Another religious argument on Veeky Forums

There are other Gods.

From the perspective of a Christian?

Yeah

youtube.com/watch?v=wmOEiKoHYdU

Christianity is so fucking inconsistent. It's literally just made up as it's followers go along and is ripped off other religions and philosophy. It may as well be officially secular.

The bible says God chose who to damn and who to save. Romans 9:18-23

Like how Judiasm is kinda?

Abrehamic religions are all essentially the same ideology.

>18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

What I'm getting from this is that not only did God pick in advance who is saved and damned but that it's also an indignation to question the justice of that behavior.

lol denying free will is way worse than spending some eternity in hell

>I-if he can do it I should be able to as well!!!

When will people realize God isn't subject to any laws and rules since he IS those rules and we're to follow those rules. Unless you wanna suffer eternally if that's your thing.

>John 8:32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
there's your freewill.

gee i dunno maybe the moment he provides physical proof for his existence instead of going through muh faith jump through hoops to show ur devotion for me peons!!! testing where billions die just for the sake of a sadistic deity's fucking quiz show where if you give the wrong answer you burn forever

Dunno mate, the quiz you're referring to is quite easy if you ask me. Just pick up a bible once in a while and you should be fine by and large.

Sounds pretty cruel, even if there's no justifiable way for me to judge Him.

These arguments always ignore the finest point of being an omniscient entity, and that is that knowing everything necessarily includes knowing what it is like to be an intelligent entity in the universe you create and having something horrible happen to you. You get to experience that at a high resolution than the actual person who is suffering is.

There is must be some really fucking good reason to subject yourself to that.

Before I address your main point, let me clarify some things.

1. "Creationism" as you put it, is the only correct, historical and biblical way of understanding our origins. The world is approximately 6000 years old and was made spontaneously. The evolutionism myth is incompatible with the Christian worldview.

2. Eternal damnation and universalism are not the only views of hell. There are conditionalists that believe hell is where you are destroyed. You simply cease to exist after a temporary pain for the punishment of your sins. Despite the traditional view of eternal punishment being the most widely-held belief, there is infact more biblical support for conditionalism/annihiliationism than there is for the platonic view of hell.

God being omnipotent and omniscient does not contradict our free will.

You can record a game of football and then watch it with your friend. You already know the outcome but you had no influence on the game whatsoever.

The only real issue here is what is known as "the problem of evil". It basically goes like this:
>If God is perfect and holy, why allow evil in the first place?
and has been answered many times.

The first answer is Free Will. We decided to rebel, we face the consequences of our rebellion and separation from God. We are responsible for evil.

God could have made us automatons, zombies, robots incapable of doing evil. But our life would be meaningless. God wants genuine love, not a preprogammed being following orders.

You would want a genuine real puppy, not a toy puppy that makes noise when you push a button.

And the final argument against the "problem of evil" is the movie argument. Basically it goes like this:
>Movie A
Meet John. John has a good wife, children and a well-paying job. He lives a succesful and happy life. The end.
>Movie B
Meet John. John has had a tough childhood. He is poor and surrounded by criminals, but he manages to better himself. He goes to school, gets a good job and becomes a succesful businessman with a loving wife and 2 children.

What movie would you watch? Which is more interesting? There is a reason why almost every single movie is a rollercoaster of emotions. Things go bad but it turns out good in the end. We like being on the edge of our seat and wondering what will happen. If nothing happens, it's a boring movie.

Life and the cosmos is a grand movie, the greatest story ever told. God is the author, and we will have all the answers in the end. Infact, God already gave us the why, what and when. It's called the Bible.

As
said, God knows what He is doing. He is perfect and holy. There is a reason for everything. Just because you don't understand God, does not mean there is something wrong with Him. Sin will not go unpunished, neither will your works go unrewarded.

Well spoken, I hadn't considered that.

>world is approximately 6000 years old and was made spontaneously. The evolutionism myth is incompatible with the Christian worldview.
Why do this?
You lose 95% of your readers opening with that statement that they have observational evidence is false.
Why must the entirety of your faith rest on this one pillar?
The universe could have started at the moment of your birth as far as you know, and some observation you have made has lead you to believe everything is 6,000 years old?
Explain the light from the stars that are farther away than that. How did that get here?
Did he create it mid flight?
Is your God one that must create work-arounds like this?
Why ignore the evidence one thing you are sure that God created, the universe we live in?

