then, the implications of such a predestinarian view.

This concept would mean that, prior to creating angels or earthling man, God exercised his powers of foreknowledge and foresaw and foreknew all that would result from such creation, including the rebellion of one of his spirit sons, the subsequent rebellion of the first human pair in Eden (Ge 3:1-6; Joh 8:44), and all the bad consequences of such rebellion down to and beyond this present day. This would necessarily mean that all the wickedness that history has recorded (the crime and immorality, oppression and resultant suffering, lying and hypocrisy, false worship and idolatry) once existed, before creation’s beginning, only in the mind of God, in the form of his foreknowledge of the future in all of its minutest details.

If the Creator of mankind had indeed exercised his power to foreknow all that history has seen since man’s creation, then the full weight of all the wickedness thereafter resulting was deliberately set in motion by God when he spoke the words: “Let us make man.” (Ge 1:26) These facts bring into question the reasonableness and consistency of the predestinarian concept; particularly so, since the disciple James shows that disorder and other vile things do not originate from God’s heavenly presence but are “earthly, animal, demonic” in source.—Jas 3:14-18.

Infinite exercise of foreknowledge? The argument that God’s not foreknowing all future events and circumstances in full detail would evidence imperfection on his part is, in reality, an arbitrary view of perfection. Perfection, correctly defined, does not demand such an absolute, all-embracing extension, inasmuch as the perfection of anything actually depends upon its measuring up completely to the standards of excellence set by one qualified to judge its merits. (See PERFECTION.) Ultimately, God’s own will and good pleasure, not human opinions or concepts, are the deciding factors as to whether anything is perfect.—De 32:4; 2Sa 22:31; Isa 46:10.

To illustrate this, God’s almightiness is undeniably perfect and is infinite in capacity. (1Ch 29:11,*12; Job 36:22; 37:23) Yet his perfection in strength does not require him to use his power to the full extent of his omnipotence in any or in all cases. Clearly he has not done so; if he had, not merely certain ancient cities and some nations would have been destroyed, but the earth and all in it would have been obliterated long ago by God’s executions of judgment, accompanied by mighty expressions of disapproval and wrath, as at the Flood and on other occasions. (Ge 6:5-8; 19:23-25,*29; compare Ex 9:13-16; Jer 30:23,*24.) God’s exercise of his might is therefore not simply an unleashing of limitless power but is constantly governed by his purpose and, where merited, tempered by his mercy.—Ne 9:31; Ps 78:38,*39; Jer 30:11; La 3:22; Eze 20:17.

Similarly, if, in certain respects, God chooses to exercise his infinite ability of foreknowledge in a selective way and to the degree that pleases him, then assuredly no human or angel can rightly say: “What are you doing?” (Job 9:12; Isa 45:9; Da 4:35) It is therefore not a question of ability, what God can foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, for “with God all things are possible.” (Mt 19:26) The question is what God sees fit to foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, for “everything that he delighted to do he has done.”—Ps 115:3.

Selective exercise of foreknowledge. The alternative to predestinarianism, the selective or discretionary exercise of God’s powers of foreknowledge, would have to harmonize with God’s own righteous standards and be consistent with what he reveals of himself in his Word. In contrast with the theory of predestinarianism, a number of texts point to an examination by God of a situation then current and a decision made on the basis of such examination.

Thus, at Genesis 11:5-8 God is described as directing his attention earthward, surveying the situation at Babel, and, at that time, determining the action to be taken to break up the unrighteous project there. After wickedness developed at Sodom and Gomorrah, Jehovah advised Abraham of his decision to investigate (by means of his angels) to “see whether they act altogether according to the outcry over it that has come to me, and, if not, I can get to know it.” (Ge 18:20-22; 19:1) God spoke of ‘becoming acquainted with Abraham,’ and after Abraham went to the point of attempting to sacrifice Isaac, Jehovah said, “For now I do know that you are God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me.”—Ge 18:19; 22:11,*12; compare Ne 9:7,*8; Ga 4:9.

