> when you design every aspect of the universe with knowledge of literally every interaction before it will happen, YES IT IS. He designed it in a way he KNEW it would occur intentionally.

No matter who you are or how much you know, knowledge is never causative. If I were your best friend and knew you very well, my knowledge would never make you do anything. If I were clairvoyant and knew your mind, it still wouldn't make you do anything. Even if I were omniscient, it still wouldn't make you do anything. It is not the nature of knowledge to have causative power. God's omniscience just means he can move forward and backward in time to see. But that ability doesn't not mean that because he can see it he made you do it.

> He designed it in a way he KNEW it would occur intentionally.

This is wrong. Because he could see it doesn't mean he caused it. If we were at an ice cream shop and you were trying to decide what flavor to buy, if I could move forward in time 10 minutes to see the results of your choice, I would know but I would not have caused. Knowledge is not causative.

> So he created beings he knew would do (x) by its nature. Then punished them for doing so (like punching a baby for eating fruit you left in front of it. remember at this time they literally did not know right from wrong) and then makes it so you have to believe in a god concept without evidence or go to hell.
Such a brilliant plan.

This way of thinking is so misguided and mistaken I hardly know where to begin. Any being God created would not be God (since God is uncreated). Therefore any created being is vulnerable to less than perfection, since by necessity it's not God. That vulnerability is unavoidable: God cannot create uncreated beings. Therefore what God did was institute a plan to keep them from self-destruction (clear directions and warnings), but also to make right whatever they did with their non-perfection. It was not only the wise plan but also the compassionate one.

Your analogy of punching a baby is absurd. Adam and Eve were adults and morally capable. They were intelligent enough to make the right decisions. There is nothing analogous to their situation with your violent and nonsensical "punching a baby" rhetoric.

> Solution to what? Why is it my job to believe in a god without that evidence because that god made a mistake.

A solution to your necessary imperfection, since you are a created being. A solution was necessary since God couldn't create uncreated beings.

It is your job to recognize the truth and the evidence when it is in front of you. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, and it's your course in life to follow the evidence wherever it leads and to recognize the truth when it presents.

> You cannot add properties to things by adding it to the definition. PROVE your god exists and that he is not a contingent being, otherwise don't make the claim.

That's a different question altogether. The discussion at hand is why we should worship God, not the evidences for the existence of God. That has to be a different post because there is so much evidence for him and so little evidence to refute the arguments for God.

But I've also noticed that biased people aren't convinced by the evidence.

> or he could make them right the first time?

He did make them right the first time. The only thing He could not do was created uncreated gods. Everything else He has provided.

> He created all things intending for them to go they way they do. HE IS THE CAUSE.

He is the cause of their existence, but we are created with free will. We are not determined. It's not possible. Any being that is self-aware is also self-determined.

> Did your god create reality or not?

God is not self-contradictory, and he can not create a self-contradictory reality. He can't create uncreated beings, he can't create married bachelors, and he can't create square circles. If you have evidence from science that dynamic systems can exist without natural disasters, I'll be pleased to see it.

> He can literally change any aspect he wants and make the results anything he wants.

Of course he can't. Some things have to be. He cannot create dynamic worlds without dynamic properties.

> Correct. But knowledge is not causative. Because he can see around the corner doesn't mean he has caused.

when you design every aspect of the universe with knowledge of literally every interaction before it will happen, YES IT IS. He designed it in a way he KNEW it would occur intentionally.

> Correct, and he instituted a plan to make it right

A: So he created beings he knew would do (x) by its nature. Then punished them for doing so (like punching a baby for eating fruit you left in front of it. remember at this time they literally did not know right from wrong) and then makes it so you have to believe in a god concept without evidence or go to hell.

Such a brilliant plan.

> All one has to do is conform to the solution

Solution to what? Why is it my job to believe in a god without that evidence because that god made a mistake.

> What God creates is by necessity less than God, since God is, by definition, uncreated. Anything created is therefore vulnerable

You cannot add properties to things by adding it to the definition. PROVE your god exists and that he is not a contingent being, otherwise don't make the claim.

