If God knew beforehand why did he go through with it?

[Falvlun]

I believe that, in Truth, God is One eternally, but when it comes to the question of why create, I don't come up with reasons. I just say: "I don't know."

Wouldn't it just boil down to "s/he/it wanted to?"

 

[Riverwolf]

Wouldn't it just boil down to "s/he/it wanted to?"

No. Even that's a speculation.

"I don't know" is the best answer at this time, in my opinion. Anything else is speculation.

 

[Falvlun]

No. Even that's a speculation.

"I don't know" is the best answer at this time, in my opinion. Anything else is speculation.

Do you believe that the god in question is omnipotent? If not omnipotent, do you believe it is the more powerful than anything else around? If so, it's not like anything else could make it do something it didn't want to do. Ergo, it did it because it wanted to.

 

[Humanistheart]

I do not know what your are trying to say here
I said it. Qualitative oneness, quantitative difference. .

Meaning?

Then your previous comment did nothing to challenge my position. In my analogy, the drop of ocean water is distinct from the ocean. If you want, we can say that the drop is resting on something beyond the ocean's surface. This causes a sense of distinction, but there remains similarity in quality. .

The entire ocean is just made up of 'drops' of water if you want to look at it that way. By this anolagy one could contend that god is made up of us, he's merely the sum of our whole. Or, likewise, I might ask how much of the water in this metaphorical ocean is god? Any of it, or is it all drops? I suggest the dropping of that analogy as I suspect we could run in circles with that one for quite some time.

They are subordinate to God by constitution. I still don't see what treatment has to do with anything..

By constitution? Explain.

Then where is your argument? When you ask why God is needed if souls are eternal, how can this NOT imply that the necessity of God relies entirely on whether souls are created or eternal?.

Your proposal suggests that souls have always been, before and after creation. You are saying that souls were not created. If they were not created by this god, how is it they came to be subserviant to him?

I didn't know I was limited to one analogy. Is this a game we're supposed to be playing?.

I'd suggest the limit is reached when the analogies directly contradict themselves.

Sure. But in this case, their existence is contingent upon the eternal water..

You're just making it up as you go aren't you? There is nothing in your analogy to imply that the already eternal 'fish' have an existence contingent on some 'eternal water'. It's like saying 2 plus 2 equals 4, so there must be a god. I'm just saying that somewhere in there there's a gap of information, if not logic.

The two - eternal fish and eternal water - are inseparable items in eternity. They go hand-in-hand, necessarily. That is what I am saying. For the soul, deovtional activities toward God constitute one's eternal occupation. Survival obviously has nothing to do with it. .

Survival has nothing to do with it. Then I'll ask again, how did these souls that existed indipendant of god then come to be trapped in an eternal occupation of giving the spiritual equavalent of head to god for all eternity? Where, for you, is that connection?

Your idea that God is not needed arose from my proposition that souls are eternal. If there is no connection between these two things, then are you admitting to just randomly saying things for no reason? And I have not contradicted myself even once. There is every reason to accept my proposition as it provides an answer to the questions in this thread..

It provides an answer, but, as I'm demonstraighting, your answer like all other's given, ultimately just gives rise to more unanswerable questions. You have not, in fact, offered any reason to accept your proposition, either empirically or logically. But maybe I'm wrong. Does anyone agree with paraphrakrti's proposal?

I am not limiting souls to a "mankind," for one, but that is beside the point. And I am not saying that these desires themselves create the universe. I am saying that these desires are the reason the universe is created. In other words, God creates the universe in order for the conditioned souls to try and fulfill those desires. And that, if it weren't for such desires, God wouldn't have created at all..

If this world is in fact, an adjunct to sin as you previously claimed, and god created it then we're back where we started, with my point that god would then be the sinner.

I doubt it was as direct as: "Do you want to exist in creation?" It is our desires to act and enjoy disconnected from God that constitute creation. That is what I am saying. Basically, I just mean "inferior" in that we are not in control. God is, by definition, the controller. We are dependent upon God. .