Selective foreknowledge means that God could choose not to foreknow indiscriminately all the future acts of his creatures. This would mean that, rather than all history from creation onward being a mere rerun of what had already been foreseen and foreordained, God could with all sincerity set before the first human pair the prospect of everlasting life in an earth free from wickedness. His instructions to his first human son and daughter to act as his perfect and sinless agents in filling the earth with their offspring and making it a paradise, as well as exercising control over the animal creation, could thus be expressed as the grant of a truly loving privilege and as his genuine desire toward them—not merely as the giving of a commission that, on their part, was foredoomed to failure. God’s arranging for a test by means of “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad” and his creation of “the tree of life” in the garden of Eden also would not be meaningless or cynical acts, made so by his foreknowing that the human pair would sin and never be able to eat of “the tree of life.”—Ge 1:28; 2:7-9, 15-17; 3:22-24.

To offer something very desirable to another person on conditions known beforehand to be unreachable is recognized as both hypocritical and cruel. The prospect of everlasting life is presented in God’s Word as a goal for all persons, one possible to attain. After urging his listeners to ‘keep on asking and seeking’ good things from God, Jesus pointed out that a father does not give a stone or a serpent to his child that asks for bread or a fish. Showing his Father’s view of disappointing the legitimate hopes of a person, Jesus then said: “Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will your Father who is in the heavens give good things to those asking him?”—Mt 7:7-11.

Thus, the invitations and opportunities to receive benefits and everlasting blessings set before all men by God are bona fide. (Mt 21:22; Jas 1:5,*6) He can in all sincerity urge men to ‘turn back from transgression and keep living,’ as he did with the people of Israel. (Eze 18:23, 30-32; compare Jer 29:11,*12.) Logically, he could not do this if he foreknew that they were individually destined to die in wickedness. (Compare Ac 17:30,*31; 1Ti 2:3,*4.) As Jehovah told Israel: “Nor said I to the seed of Jacob, ‘Seek me simply for nothing, you people.’ I am Jehovah, speaking what is righteous, telling what is upright.*.*.*. Turn to me and be saved, all you at the ends of the earth.”—Isa 45:19-22.

In a similar vein, the apostle Peter writes: “Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise [of the coming day of reckoning], as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.” (2Pe 3:9) If God already foreknew and foreordained millenniums in advance precisely which individuals would receive eternal salvation and which individuals would receive eternal destruction, it may well be asked how meaningful such ‘patience’ of God could be and how genuine his desire could be that ‘all attain to repentance.’ The inspired apostle John wrote that “God is love,” and the apostle Paul states that love “hopes all things.” (1Jo 4:8; 1Co 13:4,*7) It is in harmony with this outstanding, divine quality that God should exercise a genuinely open, kindly attitude toward all persons, he being desirous of their gaining salvation, until they prove themselves unworthy, beyond hope. (Compare 2Pe 3:9; Heb 6:4-12.) Thus, the apostle Paul speaks of “the kindly quality of God [that] is trying to lead you to repentance.”—Ro 2:4-6.

Finally if, by God’s foreknowledge, the opportunity to receive the benefits of Christ Jesus’ ransom sacrifice were already irrevocably sealed off from some, perhaps for millions of individuals, even before their birth, so that such ones could never prove worthy, it could not truly be said that the ransom was made available to all men. (2Co 5:14,*15; 1Ti 2:5,*6; Heb 2:9) The impartiality of God is clearly no mere figure of speech. “In every nation the man that fears [God] and works righteousness is acceptable to him.” (Ac 10:34,*35; De 10:17; Ro 2:11) The option is actually and genuinely open to all men “to seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us.” (Ac 17:26,*27) There is no empty hope or hollow promise set forth, therefore, in the divine exhortation at the end of the book of Revelation inviting: “Let anyone hearing say: ‘Come!’ And let anyone thirsting come; let anyone that wishes take life’s water free.”—Re 22:17."

(Taken from Insight on the Scriptures, published by Jehovah's Witnesses)

If you're interested, the section has a lot more info, but what I pasted was most relevant.

Originally Posted by Invader

What do you mean by this? One is limited, the other is not.

Who is imposing the limits?