I still find that free will conflicts with omniscience and omnipotence. The problem with your football game example is that God is the reason for the football game. He decided on the rules, chose the players, built the stadium, arranged the weather, and arranged every blade of grass in the stadium. He wrote every play and trained every player. As all events are consequences and results of other events and God is responsible for all starting conditions and aware of the influences and conclusions, he cannot be counted as independent from it.

>observational evidence
Show me them? All these years and all I see is the theory of evolution being debunked over and over again. It is unscientific and the way atheists defend this theory hinges on irrationality and cult behavior. Shouting "evolution is fact!" does not make it so. You need to have proof. Since you won't provide articles or sources for your claims, let me do show a fraction of mine. Maybe you will do your own research instead of blindly believing what you've been told.

newgeology.us/presentation32.html
trueorigin.org/spetner1.php
trueorigin.org/creatheory.php
trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.php
evidentcreation.com/TRM-Logerr.html
bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=jMr278CMAIA
youtube.com/watch?v=FvzMIJla28g
youtube.com/watch?v=shyI-aQaXD0
youtube.com/watch?v=Gjvuwne0RrE
youtube.com/watch?v=TJ-3fP4H8Ss

>Why must the entirety of your faith rest on this one pillar?
Because Genesis is the foundation of the Bible. If you cut it out or distort the reality of historical beginnings, you are mutilating the meaning behind Christ's sacrifice on the cross aswell.

That doesn't make any sense. The workers and constructors behind stadium and grass field are not responsible for the score of every football game.

God gave us a choice, we make the decisions.
God simply knows before hand what our decisions will be.

You are right, from an omnipotent point of view, all of it seems like it would get incredibly boring after a while. If only there was someway you could, as God, get in there and play yourself.
Maybe you could constrain yourself somehow. Give yourself a body and limited perspective so you don't just trounce everyone instantly.

You are conflating foreknowledge with predestination because you are underestimating the ability of God to know the end from the beginning.

Everything in your life, God knew from before he created the world. Everything.

He did not predestine you for any of it.

He made your eternal resting place in accordance with it, during the creation week, and continues to work on the New Jersusalem.

The evidence is the evidence. Your worldview believes that stratified rock is millions of years worth of accumulated crusts on the earth.

Without any holes in any of them.

With petrified trees literally standing among 20 or 30 of them.

Mine believes it is the result of a global flood 4600 years ago.

>Maybe you will do your own research instead of blindly believing what you've been told
You are not a Christian.
Stop calling yourself that.
You hold that title as an one holds an ideology. Like a fascist or a communist would.
This is not what Christ intended, and I pray that one day you will see that.

>get in there and play yourself
>Give yourself a body and limited perspective

And that's where Yeshua comes in.
100% Man (feels like we do, same life and toils we have)
100% Divine (sinless, never stolen or told a lie)

>If you believe in the Bible you are not a Christian
k

He says he's a Christian, and he posts things only Christians can know.

So you lack discernment, friend, and should leave matters regarding spiritual discernment to those better equipped for it.

You are most likely a Catholic.

>Give yourself a body and limited perspective so you don't just trounce everyone instantly.

We have seen God do just this in the bible.

You'll make it one day friend. I don't know what horrible thing has to happen to you to make you realise how fucking wrong you are, but, by the grace of God, it will happen.

Why do you so desperately argue against your own personal responsibility?

Do you have something to hide before a holy God?

Because if so, we have some very good news for you!

I would seriously worry about you if I were you, not him.

>makes a claim
>doesn't provide proof or evidence

You're acting like a child shouting "YOU'RE WRONG I'M RIGHT, LALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Atheists/evolutionists in their natural environment, complete ignorance and irrationality.

They are the same, user.

Prove it.

This is really quite simple.

God is not going to force anyone to believe in him, to love him, or to choose to be in his Kingdom.

That leaves love as the highest ideal in this universe, one where God knew the costs and benefits going forward, and went forward anyways.

Your job is to be a benefit, and not a cost.

And whichever you become, God knew from before time.

Get a bigger God. Then enlarge it infinitely in an infinite number of ways. Then find out that that God actually loves you enough to die for you.

Not wanting your creation to be deceived by demons into spending eternity in hell with them, obviously.

That concern for my fellow man is beneficial to me?
That I am an intelligence operating on roughly the same goal structure, observing the same thing that he is?
Or that I from the same God that created him?
I can provide evidence for the first two.

You are arguing to win the argument rather than to understand.
The two are not the same.

The theory of evolution.
Prove it.

