Why did the Hebrew God Create Carnivores.

[Diogenes]

Most of the arguments against the idea of a loving god who created the planet Earth and its creatures are so obvious they occur to a child. One of them is, 'Why would a caring, loving god create a world where so many organisms can only survive only by killing and eating others? Christians usually fall back on the old "Original Sin" argument, that everything was perfect until "The Fall."

Is "The Fall" a reasonable argument to explain the existence of God-created organisms that can only survive by tearing the flesh off other organisms? . . . or by consuming and torturing them to death like brainless cancer cells, viruses and bacteria?

When God made his creation and called it 'good.' then called it evil and drowned 99.9999 percent of his 'creation,' why didn't that 'New Start' fix everything? Wouldn't an omnipotent and omniscient God have known all this would transpire before 'He' created the first clod of earth, the first drop of water, the first atom of 'the firmament?'

[William]

When God made his creation and called it 'good.' then called it evil and drowned 99.9999 percent of his 'creation,' why didn't that 'New Start' fix everything?

Why do you believe a world with death and consumption is an evil one?

According to the storyline, death and consumption were already elements of life in earth. If "evil" was declared, then it wasn't declared of death and consumption.

The 'New Start' wasn't meant to "fix" death and consumption.

AI Overview
Noah and the Genesis Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society
The biblical flood story, found in Genesis 6-9, describes God's decision to destroy a corrupt world with a global flood due to humanity's wickedness, sparing only the righteous Noah, his family, and pairs of every land animal aboard a specially built ark, which eventually landed on Mount Ararat, leading to a covenant where God promised never to destroy the Earth by flood again, symbolized by the rainbow. This narrative highlights themes of divine judgment, salvation, faith, and renewal, and shares similarities with older Mesopotamian flood myths, like the Epic of Gilgamesh, suggesting cultural influence, say scholars on Wikipedia.

Historical Context & Comparisons
Mesopotamian Myths: The biblical story closely parallels flood narratives in older Mesopotamian epics, like the [Link: Sumerian Utnapishtim story https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-me ... lood-story] and the Epic of Gilgamesh, suggesting shared cultural origins.
Scholarly Views: While some believe it describes a real, global event, others see it as influenced by ancient Near Eastern traditions, with elements appearing in other cultures' myths (e.g., Greek Deucalion, Hindu Manu).

Wouldn't an omnipotent and omniscient God have known all this would transpire before 'He' created the first clod of earth, the first drop of water, the first atom of 'the firmament?'

The idea of an omnipotent and omniscient God seems to have come with the advent of Christianity. This because, I find no evidence in the stories of the Hebrews that make declarations that the god is omnipotent and omniscient in the sense that Cultural Christianity later inserted...

AI Overview
Your observation has merit: the explicit philosophical concepts of God being limitlessly omnipotent and omniscient in an abstract sense were largely formalized by later Christian and medieval Jewish theologians using Greek philosophical categories, rather than being explicitly defined in the narrative style of the Hebrew Bible itself.

[POI]

Question we are exploring: Assuming theism, is the animal suffering present in our world unnecessary and gratuitous? Thanks for exploring this with me, POI.

Here's where I am with it Tanager... This topic is nothing more than a mere thought experiment, much like exploring if Santa Claus really possesses X, Y, or Z. But it is somewhat interesting to explore, so I thought I'd throw my hat in the ring and see what sticks. My gut tells me that the answer to the above question is 'yes,' But I am certainly open to revision. If it should turn out that logic points to a 'yes', then Christians may have some 'explaining' to do. If instead the answer is 'no', then I have yet to see THE answer as to why God created carnivores? What is your position, at present? Inquiring minds want to know. Let the exploring resume....

I was thinking of the former sense. I'm not sure if I understand the latter. I do think God's reasoning would always be sound, if that is what you mean.

Okay, so it seems to be the former and also the latter. This means that nothing should be illogical at all, and if we humans sight anything at all (about or regarding) the concept of the Christian god, which 'appears' illogical, we humans are actually at fault and not god. Is that your position?

I do believe God has those attributes defined as something like:

omnibenevolence - being morally perfect, always willing and doing what is morally right

omnipotence - the ability to do anything that is logically possible

omniscience - knowing all truths and believing no falsehoods...omniscience doesn't necessarily include knowing the future because if the future doesn't exist there is no truth to be known (although I currently lean towards God knowing the future) or experiential knowledge (what it feels like to be me or you, for instance).

omnipresence - being present everywhere...omnipresence could be attained through different ways, such as spatial extension (which I don't think God has) as well as knowing everything that occurs at every point in space and causally sustaining everything that exists there (which I do think describes God).