EDIT: I'm not trying to be cryptic here. My meaning is in the original statement that in one (real) world including both you and God, there is no meaningful boundary between the two.

In what sense? We would technically be parts of this God, just as a bolt would
be a part of the machine, but the difference between the two is that one is
just a piece, and the other a whole. I'm trying to understand your side of this.

Do you mean they are of the same essence?

Originally Posted by Invader

In what sense? We would technically be parts of this God, just as a bolt would
be a part of the machine, but the difference between the two is that one is
just a piece, and the other a whole. I'm trying to understand your side of this.

Do you mean they are of the same essence?

I'm saying neither exists in any sense that does not partake of the other, nor do either have any existence independent of the whole. We cannot act independent of each other in a single cosmos, regardless of whether or not we are God at the moment.

By that statement one could say there is no distinction between a planet and a
bee hive, or a microbe and a human being. How is that definition useful? Or is
that not the point?

Originally Posted by Invader

By that statement one could say there is no distinction between a planet and a
bee hive, or a microbe and a human being. How is that definition useful? Or is
that not the point?

There is much less distinction than we typically suppose. Getting past definition to consider what is actually present is very useful in coming to peace with the realm in which we manifest. A God consistent with reality has proven useful to many, many people. A strawman God is useless, whether one embraces it or strikes it down while remaining convinced by the empty stage.

What you say is true Taosaur, although I think the problem stems from the misunderstanding of the nature of "self." One would probably confuse Divinity with the ego-self were there be no difference, see what I mean? It's like: There is no God out there, and He is not different than your Self. But the average person would read that as "God is no different than me."

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

At the present time, you can't, so there's a limit right there.

It's true that you can't, but the question is hypothetical. Realistically, it has no meaning because it comes from the imagination. Likewise, asking of you have the ability to draw square-circles or not implies nothing of the limits of drawing, but merely the question itself (which is flawed and contradictory). Your example is a fantasy, not a realistic choice. Fantasies as such ignore the way and the laws of reality.

Originally Posted by khh

According to the lore, this god is all mighty, which means he/she/it is all knowing, which means he/she/it knows what you'll do in life, which means he/she/it knows you'll burn, which means you're following a destiny, which means you don't have a choice.
Thus, this god is not giving you a choice, he/she/it is sentencing you to eternal damnation from before you're even born. If this was a human being being judged, he or she would be called a cold-hearted bastard, I believe.

Just because God is all-knowing doesn't mean there is an effect on your intent and freedom of choice. You know about your choices every time you make them, do you not?

Originally Posted by really

Just because God is all-knowing doesn't mean there is an effect on your intent and freedom of choice. You know about your choices every time you make them, do you not?

Interesting you should mention this. This gets into a big philosophical debate about whether or not we have free will. The most intriguing idea is that, since the big bang, everything was pretty much predestined to happen. Particles would react in a given way, set on their predetermined courses, and would ultimately collide to create galaxies, solar systems, planets, and even life. If you really want to get technical, the electrochemical impulses in your brain are merely ions jumping the gaps of synapses in the brain, creating thoughts. These ions ended up where they did not because you "thought", but rather because they were set there through a long line of reactions with other particles, dating straight back to the Big Bang.

Just a theory, but interesting to think about, I say.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

There is much less distinction than we typically suppose. Getting past definition to consider what is actually present is very useful in coming to peace with the realm in which we manifest.

Of course. We can acknowledge that we are not just men and women, but
human beings, and furthermore that we are animals, and, generally, the
physical stuff of the universe, and again beyond that, we are of the essence
(whatever that really is) that all else is from or of. Being able to assimilate in
this way would rid us of any excuse to make war or harm another, but it is a
truth that is apparently difficult for many to fully understand. We are only
able to harm another when we label them different, or, more famously, as "the
other".

A God consistent with reality has proven useful to many, many people.

And by this you mean?

Originally Posted by really

Just because God is all-knowing doesn't mean there is an effect on your intent and freedom of choice. You know about your choices every time you make them, do you not?

