Comments
after
my answer to:
Was
God gambling with Satan in regards to job's loyalty? I'm a compulsive
gambler. It's difficult enough handling that without having God as an
example.
By
no means was God gambling, for He that inhabits eternity and can see
all things from that perspective (and knows what your choices
will be, without forcing you against your will) knew what Job would
do.
In
contrast, it was the devil who was gambling (and induces you to). For
his major premise (as manifest in other places) was that God was
unworthy of being Job’s God - the ultimate source of security and
object of spiritual affection and loyalty (thus the devil’s
original sin of presuming he should sit as God, that God needed to
“share the wealth” so to speak: as he also essentially told Eve:
Is. 14:12–14; Gn. 3).
Therefore the devil’s minor premise was that Job only loved God
because of blessings Job enjoyed. Thus the 2-stage challenge was,
take them away and Job would reject God (and likely commit suicide),
with the only restriction being that the devil could not take His
life (which his wife recommended that Job take).
However, while
Job certainly expressed his bewilderment at his lamentable condition
which he protested, asking at least at least 66 questions, yet he did
not deny His Creator or foolishly verbally charge Him with
iniquity.
And after God reminded Job by asking him (some count
77) rhetorical questions, such as “Canst thou bind the sweet
influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?” (Job 38:31)
then Job realized that God did care for him and was in control, and
had a purpose, where Job stated,
I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be
withholden from thee. Who is he that hideth counsel without
knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too
wonderful for me, which I knew not. Hear, I beseech thee, and I will
speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. I have heard
of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes. (Job 42:2-6)
Thus the devil lost again, and will yet do so, for he will be done
gambling until the very end:
And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four
quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to
battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went
up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints
about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of
heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast
into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false
prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
(Revelation 20:8-10)
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love
God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (Romans
8:28)
Comments
have been deleted by Quora, but not before I copied them, and the
anti-theist
charges,
which
are
basically
typical
and repeated
atheistic
objections,
have
been overall summarized per content, though responded
to them as verbatim in my replies. And additional comments by me
are in [brackets].
[anti-theist[
So a god that claims to be good destroys the life of a poor man,
kills his whole family simply to make the devil lose a bet? Yet your
god is the one that created the devil and evil in the first place!
Why is this not absolute proof that the god of Abraham is XXXXX if
the bible is true?
No,
God did not destroy the life of a poor man and killed his whole
family just to make the devil lose, much less would be even any sort
of proof (unmentionable) if the bible is true. But which comments are
typical of ignorant atheism, and which often seems to be driven by an
animus toward the idea of an ultimate authority.
First, the
issue was whether faithfulness to God is warranted or not, with the
devil (and atheists) on one side and the likes of Job on that other.
Who showed that his faith could endure loss, that his faithfulness
was not simply due to the blessings he received but was deeper than
that. Many POWs (Jeremiah Denton, etc.) suffering torture for their
country likewise proved their love for country could not be defeated
by atheistic Communism.
Secondly,
the trial also for the sake of the character of Job, who came to
essentially see what atheists typically refuse to see, that if God
is omnipotent and omniscient (as was conveyed by the many rhetorical
questions), then He alone knows what all the effects will be of even
your next breath or the flap of the wings of a butterfly, not only
for this life but for Eternity. And who alone can and will make it
all work out for Good, for the good of those who love God and thus
love the Good. (Rm. 8:28).
Thus
Job realized that God knew exactly what Job was going thru, and was
in control (His hand on the thermostat s to speak), and would make
it work out for good. Which God did even just as regards this life,
blessing the latter end of Job abundantly more than his beginning in
every respect relative to what He had lost. (Job 42:12)
Thus
- going by just what the Bible says since that is the God you are
opposing - your objection cannot be that the sufferings of God were
not worth it, and that taking away family and good was unjust.
Which
charges are illogical and absurd, for we are simply not omnipotent
and omniscient and in no position to tell the One who gave life that
He cannot take life, or charge that the relatively momentary losses
of this life are unjust in the light of eternity. Unless we are
omnipotent and omniscient.
We
do not know if the children of Job were fit to be destroyed due to
what they were doing and would do, or that (most likely) they held
to the faith and character of the Godly father, and are in glory
right now. In either case you cannot logically charge God with being
unjust since you only have a fraction of the knowledge of the past,
present and future and the scope of it, or the ability to determine
it.