Noted. Thanks. We'll jump into this later, as these stated attributes seem to directly impact the topic.

First, I don't think animal suffering is a consequence of the fall (in the sense of initiating it),

1) Then why does animal suffering exist?
2) Did animal suffering exist prior to 'the fall'?
3) According to your understanding, when approximately did the fall' take place (i.e.- a few thousand years ago, other)?

but I included it because the claim we are analyzing requires rebutting many things and I could be wrong on this front. I agree that your reading of Genesis leads to some problems; I just think your interpretation is wrong.

Is free will required in this topic, or not? If so, why do you believe we have true 'free will'? If not, why do you think the topic of 'free will' is not necessary to explore, regarding this topic matter? Can you more-so explain what you are insinuating here?

Second (to answer your question, as it has ramifications beyond if the fall caused animal suffering to begin) free will can be defined as something like: the ability to choose between genuinely available alternatives in a way that isn't determined by prior causes or sufficient conditions.

Okay. This may be fun to explore in some sort of way if Christianity isn't true. But how might one think they have 'free will' under Christianity? The classic dictionary definition of "free will" is "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."

The burden would be on the one making the claim we are analyzing to show free will does not exist, if they think that must be done to maintain the claim.

Under Christianity, you have no "free will", as you are propositioned to perform (X,Y,Z), or else.. If we are not under such a system, then we can talk I guess. As this relates to the question of "is it necessary to have animals suffer?", do animals have the ability to decide, which then gives them the chance to go to a "good place" or a "bad place"?

(Here is the rest of post 29):

a) If such a god is 'omni', then god already knew "the fall" was later going to be a thing and decided to create it anyways? (Food for thought) -- In most theological and philosophical definitions, omniscience (all-knowing) includes complete knowledge of the past, present, and future, often explained by an omniscient being existing outside of time, allowing them to see all moments simultaneously, including future free choices. This knowledge doesn't necessarily negate free will, as the being knows what will happen because of choices made, not necessarily by controlling them.

b) And speaking of 'logic', an 'omni' god logically would not "punish" a sentient agency, let alone all the rest of his creation who (did not) break the said instruction, (who lacked ability to know "right from wrong" at the time they broke the command), would he? To do so anyways, lays question to the word "justice" itself, and what this word/concept actually means to the Bible God? According to the Hebrew Bible God, what is "justice", as it relates to punishing unaware sentient agents, and also punishing others who did not even commit the unwanted act to begin with?

c) And why make the punishment "turning many into carnivores" as opposed to something else or only punishing to the one who actually committed the crime?

d) (Somewhat asked above) --And when did 'the fall' actually happen, a few thousand years or ago, or other? I mean, the dinosaurs were extinct way before humans ever came onto the scene. And yet, they already were eating each other. Doesn't this basic observation defy basic logic alone?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #32]

a) If such a god is 'omni', then god already knew "the fall" was later going to be a thing and decided to create it anyways? (Food for thought) -- In most theological and philosophical definitions, omniscience (all-knowing) includes complete knowledge of the past, present, and future, often explained by an omniscient being existing outside of time, allowing them to see all moments simultaneously, including future free choices. This knowledge doesn't necessarily negate free will, as the being knows what will happen because of choices made, not necessarily by controlling them.

If this would be the case then what we have here is something that has already happened...and the God-entity is simply accessing that whole happening as a single event which it can access any point along the timeline from its beginning to its end.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #32]

Here's where I am with it Tanager... This topic is nothing more than a mere thought experiment, much like exploring if Santa Claus really possesses X, Y, or Z. But it is somewhat interesting to explore, so I thought I'd throw my hat in the ring and see what sticks. My gut tells me that the answer to the above question is 'yes,' But I am certainly open to revision. If it should turn out that logic points to a 'yes', then Christians may have some 'explaining' to do. If instead the answer is 'no', then I have yet to see THE answer as to why God created carnivores? What is your position, at present? Inquiring minds want to know. Let the exploring resume....

I respect that.