If someone or something knows what will happen in advance, and I really do mean knows - not suspects or have reasoned out - then that thing will happen. Therefore, any choice you think you have is simply an illusion. This means you don't make any choices, and consequently you cannot know of them. Which means my answer is no.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Interesting you should mention this. This gets into a big philosophical debate about whether or not we have free will. The most intriguing idea is that, since the big bang, everything was pretty much predestined to happen. Particles would react in a given way, set on their predetermined courses, and would ultimately collide to create galaxies, solar systems, planets, and even life. If you really want to get technical, the electrochemical impulses in your brain are merely ions jumping the gaps of synapses in the brain, creating thoughts. These ions ended up where they did not because you "thought", but rather because they were set there through a long line of reactions with other particles, dating straight back to the Big Bang.

Actually, I disagree. What I said does not have anything to do with that discussion, it's simply my interpretation of the logical consequences of there being an all powerful being.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Interesting you should mention this. This gets into a big philosophical debate about whether or not we have free will. The most intriguing idea is that, since the big bang, everything was pretty much predestined to happen. Particles would react in a given way, set on their predetermined courses, and would ultimately collide to create galaxies, solar systems, planets, and even life. If you really want to get technical, the electrochemical impulses in your brain are merely ions jumping the gaps of synapses in the brain, creating thoughts. These ions ended up where they did not because you "thought", but rather because they were set there through a long line of reactions with other particles, dating straight back to the Big Bang.

Just a theory, but interesting to think about, I say.

That's interesting. What I'm saying implies nothing of determinism; Karma is not equivalent. There is still infinite freedom within every instant, though it seems paradoxical that there are some things that cannot be done. There are many different stylized arguments and questions concerning free-will, and it really depends on what angle you're coming from.

Originally Posted by khh

If someone or something knows what will happen in advance, and I really do mean knows - not suspects or have reasoned out - then that thing will happen. Therefore, any choice you think you have is simply an illusion. This means you don't make any choices, and consequently you cannot know of them. Which means my answer is no.

This ignores the value of freedom and intention. Do you just mean "determinism is true"? Because that is not what I'm agreeing with. If the universe or yourself know what will happen or what is happening, that doesn't take away your own responsibility or karmic propensity.

Originally Posted by really

This ignores the value of freedom and intention. Do you just mean "determinism is true"? Because that is not what I'm agreeing with. If the universe or yourself know what will happen or what is happening, that doesn't take away your own responsibility or karmic propensity.

It only shows how much everything is God's fault. God made everything, he knew everything. Anything that happens is his fault. It's that easy.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

It only shows how much everything is God's fault. God made everything, he knew everything. Anything that happens is his fault. It's that easy.

"Faults" are only perceptions, they have no actual reality. Can you run this universe?

Originally Posted by really

"Faults" are only perceptions, they have no actual reality. Can you run this universe?

I never said that god has to conform to some perceptions, I'm just stating a fact which I've never been given a logical answer to... Aserting that a God which is the alpha and omega is somehow exempt from being the source of everything including us is illogical. In the end, being a non-believer, I don't care whether a god is claimed to be good or bad or what his "fault" is supposed to be. If we're talking about the "real" badass god's everybody wants to have, then you can't be illogical about it. If you are, and then perhaps claim that the illogical can be supported by god's omnipotence, then I have nothing more to say. If one wants to be ignorant, I can't do anything about it.

Can I run this universe? It's running, isn't it?

Originally Posted by really

It's true that you can't, but the question is hypothetical. Realistically, it has no meaning because it comes from the imagination. Likewise, asking of you have the ability to draw square-circles or not implies nothing of the limits of drawing, but merely the question itself (which is flawed and contradictory). Your example is a fantasy, not a realistic choice. Fantasies as such ignore the way and the laws of reality.

Oh, so we're not limited within our limitations. Why even make that point?

Originally Posted by Bonsay

It only shows how much everything is God's fault. God made everything, he knew everything. Anything that happens is his fault. It's that easy.

Actually, in a court of law that alone wouldn't necessarily lead to a conviction. However, adding that this god would indeed have had the opportunity to have acted differently, that makes it pretty damning

Originally Posted by really

This ignores the value of freedom and intention. Do you just mean "determinism is true"? Because that is not what I'm agreeing with.

