Omnipotent God + Eternal Damnation = Evil God

[Metatron]

I have never received an adequate justification for the doctrine of eternal damnation here at DC&R so I'm posting it as a topic.

Many Christians claim that their God is omnipotent/omniscient. They claim that their God is a god of compassion, love, and mercy. Yet, with all of this, they claim that God punishes all people who do not accept Jesus as their savior with eternal torment in Hell, i.e. the vast majority of mankind numbering into the billions.

What possible compassionate purpose can infinite torture have? The punishment doesn't even serve a remedial purpose because the tormented one is not allowed to repent. It's only conceivable purpose is sadism.

How is this not evil?

[samuelbb7]

Zzyzx

You tried and failed with the counterpoint. The example you misrepresented did NOT demonstrate that “intelligent people with a modicum of training can do and speak on fields outside their expertise”.

What you DID demonstrate is a willingness to seriously distort a reference in an attempt to make a point. Are you willing to compromise integrity and credibility to try to prove someone wrong by using distorted or falsified claims? Do you think that readers cannot detect dishonesty?

Interesting. So I am dishonest, liar with compromised integrity. Do you think you might be overreacting a bit. Yes I made a mistake from memory but do you really consider me to be such a person?

What was ACTUALLY shown in YOUR example is that people without training when trying to land a SIMULATED airplane CRASH LANDED. A crash landing is not considered a successful landing (except possibly in theology). The aircraft was NOT specified to be a 747 and in order to land whatever (unspecified) aircraft successfully the people had to be “talked down” by an experienced pilot.

Correct they with help of just talking were able to succeed. It did not require years of training and that no one else could do it except trained professionals as you implied.

Would you like to try another “counterpoint”?

Not at this time. I think I should work on regaining integrity.

Notice the difference between people “often feel” (what I actually said) and “all” who dispute (what you claim I said). It is beginning to appear as though there is a pattern of deception in your posts. Is that a coincidence?

Yes.

I agree completely. ALSO just because something is written in a book should not be sufficient reason to believe it unless it is substantiated by convergence of evidence from independent, impartial sources.

That is your right. It is not always possible. But the right to doubt and and disbelieve is your inalienable right.

Are you aware of the concept of “superposition” that states that in typical stratigraphic sequences younger strata overlie older strata?

Yes. I am also aware that in many cases younger can be found over older and that younger and older vary from place to place.

Are you aware that older strata do NOT contain newer fossils – that mammal fossils, for instance, do not appear in Paleolithic sedimentary rocks?

Actually such do happen. It is explained by various means in that there can be drift of fossils and not all strata is at the same level. For Example a mammal that fill into a valley and was buried is one for why the mammal was on the wrong level. But it does happen.

Does your knowledge of stratigraphy include understanding that the “worldwide flood” tale does NOT fit with what we know about the occurrence of fossils in the stratigraphic column?

Certain events that have occurred and the coal layers do not fit in any current model of flood events. For instance a herd of Hadrosaurs was buried in a flood yet no modern example of flood could have done that. Also the dead lands were opposed for decades because people were opposed to the facts which they latter accepted. Scientific theory is constantly changing. I cannot prove the world wide flood since it does require a miracle but it is possible. Also the surface of the world was once under water that is accepted as a fact.

Did you pass college English? I usually do not comment on anyone’s grammar or spelling; however, I am surprised that someone who is a teacher would make thirteen obvious errors in grammar and spelling in one short post (italics added for clarity). Doing so is a poor example for students.

My typing is worse then my spelling. But thank you for pointing out my flaws I recognize that I have them.

I have NOT taken the position that you are unfit. I ASKED if you taught in public schools (or a public school system). YOU raised the issue of your fitness to teach – not me. Why would you make that obviously incorrect assumption? Is your fitness to teach a sensitive subject for you?

I apologize for the mistake. It seemed that from your wording you were making that statement. Since you say I am incorrect then I was wrong.

Since you raise the issue, ARE you prepared to a college laboratory science class?

