> God's perfect ability to see and make things for the future dictates

You're already off the mark. God has not made things for the future. He made free agents who are not determined, and He can see what they choose to do in their situations because He is not looking from the past, watching the carpet that He created unroll the way He created it (a false understanding). Instead, as the Bible teaches, He created free agents to regulate their own decisions, and because He can see it from the perspective of a time-traveller, so to speak, He knows, because He can see, not because He dictated it, what it will look like. He didn't make it the way it rolls out; it rolls out the way people decide every minute to roll it out. It's just that He can see it. It does not roll out the way God wanted it to—the Bible is quite clear about that in many, many places. Therefore by the end of your 3rd sentence, you have made numerous theological and logical errors. But we've been over this. It's getting repetitive.

> If God is perfect than nothing can change what he wants to have happen.

Wrong. God's perfection has nothing to do with determining human behavior, which He hasn't done. Lots of things change what He wants to have happen. Therefore your first premise is false.

> If the future is set for us because of God's action in 'making' us for this future.

Your second premise is also false. The future is not set. Jeremiah 18.1-12. We are free agents. God has not determined our thoughts and behavior.

> Thereby we have no 'free will' to change the future God saw for us.

This is false also. We have all the free will in the world.

> Ergo, no free will.

Therefore your first conclusion is false. Nothing about what you are saying is taught in the Bible. Nothing.

> Ergo, God made us broken from what the bible says he wants.

Therefore your final conclusion is false. Virtually everything you have said is untrue when it comes to biblical teaching. Hey, you're welcome to believe whatever you want, but just don't attribute it to the Bible, to God, or to biblical theology.

> We might get somewhere on free will if you answer my question about being hypnotized: "Hypothetically, if everyone were hypnotized to wave at red heads. We would all think of it as normal behavior. How is it that you would know if you were hypnotized or you were doing it of your own 'free will'?"

Because your hypothetical situation contrasts the picture of reality (1) that we are able to discern from our experiences, and (2) that the Bible talks about. This isn't "The Matrix." The picture the Bible gives of reality is that we have not been coerced or deceived, and that God doesn't interfere with our free will. The Bible instead paints a picture that God has created us with the ability to reason (and not an ability based on a ruse), the ability to choose (not only within certain boundaries according to a pre-written script), and genuine accountability for how we reason and how we choose (which would be a farce if He were dictating and determining). All of life is a false and cruel game if your hypothesis is true, and it is contrary to everything the Bible teaches. That's how I assess your "hypnotized" hypothesis. It is a fabrication to deviously stir waters that are clear just to make mud, when there's no call to doubt the way it's been told. Free will is essential to our humanity, in terms of reasoning ability, science, and the foundations of human relationships, and it squares perfectly with what the Bible teaches. You think you can fabricate a situation that brings it all into doubt, but it doesn't work because your hypothetical is contrary to reality in every sphere of knowledge.

The waters getting muddy already. Let me try again. God's perfect ability to see and make things for the future dictates; 1. That once those things are 'made', the future those things encounter is now exactly what God wanted. Because they are made specifically for that future/Timeline.

1. If God is perfect than nothing can change what he wants to have happen.
2. If the future is set for us because of God's action in 'making' us for this future. Thereby we have no 'free will' to change the future God saw for us. It's not God seeing the future that set it in stone. It's his creation of the objects that interact which dictates or makes that future.
3. Ergo, no free will.
4. Ergo, God made us broken from what the bible says he wants.

We might get somewhere on free will if you answer my question about being hypnotized.

> By you inserting the exception based off what the bible says is the case doesn't hold any weight.

Whoa, whoa, maybe we're not getting somewhere. Since you are debating a Christian, you are debating the Christian perspective on the issue at hand. And since you are doing that, then what the Bible says carries a ton of weight. And, the biblical teaching follows the principles of logic, so maybe we're not as far as you hope.

> Every time we drop an object it falls at 30 ft per second, per second, except when your book of stories, that isn't scientific, states otherwise.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, now we are definitely NOT getting anywhere. My "book" doesn't say anything that contradicts the science of their day. And, I know for a fact, the Bible doesn't contradict science. The Bible and science are in harmony.

> I don't mean to belittle you here.

Your misunderstandings and degradation of the Bible based on misunderstandings, misunderstandings, and distortions certainly does belittle me and what I believe. It's like you've created a straw man, and then said, "Well, I hope I haven't insulted you."