I'm not arguing about determinism, in the classical sense. As far as I know, that debate is to whether or not the rules of science means everything is predetermined or not.
I'm using only logic, completely disregarding whether or not science says it's possible, and the for Christians indisputable point that their god is omnipotent.

Originally Posted by really

If the universe or yourself know what will happen or what is happening, that doesn't take away your own responsibility or karmic propensity.

Well, I'll make a comparison.
Given that it's impossible for one solid, physical object to pass through another, and that the law of gravity applies; imagine a unbreakable tube without any friction inside being laid in a steep, long down-slope. At the bottom end of the tube there is an indestructible wall, and that someone is fastened to the wall so that they cannot be unfastened. Now, the being that placed these items then inserts a man into a heavy vehicle that cannot be broken out of, and places that vehicle at the top of the tube. Now, the being knows what is going happen to the man at the bottom of the tube when the vehicle on top is released, since there's only one possible outcome. The man at the bottom is squashed. Do you blame that man placed in the vehicle for that?

The only way to know that something is going to happen is if there is no other possible outcome, which means that whoever carries it out has no choice as to what happens. In my comparison, the being who created the scenario was the god, and the man placed in the vehicle was mankind.


Since the Christian's god is omnipotent, he has to be all knowing, and if he's all knowing then there's is only one course that the events can take. That means that according to Christian lore either no-one is responsible for their actions, or the Christian god is not omnipotent.
Do you see any fault with my reasoning?

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

Just because God CAN know something, doesn't mean he wants to take advantage of that foresight.

I didn't read all of that, but isn't it basically just irresponsible to not use your psychic powers if the consequences for not doing so can be so catastrophic? For that matter, you don't even need psychic powers to see the problem with putting the tree of knowledge in with the humans knowing what will happen if they eat from it. Why not just put it somewhere else and save everyone the trouble? Or use your psychic powers just to see if they'll eat from it and stop them? Is that not reasonable? But I suppose it was some kind of test. But what's the purpose of "testing" if you can just use your foresight powers to know the answer? Why are we "tested" when the price of failing the test is so extreme and the test itself is so unnecessary? What exactly is god trying to prove and who is he trying to prove it to?

He has to prove himself to the myriads of Angels. Satan called God a liar and asserted that humans can govern themselves successfully without God (and all that such entails). God has to allow time to pass so humans can try absolutely everything before the charges against God can be dropped completely.
Satan also said that no person would serve God out of love alone (which is where Job came in as well as we ourselves).

Is it irresponsible? I don't think so. It's just. God governs himself and his creation under certain principles. He wanted a creation that would love him freely, so he's now dealing with the consequences of the rebellion in Eden andin Heaven. In the end, everything will be fine.
I don't believe in a fiery hell. The Bible says there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous so the consequence of failure isn't THAT severe.

During the resurrection people will be brought to perfection and will be given the chance to serve God or not. After THAT time, failure to accept God's wisdom will mean eternal destruction (not torture in Hell).
Of course, I'm simplifying things a great deal...

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

He has to prove himself to the myriads of Angels. Satan called God a liar and asserted that humans can govern themselves successfully without God (and all that such entails). God has to allow time to pass so humans can try absolutely everything before the charges against God can be dropped completely.
Satan also said that no person would serve God out of love alone (which is where Job came in as well as we ourselves). Is it irresponsible? I don't think so. It's just.

WHAT! So he's trying to prove himself to Satan and the peanut gallery of all people?! That's beyond ridiculous. All this crap is because he got into an argument with Satan and now he has to prove him wrong? You'll have to excuse me for being slightly incredulous here, but... seriously?! Why does god care what Satan thinks? Or any angel or anything, really? What is this craziness about the charges against god? I thought he was supposed to be the absolute authority in all things. It shouldn't matter what some mere angel says.

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

God governs himself and his creation under certain principles. He wanted a creation that would love him freely,

I wonder how many people are really loving him freely and not just attempting to serve him out of fear of Hell or hope for Heaven (I.E. with selfish interests.) I'd guess that accounts for the majority of people. You'd have to wonder if maybe Satan was right.