Going
back to the devil; his original presumption) was essentially that
the created is fit to be as God, and that God is unjust in requiring
obedience in order to obtain blessing, and in punishing disobedience
or bluffing about it; but that it is the right of the created to
have the power and position of God. Which premise also eliminates
mercy (not getting the evil you deserve) and grace (getting the good
that you do not), since it presumes that having what other’s
merited is the right of those who have/do not.
Thus
the devil presumed in self-exaltation to put himself in the place of
God, (Isaiah 14:12–20) and (being cast down for his unholy
presumption) in Gn. 3:1–5 essentially told Eve that God was
unjustly keeping something back from her, which was her right to
have, and which would be hers by disobedience, rather than this
resulting in the opposite, as God had forewarned. Gn. 3:1-7
For
man will always makes someone or something his/her god, their
ultimate source of security, and object of spiritual affection and
allegiance, ultimately either the created or the Creator. And while
God does not need anything (Psalms 50:7–12; Acts 17:25) it is only
right and to man’s benefit that he choose the omnipotent and
omniscient to be his God who is able to make all work out for the
Good.
May
God peradventure grant you "repentance to the acknowledging of
the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25)
Just
what is behind your fallacious charges and inability to reason
objectively and see anything but what is read into the text (and
refrain from angry vulgarity)? You conclusions are simply not
warranted by the facts.
God did not
tell people to be happy as they killed children (but foretold that
the slayers of a wicked people would be: Psalms 137:9), nor did He
kill or do anything “for no reason,” or one for simply not
wanting to have sexual relations with his dead brothers wife (versus
refusing - and possibly repeatedly - to provide her a child due to
his own utterly selfish reasons, contrary to God’s command and
that of Judah: Gn. 1:28; 38:1–10).
And
just how is it unjust for a Creator to take away the lives of people
the He created and gave life to, while replacing them with even more
and better (at least in beauty)? You can only assume that Job as
well as all involved would not now say that this was right and best
in the light of all the facts, past and future.
Which
means that you indeed must presume omniscience or that God is not,
nor omnipotent, who makes all things work out for the good who
choose the Good.
Which
would mean that such angry unreason-able atheist tirades flows from
either ignorance or is directed to a god that is not of the Bible.
But
your response indicates that have been indoctrinated by such, and
insist on reading into Scripture what anti-theists can only contrive
to actually teach, in context.
But
such a caricature serves a malevolent purpose.
People
that you claim to be “wicked” are
only wicked according to the
bible. [atheist goes on to
basically just double-down on his ranting accusations) He
turns Lot’s wife into salt for no reason, for
she is never
told to not look back .
“People
that you claim to be “wicked” are only wicked according to the
Bible.” And? If you are going to attack the God of the Bible
then you must go by what the Bible says. Thus if the Bible says that
the people slain were wicked, you simply cannot change that to mean
there were not wicked in order charge God with injustice. That is
simply illogical and untenable.
And contrary to
your next instance of changing the Bible to serve your purpose, “O
daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be,
that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that
taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones,” (Psalms
137:8,9)
This
is not “Telling his followers to be happy as they kill children”
as you charged, but that those (not the Jews) who executed what was
just retaliation to Babylon would be happy. It would be like Jews in
Hitler’s camps foretelling the satisfaction of Russians in
executing just retaliation upon their persecutors.
Then
you try to charge God with injustice as concerns Job, and selfish
Onan, despite my showing you how your charges are fallacious and
untenable in the light of the facts about the situation and of God.
And which again shows you refuse to be reasoned with.
Then
you example blindness with
“He
kills Lot’s wife, turns her into salt for no reason given. She
was never even told to not look back.
so she is not even breaking any rules,”
Yet
the text plainly states that the angels laid hold upon his hand, and
upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters”
and commanded them, “Escape for thy life; look not behind
thee,… (Genesis 19:16,17)
Thus
contrary to you, she is indeed told to not look back. yet she
clearly disobeyed the expressed command of no less than manifest
angels, and by looking back she evidenced she longed for that wicked
place.
But
of course they do not tell you that on anti-theist web sites whose
lying charges you parrot.
Then
we have your next charge:
“Your
omnipotent god chose mass extermination all
because humans sinned. That included plentyof
innocent children and multitudes of innocent animals.
Yet as omnipotent he could chose another
way to punish the sinners and exclude billion of
innocent creatures.”
Yes,
the Creator who gave life can take it, and here He punished people
whose wickedness was great and every imagination of their thoughts
was only evil continually, (Genesis 6:5) while delivering the
innocent from becoming like their elders and perpetuating itself.