> God, knowing that humans were not divine, created a solution by which they could find life

or he could make them right the first time? Instead of f***ing with billions of them

> This is a non sequitur. His knowledge is not causative, therefore he is not the root cause. He can't create something uncreated, and therefore he is not the root cause for human beings being less than unbreakable.

He created all things intending for them to go they way they do. HE IS THE CAUSE.

> Prove it. Science would beg to differ. We know no such reality or have any such examples.

Did your god create reality or not? He can literally change any aspect he wants and make the results anything he wants.

Why do you not think through your comments before typing them? You make this way to easy for some one so smug earlier

> Alright. I want to live and love independently from having to include some sort of conscious powerful being which is usually defined as "god" in any shape or form.

That's like saying I want to dive in the pool but I don't want to get wet. God is the source and substance of life. You can't have life apart from God. You want love independently from God, but God is love, and apart from him there is no love. The reason we have love during our lives is because of what we call "common grace." God has invested characteristics of Himself in all of life for the benefit and blessing of all: we all get sunshine and rain, we all have experiences of love, grace, and mercy, we all get to see beautiful things. We all benefit from the orderliness and regularity of creation. These are gifts from God that we all share in common. But now you want love apart from God. It doesn't exist. It's like saying you want light apart from the suns of the universe. Sorry, there isn't any. It's not being cruel, it's the reality of things.

> Your water analogy makes it clear that god is supposedly the universe and existence itself. To be able to do or be anything you have to be "inside" god. Otherwise existence itself is simply not possible.

To some extent this is true. God is creator of all things, and He has put some of his attributes in creation. He is the one who sustains the universe by his power (Heb. 1.3). He is over all, through all, and in all (Eph. 4.6). This isn't blackmail, it's reality. The cosmos is His. He made it, He sustains it, and He pervades it. He gave us the Bible to reveal these things to us. Creation reflects the attributes of God (order, regularity, predictability, beauty, purpose, personality, splendor, and greatness) far more than they reflect the natural processes of chance, accident, and selection via an unintelligent process. The message of the Bible is that you need to open your eyes and your mind to see the truth and accept it. It's there to see, and billions of people have found it.

> What this also means is that to reject existence itself is to become nonexistent. How is that a punishment? Why do you theists have to refer to it as a punishment? You only cause unnecessary stress towards people by doing this.

We only refer to it that way because the Bible does. Since we subscribe to the Bible because the evidences are compelling, then we subscribe to the Bible for its theology as well.

> I'm fine with living and loving beause I exist as part of the universe

You're living on what I would call "borrowed capital." You're taking theistic ideas and living by them, even though you have no foundation to do so if you don't subscribe to theism. For instance, if we're just an agglomeration of chemicals, then we're just that and nothing more. We can't talk of right and wrong or purpose or meaning, because we're just chemicals that came about through unintelligent processes. If we're just bio-chemicals that evolved, then personality, purpose, and morality just don't make sense. They're not part of the system.

But you want the life and love part without the One who gave it to you. You admit to the life and love part when naturalism gives you no such thing.

> Especially if it is claimed that he is all good.

As I mentioned previously, those who see him as not good have been deceived by lousy exegesis and interpretation of Scripture and haven't dug deeply enough to discern the truth. We can talk more as you wish.

> If he was simply indifferent and had nothing to do with us that would be fine.

Yeah, but that's impossible. Since He is personal and He is love, it would be contrary to His nature to be indifferent and aloof. God can't be self-contradictory, as nothing can. It's the reality of things.

Alright. I want to live and love independently from having to include some sort of conscious powerful being which is usually defined as "god" in any shape or form.

Your water analogy makes it clear that god is supposedly the universe and existence itself. To be able to do or be anything you have to be "inside" god. Otherwise existence itself is simply not possible.

This is blackmailing.

What this also means is that to reject existence itself is to become nonexistent. How is that a punishment? Why do you theists have to refer to it as a punishment? You only cause unnecessary stress towards people by doing this.

I'm fine with living and loving beause I exist as part of the universe, but if that universe also happens to somehow be a conscious entity called "god" I find it morally dishonest to have anything to do with him. Especially if it is claimed that he is all good. If he was simply indifferent and had nothing to do with us that would be fine.