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

so he's now dealing with the consequences of the rebellion in Eden andin Heaven. In the end, everything will be fine.
I don't believe in a fiery hell. The Bible says there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous so the consequence of failure isn't THAT severe.

Fair enough, but it still seems very irresponsible to me. After all, people were cast out of paradise for god's lack of foresight. Nevermind all the wars and plagues and disease we've collectively suffered since then. All just to prove some silly point to a rebellious child?

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

During the resurrection people will be brought to perfection and will be given the chance to serve God or not. After THAT time, failure to accept God's wisdom will mean eternal destruction (not torture in Hell).
Of course, I'm simplifying things a great deal...

If what you say is true, I think eternal destruction doesn't seem that bad.

Mark, I could not have said it any better myself. I would only add, though, that if God is merely trying to impress a few angels and stop the apparent persecution, he should just smite the lot of them and create new ones that adore the guy.

Also, in terms of "love him freely," I'm not sure this is even possible. It is human nature to act in one's own self interest...constantly. All the time. Non-stop. People *almost* never stop doing this. There are very rare exceptions, but even these I am skeptical of. Basically, the only reason the guy still exists in our culture is because of a desire to see loved ones in the after life once more, and out of a fear of hell in some cases. Again, people acting in self-interest. If the guy really wants to be loved by all, he should show up and start high-fiving people left and right, create big waves for the surfers to board, hug people who are depressed (or eliminate depression altogether), fix the continent of Africa, and basically be a swell kind of guy.

Originally Posted by khh

Actually, in a court of law that alone wouldn't necessarily lead to a conviction. However, adding that this god would indeed have had the opportunity to have acted differently, that makes it pretty damning

If I create a virus that kills people, it wouldn't lead to a conviction?

Originally Posted by Bonsay

It only shows how much everything is God's fault. God made everything, he knew everything. Anything that happens is his fault. It's that easy.

Yes, that's the basic claim of monotheism, that everything comes from God. Sunrises are God's fault, children are God's fault, breasts and plums and the thrill of discovery--all God's fault. All the things we experience as unpleasant also come from God, so here's the question to ask: on the whole, is life worthwhile?

If you answer no, I hope you recognize your position as unhealthy and futile. Even if you're deluded that statements like "life sucks" "people suck" and "the world is shit" have some objective value, where do you go from there? God, Tao, Nirvana, The Great Spirit and all their myriad iterations provide paths from "no" to "yes," and the means to deepen and maintain that affirmation in the face of hardship, confusion and temptation.

Obviously, for any of them to work for a given individual, the Mystery must map to the reality of your experience, and you need to spend some time with it. There are plenty of people out there trying to "fake it until they make it"--suffering cognitive dissonance with unreal ideas of God, but that hardly discredits the whole concept. Is it exclusively true that the universe was created by a consciousness-like being? No. Are there true ways of seeing the universe in this light? Yes.

If monotheism doesn't help you have a positive orientation to your existence, you're doing it wrong, and maybe it just isn't right for you, but that doesn't render the belief system worthless. When it's working, religion is all about coming to a deeper engagement with conditions of our existence and remaining grounded regardless of emotions and circumstances.

Originally Posted by Invader

Quote:
A God consistent with reality has proven useful to many, many people.
And by this you mean?

I hope I addressed this above.

I didn't explain myself very well.

God doesn't HAVE to prove himself. But because he is governed by the same principles as us doing some things would be against his nature. Killing the rebels would be against his principles. Instead, God planned for a way out through Jesus. If he simply killed everyone and started over, the same issue could have come up.
God didn't want to kill all of his children (spiritual and earthly). He's given us a chance to love him and serve him despite our imperfections.

I know you're thinking "It wouldn't be an issue if he used his foresight responsibly." We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I have long thought about free will and god being all knowing to be contradictory and the simple conclusion I have come up with is he is simply not omnipotent.

Even if he is capable of creating, that doesnt necessarily mean he knows what its going to do. Thus, he is very powerful but not all powerful. I dont believe creating something and being able to control its every action necessarily go hand in hand.