Keep in mind that "evolution" has like 6 meanings:

Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”
Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
Micro-evolution: variations form within the “kind”

The first 5 are purely religious and speculative. Only the last one is scientific and has been observed. No one disputes that.

Let me guess, you're a 'Christian' that got brainwashed into the Darwinian paradigm. Afraid of being laughed or mocked, you got rid of the traditional, factual, biblical view of Genesis that people held for centuries and pretended that Christianity is perfectly feasible with Flintstone monkey myths and "millions of years".

You are what we call, a compromised, lukewarm, carnal, worldly Christian.
A Christian that is afraid of being a Christian. A Christian that doesn't really believe in the Bible, but likes the culture.

If you're gonna LARP, might aswell convert to Roman Catholicism. It's all about role-playing in there. The pope said aliens exist, evolution is real, atheists can go to heaven and muslims are our friends.

You just proved they were not the same user, despite your previous post.

I did. Then I also found out that anonymous loudmouths like you don't speak for God.

Amen.

Plus, the RCC looks very kindly on Darwinian evolution. So he'll feel right at home.

He has actually authorized us to speak for him, and to him.

I don't know what you mean by "I did."

Care to elaborate?

Everyone speaks for God and who Evers loudest wins.

Your first mistake is that you consider yourself a wise man.

Do you think those other humans who made those observations, who God has granted with senses as good or better than yours, just pulled them out of thin air and now believe them with the conviction they do out of hatred of our God?
That is absurd. Even if they aren't completely correct because they are starting with 'There is no God' as an axiom, you think that everything they see is just hogwash?
You need to reconsider what you are doing before it is to late. You seek to divide instead of unite, as your rhetoric here demonstrates.

No, the doctrines of demons comes from demons.

And who is 'he'? A fallen, fallible man? Or almighty God, the Creator of the universe?

It's your word against his. That's why I always laugh when a "Christian" gets all judgemental at me. It reminds me of this verse:

>So when they continued asking Him, He lifted Himself up and said unto them, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

So, who should I believe? The Word of God, or the word of some anonymous twerp who sees Christianity as nothing more than a stick to beat others with?

Maybe you're confusing several posters with each other.

Or maybe you need professional help.

Matthew 28 (The Great Commission)

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

>who sees Christianity as nothing more than a stick to beat others with?
This may be the most valuable idea in this thread for those seeking actually Christianity.

>>So when they continued asking Him, He lifted Himself up and said unto them, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

By the way, that was Jesus' way out of a trap the pharisees had set for him.

Setting traps is the way of the devil, not the way of the Lord.

Jesus was telling those men that even though the Law of Moses condemned the adulteress to death, that their hands were dirty and they lacked the righteousness to carry out the death sentence.

Then he, who had such righteousness, forgave her with an admonition to stop committing adultery.

Jesus never told us not to judge anything; that's a common misconception the godless promote to insulate themselves from the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 6:3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?

I cannot tell you if you're going to make it to heaven or not; that's the judging Jesus reserves for himself and tells us not to do.

I can tell you where you're headed, right now, by your own testimony, if that is revealed, but not where you will end up, for sure, on Judgment Day.

That the Word of God is a stick?

No, it is the sharpest sword in the universe, capable of cutting between soul and spirit.

>Or maybe you need professional help.

>So when they continued asking Him, He lifted Himself up and said unto them, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

So, once again, it's your word, a fallible man, against that of God. Who should I believe?

Excuse me if I sound a bit skeptical, but you sound awfully judgemental and petty for a Christian. You also constantly call people names. Now, ask yourself, would you like that if people did that to you?

>Missed the point completely.
Try again. You'll figure it out, I'm sure.

Thus saith the internet.
>The word of God is not a big truck. It's not something you can just dump on people. It is a series of tubes and those tubes can be filled with bullshit and then the word of God becomes delayed.
Amen.

>Setting traps is the way of the devil, not the way of the Lord
>quoting a Bible verse is Satanic

Are you sure you're a Christian? Because you sound nothing like one. In fact, you sound like the exact opposite of what Jesus tells me his followers should behave like.

When I read the Gospels, I get from it that I should be humble, reserve judgement, and above all treat others the way I'd want to be treated. Then I look at you, someone who constantly judges others, probably based on things you probably do wrong yourself, someone who constantly calls others names (you seem particularly fond of accusing others of having various mental illnesses, I'm not really sure why that's supposed to be "funny" or invalidate anything anyone says, you should have extra respect for those afflicted by such a disorder), and constantly calling for others to be saved, which makes me wonder who really needs to be saved? Might you the one who's in seriously need of the Word of God? Because for a Christian, you sound really hateful and angry.