And would include delivering animals [and children] from the
perversions they were subject to.
Yet
when God allows evil then atheists find fault with Him, as if they
were omniscient and omnipotent! Which brings us to your next
judgement on God:
“Instead
of a Good and loving god the bible
is showing a cruel jealous god who driven by
ego”
Which
is simply the logical fallacy of assuming what you have not and
cannot establish. Which is that “a Good and loving god” is
contrary to judging what is not “Good and loving,’ and which
instead means that being Good and loving means that the Creator
should not finally exterminate a people whose wickedness was great
and every imagination of their thoughts was only evil continually.
But
as said, if God did not, then atheists would object to that. You can
argue that God should have rehabilitated them, though He gave them
120 years of Noah’s preaching before the Flood came, but that is
also presuming that you know better than God what all the actions
and effects are and will be of man. Which is indeed would be
arrogant presumption.
Next,
“Many
Christians find at these difficult and troubling texts
and engage in mental gymnastics to defend
them”
Which
is irrelevant, for i provided you sound refutation of your ignorant
and fallacious and presumptuous charges, and it you who must resort
to mental gymnastics in order to read what you want into and out of
Scripture.
Yet
as you continue to demonstrate unreason-able intransigence should i
continue?
If
find it strange for you try to justify killing innocent children
and billion of animals.
Which
response is simply the “argument by outrage” tactic, which
effectively has as its premise that it is outrageous for the Creator
who gave life - and knows what all the effects will be - to also take
it, exterminating the wicked and delivering the innocent.
Which
means that it is your premise that is outrageous.
As
has been and will be further shown, by the grace of God, despite your
blind stubborn and absurd attempt to indict God as if you were
omniscient and omnipotent.
Next:
“let
us presume that those people were indeed
wicked.”
No,
there is nothing hypothetical here: God says the “wickedness of man
was only evil continually.”
Let
me remind you of what I said before, that since you are attacking the
God of the Bible for what the Bible says He did, then you must
actually stick with what it says, and not attack or impugn the
integrity of the Bible, which would be a different debate.
“Do
you really actually believe the infants
were wicked also?”
Do
you honestly read what I had said? “He punished people whose
wickedness was great and every imagination of their thoughts was only
evil continually, (Genesis 6:5) while delivering the innocent from
becoming like their elders and perpetuating itself. And would include
delivering animals [and children] from the perversions they were
subject to.”
Both
were most likely subject to sexual and physical abuse, and yet when
God does not deal prevent or judge such promptly I am sure you would
find fault with Him for that.
Next:
“Being
omniscient and omnipotent means he could chose ANY
way to annihilate the sinners. Vaporize the,
sickness, etc. or even compel them to
repent. Instead, he wanted to kill billion of
innocent creatures”
Meaning
you find fault with the method God used to deal with man (who misused
what God gave, and broke His good laws), based upon the premise that
He could have acted differently in His omniscience and omnipotence.
But
which presumes you know better than God, that somehow toasting them
alive (thus having no space to repent) or dying of sickness would be
better than drowning (not much of a choice), or force them to repent
and thus deny man the freedom to make choices (see Theodicy).
And
as for billions of innocent creatures, aside from drowning what loss
did they suffer? A lion missing out their next meal chomping down a
zebra, or the latter missing out on being part of the food chain? Or
do you suppose the only-evil people took care of pets? Man is the
reason of their pain and abuse, and they are not to be abused but are
here to provide for man.
All
of which postulations presume you know better than an omniscient and
omnipotent God - who knows what man will chose and the consequences
of even your next breath, for this life and the next - which means
(once again) that you must presume omniscience.
Consider
further the utter irrationality of your argument: The Creator gives
life, breath and all good things, but He has no right - based upon
what He knows and can do - to take the same?
Really?
Without
the Creator there would be no life, and value to it, nor even the
moral sense that taking innocent like is wrong, and thus nothing to
take nor even the moral sense regarding the taking of it!
Thus
you should thank God for your moral revulsion to God taking innocent
life. However, this revulsion is based upon the premise that life is
valuable and thus (in the Bible) those who take innocent life must
lose theirs (based upon multiple eye-witness and executed at the
hands of all the people via stoning), as man has no right to take
innocent life. But why?