> You just don't get to interject new rules because the logic isn't suitable to you.

Whoa, whoa, I haven't done this at all. If you want to debate a Christian, you can't make up your own theology.

> You are allowing your logical reasoning to be hi-jacked by the doctrine.

Whoa, whoa. Not at all. My doctrine and logic are in sync. What's NOT in sync is your false definitions, false premises, and the consequent false conclusions. You are not free to fabricate theology to show the weakness of Christianity.

> God's perfect ability to see and make things for the future demands that once those things are made the future those things encounter is now set in stone.

In one sense, yes, but we are not to understand that God set them in stone, that God determined them, that God forced them to happen, or that God abrogates our free will. That's where you continually, post after post, make your mistake. He can see, but He didn't set it that way. Each persons is a free agent.

> If I set up a projectile to shot at a target. I've perfectly setup the contraption so that it's aimed perfectly. I've fixed the contraption and target perfectly so nothing can change eithers position. As soon as I push the perfectly made button to trigger the contraption to go off and hit the target. That projectiles future is set in stone. It's fixed.

Unless a wind comes along.

If I put $50 in a drawer today, and $50 in it tomorrow, the laws of both arithmetic and logic tell me that if I open the drawer I'll find $100 in there—provided no one else has been tampering with the drawer. But that's the whole point. Free will allows whoever wants to tamper with the drawer to do so. Human behavior is not determined. Now, supposed I had a security camera in there and could see whodunit. My knowledge is no interference in the free will of the thief.

> Every chain of events is set in stone the moment God creates us knowing our futures.

You keep making this mistake, and it's fatal to your argument. God didn't set anything in stone; he didn't determine any chain of events. Here's your mistake: you are seeing the whole scenario with God in time past—Boom! setting forth the chain of events of all history, then watching it unfold in time. That's the fatal flaw. God didn't do that. Instead, God is looking from the future as much as from the past. He can see them in real time—they haven't been "set in place" from eternity past.

> Every single atom placement will happen as God saw it happen.

Another misunderstanding. God sees it happen in real time, not from the past as if it were predicted. You are failing to take God out of the time continuum. You are placing Him in the past, setting it up, and watching it happen as God "SAW" it happen. Bingo. There's your time mistake.

> What do you mean the evidence doesn't show that we're sinners?

Whoa, whoa. Read it again. I wasn't saying that the evidence doesn't show we're sinners. What I said is that the evidence doesn't show that we sin in a deterministic time line.

> It's the action of him making us to fit that future.

Wrong again. The Bible NEVER teaches that God made us to "fit that future." You can't make up your own theology and then accuse me of "injecting new rules."

OK! Finally we're getting somewhere. Here's the problem you and I are having. I'm setting up my logical chain on and only on your definition of God and what we see today. Logic, by method of induction or deduction take us to logical conclusions. By you inserting the exception based off what the bible says is the case doesn't hold any weight. It's like saying the law of gravity is constant. Every time we drop an object it falls at 30 ft per second, per second, except when your book of stories, that isn't scientific, states otherwise. I don't mean to belittle you here. You just don't get to interject new rules because the logic isn't suitable to you. You are allowing your logical reasoning to be hi-jacked by the doctrine. God's perfect ability to see and make things for the future demands that once those things are made the future those things encounter is now set in stone. Because of gods perfection. If I set up a projectile to shot at a target. I've perfectly setup the contraption so that it's aimed perfectly. I've fixed the contraption and target perfectly so nothing can change eithers position. As soon as I push the perfectly made button to trigger the contraption to go off and hit the target. That projectiles future is set in stone. It's fixed.

Every chain of events is set in stone the moment God creates us knowing our futures. Every single atom placement will happen as God saw it happen.

Hypothetically, if everyone were hypnotized to wave at red heads. We would all think of it as normal behavior. How is it that you would know if you were hypnotized or you were doing it of your own 'free will'?

What do you mean the evidence doesn't show that we're sinners? The majority of the world doesn't believe in your Christian God. One of the commandments is follow no other Gods. If you want I'll grab more stats to demonstrate this.

It's not that because God saw the future that sets it in stone. It's the action of him making us to fit that future. So if he made something else that wasn't in the future he just viewed by extension it would be a different future.

> If God knows how we will act in the future then he already knows the choices we’re going to make.

This is correct.

> Thereby he understands out of all the decisions that each one of us could possibly be presented, we choose specific choices.

Also correct.