> God knew all things in advance

Correct. But knowledge is not causative. Because he can see around the corner doesn't mean he has caused.

> He created humans knowing they would sin.

Correct, and he instituted a plan to make it right. All one has to do is conform to the solution. Carmakers create vehicles they know will break down. So they make replacement parts and train servicemen. All you have to do is conform to the solution and you can keep your car humming for a long time.

Things breaking down is inevitable. What God creates is by necessity less than God, since God is, by definition, uncreated. Anything created is therefore vulnerable. That doesn't mean it was created poorly; it means it is not divine, and anything not divine is less than perfect, and therefore vulnerable. So God, knowing that humans were not divine, created a solution by which they could find life. All we need to do is conform to the solution. Bingo.

> He's literally the root cause.

This is a non sequitur. His knowledge is not causative, therefore he is not the root cause. He can't create something uncreated, and therefore he is not the root cause for human beings being less than unbreakable.

> Dynamic systems can exist without natural disasters

Prove it. Science would beg to differ. We know no such reality or have any such examples.

God knew all things in advance
He created humans knowing they would sin.
He's literally the root cause.
Dynamic systems can exist without natural disasters

> If you found someone you want to love but they don't want to love you back (and it's not that they hate you, they are only indifferent towards you), is there justification to punish them?

I'm glad you're staying in the conversation. You've missed the point of what the Bible is saying. God is life. To be with God is to have life. If you don't want to be with God, there's only one possible consequence: non-life. God is love. To be with God is to have love. If you don't want to be with God, there's only one alternative: to be without love.

Suppose we were at poolside and I invited you to come swim. You said, "I don't want to get wet." OK, the only possible state then is that you stay dry.

You are not being punished for not loving back. You are instead choosing to exclude yourself from life and love. The only possible state, if you reject life and love, is non-life and non-love. Your "punishment" is the experience and status you have chosen.

You seem to think God is whacking you unfairly, when what is actually happening is that you are choosing death and isolation and then blaming God for punishing you.

> What if this person you want to love finds your past actions disgusting? Does that allow you to punish them?

Then you have fallen into the common misunderstanding characteristic of people who haven't probed deeply enough to discover what's really going on in the Bible. God hasn't done anything disgusting. There is more to the story than there seems on the surface.

> If this person wants to live his or her own life without any contact from you, does it call for punishment?

Suppose you choose to live your life without contact from food or water, and you blame another entity for punishing you? No. You have brought about the consequences yourself by your own choices. No one needs to punish you; decisions have ramifications.

If you found someone you want to love but they don't want to love you back (and it's not that they hate you, they are only indifferent towards you), is there justification to punish them?

What if this person you want to love finds your past actions disgusting? Does that allow you to punish them?

If this person wants to live his or her own life without any contact from you, does it call for punishment?

> Do you believe that God tortures people for all eternity for disbelief or for failing to accept Jesus as their savior?

Not necessarily. There are different viewpoints on it (reconciliationism, semi-restorationism, annihilationism) that claim that the only people who will be punished for all eternity are the ones who continue in their rebellion against God for all eternity.

> There are many who escape justice, that's why I mentioned the "here and now". Most of us work hard to hold all people accountable for their actions. Justice, like ethics, is our responsibility.

I agree. But where we have failed, God will not. After death there will be an authentic judgment that won't let such evil people off with a hand slap.

> Don't mistake my terse answer with me "making light".

OK

> "He has complete power over nature..." but not over plate tectonics and earthquakes? Doesn't that seem a bit of an arbitrary limitation?

He has power over it, but it was created to operate, to do what it was designed to do. What God does *not* do is cause each eruption, determining where and when and to what extent. Nature was designed to function, and it does.

> So God just isn't interesting in creating an earthquake and tsunami free world?

Again, this sounds like belittling. Earthquakes (and the occasional tsunamis that result from them) have an important role to play in the proper functioning of the planet. A dynamic world is not only superior to a static one, but is also necessary for life as we know it.

> What's your justification for these conclusions?

What the Bible says about God, and using the principles of logic.