Knowing
how many lives have turned out today, then if we could go back in
time and then we might not only justify preventing the conception of
some lives (as proabortionists do) but also the taking of the same
(Stalin, etc.), since they would turn out to be destructive of life
or greatly suffer.
However,
the reason man is wrong for taking innocent life is because he
neither,
*created
life nor can give it in the eternal realm,
*can
foresee, in all depth and detail, how a life will turn out,
*has
the power to orchestra all the actions and works that man is allowed
to engage in to work out for Good.
Thus
you cannot rationally impugn iniquity to God for taking innocent life
or man and animals unless you as establish that,
*God
does not know in all depth and detail what all the effects will be of
our actions for time and for eternity;
*God
is not able to make all work out for the good of those who love God
and thus love the Good;
*It
was not better in the light of all that can be know that God acted as
He did, including delivering the innocent from becoming like their
damnable parents, and rehabilitating the earth. And making animals to
be fertilizer and fuel for man.
*Man
is omniscient and omnipotent and knows and can do the above
*The
creator who gave life and all good things has not the right to take
it, and cannot recreate it.
Next,
“Also,a
omniscient and omnipotent being can also NEVER
claim he did not know this evil condition
would result, thus this judgment of the evil
means he planned to drowned the evil and
the kids and billions of innocent animals.”
God
did indeed know what would happen, as has been continually affirmed,
yet knowing what man will do does not translate into forcing man to
do it. [Again,
see
Theodicy
and
response to another poster after this one].
But
regardless, it remains that you cannot rationally impugn iniquity to
God for His actions or inactions unless you can establish what I
listed above, and presume omniscience and omnipotence for man. Which
makes man to be as God, which is simply irrational.
Next,
“Many
Christians change the definition of omniscient
and omnipotent at will...mental gymnastics .
Which
response is that of recourse to a irrelevant diversionary strawman,
since I did not do at all what you describe even if some others many.
Instead
I showed that it is you who must engage in gymnastics, arguing
against God as if He was not omniscient and omnipotent and then
arguing against Him for being so, which is all so much railing
irrationality.
If
fact consistent with what you have argued so far, unless God does
what you believe is right and when you demand that He do it then you
would judge Him as if you were omniscient and omnipotent.
So
it have been good to see your vain arguments exposed as spurious,
spurious, which I do hope actually helps you.
However
as we are both intransigent in our positions and as this comment
section is poorly set up for debates, then instead of much more
extended debate here I would rather format this exchange and post
this to a forum of my choice (maybe http://www.freerepublic.com) so
that others may see it and respond.
So
once again we see more intransigent irrationality. You write:
“Your
god cannot be omniscient and omnipotent for that means that god
created Adan and Eve to eat the fruit. leaving them with no free
will, no choice to do anything else”
Yet
nowhere does God say that He did not know, yet neither does knowing
what man will do mean that man can not choose to do it.
[Again, see Theodicy
and response to another poster after this one].
IF
I know that you are going to continue to resort to such spurious
objections then that does not mean I am making you do it against your
will, though I provide you the situation to do it.
Next,
“Being
omniscient and omnipotent means he wanted
to kill the all the firstborn in Egypt.
Indeed
God did kill some who were not culpable/guilty of any sin themselves,
which was a consequence of man’s actions that God foresaw, yet
again, as said, for you to judge it to be wrong for the Creator to
take away the life and breath that He gave presupposes that you know
what all the consequences would be for them and for others if He did
not act as He did.
Meaning
once again that you are presuming omniscience omnipotence.
Next,
“The
claim that the giver of life has the right to take
life still is flawed since it means an omniscient and
omnipotent being is evil and cruel when he kill
innocent creatures because they act the way he created
them to.”
Rather,
it is your argument that is flawed, since as said, knowing what man
will do still does not force man to do it, and again, you can only
presume that you know better than God that giving man the freedom to
chose btwn 2 opposites, with consequences (rather than making man
like a robot or cloud, or stopping man every time he was going to do
evil, or reversing the effects every time man did evil, etc.), was
unjust in the light of all that can be know about the past and future
effects.
And
the “children of the devil “(1 John 3:10) “fitted for
destruction” (Romans 9:22) are not judged for what they could not
help but choose to do, but they are condemned on the basis of the
choices they could and did make contrary to what they knew was right,
misusing good things gave graciously God gave them and breaking His
good laws — their own works not those of others. (Dt 24:16; 1Kg
14:13; 2 Kg14:6; 22:18-20; 2 Chrn 25:4; Jer 31:29,3)
And
as God owes grace to no one, then He cannot be unjust in showing more
grace to some than others. Arguing what God could do and did not once
again presupposes that you know better than God.