> If he can see into the future than he knows which choices are made.

Again, correct.

> This sets the future in stone unless God decides to make us another way.

This is where you possibly veer off to the side, maybe. You are implying, though not saying so directly, that God has decided, that God has set the future in stone, and that we are determined, and there are no choices. If that is what you're saying, it is patently false and against biblical doctrine. In biblical theology, we are not determined but are free agents who make free will choices. It's just that God can see it, not that He has determined it.

> This means that our futures per how he makes us are determined for us.

Wrong again. "Determination" implies that God has made the decisions and we have no say in it. It is an incorrect analysis of God's omniscience and how He works.

> If our choices are determined than there is no ‘freedom’ in our wills.

Our choices are not determined. Because God can see it doesn't mean that He has caused it. As I've mentioned, if I would travel forward in time and read over your shoulder what you are responding to me, it's not true that I have made you say that. My knowledge doesn't determine your thoughts or your behavior. So also with God.

> If God was real and this was the case than life could feel like we have free will because we don’t know what our choices would be.

This is a false premise. Either God has determined us, or He hasn't. Since the Bible says He hasn't, we can't go with the illusion and the delusion that we just feel like it's so but it's an illusion.

> Being good defined under your religious paradigm is to not sin.

Actually "good" is defined in several different ways in the Christian Bible. (1) functioning the way something was created to function; (2) morally upright: (3) perfectly righteous; (4) preferable. In only #3 does it mean "not to sin."

> Yet we are born sinners.

This is true, but mostly what that means is that we are born separated from God. The Bible never says we are born evil or wicked ("un-good"). What is says is that we are born sinners, meaning we are separated from the life of God. This statement (we are born sinners) has nothing to do with your paragraph about "good". "Good" is a different matter.

> Since the evidence shows that we sin in our deterministic time line, then the logical conclusions are as follows

The evidence shows no such thing. Your argument is based on false premises and has numerous non sequiturs. Therefore your conclusion is false.

> God did not make us to be good or, God didn’t make us perfectly as to how he wanted.

Therefore this conclusion is the fallacy of a false dichotomy. You present these two alternatives as if they were the only ones available, but they are not. Where you went astray is in thinking that knowledge is causative and that God has determined everything. Neither is the case, and therefore your conclusion is untrue.

> I cannot break this down any simpler than this. In order to refute this you must show how we are not in a deterministic time line.

Done it.

1. Knowledge is not causative.
2. The Bible doesn't teach that all of life is determined.
3. The Bible teaches that we have legitimate and real choices for which we will be held accountable.

> Thereby God is one or more of these, not perfect, not omniscient, not omnipotent.

This is a non sequitur. Your premises are false, and therefore this conclusion is false.

> I cannot break this down any simpler than this.

It's because you have broken down falsely on false premises and false conclusions. You are following lines of theology that are not biblical and lines of logic that are no sequiturs. The case doesn't work.

> In order to refute this you must show how we are not in a deterministic time line.

So you want me to prove a negative? I have shown you the other side of the argument (the positive):

1. We are created with free will (Gen. 2)
2. All things are not determined (Jer. 18.1-12)
3. Free will is necessary for genuine reasoning ability.
4. Free will is necessary for science to be anything but an illusion.
5. Free will is necessary for our most important human traits of love, kindness, forgiveness, justice, and morality.
6. Knowledge is not causative, but only revelatory.

I cannot break this down any simpler than this.

> indicates to me that you’re not interested in evidence, only opinion.

Not true. I live by evidence. My faith as a Christian is based in evidence. What I DON'T believe is "Just because it's on the Internet, it's true," or "Just because an 'expert' says it, it's true." I evaluate information and weigh it against what we know.

We can continue the conversation as you wish.

Free will as a 3rd choice- Your choice 3 cannot exist. If God knows how we will act in the future then he already knows the choices we’re going to make. Thereby he understands out of all the decisions that each one of us could possibly be presented, we choose specific choices. If he can see into the future than he knows which choices are made. This sets the future in stone unless God decides to make us another way. This means that our futures per how he makes us are determined for us. If our choices are determined than there is no ‘freedom’ in our wills. If God was real and this was the case than life could feel like we have free will because we don’t know what our choices would be. Given this and God intended to make us good. Being good defined under your religious paradigm is to not sin. Yet we are born sinners. Since the evidence shows that we sin in our deterministic time line, then the logical conclusions are as follows; God did not make us to be good or, God didn’t make us perfectly as to how he wanted. Thereby God is one or more of these, not perfect, not omniscient, not omnipotent. I cannot break this down any simpler than this. In order to refute this you must show how we are not in a deterministic time line.