Who's definition? Not mine. No, clearly by your example we are not dependent on god, unless he forced us to be. We didn't need him to exist, we don't need him to continue existing, so in what way are we dependent on him?

I don't see how your man being stronger than women example has application here. I am not speaking of any sort of "might makes right" contingency. God doesn't just happen to be the one in control. God is the root of all existence. .

You already said he was not. Souls existed independantly of this god, he did not create them. according to you. Now you say god is the root of existence, somehow.

That is part of what it means to be God. This is an existential consideration. God is the entity to whom all else is related and dependent. This tends to be axiomatic for theism, especially as is implied by this thread..

Not really. More thiestic religions in our history have not contended that the world was created by their specific gods than ones that have believed this.

I am not necessarily making any personal judgment call on whether seeking enjoyment apart from God or not is good or bad..

It seemed that you were, as you linked any desire to do anything apart from god as a 'sin'. Unless you conceed that sin has nothing to do with right or wrong, which brings us back to the idea that god is merely forcing his will on others.

I am simply attempting to explain the philosophy, which states that we are in our natural position when in direct connection with God and, therefore, in illusion when acting in ignorance of that connection.

It's an intrigueing philosophy for sure, just one with many holes in it.

 

[Riverwolf]

Do you believe that the god in question is omnipotent? If not omnipotent, do you believe it is the more powerful than anything else around? If so, it's not like anything else could make it do something it didn't want to do. Ergo, it did it because it wanted to.

I don't claim to know the complete nature of God. If I did, I'd be God.

The only thing about the Supreme Reality that I believe solidly is that it is One With All Things.

 

[Seeker100]

This question is for all you who are believers in God

These question has been lingering over my head for a very long time.

If God is all knowing, can foresee the future and prophecy things before they happen why did he allow sin to enter the world? Why did he create Lucifer knowing he would become Satan? Why did he put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden if he knew Adam and Eve would be tricked by the serpent?

If you are believer in God and you know the answer, do let me know as to be honest im racking my brain over the concept of a loving creator who had prior knowledge of his creations demise and let it happen anyway?

The future can change. The future does not exist in a definite form. If the future could not change there would be no hope.

In the bible we see that God was sorry that He made man and He regretted making him. God was also sorry that He made Saul King. This is because the future can change.

In the book of Jonah, Jonah says in 40 days and 40 nights the city will be destroyed. He did not say if you do not repent it will be destroyed. He tells them the future that in 40 days the city will be destroyed. Thus they changed the future and the city was not destroyed.

With our free wills comes a very special gift. This gift is the ability to change the future. God has given us this gift as He has it and we are made in His image.

The future is not limited to one final outcome. It is wide open. This is why prophecy is not perfect. It is not that God does not know the future it is that the future does not exist thus its outcome is wide open.

With our free will anything is possible. Whatever the future is going to be we can change it for the better or for the worse.

 

[Paraprakrti]

I believe that, in Truth, God is One eternally, but when it comes to the question of why create, I don't come up with reasons. I just say: "I don't know."

But it isn't just about whether we can know the correct answer. It is about whether we can come up with even one plausible answer. I mean, if a plausible answer can't be found, then it would seem to me to be as futile as drawing a four-sided triangle.

 

[Dunemeister]

No, the difference is that you couldn't be expected to know your son would be injured playing hockey, whereas God knew in the smallest detail exactly what would occur in the case of Adam and Eve. If it is the nature of God is that he has no contradictions, and evil is an anathema to him, then the Fall is a logical impossibility.

Not true. If I let my son play hockey (not once, but join a league for as long as he wants to play), I know without a shadow of a doubt that he will get hurt. It might not be this game or the next, but it's a foregone conclusion. It's safe to say that there's no child who has played hockey for more than two years that hasn't had some sort of injury. So if God is guilty for Adam's injury from sin, so am I for letting my son play hockey. If the latter is ridiculous, so is the former.