My Degree is in elementary ed. So I would not be qualified legal to teach in a college lab class. But prepared that would depend on the qualifications.

Do you offer an alternative theory that can be better substantiated by investigation? Have you studied the matter directly?

No. I do not. I am also aware that at this time the life to nonlife directly is not substantiated by investigation either. According to Discover Magazine the process is and had been undergoing for over three years with no proof.

Can you state with certainty that natural selection CANNOT create a new phylum?

Would you explain how it would come about since you are more qualified to explain it then me.

Did you study genetics in college beyond introductory level?

No. But I have read and studied it, in many Science books.

[Zzyzx]

.

You tried and failed with the counterpoint. The example you misrepresented did NOT demonstrate that “intelligent people with a modicum of training can do and speak on fields outside their expertise”.

What you DID demonstrate is a willingness to seriously distort a reference in an attempt to make a point. Are you willing to compromise integrity and credibility to try to prove someone wrong by using distorted or falsified claims? Do you think that readers cannot detect dishonesty?

Interesting. So I am dishonest, liar with compromised integrity. Do you think you might be overreacting a bit. Yes I made a mistake from memory but do you really consider me to be such a person?

Try to focus on what I ACTUALLY said. “a willingness to seriously distort a reference”. All after that is YOUR reading into what was said.

I may have been a bit harsh – but correct. You are still attempting to prove a point with a distortion rather than retracting your erroneous claim.

What was ACTUALLY shown in YOUR example is that people without training when trying to land a SIMULATED airplane CRASH LANDED. A crash landing is not considered a successful landing (except possibly in theology). The aircraft was NOT specified to be a 747 and in order to land whatever (unspecified) aircraft successfully the people had to be “talked down” by an experienced pilot.

Correct they with help of just talking were able to succeed. It did not require years of training and that no one else could do it except trained professionals as you implied.

Long ago I was licensed to fly light aircraft such as the Cessna 172 – a small, single engine, high wing, fixed gear aircraft that seats a maximum of four people. It is a very simple aircraft used commonly as a flight trainer.

Thus, I am aware of what is involved in landing a light aircraft. A few hours of training enables one to land with some skill (and some apprehension).

It is very conceivable that in an emergency, such as a pilot becoming incapacitated, a passenger in such an aircraft might be “talked down” to a successful landing via radio. It seems as though I remember reading reports of such events in flying and pilot magazines.

That, however, is a LONG, LONG way from “landing a 747 without training”. Following step-by-step radio instructions is NOT the same as people landing without training.

Your example certainly does NOT show that a person without study is qualified to dispute those who have spent years studying the subject. People who believe themselves capable of knowing without learning are often known as fools.

I agree completely. ALSO just because something is written in a book should not be sufficient reason to believe it unless it is substantiated by convergence of evidence from independent, impartial sources.

That is your right. It is not always possible. But the right to doubt and and disbelieve is your inalienable right.

I agreed with your statement that a person shouldn’t believe everything they are told – and expanded the idea to include being told in a book.

I regard it as each individual’s responsibility to themselves to verify what they are told before using the information in the process of making significant decisions.

Are you aware of the concept of “superposition” that states that in typical stratigraphic sequences younger strata overlie older strata?

Yes. I am also aware that in many cases younger can be found over older and that younger and older vary from place to place.

“Many cases” is strong overstatement. Two examples of older strata situated over younger, both of which are relatively uncommon, are an overthrust and an overturned fold. Both occur in strong compression environments.

Kindly verify the claim of “many cases”.

Are you aware that older strata do NOT contain newer fossils – that mammal fossils, for instance, do not appear in Paleolithic sedimentary rocks?

Actually such do happen. It is explained by various means in that there can be drift of fossils and not all strata is at the same level. For Example a mammal that fill into a valley and was buried is one for why the mammal was on the wrong level. But it does happen.

Are you equating “level” with “strata”? The example of a mammal falling into a valley and being buried is NOT an example of newer fossils in older strata. The burial material (sediments) in the hypothetical valley when lithified constitute a NEW rock unit. They do NOT take their age from surrounding rock.