All I’ve written above should also be applied to your criticisms of my analogy. The engineer analogy works because we don’t have free will.

No conversations with Google- Only one of the links I provided was for you to watch a debate about fine tuning. It was a good debate. I thought you would be interested to watch experts debate it. As for the other links they were my sources. By you saying, “I have no desire to have a conversation with Google or YouTube.”, indicates to me that you’re not interested in evidence, only opinion. I wrote out my cases and gave you the links for each so you can check my source information. If you aren’t willing to check sources and except the opinions of authorities in these fields than that leaves you a slave to the dogma of what you want to believe. You are not an expert or scholar in this field. There by there is no reason why you should take my word over yours and vice versa. This leaves us nowhere.

So if my summation of your opinion about sources is correct than there’s no need for us to continue the conversation.

> Derivations are proven throughout all of historical research.

Of course some derivations are legitimate. Some are speculative, and others are nothing more than guesswork. The chain of YHWH from El and Baal is not a clear one, by any means. It's highly debated, somewhat speculative, and unproved.

> It's how we know the Gospels all stem, in one manner or another from the letters of Paul.

This is pretty much nonsense. There is no such derivation.

> An example is Matthew's nativity narrative is a rewrite of Moses nativity.

Ironically, neither Moses's nativity nor any reference to it is Pauline. Your example of derivation from Paul just sort-a fell flat.

> Matthew takes from Moses delivering the 10 commandments on Mount Sinai and converts it to Jesus doing the same thing when he delivers his 'Sermon on the Mount'.

This is true, but that is not derived from Paul, either. Matthew was a Levite, so his focus on the Hebrew Law makes sense.

> the concept of an afterlife was introduced during the Hellenistic period, apparently from neighboring Hellenistic religions.

You refuted your own point with "apparently." Someone's theory does not make it so. And I think there's good reason to consider Daniel from the exilic era, not from the Hellenistic era, which would refute your case also. Again, just because some say so doesn't make it so. But the dating of Daniel is not our discussion at hand, though it plays into our discussion at hand.

And I trust you realize that because Daniel mentions "everlasting shame and contempt" is a far cry from a theology of hell. First, the ancient Near East believed in a continued existence in a grave-like netherworld. Zoroastrianism had a more fully developed concept of the afterlife than ancient Israel, but the nature of our source for those Zoroastrian beliefs makes it difficult to determine how early the Persians developed these concepts. It just doesn't make for a convincing case.

> Besides those mentioned above, there also exist additional terms that have been often used to either refer to Hell in general or to some region of the underworld

Yes, I never questioned that the Hebrews had a concept of the netherworld. What they didn't have was a concept of hell.

> Again it's not how they are different that matters. It's whether or not there's significant similarities

No, that's exactly the point. Similarities only means they, if we can say it this way, swam in the same cultural river. Similarities mean nothing as far as proving derivation.

> A good debate as for why 'superb' AKA 'Fine tuning actually works more in favor of there not being a God.

I couldn't disagree more. I've done a lot of research on this. I didn't watch your link.

> Apologetic's is obfuscation of the evidence.

So sad. The apologetics that I've read is deep research and honest scholarship. Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder.

> That is in direct opposition to his desired intention. Which means that something went wrong.

Correct. No arguing that something went wrong.

> Either, your given understanding of God's intention for us is wrong. Or, your definition of God is wrong. (all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect)

Oh, there's easily a 3rd choice here. God's intention for us was good. My definition of God is good. The 3rd choice is that free will by definition and necessity requires that free agents be allowed to choose wisely or horribly, or somewhere in between, choose right or wrong, or somewhere in between. The field, to be free, must be wide open.

> Say you're an engineer.

Your analogy falls short in that your engineer has manufactured something mechanistic rather than something conscious and organic. The clock doesn't make choices. Humanity must make choices. The whole analogy falls short on that basis.

> Do you see the contradiction now?

There's no contradiction. It's a lousy analogy. The difference between a free agent with consciousness and a mechanical machine are so vast that the analogy doesn't speak accurately to the situation being described.

And just so it's clear, I didn't read any of your links. I have no desire to have a conversation with Google or YouTube. I'm talking to you. If you have a case, you're the one I want to talk to. If you don't, I'm not going to have a conversation with unknowns on the Internet. Just letting you know.