The fact that God knows all the details doesn't make the case any more pressing in his case. At least, if you want to say that it does, you have to at least provide some sort of argument because it's not obvious.

 

[Dunemeister]

I agree that foreknowledge is not the cause. It is an effect of a pre-existent future. In order for foreknowledge to be possible, the future must already exist in some form. That is what hoses free will, not the foreknowledge itself. The fact that some being hypothetically could become aware of it is incidental.

Who says the future is pre-EXISTENT? I'm not even sure what it would mean for something to exist before it exists. In order for the future to be known, it doesn't have to exist. There only has to be a truth about the future.

A statement is true if and only if it faithfully represents reality. Statements about the future are therefore true if and only if they faithfully represent states of affairs at specified times in the future. Knowing a proposition is a matter of believing a true proposition in the right way (i.e., via a reliable cognitive mechanism). Knowing a proposition about the future is therefore a matter of believing a future-oriented proposition in the right way (i.e., via a reliable cognitive mechanism, presumably a fulfilled condition with God, the ultimate knower). There's no need to invoke the actual existence of future states of affairs.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Meaning?

Meaning, I'm speaking English. :sarcastic

The entire ocean is just made up of 'drops' of water if you want to look at it that way. By this anolagy one could contend that god is made up of us, he's merely the sum of our whole. Or, likewise, I might ask how much of the water in this metaphorical ocean is god? Any of it, or is it all drops? I suggest the dropping of that analogy as I suspect we could run in circles with that one for quite some time.

The analogy is simply to try and explain the oneness of quality and difference of quantity between the soul and God. That's all. Using this analogy doesn't mean that God has waves or surfers on those waves. Don't take the analogy beyond its intended use.

By constitution? Explain.

I mean, by nature.

Your proposal suggests that souls have always been, before and after creation. You are saying that souls were not created. If they were not created by this god, how is it they came to be subserviant to him?

They are subservient by nature. Your question is no different than asking, "if God is eternal, then how is it He came to be all-powerful or all-knowing, etc.?" The answer is that God is eternally those things. There is no question of "came to be." Similarly, souls are eternally subordinate to God.

I'd suggest the limit is reached when the analogies directly contradict themselves.

The analogies have nothing to do with each other and therefore can do nothing directly with themselves.

You're just making it up as you go aren't you? There is nothing in your analogy to imply that the already eternal 'fish' have an existence contingent on some 'eternal water'. It's like saying 2 plus 2 equals 4, so there must be a god. I'm just saying that somewhere in there there's a gap of information, if not logic.

No. I am not making it up as I go. And I am not posing an argument in this regard. There are no premises and no conclusion regarding this fish analogy. I am simply attempting to explain the situation between God and souls. The situation is this: God and souls are co-eternal, where God is the controller and souls are the controlled; God is the supreme and souls are the subordinate. If you ask why souls are subordinate, the bottom line answer is: "cuz that's how we're defining them." Souls are eternally subordinate to the eternal God. It really is that simple.

Survival has nothing to do with it. Then I'll ask again, how did these souls that existed indipendant of god then come to be trapped in an eternal occupation [with] god for all eternity? Where, for you, is that connection?

The souls don't exist independent of God. They weren't previously independent and then became trapped. I have never stated nor implied this. Souls are eternally dependent upon God.

It provides an answer, but, as I'm demonstraighting, your answer like all other's given, ultimately just gives rise to more unanswerable questions. You have not, in fact, offered any reason to accept your proposition, either empirically or logically. But maybe I'm wrong. Does anyone agree with paraphrakrti's proposal?

You have demonstrated no such thing. You just keep insisting that eternality necessarily means absolute independence from God. Then you nitpick my analogies, try and place them on top of each other, and then say I am contradicting myself. I am honestly beginning to doubt your genuine interest in this discussion. It almost seems like you're just having fun.

