A Civil Religious Discussion

God, rather than put Adam into a no-win situation and then punish him and all his offspring when he falls for the gag, should have just set things up with more transparency.

But that's exactly what God did. He clearly told Adam he could eat from ANY tree in the garden, EXCEPT the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. For if he ate from that tree, he would die. 'Gen 2:16 - 17 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree of the garden, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die.”'

One of many, many questions immediately arises: before they ate from the ToK, they were, ostensibly, immortal. There is no scriptural evidence that any life in the Garden was not, likewise, undying. How could they possibly comprehend the idea of death, having absolutely no frame of reference?

So many things to comment on...

I had a lot more to say on many things, but I decided to cut it down for the sake of brevity. For the moment, I'm going to touch on the scientific method and Christianity.

There are proofs and theories and apparently facts that, in ways both minor and dramatic, contradict passages of the Bible or Christian teachings. To a lot of people, this makes Christianity false, horrible, uncomfortable, or just unbelievable. There are two factors that I feel are overlooked when people take this stance; faith and the limits of knowledge.
1. Faith. As I understand it in very simple terms, this means true acceptance of something one cannot prove to exist, which is in large part why religion is not science.
2. The limits of knowledge. These are closer than many people realize. The scientific method, for example, only works if all outside factors are eliminated; otherwise there is no proof, only evidence of and support for a larger theory. Since I believe there is more in heaven and earth than humans currently understand or can even percieve, my acceptance of scientific evidence is rarely immutable.

Not all of us believe in original sin.

And for the record, I think that God is extremely clear in cause and effect. :) You eat and you will die.

On the more positive side, the Bible is also pretty clear that once God cast Adam and Eve out, He did not abandon them. He clothed them, gave them a system of sacrifice and continued to watch over them. He just did not allow them to live in paradise in their present state.

So, did God, being omnipotent-omniscient, already know that He would do this?

Wicht wrote:

Not all of us believe in original sin.

And for the record, I think that God is extremely clear in cause and effect. :) You eat and you will die.

On the more positive side, the Bible is also pretty clear that once God cast Adam and Eve out, He did not abandon them. He clothed them, gave them a system of sacrifice and continued to watch over them. He just did not allow them to live in paradise in their present state.

So, did God, being omnipotent-omniscient, already know that He would do this?

As Peter says concerning Christ and his mission, "He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you," then the doctrine of scripture is that God knew that man would sin and also knew how He was going to provide a solution for this problem.

From a broad perspective, I think it safe to say that God used the garden to teach a few things. Firstly - There were consequences to sin and disobedience. Secondly - God would not allow men to live eternally with sin. Finally - Even after men sinned, God did not abandon them but continued to care for them in their fallen state. The idea of free-will is important here in my opinion. Men have free will and we have a tendency to fail at righteousness as well. But starting with what one can veiw as a test case, God demonstrated the need for responsibility in connection with Free Will. It was, in essence, a teachable moment.

The scriptures say that God punished man but it also shows that He then provided hope for them. The righteousness of God cannot abide sin but the grace of God provides a way of salvation to the fallen through Christ, and that would have to be understood to include Adam and Eve.

...The idea of free-will is important here in my opinion. Men have free will and we have a tendency to fail at righteousness as well. But starting with what one can veiw as a test case, God demonstrated the need for responsibility in connection with Free Will...

Forgive the severe ellipsis. Here's the question: when did Free Will begin?

Kirth – I’ve actually been dwelling on this for quite some time. Here are some thoughts. I’m not saying that I have all the answers, but perhaps a different way of looking at things.

My personal feelings on (at least) the first few chapters of Genesis is that it is meant to be more allegorical than many Christians want to believe. Did all of mankind come from once source? Scientific evidence suggests not. Was there a literal garden? Possibly. Was there a literal “tree” that housed the potential for all knowledge? Possibly – but why? To what end? Moses was the supposed author of these events, but he wasn’t there. The passages are there to make some points. So what are the points?