Derivations are proven throughout all of historical research. It's how we know the Gospels all stem, in one manner or another from the letters of Paul. This knowledge is why mainstream scholarship doesn't hold the Gospels as actual true stories but allegory. An example is Matthew's nativity narrative is a rewrite of Moses nativity. Matthew takes from Moses delivering the 10 commandments on Mount Sinai and converts it to Jesus doing the same thing when he delivers his 'Sermon on the Mount'. More to the point, I didn't outright say you were using apologetic methods. I did ask you to clarify your usage of compromise. I have yet to read or hear about anyone in scholarship refute syncretism by calling it compromise. I don't know what you mean when you use this term.

> “As I was saying, this cannot be proved or substantiated, but only theorized. The OT has no concept of hell, really. It speaks of sheol and "the pit." These by far predate Zoroastrianism. There is no verifiable chain of custody of the concept of hell from Zoro to Judaism, but only similarities of concept. These are not proof of derivation.”

This wouldn't be derivation. This would be syncretism. There is a difference. Proof of syncretism is as follows: “Early Judaism had no concept of Hell, although the concept of an afterlife was introduced during the Hellenistic period, apparently from neighboring Hellenistic religions. It occurs for example in the Book of Daniel. Daniel 12:2 proclaims "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt." Source: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell#Judaism[/url]

Points to focus on- Early Judaism didn't have concept of Hell. Afterlife introduced during Hellenistic period, which was around 300BC. The Achaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 B.C.) Which at the time encompassed Jerusalem. The Babylonians occupied Jerusalem in 586 B.C., destroyed the Temple, and sent the Jews into exile. About 50 years after that, the Persian King Cyrus allowed Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple. -[url]https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-middle-east/history-of-jerusalem[/url] The Book of Daniel confirms the integration with “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt." Besides those mentioned above, there also exist additional terms that have been often used to either refer to Hell in general or to some region of the underworld: Azazel (Hebrew: עֲזָאזֵל, compd. of ez עֵז: "goat" + azal אָזַל: "to go away" — "goat of departure", "scapegoat"; "entire removal", "damnation") Dudael (Hebrew: דּוּדָאֵל — lit. "cauldron of God") Tehom (Hebrew: תְהוֹם — "abyss"; "sea", "deep ocean")[31] Tophet (Hebrew: תֹּפֶת or תוֹפֶת, Topheth — "fire-place", "place of burning", "place to be spit upon"; "inferno")[32][33] Tzoah Rotachat (Hebrew: צוֹאָה רוֹתֵחַת, Tsoah Rothachath — "boiling excrement")[34] Mashchit (Hebrew: מַשְׁחִית, Mashchith — "destruction", "ruin") Dumah (Hebrew: דוּמָה — "silence") Neshiyyah (Hebrew: נְשִׁיָּה — "oblivion", "Limbo") Bor Shaon (Hebrew: בּוֹר שָׁאוֹן — "cistern of sound") Eretz Tachtit (Hebrew: אֶרֶץ תַּחְתִּית, Erets Tachtith — "lowest earth").[35][36] Masak Mavdil (Hebrew: מָסָך מַבְדִּ֔יל, Masak Mabdil — "dividing curtain") Haguel (Ethiopic: ሀጉለ — "(place of) destruction", "loss", "waste")[37] Ikisat (Ethiopic: አክይስት — "serpents", "dragons"; "place of future punishment")[38][39]
Source: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell#Judaism[/url]

> “There is no warrant to suggest cribbing off of each others' accounts.”-

Again it's not how they are different that matters. It's whether or not there's significant similarities. Just read this. [url]https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-interesting-similarities-between-the-epic-of-Gilgamesh-and-the-book-of-Genesis[/url]

> “That you don't see this need is no comment on the reality or unreality of God. I may not see a need for dark matter, but my perception is moot with regard to reality.”-

Correct. You were stating your opinion and I was stating mine. The evidence or lack there of is what leads up to what 'most likely' exists and what doesn't. Side note the reason why the theory of dark matter came about was because there was a need for it. Scientists observed something happening but couldn't see directly what was there.

> “In fact, the functioning of reality dictates there isn’t a god.” “Or, it could also be a tribute to a superb design.”-

A good debate as for why 'superb' AKA 'Fine tuning actually works more in favor of there not being a God. [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY2BokXFXDk[/url]

> “As I have mentioned several times, apologetics is only being able to explain, based on the research, what we believe. Every field does it. And also as I have mentioned several times, you must engage the argument, not dismiss it with a label.”