Does your knowledge of stratigraphy include understanding that the “worldwide flood” tale does NOT fit with what we know about the occurrence of fossils in the stratigraphic column?

Certain events that have occurred and the coal layers do not fit in any current model of flood events.

Are you suggesting that you have access to a BETTER explanation of natural events using a “worldwide flood explanation” than provided by study of geology? Kindly expound upon the superior theory.

Are you sure that you want to argue geology with someone who has actually studied the subject in great detail and taught the subject for ten years as a tenured college / university professor (and taught introductory level classes such as you took as well as advanced classes)?

I would not argue elementary education with someone who specialized and taught in that realm – nor would I assume that I knew more about their field than they did. Would you respect the opinion of a person who read the koran and took one course in education then proceeded to tell you how to teach (while making significant errors in presentation)?

For instance a herd of Hadrosaurs was buried in a flood yet no modern example of flood could have done that. Also the dead lands were opposed for decades because people were opposed to the facts which they latter accepted.

Kindly explain the above in enough detail so that others might understand what you are talking about.

Scientific theory is constantly changing.

YES, that is one of the great advantages of the Scientific Method – it encourages acceptance of new ideas that are shown to be more accurate than old.

As a person who teaches science and who has taken science courses in college, do you favor the Scientific Method as a valid means to learn about nature?

Humans are not likely to be perfectly correct – even if they read “holy books”. Human understanding of nature and the real world we inhabit is constantly expanding. Rigid ideas become obsolete because they cannot change to incorporate new knowledge. That is a great flaw in most (all?) religions.

Religion tends to RESIST change because it claims to KNOW the truth from reading a single book.

I cannot prove the world wide flood since it does require a miracle but it is possible.

Agreed. You cannot prove that a worldwide flood occurred. Thank you.

When you evoke “miracle” claims you are no longer debating and are no longer using reason to understand or explain events in nature. “Miracles” and “goddidit” are pure theology.

Also the surface of the world was once under water that is accepted as a fact.

By whom is it accepted as fact that “the surface of the world was once under water”? Kindly substantiate that statement. Did you learn this in your college geology class?

It IS accepted among those who actually study Earth forms, materials and processes that various portions of the crust have been under water at different times. That is NOT support for a worldwide flood because submergence can NOT be shown to have occurred simultaneously (as would be required if the “flood theory” was correct).

Since you raise the issue, ARE you prepared to a college laboratory science class?

My Degree is in elementary ed. So I would not be qualified legal to teach in a college lab class. But prepared that would depend on the qualifications.

As a point of interest and general information, college / university teaching positions usually do NOT require any specific degree or any license (as is often required for elementary and secondary schools).

Colleges and universities may option to not employ anyone who has less than a Ph.D. or Master’s degree in specific subjects; however, state certification or licensing of professors in higher education is not (yet) required to the best of my knowledge.

Do you offer an alternative theory that can be better substantiated by investigation? Have you studied the matter directly?

No. I do not. I am also aware that at this time the life to nonlife directly is not substantiated by investigation either. According to Discover Magazine the process is and had been undergoing for over three years with no proof.

Therefore, why don’t we just say, truthfully, that we don’t know how life originated? We cannot substantiate any theories, so let’s reserve judgment and not state that we KNOW how life originated. Fair enough?

Can you state with certainty that natural selection CANNOT create a new phylum?

Would you explain how it would come about since you are more qualified to explain it then me.

Explanations of the origin of life are beyond my expertise. I do not presume to know how life originated.

However, I disagree with the assumption that “life from non-life cannot happen” that often forms the basis for theistic arguments as though its being “impossible” was known with certainty. That “impossibility” is an opinion, not a fact.

One may state an OPINION that they personally do not think that life can come from non-living matter, but they are NOT entitled to state that as a fact. Likewise, one who is of the opinion that life did originate from non-living matter is also entitled only to an opinion. Neither view has conclusive evidence required to claim their position as fact.