There were two trees in the garden which suggests that man had two choices. There was the tree of life and there was the tree of knowledge. There seems to be some evidence that God (for better or worse) gives people what they most want in their heart. (Pharaoh and Moses is an example of this and more complicated than I wish to get into here.) For whatever reason, man chose knowledge. Call it free will. Call it original sin. Or call it whatever you want. And I feel that we are still choosing that. We ultimately want to “know” something and be in control of our own destinies rather than live forever with God. This is not what God really wanted. But it was what man wanted. So it’s what man got. Is it a “punishment”? Is it really a “punishment” to get exactly what our heart desires? Even with that in mind, God then makes it possible for man to experience what God intended for us in the first place.

Andrew Turner wrote:

Wicht wrote:

Not all of us believe in original sin.

And for the record, I think that God is extremely clear in cause and effect. :) You eat and you will die.

On the more positive side, the Bible is also pretty clear that once God cast Adam and Eve out, He did not abandon them. He clothed them, gave them a system of sacrifice and continued to watch over them. He just did not allow them to live in paradise in their present state.

So, did God, being omnipotent-omniscient, already know that He would do this?

As Peter says concerning Christ and his mission, "He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you," then the doctrine of scripture is that God knew that man would sin and also knew how He was going to provide a solution for this problem.

From a broad perspective, I think it safe to say that God used the garden to teach a few things. Firstly - There were consequences to sin and disobedience. Secondly - God would not allow men to live eternally with sin. Finally - Even after men sinned, God did not abandon them but continued to care for them in their fallen state. The idea of free-will is important here in my opinion. Men have free will and we have a tendency to fail at righteousness as well. But starting with what one can veiw as a test case, God demonstrated the need for responsibility in connection with Free Will. It was, in essence, a teachable moment.

The scriptures say that God punished man but it also shows that He then provided hope for them. The righteousness of God cannot abide sin but the grace of God provides a way of salvation to the fallen through Christ, and that would have to be understood to include Adam and Eve.

Wicht,

...Unless He knows it in a quantum sort of way of knowing every single possible outcome at once. But then, He would still effectively not know which of the infinite paths I'd take so would still not know.

And if that's the case, we should just call Him "The Doctor"...

Except if God knows which path we will follow before we follow it, there is no Free Will because we will always act in the way God already knows we will. For example, if God knows at 3.00 I will eat an apple for a snack at 3:45, there is no way I can eat a banana instead as God already knows what I will be doing. If God is omniscient, there is no free will and God punishes for no reason (because if there is no free will, we could not choose to do anything other than what we were punished for). If there is free will, then God cannot be omniscient because He would not know the future. Unless He knows it in a quantum sort of way of knowing every single possible outcome at once. But then, He would still effectively not know which of the infinite paths I'd take so would still not know.

Do you feel that God is making the decision for you or is simply an observer? Knowing what you are going to do and making the decision for you are two different things.

Except if God knows which path we will follow before we follow it, there is no Free Will because we will always act in the way God already knows we will. For example, if God knows at 3.00 I will eat an apple for a snack at 3:45, there is no way I can eat a banana instead as God already knows what I will be doing. If God is omniscient, there is no free will and God punishes for no reason...

Do you feel that God is making the decision for you or is simply an observer? Knowing what you are going to do and making the decision for you are two different things.

If God knows precisely, omnisciently, what I will do, how I will choose, then punishing me for my decision is hard to reconcile...

Furthermore, if, as I've been taught, everything is part of God's Plan, then it stands to reason my choices are pre-planned.

Paul Watson wrote:

Except if God knows which path we will follow before we follow it, there is no Free Will because we will always act in the way God already knows we will. For example, if God knows at 3.00 I will eat an apple for a snack at 3:45, there is no way I can eat a banana instead as God already knows what I will be doing. If God is omniscient, there is no free will and God punishes for no reason (because if there is no free will, we could not choose to do anything other than what we were punished for). If there is free will, then God cannot be omniscient because He would not know the future. Unless He knows it in a quantum sort of way of knowing every single possible outcome at once. But then, He would still effectively not know which of the infinite paths I'd take so would still not know.

Do you feel that God is making the decision for you or is simply an observer? Knowing what you are going to do and making the decision for you are two different things.