Apologetic's is obfuscation of the evidence. However, rereading through some of our exchanges I do realize that me saying this isn't enough. I'll explain from now on. That being said, we have delve off into too many tangents. I would like to discuss all of these. But tackling them all in one response makes things to long. By all means if you want respond to the things that I've already commented on. Just know I won't reply back to those topics until after the Satan discussion. So how about we first get back to the original topic of 'Satan is Gods fault'?

Us, God and Satan- I'm going to pick it up at where you think my explanation “went off the rails”. I'm sure free will is going to come back into the discussion along with it. So...

My claim is “Since God's all-knowing, all-powerful and perfect. He would've automatically known that we would fail at being sinless when he made us and Satan the way he did. Since God knows (the majority of us) and Satan will do the opposite of what his will is. Then by extension he created us to fail or disobey”

Your defense is, “This is where you go off the rails. The active tense of your chosen verb is the downfall of your case. He created us to obey. The purpose was obedience, though His knowledge of reality is that not all would. But the explicit purpose of creation was that He created us to obey and to succeed.”

“He created us to obey.” - Which roughly 2/3rds to maybe 3/5th don't do. So if an all perfect God created mankind and Satan to obey and we don't. That is in direct opposition to his desired intention. Which means that something went wrong. The somethings that could be wrong are; Either, your given understanding of God's intention for us is wrong. Or, your definition of God is wrong. (all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect) Just a reminder these are your parameters I'm using. And just to make sure you're understanding the chain, here is an analogy.

Say you're an engineer. But you have seemingly unlimited knowledge of the past to the future. You're also seemingly perfect. There hasn't been anything you can't do or build so far. Now you want to make a device that tells the time in perfect sync with the day in regards to where you are on the world. But you also want it to give you pleasant greetings at the top of each hour. Great. You make your super advanced clock and turn it on. To your dismay the clock spends 2/3rds of the day running backwards in time. On top of that during this time of malfunction the clock yells profanities at you and not even at the top of the hour. But at any random time. Sometimes twice an hour.

So there are some problems to solve here. If the clock isn't doing what you wanted you must have built it wrong. Seeing how that can't be because your seemingly perfect and all-knowing you would have been able to account for these malfunctions when building it. So is this the clock that you meant to build? Do you see the contradiction now?

> This reads a bit like apologetics to me.

It's more accurately called "research." You want to discredit my point with a label that you consider to be at least somewhat derogatory, but that's not how this works. Derivation of such concepts simply cannot be proved.

> A perfect example here is Judaism taking hell from Zoroastrianism around 600 BC.

As I was saying, this cannot be proved or substantiated, but only theorized. The OT has no concept of hell, really. It speaks of sheol and "the pit." These by far predate Zoroastrianism. There is no verifiable chain of custody of the concept of hell from Zoro to Judaism, but only similarities of concept. These are not proof of derivation.

> There’s also a flood myth from Mesopotamian culture.

Yes. The three flood narratives (Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, and the biblical Flood) have enough similarities to show us they refer to the same historical event, but enough difference (there are more differences than similarities) to show us the variant theologies and worldviews of the distinct cultures. There is no warrant to suggest cribbing off of each's others' accounts.

> It’s funny that you say there is a need for a God, because I don’t see a need for one

That you don't see this need is no comment on the reality or unreality of God. I may not see a need for dark matter, but my perception is moot with regard to reality.

> In fact, the functioning of reality dictates there isn’t a god.

Or, it could also be a tribute to a superb design.

> I’m sorry but this is just pure apologetics. It’s a dilution of the truth of what is proclaimed about hell.

You have to address the argument, not dismiss it with a label that you choose to put on it.

> It’s a deliberate punishment for people that don’t toe the line of God and the bibles edicts.

It's a deliberate consequence that people who don't toe the line knew they were choosing. When you choose against life, you can't blame the judge when you experience death.

> Again you’re doing apologetics.

As I have mentioned several times, apologetics is only being able to explain, based on the research, what we believe. Every field does it. And also as I have mentioned several times, you must engage the argument, not dismiss it with a label.

> “He is always at work to draw you to himself.” This is almost the very definition of manipulate.