Please do me a favor and actually read the Bible. Look at what it says and first look at yourself and your own behavior before you start judging others. You'll find that it does wonders for your anger and spite. I know it did in my case

All of the problems of the Christian faith go away with simulationist dualism. Including the problem of evil.
There is a requirement though, which is to acknowledge that you are not important and that you are not the center of the creation. There might be no purpose or goal, and there might not be a reward. There might not even be an existence after life. God might not be all over your ass watching what you do.
This non-individualistic concept is a common theme in Budhism, and it should also be familiar to Christians since humility is preached in the scriptures. However westerners just dislike the idea and indulge in the "I" too much.

Why does demon deception and torture even have to be an option?

>That doesn't make any sense. The workers and constructors behind stadium and grass field are not responsible for the score of every football game.

God isn't responsible for some factors though, He's responsible for all factors. The brain chemistry of every player. The direction of the wind. Any and all factors involved in the performance of the game, even centuries upon centuries prior to the game, can be attributed to God in some way. Every event is a consequence or result of another event, which will conveniently trace its way up the ladder to the omniscient and omnipotent God given the Biblical model. There are no factors out of His control, so the outcome can be attributed directly to Him.

>You are conflating foreknowledge with predestination because you are underestimating the ability of God to know the end from the beginning.

God is omniscient, no? Assumptions are required to state that He does not know or chooses not to know.

>Everything in your life, God knew from before he created the world. Everything. He did not predestine you for any of it.

Creating someone with complete knowledge of how their life will play out and intending for the circumstances in said life to happen due to your capacity to change them but lack of effort to isn't predestination?

Sorry, but how do you know this? Are you God?

I am not God, but it can be implied that God has a hand in the state of everything.

If there was nothing before God created it and God created everything, God had a hand in all of creation.

>I am not God, but it can be implied that God has a hand in the state of everything

Yes, but it's implied by you, a fallible man. Wouldn't it be better to reserve judgement about things we can't know?

I'll supplement this with quotes then.

Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

Proverbs 16:4 - The Lord has made all things from himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Again, quotes provided by a fallible, fallen man. A sinner. Your opinions don't mean anything to me. You're not God

>dat pic
Hey now, Darth Vader never destroyed a planet in the movie cannon, he was a mere lackey in regards to that act, and it was Governor Tarkin who chose the target and gave the final order. He's also a lacky in regards to world(s) domination goal. I can't recall him killing any animals, save in self defense. It's also a bit of a stretch to call hunting down members of the Jedi cult or a random tribe of sand people "genocide".

Okay, the killing children thing you may have him on, even if he hadn't yet taken up the name.

Really, aside from that last pre-Vader bit, as bad guys go, he doesn't do much besides be intimidating and off a commanding officer or three. (Granted, I've not bothered seeing Rogue One yet - but those looked like the acts of a super-soldier at war, rather than murder.)

>Sauron - Peeping Tom - icwutudidthere

So, by way of my fallibility, there is no case I can make as I am automatically disqualified ad hominem regardless of the content?

Yep. You're not God.

>is therefore non omniscient and, by extension, not a god.
>is not omnipotent, and is by extension not a god.
Omniscience isn't a requisite to be a god - nor is omnipotence. Most gods are not omniscient nor omnipotent, and the stories surrounding them often demonstrate this fact repeatedly. Granted, one could easily argue that the stories in the Bible itself prove that Yahweh is not omniscient nor omnipotent, and the titles "all knowing and all powerful" are just what they are for any other high-deity: titles. Rising them to literal attributes seems a bit revisionist, when the only canonical tales of him have him repeatedly expressing both surprise and regret.

Some of the more liberal churches deal with this dilemma by stating that the way God gives us free will is by blinding himself to our decisions and their results. When you're both omnipotent and omniscient, you can do this - choose to forgo some aspect of your omniscience. It also stinks of revisionism, but from a logic point of view, it kind of works.

Then again, it's also easy to make the argument that faith trumps logic, and thus any paradox that arises from the nature of God is a non-issue. That's a dangerous route, but certainly not an uncommon one, particularly in modern times. ...Indeed, it seems one more common today than in the Church's youth, where debates as to the nature of God and its internal logic were commonplace among the religious hierarchy, whereas now, among that same authority, questioning the nature of God seems more apt to bring accusations of ignorance or heresy than ever - even if it's considerably less likely to get you killed.