Here is where I am at. I see no reason to believe that creating carnivores is necessarily evil. And if there is no good reason to believe that (and no support has seemingly even been offered here), then there is no reason to fault the thought experiment God for creating carnivores. One need not accept any particular explanation on why creating carnivores is actually good (if it is) to reach that conclusion. Those with no reason to accept the reasons theists offer in defense of God being good by creating a world that leads to carnivores, should still be agnostic.

I’m currently not agnostic on this issue, though. I believe that a finite, embodied world like ours necessarily seems to involve competition for limited resources, entropy and decay, organisms living by transforming other life/energy. Our environment naturally gives rise to predation and , therefore, carnivores are not evil for participating in that system that sustains life and the wonderful aspects of that kind of life that are clearly good. Additionally, I think this kind of environment is part of what makes moral agency meaningful for those beings that have it. Thus, I don’t think God would be evil for creating such a world that contains carnivores.

Okay, so it seems to be the former and also the latter. This means that nothing should be illogical at all, and if we humans sight anything at all (about or regarding) the concept of the Christian god, which 'appears' illogical, we humans are actually at fault and not god. Is that your position?

If God exists and is logical, then, yes, we would be at fault. But if something is truly illogical, this would be proof against the concept of God that was being proposed as true.

1) Then why does animal suffering exist?
2) Did animal suffering exist prior to 'the fall'?
3) According to your understanding, when approximately did the fall' take place (i.e.- a few thousand years ago, other)?

I answered (1) above. (2) I do believe animal suffering existed before the fall. (3) I think the original humans could be from homo heidelbergensis, which would place the fall hundreds of thousands of years ago, but I say that tentatively.

but I included it because the claim we are analyzing requires rebutting many things and I could be wrong on this front. I agree that your reading of Genesis leads to some problems; I just think your interpretation is wrong.

Is free will required in this topic, or not? If so, why do you believe we have true 'free will'? If not, why do you think the topic of 'free will' is not necessary to explore, regarding this topic matter? Can you more-so explain what you are insinuating here?

I do think free will is important to explore on this issue, especially for those who want to say animal suffering is gratuitous because some proposed explanations of animal suffering posit the existence of free will. Those making the claim would have the burden of showing free will doesn’t exist, if that is part of their case. So, if you want to go down that route, you need to share why you think determinism is true.

My offered explanation doesn’t seem to me to require the existence of free will (although I do believe it exists).

Under Christianity, you have no "free will", as you are propositioned to perform (X,Y,Z), or else.. If we are not under such a system, then we can talk I guess.

Why do you think Christianity leaves no room for free will?

(Here is the rest of post 29):

a) If such a god is 'omni', then god already knew "the fall" was later going to be a thing and decided to create it anyways? (Food for thought) -- In most theological and philosophical definitions, omniscience (all-knowing) includes complete knowledge of the past, present, and future, often explained by an omniscient being existing outside of time, allowing them to see all moments simultaneously, including future free choices. This knowledge doesn't necessarily negate free will, as the being knows what will happen because of choices made, not necessarily by controlling them.

My response to this was the “I agree that your reading of Genesis leads to some problems; I just think your interpretation is wrong” bit. I didn’t go further because I already said I don’t think animal suffering was the result of the fall, but I can expand on that.

Yes, omniscience wouldn’t negate free will. If the future is something to be known (say, because, God is timeless), then an omniscient God would know what results from His choice to create and do it anyway. But even if God didn’t know what would happen, God would at least have known what could happen and took the risk anyway and should be held accountable to that choice. My claim is that such a choice wasn’t an evil one. I’m not sure how this challenges that.

b) And speaking of 'logic', an 'omni' god logically would not "punish" a sentient agency, let alone all the rest of his creation who (did not) break the said instruction, (who lacked ability to know "right from wrong" at the time they broke the command), would he? To do so anyways, lays question to the word "justice" itself, and what this word/concept actually means to the Bible God? According to the Hebrew Bible God, what is "justice", as it relates to punishing unaware sentient agents, and also punishing others who did not even commit the unwanted act to begin with?

c) And why make the punishment "turning many into carnivores" as opposed to something else or only punishing to the one who actually committed the crime?

Why do you think this is the proper reading of Genesis?

[POI]

I believe that a finite, embodied world like ours necessarily seems to involve competition for limited resources, entropy and decay, organisms living by transforming other life/energy. Our environment naturally gives rise to predation and , therefore, carnivores are not evil for participating in that system that sustains life and the wonderful aspects of that kind of life that are clearly good.