Moff,

Did I make a decision and God merely observe it? Or did God observing it force me into the path he saw? As he saw the decision before I made the decision, I can't see how it can be called a decision as at the time it happened, what I would do had already been determined .

If God knows the future, then life is a movie I'm stuck in. I will always say my lines and play my part. I cannot make any other choice. If I have free will, life has choices, but God cannot know which one I'll take as if he does we're back to option 1.

How I feel about this is irrelevant because even if it looks like I have options from my perspective, if I don't because God already knows what will happen, then that is an illusion.

Again, sorry if I'm not explaining it well, but free will is incompatible with an omniscient god. There is either a branching crossroads with no one knowing what path an individual will take, or there is one track regardless of how the road appears.

If God knows precisely, omnisciently, what I will do, how I will choose, then punishing me for my decision is hard to reconcile...

Furthermore, if, as I've been taught, everything is part of God's Plan, then it stands to reason my choices are pre-planned.

No. Not exactly. "Everything" is part of God's "Plan"... You're getting into one of the "catch-22" traps. As if your only choices are A or B. Either God is in direct control and this is exactly how he wants it or God has lost control which greatly questions his omnipotence. "Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it?"

I don't know what the answer is. I'm not sure that there will be an answer sufficient for us to fully understand. I believe that the true answer involves a combination of those choices as well as others that we will never fully understand.

Paul Watson wrote:

Except if God knows which path we will follow before we follow it, there is no Free Will because we will always act in the way God already knows we will. For example, if God knows at 3.00 I will eat an apple for a snack at 3:45, there is no way I can eat a banana instead as God already knows what I will be doing. If God is omniscient, there is no free will and God punishes for no reason...

Moff Rimmer wrote:

Do you feel that God is making the decision for you or is simply an observer? Knowing what you are going to do and making the decision for you are two different things.

If God knows precisely, omnisciently, what I will do, how I will choose, then punishing me for my decision is hard to reconcile...

Furthermore, if, as I've been taught, everything is part of God's Plan, then it stands to reason my choices are pre-planned.

[humour]Either that or God just has really flexible plans.[/humour]

Moff,

I was afraid this would come up. It is quite a tricky concept to get your head around: If I can only do what God already knows I will do, there is no decision to make. God has already seen what I will do and I cannot choose anything else.

Paul. It's cool. I understand what you are saying. I really do. I've wrestled with it quite a bit myself.

I still feel like we (people in general) really end up making this much more of a "black and white" issue than it most likely really is.

My faith comes first. (And I don't expect you to follow just for that reason -- just explaining my thought processes.) With that in mind, if my only choices are what you are saying then either my choices don't matter and life is meaningless or God isn't who I believe he is. I don't think that either one is right so that leads me to believe that there must be something else that I'm missing.

There are so few things in this world that are black and white. Why does this conclusion need to be?

I think if you remove certain elements, then Free Will and God's omnipotence aren't issues at all. Those certain elements being chiefly--

- the idea of torment and punishment for making the wrong spiritual decision

-the idea that my current state is due to a single decision made at the beginning of time

-the idea that my current state is (or at least began as) a punishment imposed in response to that first wrong decision

Paul Watson wrote:

Moff,

I was afraid this would come up. It is quite a tricky concept to get your head around: If I can only do what God already knows I will do, there is no decision to make. God has already seen what I will do and I cannot choose anything else.

Paul. It's cool. I understand what you are saying. I really do. I've wrestled with it quite a bit myself.

I still feel like we (people in general) really end up making this much more of a "black and white" issue than it most likely really is.

My faith comes first. (And I don't expect you to follow just for that reason -- just explaining my thought processes.) With that in mind, if my only choices are what you are saying then either my choices don't matter and life is meaningless or God isn't who I believe he is. I don't think that either one is right so that leads me to believe that there must be something else that I'm missing.

There are so few things in this world that are black and white. Why does this conclusion need to be?

Moff,

So I'll bow out for the moment as I know I tend to get less civil the longer I'm in these debates. Thank you for your time.