I take no position regarding the development of life or the origin of the universe. My desire to not state a position is based upon recognition of the lack of evidence. My position is that I do not know these things and neither does anyone else, in my opinion (no matter how convinced they may that their favorite theories are factual).

Did you study genetics in college beyond introductory level?

No. But I have read and studied it, in many Science books.

I have done both. However, it was a long time ago that I took classes.

It appears to me as though most people who condemn genetics and evolution have NOT studied the subject formally and do not appear to understand the concepts involved. They seem to have an agenda of defending a religious point of view that is threatened by knowledge of genetics and evolution.

[samuelbb7]

Zzyzx

Zzyzx wrote:
You tried and failed with the counterpoint. The example you misrepresented did NOT demonstrate that “intelligent people with a modicum of training can do and speak on fields outside their expertise”.

What you DID demonstrate is a willingness to seriously distort a reference in an attempt to make a point. Are you willing to compromise integrity and credibility to try to prove someone wrong by using distorted or falsified claims? Do you think that readers cannot detect dishonesty?
I may have been a bit harsh – but correct. You are still attempting to prove a point with a distortion rather than retracting your erroneous claim.

As a Character on Laugh in used to say. Vely interesting. ( Misspelling on Purpose)

I will not debate your point that you are saying I am willing to distort a reference. My reference dealt with landing commercial aircraft. Did you watch the clip? I think a better analogy would be the following.

A High School football player, A college Football player and a Pro football player get together to talk. The Pro is of course the expert. But the others can know and understand the entire conversation.

I regard it as each individual’s responsibility to themselves to verify what they are told before using the information in the process of making significant decisions.

That is very sound advice.

Are you sure that you want to argue geology with someone who has actually studied the subject in great detail and taught the subject for ten years as a tenured college / university professor (and taught introductory level classes such as you took as well as advanced classes)?

I would not argue elementary education with someone who specialized and taught in that realm – nor would I assume that I knew more about their field than they did. Would you respect the opinion of a person who read the koran and took one course in education then proceeded to tell you how to teach (while making significant errors in presentation)?

Argue no. Since you are correct and you know a lot more then I do. I can discuss only.

As a person who teaches science and who has taken science courses in college, do you favor the Scientific Method as a valid means to learn about nature?

Yes.

Humans are not likely to be perfectly correct – even if they read “holy books”. Human understanding of nature and the real world we inhabit is constantly expanding. Rigid ideas become obsolete because they cannot change to incorporate new knowledge. That is a great flaw in most (all?) religions.

Correct.

Religion tends to RESIST change because it claims to KNOW the truth from reading a single book.

The Bible is not a book on Science. So in general it does not mention or discuss Scientific facts. People have often made the mistake of trying to read more into it then is there. However many Great Scientist have been believers in GOD.

When you evoke “miracle” claims you are no longer debating and are no longer using reason to understand or explain events in nature. “Miracles” and “goddidit” are pure theology.

Yes.

As a point of interest and general information, college / university teaching positions usually do NOT require any specific degree or any license (as is often required for elementary and secondary schools).

Colleges and universities may option to not employ anyone who has less than a Ph.D. or Master’s degree in specific subjects; however, state certification or licensing of professors in higher education is not (yet) required to the best of my knowledge.

I understand. All the colleges in my Area do require at least a Masters. Therefore I thought it was a specific requirement.

Therefore, why don’t we just say, truthfully, that we don’t know how life originated? We cannot substantiate any theories, so let’s reserve judgment and not state that we KNOW how life originated. Fair enough?

I can agree I do not know. But I can think what I consider to be correct. Just as you can.

Explanations of the origin of life are beyond my expertise. I do not presume to know how life originated.

However, I disagree with the assumption that “life from non-life cannot happen” that often forms the basis for theistic arguments as though its being “impossible” was known with certainty. That “impossibility” is an opinion, not a fact.

One may state an OPINION that they personally do not think that life can come from non-living matter, but they are NOT entitled to state that as a fact. Likewise, one who is of the opinion that life did originate from non-living matter is also entitled only to an opinion. Neither view has conclusive evidence required to claim their position as fact.