> Who or what defined time like this? Is Time defined independently of God?

We are still figuring out what time is and how it works. It turns out it's not a constant, it may be a dimension, and some recent observations of black holes are turning our ideas of time on their heads. Is time independent of God? Yes. God is not defined by time, and time is not defined by God. Time is something God ordered to function the way it does (Day 1 of creation, Gn. 1.3-5), and so it does.

> So God is omnipotent but has no free will?

No, that's a non sequitur. Any being that is self-aware is therefore also self-directed. And any being that is self-directed has free will.

> Who or what defined centripetal, wind, and force, and made it fundamentally different than neutrino bombardment?

God, as creator, did. Without diversity there could be no subject-object relationship, and therefore creation would be impossible. Without diversity personality would be impossible. There would be no foundation for knowledge, love, morality, or ethics. Ultimate reality would be a bare unity about which nothing could be said.

> You are in error if you think God is punishing unfairly or just to get his licks in. That's not a position the Bible advocates or teaches.

Do you believe that God tortures people for all eternity for disbelief or for failing to accept Jesus as their savior?

> "There's accountability in the here and now." I disagree. Hitler did what he did and then suicided. That's not a fair punishment for his atrocities. Stalin died at the ripe old age of 74, having lived out his full life after executing up to 20 million Russians. What accountability and punishment was that? Idi Amin was exiled to Saudi Arabia and lived out the rest of his life in comfort, dying in his late 70s. His only accountability and punishment was being removed from his own country, but he never got justice for his atrocities.

There are many who escape justice, that's why I mentioned the "here and now". Most of us work hard to hold all people accountable for their actions. Justice, like ethics, is our responsibility.

> You're making light of a terrible reality.

Don't mistake my terse answer with me "making light".

> No ability to think, no ability to love or receive love, no human traits available for you to even appreciate how painless life is. You wouldn't even know. We'd all be robotic morons with no semblance of personality, thoughts, or emotions.

Very much so! Such a condition would be like death for all of humanity. I weigh that state as preferable to the suffering of the innumerable children that died in fear and agony over the eons.

> Omnipotence doesn’t mean there are no limits to what God can do (Mk. 6.5). ... He has complete power over nature, though often he lets nature take its course, because that’s what He created it to do.

"He has complete power over nature..." but not over plate tectonics and earthquakes? Doesn't that seem a bit of an arbitrary limitation?

> What omnipotence means is that God’s will is never frustrated. What he chooses to do, he accomplishes, for he has the ability to do it.

So God just isn't interesting in creating an earthquake and tsunami free world?

> There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of God. God can't just "do anything." That's not what omnipotence is. He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatever we may conceive of in our imagination.

> He can’t do what is logically absurd or contradictory (like make a square circle or a married bachelor) He can’t act contrary to his nature. Self-contradiction is not possible. He can only be self-consistent, and not self-contradictory. He cannot fail to do what he has promised. That would mean God is flawed.

What's your justification for these conclusions?

> He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. If God can override human free will, then we are not free at all.
> He cannot change the past. Time by definition is linear in one direction only.

Who or what defined time like this? Is Time defined independently of God?

> Leibniz & Ross philosophically state omnipotence in what’s called a “result” theory: theories that analyze omnipotence in terms of the results an omnipotent being would be able to bring about. These results are usually thought of as states of affairs or possible worlds: a way the world could be. A possible world is a maximally consistent state of affairs, a complete way the world could be. The simplest way to state it may be, “for any comprehensive way the world could be, an omnipotent being could bring it about that the world was that way.” Ross formulated it as “Since every state of affairs must either obtain or not, and since two contradictory states of affairs cannot both obtain, an omnipotent being would have to will some maximal consistent set of contingent states of affairs, that is, some one possible world.”

"...omnipotent being would have to will..."

> In other words, the existence of earthquakes are not a denial or negation of God's omnipotence.

So God is omnipotent but has no free will?

> Tornado, by definition, can't be the same way. A tornado is centripetal wind force, not neutrino bombardment. Ah, diversity in nature.

Who or what defined centripetal, wind, and force, and made it fundamentally different than neutrino bombardment?