Andrew, let me surprise you (I think) by agreeing a bit with your thinking. If God not only foreknew but predetermined your actions then punishing you for them would not be just.

But you are arguing against Calvanism, not necessarily against foreknowledge. I am not a calvanist and personally have a lot of problems with John Calvin's theology.

That being said, I do believe in the foreknowledge of God but foreknowledge is not the same as forcing an action.

God gives me a choice. He offers rewards and punishments. The fact that He knows what I am going to choose is partly irrelevant because He wants me to make the right choice. (and I am trying very hard to make the right choices)

Your difficulty I think stems from the seeming certainty of punishment.

Personally though, I don't want to be punished and don't plan on being punished. I have a say in the matter. You have a say in the matter. If you don't want the punishment then change the behavior. Nobody forces you to be either good or bad. The choice is yours.

Moff,

I appreciate your point, but, as you say, I can't accept it. As you say, your faith comes first for you. As someone without that faith, my question essentially becomes "[whiny six year old me]But why do you believe?"[/whiny six year old me] and I've yet to hear an answer for that that satisfies me.

Have you tried reading "Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by Josh McDowell? I recommend it highly as a good overview of some basic Christain Evidences. McDowell was an athiest who, in trying to put together evidence against Christianity converted himself (more or less).

Not all of us believe just because we believe. My reason for faith may not satisfy you, but I don't believe blindly. I have thought long and hard about why I believe what I believe.

... The fact that He knows what I am going to choose is partly irrelevant because He wants me to make the right choice. (and I am trying very hard to make the right choices)...

This part bothers me--He knows I'm going to make the wrong choice, but wants me to make the right choice. This is a poor analogy, but it sounds similar to me knowing water comes out of the faucet, but wanting to draw chocolate milk.

... Your difficulty I think stems from the seeming certainty of punishment. Personally though, I don't want to be punished and don't plan on being punished. I have a say in the matter. You have a say in the matter. If you don't want the punishment then change the behavior. Nobody forces you to be either good or bad. The choice is yours.

You are 100% correct--the punishment idea is the #1 problem with me. Like I mention a couple posts back, if we removed the elements of punishment, then there's no conflict with God's omnipotence and my Free Will.

For the record, I believe God is omnipotent and that I have Free Will. I can't logically explain that belief, but I have faith it is so :-)

Wicht wrote:

... The fact that He knows what I am going to choose is partly irrelevant because He wants me to make the right choice. (and I am trying very hard to make the right choices)...

This part bothers me--He knows I'm going to make the wrong choice, but wants me to make the right choice. This is a poor analogy, but it sounds similar to me knowing water comes out of the faucet, but wanting to draw chocolate milk.

But again, you are making the assumption that you are going to make the wrong choice.

I sincerely believe that men are capable of making the right choice. Not that we always do but we always can.

Because I believe, with all my heart, that we can make the right choice, then the idea of punishment doesn't bother me. In fact, I get more upset at people making bad choices than I do with the consequences that invariably follow.

Well, here's some Milton for you--God's plan perforce includes those who must make the wrong decisions so that others may make the right ones. Light has no discernible meaning without the offsetting dark. Judas had no choice.

It seems rather self-evident that free will and divine omniscience are mutually exclusive. If God knows what choice I'm going to make before I make it, how can it said to be a choice at all? And how can man be punished for doing something preordained?

In fact, omnipotence and omniscience each open a their own huge cans of worms. For instance, one only needs suppose that God wishes to keep the cetitude of his existence vague to realize the very concept of omnipotence is problematic in religous discussion.

It seems rather self-evident that free will and divine omniscience are mutually exclusive. If God knows what choice I'm going to make before I make it, how can it said to be a choice at all?

There are many times when I watch my child do something and make a poor choice. I know exactly what he's going to do. I know exactly how it's going to turn out. So does my son have free will even though I know exactly what's going to happen?

It's kind of a poor example, but can we really understand how God operates or thinks through our eyes?

bugleyman wrote:

It seems rather self-evident that free will and divine omniscience are mutually exclusive. If God knows what choice I'm going to make before I make it, how can it said to be a choice at all?