I take no position regarding the development of life or the origin of the universe. My desire to not state a position is based upon recognition of the lack of evidence. My position is that I do not know these things and neither does anyone else, in my opinion (no matter how convinced they may that their favorite theories are factual).

I would agree we are in the area of opinions.

It appears to me as though most people who condemn genetics and evolution have NOT studied the subject formally and do not appear to understand the concepts involved. They seem to have an agenda of defending a religious point of view that is threatened by knowledge of genetics and evolution.

Unfortunately that is often the case. Although there are some with PHD's who do a good job of defending against Macro Evolution.

[Metatron]

Hmm....leave for a couple of months and this thread becomes a debate over evolution, geology, and....aviation???

Intersting, but I'm still curious whether any Christians out there are willing to take a crack at the initial premise of this thread. This was (quoting myself):

Many Christians claim that their God is omnipotent/omniscient. They claim that their God is a god of compassion, love, and mercy. Yet, with all of this, they claim that God punishes all people who do not accept Jesus as their savior with eternal torment in Hell, i.e. the vast majority of mankind numbering into the billions.

What possible compassionate purpose can infinite torture have? The punishment doesn't even serve a remedial purpose because the tormented one is not allowed to repent. It's only conceivable purpose is sadism.

How is this not evil?

To this I would add that the proposition that God is omni-everything makes the notion that man has free will dubious at best. If God conceived of all creation down to the last quark before initiating this creation, I fail to see how free will is possible for man or even God himself. Creation would be immutable by definition from how it was initially conceived. No deviation, however insignificant, is possible from God's preconceived plan therefore free will is an illusion. If free will is an illusion, how can a good God punish people for a preordained result?

Anyone have an argument to make against this?

[samuelbb7]

Howdy Metatron

As you probably know I agree with your premise. I simply disagree that GOD does what is stated by many Christians. The Wages of sin is death not eternal life in torment.

To this I would add that the proposition that God is omni-everything makes the notion that man has free will dubious at best. If God conceived of all creation down to the last quark before initiating this creation, I fail to see how free will is possible for man or even God himself. Creation would be immutable by definition from how it was initially conceived. No deviation, however insignificant, is possible from God's preconceived plan therefore free will is an illusion. If free will is an illusion, how can a good God punish people for a preordained result?

Anyone have an argument to make against this?

Unfortunately there are some Christians who would agree with your analogy and just say because he is GOD and can.

NOw to me preknowledge is not preordination. Some minor examples. If I throw a rock up I know it will come down. I do not make it do so it is following the law of gravity. So if you know enough physics and math then there are many facets of the universe that you can know.

But let us go to humans. If you know a person well you can generally guess what they are going to do in certain situations. This is possible for human beings how much more would it be possible for GOD who knows us better then we know ourselves. It has nothing to do with forcing the people to make the choice.

Did you see the show Minority Report? We can not know what all are going to do. But if we have enough information we can make a good guess. GOD can do much better then we do. That is my view.

[Metatron]

Howdy Metatron

Howdy back.

As you probably know I agree with your premise. I simply disagree that GOD does what is stated by many Christians. The Wages of sin is death not eternal life in torment.

Naturally, the eternal torment part is aimed at the "fire and brimstone" Christians like Easyrider and Biker. I will say that I have a problem with an allegedly good God picking winners and losers (i.e. death vs. eternal life) based primarily on the culture/family they happened to be raised in rather than some objective standard of morality. Moral standards play relatively little part in salvation. Theoretically a Hindu, Buddhist, etc. who lives his/her life as morally as possible loses while someone who lives a morally reprehensible life can come to Christ and be saved. A truly good God would want everyone to have an equal opportunity for salvation.