Since this claimed god can create any environment, (he so chooses), why must god necessarily create a system which is finite and limited in resources? Further, why MUST this competition for limited resources also involve the consumption of other's flesh -- (which includes conscious suffrage of other sentient agent(s)? Competition could include the hunt for limited resources, without also including certain types of suffering, such as the ripping, and/or the tearing, and/or asphyxiation, and/or slow "torture" of other sentient agents until their death, right? Alternatively, couldn't an 'omni' god, who could create any scenario he so chooses, create a world where all animals are herbivores, or, even yet, are not required or necessary to eat anything at all for survival?

Additionally, I think this kind of environment is part of what makes moral agency meaningful for those beings that have it. Thus, I don’t think God would be evil for creating such a world that contains carnivores.

Theists can make a case for why humans suffer, such as "free will", 'theodicy', etc... But why do animals suffer?

******************************************************

If God exists and is logical, then, yes, we would be at fault. But if something is truly illogical, this would be proof against the concept of God that was being proposed as true.

I added a (***divider***) above, because this part veers off onto other topic(s). Skeptics can bring up all sorts of apparent "illogical" stuff, as it is presented from the Bible. Theists can merely handwave them away and say, (paraphrased) - "god's ways are higher than ours," in the face of one of these identified observations. Therefore, no matter what "illogical observation" is brought forth, the theist can just say, (paraphrase) - "since god is completely logical, you have to be wrong in your observed assessment, if you should conclude that a Biblical proposition is illogical." So, why bother even attempting to identify something "truly illogical"?

Why do you think Christianity leaves no room for free will?

I already explained. Allow me to explain further. By basic definition of the term 'free will', your will is not free. If many are not to accept Jesus's offered proposition, many are to alternatively accept an unwanted consequence -- (created exclusively by the claimed almighty himself). Then please look up the term "coercion".

I'll leave the rest alone....

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #35]

...couldn't an 'omni' god, who could create any scenario he so chooses, create a world where...

Why would an omni-omni entity create anything?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #35]

Since this claimed god can create any environment, (he so chooses), why must god necessarily create a system which is finite and limited in resources? Further, why MUST this competition for limited resources also involve the consumption of other's flesh -- (which includes conscious suffrage of other sentient agent(s)? Competition could include the hunt for limited resources, without also including certain types of suffering, such as the ripping, and/or the tearing, and/or asphyxiation, and/or slow "torture" of other sentient agents until their death, right? Alternatively, couldn't an 'omni' god, who could create any scenario he so chooses, create a world where all animals are herbivores, or, even yet, are not required or necessary to eat anything at all for survival?

It is your burden first to show that suffering, in and of itself (or even a particular kind of suffering) is an evil. Yes, it is unpleasant, but why is perfect comfort the ultimate good? You have the burden to show that God could create a world without suffering without losing the overall purpose of having free, material creatures willingly join into a loving community that creates a good world. Asking questions and expecting the other side to refute you is not carrying that burden but shifting it.

[quote=POI post_id=1181645 time=1767634837 user_id=15695
I added a (***divider***) above, because this part veers off onto other topic(s). Skeptics can bring up all sorts of apparent "illogical" stuff, as it is presented from the Bible. Theists can merely handwave them away and say, (paraphrased) - "god's ways are higher than ours," in the face of one of these identified observations. Therefore, no matter what "illogical observation" is brought forth, the theist can just say, (paraphrase) - "since god is completely logical, you have to be wrong in your observed assessment, if you should conclude that a Biblical proposition is illogical." So, why bother even attempting to identify something "truly illogical"?[/quote]

Yes, a theist could do that, but they wouldn't be Biblical and rational in doing so. I hate it when fellow theists use this line.

First, it misinterprets Isaiah 55:9, which is about how we don't act justly/righteously (while God does). It has nothing to do with God's attributes being beyond logic.

Second, if the Biblical God exists, God is logical because anything that exists must be logical. If something shows this concept of God to be logically incoherent, then this concept of God cannot exist in reality. There are no "ways" high enough to overcome that. And it is not rational to face those claims with "sorry, God can't be illogical, so I must be right."

Why do you think Christianity leaves no room for free will?