This is simply not so. Every sentence I have written it to draw you to see the truth of my position. Is that manipulative? Not at all. It's called "reasoning" and "debate". The point is to convince, not to manipulate. Good scholarship is about convincing others to espouse our view instead of merely asking them to do so.

God does the same thing. He is perpetually drawing you towards Himself. It's His will, not a manipulation. The Bible describes Him as a God of love who desires a relationship with every human. There's nothing manipulative about it.

> If God does anything to alter your line of reasoning, whether through a third party, the wind or a seemingly coincidental occurrence, that is interference. Interference is a manipulation.

It depends how He acts to alter your reasoning. If He does it by convincing evidences, then that it legitimate. If He does it by possessing you and forcing you to yield, that's manipulation. The Bible teaches the former.

> "God’s knowledge of the future interferes with us and Satan because he is making us perfectly the way he wants us to be." I’m not going off of text here. I’m drawing from your definition of what your God is. This is just simple deductive reasoning.

Again, your statement is untrue. You are going off text. You are not drawing from my definition of God. You are not drawing from biblical teaching. It is not simple deductive reasoning. You have no leg to stand on here except your opinion, which is not representative of biblical teaching.

> The bible does teach that God wanted us to be sinners.

Prove it. Substantiate it with texts.

> He is not omnipotent, omniscience or perfect in anyway. Plus morally bankrupt.

Substantiate it with texts. You're just dead in the wrong here.

> Sorry for this response but you start proselytizing here

Of course I do. I am dedicating to making sure other know the truth.

> This is typically a sign that I’ve gotten you to a point of cognitive bias is preventing you from see the objective reasoning of the situation.

It's not bias to have investigated the matter, to have arrived at a conclusion of truth, and to stick to it. While the case of Jussie Smollett is being investigated there is no shortage of theories, but once the truth is known (if we get to that point), then there can be some objective conclusions about the matter that no longer have to submit to the accusation of bias.

> And yet this is not what we see today. Therefore either your definition of God is wrong or your understanding of him is.

There's a 3d Choice: You're not seeing it straight.

> These things only require will. Not the proverbial free will.

If you are merely using will to process information (and not free will), you are using determined will, which means you are not really thinking. You are following a set sequence of thought from which you cannot deviate. This is not reasoning but only processing, as a calculator does. Therefore science is a charade, because science requires weighing, processing, eliminating, comparing, and choosing.

If love is not an act of free will, then it also is a charade. Unless I mean it, and it is perceived by the receptor as such, it doesn't fit into the category of our definition of love.

The requested breakdown:

> Now what if God created us to specifically have free will?

He did.

> Since he’s all-knowing he would automatically know what we would do with it.

Correct.

> Since God knows we will do the opposite of what his will is.

Not always the opposite, but not always in conformity, either. He certainly knows we will diverge from it.

> Then by extension he created us to fail or disobey

This is where you go off the rails. The active tense of your chosen verb is the downfall of your case. He created us to obey. The purpose was obedience, though His knowledge of reality is that not all would. But the explicit purpose of creation was that He created us to obey and to succeed.

> The problem believers face is that they can’t escape a God having these three qualities necessitates that anything He makes is exactly how He wanted it to be.

And therefore this statement is a non sequitur. Because your previous point was incorrect, the subsequent point you draw is also misguided.

> If your creation fails in its functioning at any point and is less than what you wanted than you cannot be all three things.

And therefore your conclusion is false.

> "The syncretism we see in their culture may not have been derivation at all, but rather compromise. There's no way to tell, 3000 years removed."

> This reads a bit like apologetics to me. Syncretism is to take the key points from someone else myth culture and marrying into the structure of your own myth culture. A perfect example here is Judaism taking hell from Zoroastrianism around 600BC. There’s also a flood myth from Mesopotamian culture. I’m explaining this because I’m not sure if you’re trying to excuse syncretism from taking place by calling it compromise, or if you mean something different. I guess some clarity please.

> "I didn't actually jump to this. I said we have a problem "especially if those two all-powerful beings are at odds with each other." At odds creates a self-defeating situation. If they are cooperative, we have the problem of redundancy unless we assume some kind of division of labor (which would be unnecessary since one God could handle it all). So "at odds" is self-defeating and "cooperative" leads us to an ontological problem of redundancy or non-necessity."

Sorry, I did word this poorly by saying you were jumping. Everything else you explained in this paragraph is the same as what I said. Only I don’t think you can pose that there would be an opposing God if they were both perfect.