God would be the one who decided humans would find conflict and suffering interesting though, and a lack of them boring. He could have chosen not to make humans require these elements in their lives to be interested and entertained and satisfied, yet he chose to inflict unnecessary pain on his innocent creations. Why?

Just because you think god can or should do something does not mean god did or does so.
The fact god can see into the future of all things does not mean he actually does.
Since this god is the creator, him not seeing into the future meanign the universe itself is one in which the future is unknown. The universe is dictated by god's actions. An action of god means a universe in which such an action is to be carried out by him. If god does not carry out an action then that means the universe is one in which is not built for such an action to take place in it.
I hope im getting this through. God's actual action or non action determine the ACTUAL, not the POSSIBLE, state of reality.
I wont even mention that an all powerful god can create a universe in which both free will and omniscience are possible at the same time.
How? I dont know, im not an all powerful being.

As far as evil in the bible, well reality includes both godo and evil, struggle and love and death.
Why should it not be in the bible? If the bible is a guide or rule book or both and then some, should it not include in it stories that would deal with all of life's realities?
It would seem that evil and good would always exist no matter how friendly and happy we as a society will be because good and evil are relative. In a society that has no killers the ultimate evil would be thievery. In a society without thieves perhaps bullies? etc..
There is always a spectrum of good and bad we are just pogressing towards and overall less violent world.

If we could sit and be happy, we would sit. We can't, so now we must act.
What is the more interesting creation, a statue of an engine, or a functional one?

I've always liked that explanation, though it leads immediately to this:
i.4cdn.org/wsg/1486417664144.webm

>What is the more interesting creation, a statue of an engine, or a functional one?
Being omnipotent, which is more interesting is totally up to God. He is the one who determines which one humans and himself will find more interesting, and could reverse his decision whenever he likes, or he's not omnipotent.

NTG, but the one of the problems with that idea (and there are many ) is that to find something "interesting" is kind impossible, for any being who is absolutely omniscient, regardless of how complex the creation. If there is some limit to the being's omniscience, it might be a viable position, but if said being is absolutely all knowing, a single pebble is no more surprising or interesting than the entirety of creation.

Granted, it may simply be, as so many have stated, that God is simply unknowable, and his motives entirely mysterious to us. That does rather suggest that the being depicted in the Bible is highly anthropomorphized, and thus the work is fundamentally flawed, however divinely inspired it maybe.

Imagine the system that would be created from having intelligences value the static statue over the moving engine.
A universe than can choose to act, but decides not to?
Why would anyone create that?

Again, to a completely omniscient being, completely aware of anything a universe may do, regardless of its complexity, there's no difference in predictability of a static or dynamic system. You can't grant motivation for creation to such a being in either case - or at the very least, you can't chalk it up to one model being more interesting than the other - it's the same difference to such a Laplace demon.

Perhaps I should have said useful to God's goals rather than interesting then.
Perhaps I equate the two for some reason.

This.

That would assume one could comprehend the goals of an omniscient being, that being the problem - such a being is incomprehensible.

This is why I prefer the classical model of dieties, where they are just really fucking wise and really fucking powerful, rather than absolutely both. At least then you can comprehend motives. Anything that's all of both is just an unknowable force of nature, and any motivations you do associate with it are entirely nonsensical and inevitably derived from one's self due to the impossibility or reference.

I suppose there are dieties that work okay that way (like the Hindu concept of Brahma, where the personable gods are merely partial aspects of said incomprehensible totality), but Yahweh is supposed to be a highly interactive and personable deity, so granting him aspects that makes that impossible seems to be a contradictory effort to simply solidify his bad-assery. Then again, I suppose that's part of why you end up with such things as the Trinity and Jesus, and Mary worship.

We do have a reference though.
If we begin with the axiom that we live in a universe that adheres to his will, and we can make observations about the things that work well in this universe and the things that do not. That allows us some form of a glimpse, does it not?

>le omniscience negates free will meme
Literally every time.

>and we can
then we can*

%99.999999 (followed by a lot more 9's) of this universe is absolutely hostile to life as we know it. I mean, if you're going to use the nature of creation as evidence of this being's motives, then we should all off ourselves right quick, as clearly we're some sort of anomalous mistake out of alignment with the rest of creation.

Yes, a tad facetious, but in the end, you can justify anything by pointing to the apparent nature of the universe.