Meaning
once again that you must presume omniscience omnipotence in order to
judge God. There is no way around this.
Next,
“You
can only blindly assert that “everything god
does is good j even killing innocent children because he is
omniscient and omnipotent.”
Rather
it means that when a being is omniscient omnipotent and can this take
away life that He gave in the first place, and thus exterminate the
wicked and deliver the innocent from becoming like the former, ending
up in Heaven rather than Hell, then you as a very very finite being
cannot indict Him as doing wrong.
Meaning
once again that you are presuming omniscience omnipotence. There is
no way around this.
Next:
“According
to the bible he is the creator of evil Isaiah 45:7 “I form the
light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord
do all these things””
Yes,
God who made everything good, and who cannot commit iniquity, (Job
34:10) also creates evil, not moral evil but evil in the sense of
sending evil/trouble/adversity in judgments. For that is how it is
revealed in the Bible, in which context is how you understand the
Bible.
But
if you just read the prevaricating propaganda of atheist web sites
you would not know that.
Next,
“This
means your god can only be a good god if you re define evil
and good just because god does it.”
Rather,
it is God who gives man [the] moral sense that you even need to make
a moral argument [and moral judgment must take into account what the
actor knew, and intent, and its effects], and God expressly defines
the very morality of good and evil in the Bible.
However,
atheism has no transcendent supreme standard for morality (as you
said, “no teachings, no rules, no ideology, no claims, no
answers”), and can itself justify sin while it condemns God for
they simply cannot allow that God can be just and merciful such by
exterminating the wicked and delivering the innocent from becoming
like the former, ending up in Heaven rather than Hell.
You
can also postulate other alternative means of dealing with choices
and consequences but that presupposes that you know what all the
consequences would be for them and for others if He did not act as He
did.
Meaning
once again that you are presuming omniscience omnipotence. There is
no way around this.
Next:
“the
other alternative is that the god of the the bible is just
another bronze age myth which takes mental gymnastics
defend”
Meaning
when all else fails, you must resort to a strawman [the bronze
age premise like that of the copycat
fallacy] for your gymnastics charge to be valid, and attack the
integrity and authority of the very Source that your argument has
required. [your myopia would also likely fit in with the jurors
initially in 12
Angry Men]
Which
is irrational and leaves you without any valid argument, and which
means I will do as I said and provide this exchange where public can
see it better.
Which
would be better taking up more of my time with your specious vain
arrogant railings against the very Creator who have you life, breath
and all things, and His Son who gave Himself for your salvation, that
you may find life thru Him. May you yet do so. Good night.
Related:
God
could have,
1.
made us (and angels) with no moral standard or sense or deprived us
from the moral ability to respond to or choose good [morally
insensible].
2.
granted us free moral agency, but never have given us anything to
choose between [negation of moral choices].
3.
called man to make the Creator their ultimate object of spiritual
affection and allegiance and source of security as being what is
right and what is best for man, versus finite created beings or
things being one's "god," and provided moral revelation
and influences. But always have moved us to do good, and never have
allowed us to choose evil (even if as by making believing in God and
choosing good so utterly compelling — like God appearing daily and
always doing miracles on demand, and preventing any seeming evidence
to the contrary - so that no man could attempt to make excuses for
not believing in Him [effective negation of any freedom to choose]).
4.
allowed us to choose evil, but immediately reversed any effects and
not penalized such [negation of moral consequences].
5.
allowed us to do bad, but restricted us to a place where it would
harm no one but ourselves [restriction of moral consequences].
6.
allowed us to choose between good and evil, and to affect others by
it, but not ultimately reward or punish us accordingly [negation of
eternal consequences, positive or negative].
7.
given us the ability to choose, and alternatives to chose from, and
to face and overcome evil or be overcome by it, with the ability to
effect others and things by our choices, and to exercise some reward
or punishment in this life for morality, and ultimately reward or
punishment all accordingly [pure justice].
8.
restrained evil to some degree, while making the evil that man does
to work out for the good of those who want good, and who thus love
God, who is supremely Good.
9.
in accordance with 8, the Creator could have chose to manifest
Himself in the flesh, and by Him to provide man a means of escaping
the ultimate retribution of Divine justice, and instead receive
unmerited eternal favor, at God's own expense and credit,
appropriated by a repentant obedient faith, in addition to the loss
or gaining of certain rewards based on one's quality of work as a
child of God. And eternally punish, to varying degrees, those whose
response to God's revelation manifested they want evil, [justice
maintained while mercy and grace given].