To this I would add that the proposition that God is omni-everything makes the notion that man has free will dubious at best. If God conceived of all creation down to the last quark before initiating this creation, I fail to see how free will is possible for man or even God himself. Creation would be immutable by definition from how it was initially conceived. No deviation, however insignificant, is possible from God's preconceived plan therefore free will is an illusion. If free will is an illusion, how can a good God punish people for a preordained result?

Anyone have an argument to make against this?

Unfortunately there are some Christians who would agree with your analogy and just say because he is GOD and can.

NOw to me preknowledge is not preordination. Some minor examples. If I throw a rock up I know it will come down. I do not make it do so it is following the law of gravity. So if you know enough physics and math then there are many facets of the universe that you can know.

But let us go to humans. If you know a person well you can generally guess what they are going to do in certain situations. This is possible for human beings how much more would it be possible for GOD who knows us better then we know ourselves. It has nothing to do with forcing the people to make the choice.

Did you see the show Minority Report? We can not know what all are going to do. But if we have enough information we can make a good guess. GOD can do much better then we do. That is my view.

I would agree with you if you postulated that God was nearly omnipotent/omniscient but not truly omni-everything. An omni-everything God knows the exact position of every atom in the universe for all time. His knowledge of future events is not deduced, calculated, etc. He knows with absolute certainty every conceivable variable in space/time before it ever happens. Under those circumstances, free will is impossible.

If God is not omni-everything but rather nearly so then what you state is possible. God could deduce your actions with a high though probably not absolute certainty without having caused them in the first place. State that God is omni-everything however, and God has caused all that will ever happen by definition.

[samuelbb7]

Howdy Metatron

Naturally, the eternal torment part is aimed at the "fire and brimstone" Christians like Easyrider and Biker. I will say that I have a problem with an allegedly good God picking winners and losers (i.e. death vs. eternal life) based primarily on the culture/family they happened to be raised in rather than some objective standard of morality. Moral standards play relatively little part in salvation. Theoretically a Hindu, Buddhist, etc. who lives his/her life as morally as possible loses while someone who lives a morally reprehensible life can come to Christ and be saved. A truly good God would want everyone to have an equal opportunity for salvation.

Now this part I am stepping out on thin ice. I do believe that Moral Standards play a more substantial part in salvation then many are willing to admit. The Jews would say that righteous gentiles will be accepted by GOD. I tend to agree with that and there are a number of statements by some of the founders of my church that make it a debatable topic among us.

I would agree with you if you postulated that God was nearly omnipotent/omniscient but not truly omni-everything. An omni-everything God knows the exact position of every atom in the universe for all time. His knowledge of future events is not deduced, calculated, etc. He knows with absolute certainty every conceivable variable in space/time before it ever happens. Under those circumstances, free will is impossible.

I understand your point but do not agree. But I believe there is enough room to say that I would still follow GOD if it only seemed from His vast knowledge that to me he would be as omniscient. Omnipotent is all powerful and that is different. Being all powerful does not relay knowledge of everything.

If God is not omni-everything but rather nearly so then what you state is possible. God could deduce your actions with a high though probably not absolute certainty without having caused them in the first place. State that God is omni-everything however, and God has caused all that will ever happen by definition.

GOD could still be omnipresent and omnipotent and not cause the problem you mention. It is only omniscient knowing all things now and forever that create the problem you mention. Since I am not perfect nor do I believe the Bible to be perfect it is possible for me to be off on this. I just hope to ask GOD for clarification when I get to talk to him.

[Metatron]

Naturally, the eternal torment part is aimed at the "fire and brimstone" Christians like Easyrider and Biker. I will say that I have a problem with an allegedly good God picking winners and losers (i.e. death vs. eternal life) based primarily on the culture/family they happened to be raised in rather than some objective standard of morality. Moral standards play relatively little part in salvation. Theoretically a Hindu, Buddhist, etc. who lives his/her life as morally as possible loses while someone who lives a morally reprehensible life can come to Christ and be saved. A truly good God would want everyone to have an equal opportunity for salvation.

Now this part I am stepping out on thin ice. I do believe that Moral Standards play a more substantial part in salvation then many are willing to admit. The Jews would say that righteous gentiles will be accepted by GOD. I tend to agree with that and there are a number of statements by some of the founders of my church that make it a debatable topic among us.