I already explained. Allow me to explain further. By basic definition of the term 'free will', your will is not free. If many are not to accept Jesus's offered proposition, many are to alternatively accept an unwanted consequence -- (created exclusively by the claimed almighty himself). Then please look up the term "coercion".

I'll leave the rest alone....

First, a general point. We don't necessarily consider the consequences of our choices when we make them. We make them without considering the consequences or hoping the consequences won't apply or not caring about the consequences. Our choices have consequences even if we don't like them.

Second, a more specific point. You are assuming Biblical Christianity to make this critique, so I am in my response as well. Hell is not an additional punishment thrown on top of people breaking commandments or rejecting God (and therefore rejecting what omniscience knows is good for us and omnibenevolence wants for us). If God wants people freely joining a loving community with him and others where we need His wisdom to guide us into goodness (heaven) and they refuse, then the only logical option is that they aren't with God and aren't benefitting from His wisdom and, if left in this place, will go about creating a community replacing goodness and love or be taken out of existence (hell).

[POI]

Thought experiment...

A parasite slowly feasts on a living host/animal until it dies a slow and agonizing death, (out in the wild), while no one with sentient abilities ever witnesses this action. What is the point? If the victim/host's fate is only a finite death, then why did it need to suffer by way of being slowing eaten from the inside? My position is that nature demonstrates that a mindless world exists, as there is no apparent "purpose" or "reason" for this action to take place -- (from a theological perspective) -- since the victim dies, and that's it. It is instead just nature. The theist must attempt to "justify" why this particular animal's suffering was absolutely necessary, while appealing to the likes of the Christian Bible god?

[Replying to POI in post #35]

Since this claimed god can create any environment, (he so chooses), why must god necessarily create a system which is finite and limited in resources? Further, why MUST this competition for limited resources also involve the consumption of other's flesh -- (which includes conscious suffrage of other sentient agent(s)? Competition could include the hunt for limited resources, without also including certain types of suffering, such as the ripping, and/or the tearing, and/or asphyxiation, and/or slow "torture" of other sentient agents until their death, right? Alternatively, couldn't an 'omni' god, who could create any scenario he so chooses, create a world where all animals are herbivores, or, even yet, are not required or necessary to eat anything at all for survival?

It is your burden first to show that suffering, in and of itself (or even a particular kind of suffering) is an evil.

Well, under a Christian worldview, evil suffering is generally seen as suffering caused by "sin", "rebellion against God", and the "fallen state" of the world, encompassing both moral evil -- (wicked human actions like murder, war, cruelty) and natural evil -- (disasters, disease, death) resulting from "humanity's fall", all considered a departure from God's intended goodness, even though God can bring good from suffering.

1) The above assumes there exists both A) acceptable or necessary suffering (vs) B) unacceptable or unnecessary suffering. Alternatively, in a godless world, both A) and B) would appear to sometimes exist randomly -- (based upon the opinion(s) of cognitive sentient observers - humans). -- Reference the thought experiment above.

2) Further, we are referencing the suffering of animals, not humans. Under the Christian worldview, why do animals suffer at all? Your given answer, so far, was already addressed above, and also by William, in that an 'omni' god can do anything he so chooses. This would include William's question as to why an 'omni' god would decide to create anything at all? You stated in post 30 -- "although I currently lean towards God knowing the future..." WHY is creating a finite and limited world the best and/or most loving plan, especially when such an 'omni' god already knows the future?

3) Re-asked -- Since this claimed god can create any environment, (he so chooses), why must god necessarily create a system which is finite and limited in resources? Further, why MUST this competition for limited resources also involve the consumption of other's flesh -- (which includes conscious suffrage of other sentient agent(s)? Competition could include the hunt for limited resources, without also including certain types of suffering, such as the ripping, and/or the tearing, and/or asphyxiation, and/or slow "torture" of other sentient agents until their death, right? Alternatively, couldn't an 'omni' god, who could create any scenario he so chooses, create a world where all animals are herbivores, or, even yet, are not required or necessary to eat anything at all for survival?

Yes, it is unpleasant, but why is perfect comfort the ultimate good? You have the burden to show that God could create a world without suffering without losing the overall purpose of having free, material creatures willingly join into a loving community that creates a good world. Asking questions and expecting the other side to refute you is not carrying that burden but shifting it.