If this world is in fact, an adjunct to sin as you previously claimed, and god created it then we're back where we started, with my point that god would then be the sinner.

That does not follow. God creating a world in order that the sinners may try and fulfill their desires does not make God a sinner. Building a casino does not make me a gambler.

Who's definition? Not mine. No, clearly by your example we are not dependent on god, unless he forced us to be. We didn't need him to exist, we don't need him to continue existing, so in what way are we dependent on him?

Maybe "God" to you means chocolate doughnuts. I'm not playing that game. I am using the common idea of a supreme being. By my example we are eternally dependent upon God. You are failing to understand my example if you think otherwise. God is the eternal controller and we are the eternal controlled living entities. In what way are we dependent on God? The eternal way. Our eternity, bliss and knowledge are dependent upon God. If God didn't exist, we wouldn't exist. We are extensions, so to speak, of God. We are extensions that are similar to God in quality but not in quantity. I have already explained all of this and all of this still stands.

You already said he was not. Souls existed independantly of this god, he did not create them. according to you. Now you say god is the root of existence, somehow.

No. I did not say that. You are drawing something out of what I am actually saying that does not follow. Souls are not independent of God. Eternality does not necessarily make them independent of God. Even if the sun globe and the sunshine were to exist eternally, one could understand that the sun globe is the "root" of the sunshine.

Not really. More thiestic religions in our history have not contended that the world was created by their specific gods than ones that have believed this.

Semi-powerful, so-called "gods" are indistinguishable from martians with mind powers or evil galactic rulers named Xenu. The point is that by "theism" I'm obviously talking about monotheism; the same thing this very thread topic is about. Other types of "gods" are irrelevant.

It seemed that you were, as you linked any desire to do anything apart from god as a 'sin'. Unless you conceed that sin has nothing to do with right or wrong, which brings us back to the idea that god is merely forcing his will on others.

"Sin" just means to go against or act in ignorance of God. I'll let you decide if this is good or bad. God cannot be forcing His will upon others because God is not some extraneous force that we'd be better off without. Rather, God is the soul of the soul. God is the supreme perfection, the reservoir of eternity, knowledge and bliss. The eternal occupation of the soul is service. You cannot but serve. Daily you serve friends, family, nieghbors, pets, your senses, etc. Loving devotional service toward God constitutes self-realization. It is the perfection of that service capacity. It is the root through which all parts of the tree (other souls) are nourished. This is the philosophy. Just try to undertand it.

It's an intrigueing philosophy for sure, just one with many holes in it.

I remain unconvinced of any holes.

 

[Riverwolf]

But it isn't just about whether we can know the correct answer. It is about whether we can come up with even one plausible answer. I mean, if a plausible answer can't be found, then it would seem to me to be as futile as drawing a four-sided triangle.

The Buddha advised against metaphysical speculations. I trust that wisdom.

 

[cottage]

Not true. If I let my son play hockey (not once, but join a league for as long as he wants to play), I know without a shadow of a doubt that he will get hurt. It might not be this game or the next, but it's a foregone conclusion. It's safe to say that there's no child who has played hockey for more than two years that hasn't had some sort of injury. So if God is guilty for Adam's injury from sin, so am I for letting my son play hockey. If the latter is ridiculous, so is the former.

It is not a forgone conclusion at all that your son will be injured; it is logically possible for him to play hockey for ever and a day and be still free from injury. But God not only knew that A & E would sin, he also knew how they would sin (unlike your good self who only assumes on the basis of probabilities that your son will suffer some form of injury). Adam and Eve's sin and the Fall were events that could not fail to happen because it was certain knowledge, in other words: actuality and not possibility.

The fact that God knows all the details doesn't make the case any more pressing in his case. At least, if you want to say that it does, you have to at least provide some sort of argument because it's not obvious.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'make the case more pressing'? But there is an evident contradiction where an all-loving God is directly implicated in the evil that he supposedly abhors.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

why did he allow sin to enter the world?

did he?