Here I suppose I would have to ask what the definition of a "righteous Gentile" is. Does Gandhi like non-Christians get a pass from God? The problem here is that Christians believe that taking Christ as one's savior is the key to salvation. Depending on your particular flavor of Christianity, you might believe that there should be some confirmation of this faith via good works but faith is the ingredient common to the various Christians sects. Thus, it is hard to argue that a person raised in a non-Christian environment is not at a serious disadvantage to someone raised in a Christian home when it comes to their alleged salvation. I fail to see why a truly good God would permit the majority of mankind to continue traveling down the "wrong" path in ignorance. After all, before the coming of Jesus, 99% of the world's population was traveling down the wrong path and, after 2000 years, we still only have perhaps one-third of the world's population self-identifying as Christian. (And many of these Christians don't believe that many of the others count as "True Christians".)

I would agree with you if you postulated that God was nearly omnipotent/omniscient but not truly omni-everything. An omni-everything God knows the exact position of every atom in the universe for all time. His knowledge of future events is not deduced, calculated, etc. He knows with absolute certainty every conceivable variable in space/time before it ever happens. Under those circumstances, free will is impossible.

I understand your point but do not agree.

What would be the basis of your disagreement?

But I believe there is enough room to say that I would still follow GOD if it only seemed from His vast knowledge that to me he would be as omniscient.

I would tend to agree with you here. I had a discussion with a fellow named allensmith (I think) earlier on this thread wherein he stated that a God that was not truly omni-everything would not be worthy of worship. I thought this reasoning odd in that I would think having an entity capable of creating everything that I see around me and granting me immortality would be sufficient for worship regardless of whether the being was technically omniscient, omnipotent, etc. I've never understood why many Christians are so adamant that their God has to be omni-everything. I personally find the notion of an extremely powerful and knowledgable God more comprehensible because the omni-everything version is static and incapable of growth, discovery, or wonder. I can understand the motivation of a God who is still creating, still learning, etc. and who does not already know all of the answers. Creation then becomes about the growth and experience of God. We become God's partner in experiencing the universe not just some cog in the predestined clockwork.

Omnipotent is all powerful and that is different. Being all powerful does not relay knowledge of everything.

I think that this can be debated. You've probably heard the expression knowledge is power. Is it possible to have power over something that you don't know about? We might perhaps speak in terms of effective omnipotence vs. potential omnipotence. If God does not know something exists, he cannot have power over it until he discovers it. If God does not have power over something then he is technically not omnipotent by definition even though he certainly would have power over it when discovered. Thus potential omnipotence implies that he would be omnipotent if he were also omniscient but it remains only potential until omniscience is achieved.

If God is not omni-everything but rather nearly so then what you state is possible. God could deduce your actions with a high though probably not absolute certainty without having caused them in the first place. State that God is omni-everything however, and God has caused all that will ever happen by definition.

GOD could still be omnipresent and omnipotent and not cause the problem you mention. It is only omniscient knowing all things now and forever that create the problem you mention. Since I am not perfect nor do I believe the Bible to be perfect it is possible for me to be off on this. I just hope to ask GOD for clarification when I get to talk to him.

Hmm...not sure how an omnipotent being who is everywhere at once can avoid being omniscient as well. After all he is everywhere and possesses absolute capability of discovery (i.e. nothing can be hidden from him). In my opinion, if one assumes omnipotence, the other omnis largely go hand in hand. One could presumably be omniscient/omnipresent but not omnipotent but it's hard to work it the other direction.

[Flail]

The evil lies not in God, but in Christianity.

Jesus is not a Christian

Turn the churches into soup kitchens

[Metatron]

The evil lies not in God, but in Christianity.

Jesus is not a Christian

Turn the churches into soup kitchens

Is there a heaven or a hell? Does salvation exist and, if so, how is it achieved?
Is Jesus the son of God or just a moral philosopher?