Life strives to spread and survive by its own mechanisms. It's thus perfectly natural to make spread and survival an axiom (insomuch as any axiom can be declared "natural"), but that doesn't require the presence of a deity to encourage, as all evidence suggests that's what life's been doing since long before we came upon the scene, and if anything, we're just the latest and greatest continuance of that effort.

It seems, if you want to have a deity as a guide post, you'd want one that had motivations that one could comprehend, beyond those that are naturally apparent.

The point is that with this grand "movie" called life, God is proving several things:

1. He is proving Satan/Lucifer wrong.
2. He is showing the consequences of rebellion.
3. He is showing what life without God looks like.

When the eternal state arrives, people in heaven will rejoice and worship God because they will understand the movie has ended and what the purpose of everything was.

The purpose of this movie is not for Him finding it "interesting". It is for us, His creation. We are here to experience and to understand.

The on-lookers and watchers are angels (both holy and fallen).

Have you ever seen The Truman Show? If you ignore the Gnostic elements, it is a reflection of reality.

The guy running the show = God
Truman = Adam/Mankind
The woman = Satan who gives Adam "enlightenment"
The people outside the dome that watch the show = angels

>I mean, if you're going to use the nature of creation as evidence of this being's motives, then we should all off ourselves right quick, as clearly we're some sort of anomalous mistake out of alignment with the rest of creation.

How on earth does that follow?
The vast majority of the surface and interior of a single seater airplane are incapable of containing or supporting a person but that doesn't make the cockpit "an anomalous mistake out of line" with the rest of the airplane. It means that all the other parts exist so that one single seat can be occupied by a person who will fly the plane. The fact that rest if the universe is uninhabitable is irrelevant as the one single part of the universe that is inhabitable could not exist without the rest of the uninhabitable universe to support it.

>The purpose of this movie is not for Him finding it "interesting". It is for us, His creation. We are here to experience and to understand.
Yes, but the question is what motive could you possibly grant to an entirely omniscient and omnipotent deity to create anything at all, much less something that requires things to be interesting? The guy who runs the Truman show is human and after ratings for entirely comprehensible reasons.

I mean, if the universe is some enclosed loop in which mankind is its creator and thus created a God with his interests in mind, ala Issac Asimov's "The Last Question", maybe you'd be onto something, but otherwise, any being with those attributes is completely unknowable as are its motivation.

I mean, yeah, it sounds great, but if ya think about it for more than a moment, the logic kinda falls through. Unless, of course, you remove or reduce those absolutist attributes.

Arguing from scale will get you nowhere. Yea, the universe is infinitely bigger than us on a cosmic scale, but look how big we are from the scale of the subatomic?
We don't know what portions of the universe are occupiable by life, because we do not know the full capabilities of life.

>justify anything by pointing to the apparent nature of the universe
Sure I can. Here is one.
A society composed of individuals with goals that would arise from biological natural selection will always do worse if it randomly kills members of its group. It and those it is working with will always be outperformed by groups that do not allow that.
There are sociological, ecological, biological, economic, militaristic, and even physical reasons for that, but it seems that a 'property' of our universe is that "Randomly killing those trying to work with you will turn out badly'.

Do you see?
You might think those reasons just make sense, but, as we discussed earlier, it is God that decides what makes sense and what doesn't.

Ultimately you are trying to understand something which is far greater than you could possibly imagine.

If God could fit in your brain, He would not be worth worshipping.

>You might think those reasons just make sense, but, as we discussed earlier, it is God that decides what makes sense and what doesn't.
The only place where God might fit in that assumption is that he created the laws of the universe that lead to that situation where, yes, those are logical rules to follow to promote that axiom of survival.

But if there was no God, and the universe was self created or just an inevitability of physics, then it would still be just as true. Thus God has no place in that result.

On the other hand, a people who believe in a god that is going to bring about the end of the world any day now, or in an afterlife that is eternal, and thus infinitely more important than this one, is actually detrimental to the spread of life beyond this fragile Earth and any long term, multi-generational efforts that extend beyond the individual's brief life.

So if you want a deity dedicated to that axiom of collective survival, it seems you'd want one that doesn't guarantee it, nor negates it, and rewards long term efforts towards it, rather than making them meaningless via an eternal afterlife and an inevitable judgement day.

Because angels have free will as well.

None of those things exist in heaven.

None of those things existed in the Garden of Eden on God's watch.

Everything you hate came as a result of Adam's sin, and the fall of mankind, and the cursing of the earth.