4h
·https://www.quora.com/If-God-really-exists-and-requires-that-all-humans-follow-a-religion-why-doesn-t-he-she-or-it-tell-mankind-which-denomination-of-religion-is-the-correct-denomination-of-religion-to-follow-instead-of-letting-humans/answer/Daniel-Hamilton-53?comment_id=353268205&comment_type=2
No, that irrational parroted polemic is simply non-sense. Simply put,
knowing what a person will do does not require removing his ability
to choose, as well as alternatives to choose btwn.
Nor is the above removal required in order to that person to fulfil a
role that an omniscient being knows that they will, correspondent to
his plan. Being in a script according to foreknowledge does not
require one to have no choice scripted
As concerns the latter, due to the character of a person (which
character is due to previous choices), I can quite assuredly know how
a certain person will react to words of mine, such as a moral
reproof, and which could actually accomplish a plan I have, even
though that person need not react as I know he will.
In the case of old Pharaoh, in the program of God delivering the
Hebrews, then Moses both records that Pharaoh hardened his own heart,
(Ex. 8:15, 32) as well as that God stated that He would harden
Pharaoh’s heart, (Ex. 4:21) and did, Ex. 14:8) as an example of
what not to do, (1 Sam, 6:6)
Yet God did not hardened Pharaoh’s heart by taking away his will or
any alternatives, and in fact at some points Pharaoh relented to some
degree.
But instead, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart via actions that normally
would have moved a person to rationally change his mind, as requested
and as others did.
How you react to this reproof is your choice.
Moreover, as an infinitely wise omniscient as well as omnipotent
being, then morally speaking, knowing what every single effect will
be of every choice of man - immediate, resultant and progressive, not
only in this life but the future and in eternity - as well as the
motive behind each one, and being able to make all to ultimately work
out for what is Good, with justice as well as with mercy and grace;
means that you are beyond being judged by manifestly finite
exceedingly ignorant man, though anti-theists habitually do so
according to nature, thereby presuming omniscience.
Being an omniscient entity means knows
exactly what will happen which means there can be no
choice for humans. A human can only hopt to
predict a response which is not omniscience
Actually, your response examples irrationality, since it presumes
omniscience equates to predetermination as requiring the removal of
choice, which is simply not a rational conclusion. If I could go back
in time to 50 years ago then I could know for certain things that
would happen, but that simply does not mean I must make any happen.
And yet for an eternal omniscient the future is seen as well as the
past.
And I were omniscient and also omnipotent, then I could also know
what all the effects would be of any possible choices I made while in
the past, and even know what brought them about, and know how to be
able ensure man would be able to make choices, and yet, as with
Pharaoh, leave him with the ability to make his own choices.
“God knew just what the Pharaoh would do”
Yes, indeed God did know exactly what the Pharaoh would do. But that
in no way meant Pharaoh had no alternative choice, not only in the
one's at issue, but the previous moral choices he made which left him
with a heart that resulted in the character that he had, with its
resultant response to manifestly supernatural reproofs.
“means that you are beyond being judged by manifestly finite
exceedingly ignorant man,” Really? What do you think happens daily
in court rooms around the world? I’ll give you a clue. Humans sit
in judgement of other humans.
The exceedingly finite judging the same is simply not analogous to
the exceedingly finite, profoundly relatively ignorant of all that
can be known, and existing as mere specks in the universe, and in the
expanse of time, presuming to condemn an omniscient and also
omnipotent being as immoral, which is absurd, seeing as the former is
in no position to know all the facts, past, present and future and
all the causes, and effects, past and future into eternity...
“Humans may be far from knowing everything yet he is hardly
ignorant, especially since the last two centuries.”
Which also another proffered polemic of antitheists, that argues that
science has discovered the physical causes of such occurrences as
lightning which used to ascribed as purely supernatural. then all
else will be, that the universe is a result of purely natural
processes, which is a position of faith since it certainly is no
proven.
And
to the contrary, the more we learn of an exceedingly vast,
systematically ordered universe, exquisitely finely tuned for life
with intricate astounding complexity, then the more it
testifies to design, requiring a First Cause (at the least), that
of a powerful being of supreme intelligence being behind the
existence of energy and organization of matter.