There are many times when I watch my child do something and make a poor choice. I know exactly what he's going to do. I know exactly how it's going to turn out. So does my son have free will even though I know exactly what's going to happen?

It's kind of a poor example, but can we really understand how God operates or thinks through our eyes?

Moff,

2) Whose eyes do you suggest we use? ;-) I'm perfectly willing to accept we can't know the mind of God, but if we can't, neither can religion, which means this conversation would vanish completely as everyone would have to shrug and say "Well, I don't know."

Well, here's some Milton for you--God's plan perforce includes those who must make the wrong decisions so that others may make the right ones. Light has no discernible meaning without the offsetting dark. Judas had no choice.

I prefer Peter to Milton, "God is not willing that any should perish but desires all men to repent."

And I am always puzzled by those who cannot differentiate between foreknowledge and predetermination. Foreknowledge of an outcome does not necessitate predetermination. And I must admit that having children does makes me appreciate this better. If I in my limited experience know what the end result of my children's actions will be then God surely knows what mine will be.

Andrew Turner wrote:

Well, here's some Milton for you--God's plan perforce includes those who must make the wrong decisions so that others may make the right ones. Light has no discernible meaning without the offsetting dark. Judas had no choice.

I prefer Peter to Milton, "God is not willing that any should perish but desires all men to repent."

And I am always puzzled by those who cannot differentiate between foreknowledge and predetermination. Foreknowledge of an outcome does not necessitate predetermination. And I must admit that having children does makes me appreciate this better. If I in my limited experience know what the end result of my children's actions will be then God surely knows what mine will be.

Wicht,

If that's not predestination, what is?

Predestination is forcing the outcome.

If you can't see a difference then I can't help you. They appear to me to be very different animals. I can accept that they don't to you even if I don't understand it.

To me, the real philosophical question is not on the difference between foreknowledge and predestination but upon the implications of knowing a thing is going to happen and not preventing it, (if it is bad.) Nevertheless, I do believe that God forsees certain things and has done what He can to provide an avenue for us to make the right choices. I also believe some men will make the right choice. Philisophically, I think that the reason God has made the decisions He has is because He knows that some will make the right choices and these are the souls He is after.

2) Whose eyes do you suggest we use? ;-) I'm perfectly willing to accept we can't know the mind of God, but if we can't, neither can religion, which means this conversation would vanish completely as everyone would have to shrug and say "Well, I don't know."

Sometimes Faith=Trust in that we need to trust that God is actually in control.

People have faith about a great number of things where they simply don't know.

In some ways you have a fair amount of faith that many millions (billions?) of years ago that the right combination of amino acids and protein molecules (or whatever) were lined up in just the right way and in a trillion trillion to one chance some kind of random "magic" (that was not divine in nature) happened that gave "birth" to some kind of single-celled organism. That this single-celled organism (again without any kind of divine influence) somehow gave birth to both plants and animals. That without divine influence, we humans after "only" 20,000 years (or whatever) "evolved" intelligence such that no other creature demonstrated even though they had a lot more time to get there.

The truth is that there is a fair amount that we both ultimately take on "faith". And there is still a lot in this world that we simply "don't know".

Paul Watson wrote:

If that's not predestination, what is?

Predestination is forcing the outcome.

Knowing the outcome ahead of time without forcing it is foreknowledge. :)

If you can't see a difference then I can't help you. They appear to me to be very different animals. I can accept that they don't to you even if I don't understand it.

To me, the real philosophical question is not on the difference between foreknowledge and predestination but upon the implications of knowing a thing is going to happen and not preventing it, (if it is bad.) Nevertheless, I do believe that God forsees certain things and has done what He can to provide an avenue for us to make the right choices. I also believe some men will make the right choice. Philisophically, I think that the reason God has made the decisions He has is because He knows that some will make the right choices and these are the souls He is after.

Wicht,

...If you can't see a difference then I can't help you...

Wow; I do not require your help. I going to work from the assumption you didn't mean quite what you wrote...