> "Ultimate meaning is also non-existent without God, so I can off the top of my head come up with a few "needs" for God."

(We’re digressing here but I’ll respond) It’s funny that you say there is a need for a God, because I don’t see a need for one. In fact, the functioning of reality dictates there isn’t a god. Well at least not the one you’ve described. If you want to further this topic would you mind if we drop ‘Syncretism’ and ‘Gods creating Gods’. It just helps us from talking about to many things at once. Besides, we pretty much agree on God creating God and syncretism really has no pending relevance. Yet.

> "Gravity ... energy ... matter"

Look up Brian Cox on YouTube. “Brian Cox Lecture - GCSE Science brought down to Earth”. He does a very clean explanation of it all.

> "If you reject him, then death is the consequence. It's neither a manipulation nor a threat, but instead a statement of fact. You can't say He didn't warn you."

I’m sorry but this is just pure apologetics. It’s a dilution of the truth of what is proclaimed about hell. It’s a deliberate punishment for people that don’t toe the line of God and the bibles edicts.

> "God cannot interfere with your free will, but he can inform, invite, warn, and reward and punish, all to persuade you. He wants you to go in the direction that you were made to go in—a relationship with Him. He wants you to know truth, blessing, and life. He is always at work to draw you to Himself, but He cannot interfere with your free will. He's more like a lover courting you than a manipulator interfering with you."

Again you’re doing apologetics. “He is always at work to draw you to himself.” This is almost the very definition of manipulate. If God does anything to alter your line of reasoning, whether through a third party, the wind or a seemingly coincidental occurrence, that is interference. Interference is a manipulation. There’s good manipulation and bad manipulation. But first it’s important that you see this.

> "There is no biblical text or teaching that teaches us this. You can't just make it up. It's not true."

I’m not going off of text here. I’m drawing from your definition of what your God is. This is just simple deductive reasoning.

> "This is simply untrue. The Bible does not teach this. It's a misunderstanding and a distortion. It's obviously your thought process and the conclusion you have drawn, but it's not Christianity."

I know Christians are taught God loves them and is all good and a whole bunch of other things that are contrary to what the bible actually says. You are incorrect, in a way. The bible does teach that God wanted us to be sinners. The conclusions I’m drawing is what you get when you use logical reasoning applied to the facts of the stories at hand. God making us to sin is merely obvious when you take your description of your God and apply it to what we see in reality (everyday life). But it’s also apparent if you again take your description of God and apply it to the Garden of Eden story. I’ve already drawn out the causal chain for one. Would you like me to do the Garden of Eden?

> "And now you've taken your misunderstanding and applied it to God, creating a false theology out of it. This is why God gave us the Bible and revealed Himself to us: so that we would know Him as He truly is and be able to detect things like what you are saying as untrue."

If we look at what the bible says to see who God truly is than you are correct. He is not omnipotent, omniscience or perfect in anyway. Plus morally bankrupt. Sorry for this response but you start proselytizing here. This is typically a sign that I’ve gotten you to a point of cognitive bias is preventing you from see the objective reasoning of the situation. I’ve encounter it all the time with believers, and others that have succumbed to dogmatic ideologies. This isn’t a slam or an attack against you. I’ve previously laid out fairly simple logical chains about God creating us and your response is that I am just misunderstanding things. All my examples thus far have been based off of ‘your’ description of God and what we see in reality. I’ve gone off of what you have shown me from the bible. It’s all from reference to the information you’ve provide in our exchanges. Your decent to apologetics is disheartening because we were off to a great start where it was back and forth of reasoning.

> "OK, so we'll start here. Yes, He created us the way He wants: In His image, with the idea that we would be in loving relationship with Him as a decision of our own free will, recognize Him as the only true and reliable source of wisdom and order, and live out our lives in the fullness of life. That's what He wanted and wants."

And yet this is not what we see today. Therefore either your definition of God is wrong or your understanding of him is.

> (Therefore, we have no free will.) "Free will is necessary to humanity. The ability to reason depends on it. Science depends on it. The ability to respond as a human (love, kindness, forgiveness, etc.) requires it. The rest of your paragraph goes south. Your second premise derailed your train of thought, and everything else is therefore off the mark."

These things only require will. Not the proverbial free will. How about you breakdown the whole last paragraph of my argument that I previously wrote. The one you’re referencing here.

> "Not that I know of. And taking the first three letters in order just takes us to a place we don't want to go, uh, so, um, no. : )"

HAHA. Good point.