I've already addressed this concern. Do these animals possess theodicy, freewill, get a chance to be redeemed, etc? I do not think so. If so, prove it. Since you agree animals truly do experience suffering, under your worldview, you must account for why they suffer. Further, why all their suffering is necessary?

Yes, a theist could do that, but they wouldn't be Biblical and rational in doing so. I hate it when fellow theists use this line. First, it misinterprets Isaiah 55:9, which is about how we don't act justly/righteously (while God does). It has nothing to do with God's attributes being beyond logic.

Second, if the Biblical God exists, God is logical because anything that exists must be logical. If something shows this concept of God to be logically incoherent, then this concept of God cannot exist in reality. There are no "ways" high enough to overcome that. And it is not rational to face those claims with "sorry, God can't be illogical, so I must be right."

Then I only need to point out one logical contradiction, from the Bible, to disprove the Bible god then, right?

First, a general point. We don't necessarily consider the consequences of our choices when we make them. We make them without considering the consequences or hoping the consequences won't apply or not caring about the consequences. Our choices have consequences even if we don't like them.

Below is classic definition of coercion, under the Christian worldview:

Mark 16 - 15 And he said to them, ‘Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. 16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

Second, a more specific point. You are assuming Biblical Christianity to make this critique, so I am in my response as well. Hell is not an additional punishment thrown on top of people breaking commandments or rejecting God (and therefore rejecting what omniscience knows is good for us and omnibenevolence wants for us). If God wants people freely joining a loving community with him and others where we need His wisdom to guide us into goodness (heaven) and they refuse, then the only logical option is that they aren't with God and aren't benefitting from His wisdom and, if left in this place, will go about creating a community replacing goodness and love or be taken out of existence (hell).

"Believe in me or else" is coercion. See above.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #38]

2) Further, we are referencing the suffering of animals, not humans. Under the Christian worldview, why do animals suffer at all? Your given answer, so far, was already addressed above, and also by William, in that an 'omni' god can do anything he so chooses.

And I've responded that a vague 'surely god could figure a way out, so prove otherwise' isn't enough and is actually shifting the burden. You need to show why a specific alternative that still gets the things Christians say God is after is possible. If you have none (and no one here has offered one for us to even look at), and don’t accept the Christian explanations, then you should be agnostic on the issue.

This would include William's question as to why an 'omni' god would decide to create anything at all? You stated in post 30 -- "although I currently lean towards God knowing the future..." WHY is creating a finite and limited world the best and/or most loving plan, especially when such an 'omni' god already knows the future?

The purpose of God creating is not for His knowledge’s sake, but for the sake of what is created?

Then I only need to point out one logical contradiction, from the Bible, to disprove the Bible god then, right?

Yes.

Below is classic definition of coercion, under the Christian worldview:

Mark 16 - 15 And he said to them, ‘Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. 16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

...

"Believe in me or else" is coercion. See above.[/quote]

A company offers you a job with requirements to accepting the position (such as a certain salary, certain hours, etc.) You have the choice to accept or to look elsewhere for work. Your choice will have consequences either way. That's not coercion. Why is this any different?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #38]

2) Further, we are referencing the suffering of animals, not humans. Under the Christian worldview, why do animals suffer at all? Your given answer, so far, was already addressed above, and also by William, in that an 'omni' god can do anything he so chooses.

And I've responded that a vague 'surely god could figure a way out, so prove otherwise' isn't enough and is actually shifting the burden. You need to show why a specific alternative that still gets the things Christians say God is after is possible. If you have none (and no one here has offered one for us to even look at), and don’t accept the Christian explanations, then you should be agnostic on the issue.

This would include William's question as to why an 'omni' god would decide to create anything at all? You stated in post 30 -- "although I currently lean towards God knowing the future..." WHY is creating a finite and limited world the best and/or most loving plan, especially when such an 'omni' god already knows the future?

The purpose of God creating is not for His knowledge’s sake, but for the sake of what is created?

Then I only need to point out one logical contradiction, from the Bible, to disprove the Bible god then, right?

Yes.

Below is classic definition of coercion, under the Christian worldview:

Mark 16 - 15 And he said to them, ‘Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. 16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

...

"Believe in me or else" is coercion. See above.

A company offers you a job with requirements to accepting the position (such as a certain salary, certain hours, etc.) You have the choice to accept or to look elsewhere for work. Your choice will have consequences either way. That's not coercion. Why is this any different?
[/quote]