For the record, I can't see a difference. According to Merriam-Webster, choice suggests the opportunity or privilege of choosing freely. Omniscience doesn't mean God knows what I'm likely to do; it means he knows what I'm going to do, end of story. If God knows what I'm going to do, then it follows that I couldn't have possibly made another choice, which means I didn't have a choice at all.

Seems pretty clear to me.

I will say that if we can't agree on what "choice" means, there is probably little point in trying to have a conversation. I will stop short of implying you are beyond help... ;-)

Wicht,

If God knows what I'm going to do before I even exist, how can I have any choice in the matter? The only way he could possibly know that far ahead is if I have no choice. Hence predestination. Clear now?

Nope. :D

Still seems to me as if I have a choice. Its not like God has already told me what's going to happen to me.

Anyway, I'm going to drop this line with you because as I said, I accept that you don't see a difference. I do. And its a beautiful day and I told the kids I am going fishing with them.

Wow; I do not require your help. I going to work from the assumption you didn't mean quite what you wrote...

I did mean what I wrote but I did not mean what you understood. Its a bit of a regionalism of speech meaning, "I can't help you understand my point any better."

If God knows what I'm going to do before I even exist, how can I have any choice in the matter? The only way he could possibly know that far ahead is if I have no choice. Hence predestination. Clear now?

One thing that I've often felt is that God is really outside of time. There isn't really a "future" to God. Nor is there a "past". If God then does exist outside of time then saying that he knows about things before X doesn't really make a lot of sense. What does "before" mean to a being that doesn't have a "before" or "after"?

Hebrews 13 says that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. What if that means a lot more than face value?

I did mean what I wrote but I did not mean what you understood. Its a bit of a regionalism of speech meaning, "I can't help you understand my point any better."

Ah; then pardon my prickliness, and enjoy your fishing trip.

And its a beautiful day and I told the kids I am going fishing with them.

You obviously don't live here. We've got a blizzard going on.

Paul Watson wrote:

If God knows what I'm going to do before I even exist, how can I have any choice in the matter? The only way he could possibly know that far ahead is if I have no choice. Hence predestination. Clear now?

One thing that I've often felt is that God is really outside of time. There isn't really a "future" to God. Nor is there a "past". If God then does exist outside of time then saying that he knows about things before X doesn't really make a lot of sense. What does "before" mean to a being that doesn't have a "before" or "after"?

Hebrews 13 says that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. What if that means a lot more than face value?

Moff,

Now we need to put our differences aside and focus on the true enemy, Wicht, for having nice weather while you have a blizzard and I have rain. ;-)

I don't think that actually address the point I was making. And this is going round in circles without getting anywhere productive.

I know. (And I almost didn't post.) Sometimes I feel like the best way to get a good answer is to ask the right question. And sometimes we don't exactly know what the problem is to even ask the right question.

But, yeah. The real question should be why Wicht should be allowed to go fishing when we can't.

I think it's important to point out that the concept of free will in Christianity is relatively new. In fact, many sects of Christianity believe that our actions have no impact, and that only by God's mercy are we saved.

If you've never read it, I encourage you to read Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." It's a pivotal work that had an enormous impact on America's religious beliefs during the 18th century.

That without divine influence, we humans after "only" 20,000 years (or whatever) "evolved" intelligence such that no other creature demonstrated even though they had a lot more time to get there.

This may have already been answered and I apologize if it has.

If life requires divine influence to be born, what divine influence gave birth to god?

If life requires divine influence to be born, what divine influence gave birth to god?

"Before Abraham was, I AM." "Birth" implies a beginning. I don't feel that God ever "began". He just always was and is.

That doesn't really answer your question. I guess that I would say -- "none".

Moff Rimmer wrote:

That without divine influence, we humans after "only" 20,000 years (or whatever) "evolved" intelligence such that no other creature demonstrated even though they had a lot more time to get there.

This may have already been answered and I apologize if it has.

If life requires divine influence to be born, what divine influence gave birth to god?

Yup. That's the problem with first cause...

It does sort of answer my question. It is possible for something/someone to have always existed. Therefore, the universe could have always existed without the need of divine influence.

It does sort of answer my question. It is possible for something/someone to have always existed. Therefore, the universe could have always existed without the need of divine influence.

Through my very small research into the origins of the universe, it seemed like most scientists believe that even the universe itself had a beginning. I could be wrong though. I didn't research it that thoroughly and it really is outside of my expertise. Maybe someone (Kirth?) could talk more concretely about that.

CourtFool wrote:

It does sort of answer my question. It is possible for something/someone to have always existed. Therefore, the universe could have always existed without the need of divine influence.

Through my very small research into the origins of the universe, it seemed like most scientists believe that even the universe itself had a beginning. I could be wrong though. I didn't research it that thoroughly and it really is outside of my expertise. Maybe someone (Kirth?) could talk more concretely about that.

The universe is about 14-15 billion years old.

I do not see the existence of the universe as proof of a god by means of 'The universe exists, someone/something must have created it, that someone/something must be god'.

I do not see the existence of the universe as proof of a god by means of 'The universe exists, someone/something must have created it, that someone/something must be god'.

I'm sorry. Not my intention. I also do not see it as some kind of "proof". You said something like the universe has always existed when I didn't understand that to be the case. I did not mean to imply that this in some way "proves" God.

And originally, I was saying that I feel that it takes just as much "faith" to believe that all this (People, life, the universe, etc.) all happened by some fluke of a chance. Neither can truly be "proven" and I didn't mean to imply that.

EDIT: I meant to say... Neither can be "proven" as well as neither "proves" the existence or non-existence of God.

My fingers are having a difficult time keeping up with my brain...

Ah. I can agree with you there. We all take a lot on faith.

To be honest, I had never thought of omniscience being incompatible with free will. Omnipotence, sure, that one is obvious to me (especially when combined with omniscience), but not omniscience. But I can see how it is a problem.

The clash of free will (or moral responsibility) and determinism is not just an issue for religion and theology, philosophy has been grappling with this issue for a long time as well. The philosophical solution has been the idea of compatibilism.

I don't really understand it enough to go into in detail (and the wikipedia article seemed rather weak to me from my limited understanding of the topic), but you can also check out the Standford Encyclopaedia of Psychology for a fuller treatment.

But the Bible is clear, God is omniscient and omnipotent.

And although that might be a difficult concept to reconcile with the concept of human responsibility, for me it is better than the alternatives. Either we aren't responsible, or God is not omniscient (and therefore not God) or he is not omnipotent (and again, therefore not God, or at elast not any sort of God that I actually want to worship).

What I find most interesting about this discussion is that people are so completely absorbed by the debate over the existence or nonexistence of God. As if knowing whether or not God exists makes a particular religion any more or less relevant to our daily lives.

Personally, I think the whole debate over God's existence entirely misses the point. You don't need religious faith to be impacted by a religious experience. An atheist can chant Krishna's name, light candles at Easter, recite the Shoshinge, or pray to Mecca, and be just as strongly affected by the experience as a person of religious faith. As Joseph Campbell once said, "The nature is your nature, and all of these wonderful poetic images of mythology are referring to something in you. When your mind is simply trapped by the image out there so that you never make the reference to yourself, you have misread the image."

I think it's important to point out that the concept of free will in Christianity is relatively new. In fact, many sects of Christianity believe that our actions have no impact, and that only by God's mercy are we saved.

If you've never read it, I encourage you to read Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." It's a pivotal work that had an enormous impact on America's religious beliefs during the 18th century.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that free will is a new debate in Christianity. Augustine wrote about it as early as the fourth and fifth centuries. John Edwards was a Calvinist and Calvin organized his veiws in the 16th century. Augustine thus predates Calvin by over a thousand years.

More to the point, the Bible is full of allusions to free will, even if it does not use the term. The book of Joshua concludes with a call to "choose this day whom you will serve." Isaiah records God as saying, "come let us reason together." And the message of Jesus to "repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," makes much more sense to me if one has the freedom to repent.

That being said, you are right that there are christian theologist that deny free will. But there are plenty of theologians who through the years have championed it as well.