He made many cautions refrain it? but he didn't allow it?

But let the the question be: why didn't he prevent it from happening?

 

[Heneni]

This question is for all you who are believers in God

These question has been lingering over my head for a very long time.

If God is all knowing, can foresee the future and prophecy things before they happen why did he allow sin to enter the world? Why did he create Lucifer knowing he would become Satan? Why did he put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden if he knew Adam and Eve would be tricked by the serpent?

If you are believer in God and you know the answer, do let me know as to be honest im racking my brain over the concept of a loving creator who had prior knowledge of his creations demise and let it happen anyway?

Why? Why not....Cause god has gone from 2 (adam and eve) to millions of sons and daughters. God uses evil to advance his own good causes. If adam and eve had not fallen then millions would have been lost. If a seed does not fall into the ground and 'die' it cannot produce a tree with millions of seeds more. Get it?

 

[Dunemeister]

It is not a forgone conclusion at all that your son will be injured; it is logically possible for him to play hockey for ever and a day and be still free from injury. But God not only knew that A & E would sin, he also knew how they would sin (unlike your good self who only assumes on the basis of probabilities that your son will suffer some form of injury). Adam and Eve's sin and the Fall were events that could not fail to happen because it was certain knowledge, in other words: actuality and not possibility.

It's logically possible but not practically possible. Almost EVERYTHING is logically possible. It's not God's knowledge that made Adam and Eve fall. You keep getting the dependency backwards. We have the knowledge we have because the truth is what it is. The truth is what it is because what happened happened. Thus we have the knowledge we have because what happened happened. And the same is true for the case of someone -- God or a psychic -- who knows the truth about what happens in the future. Why do they know it? Because, as it happens, that's what will happen through the free actions of people. Honestly, there's no need for further metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'make the case more pressing'? But there is an evident contradiction where an all-loving God is directly implicated in the evil that he supposedly abhors.

I agree. But since he's not directly implicated.....

 

[LittleNipper]

If God didn't directly create it, he indirectly created it.

BTW, the Bible itself says that God created evil:

The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. (Isaiah 45:7 NASB)

Question: "Why does Isaiah 45:7 say that God created evil?"

Answer: Isaiah 45:7 in the King James Version reads, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” How does Isaiah 45:7 agree with the view that God did not create evil? There are two key facts that need to be considered. (1) The word translated “evil” is from a Hebrew word that means “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.” Notice how the other major English Bible translations render the word: “disaster” (NIV, HCSB), “calamity” (NKJV, NAS, ESV), and “woe” (NRSV). The Hebrew word can refer to moral evil, and often does have this meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures. However, due to the diversity of possible definitions, it is unwise to assume that “I create evil” in Isaiah 45:7 refers to God bringing moral evil into existence.

(2) The context of Isaiah 45:7 makes it clear that something other than “bringing moral evil into existence” is in mind. The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. “Woe to him who quarrels with his Master” (Isaiah 45:9). That is the person to whom God brings “evil” and “disaster.” So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,” Isaiah 45:7 is presenting a common theme of Scripture – that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him.

 

[Wandered Off]

In order for the future to be known, it doesn't have to exist.

Having actual knowledge of anything non-existent seems like a non-sequitur to me.

There only has to be a truth about the future.

Because we are limited by linear time in this reality, there can be only one outcome for every "decision." When you choose whether to wear a red shirt or a green shirt, once the choice has been made, there is only one outcome. In this sense, there is a truth about the future. The question is whether, prior to making that choice, you are free to choose either shirt.

I believe that if the choice can be known with absolute certainty (knowledge, as opposed to prediction) ahead of time, then you never really had a choice. You cannot deviate from what is foreknown.

 

[LittleNipper]

The psalm doesn't seem to indicate that god would merely know the author was in hell, but would be there as well.

I believe that GOD is everywhere, but the reality is that GOD does not always interact. It is clear that GOD casts those into hell that do not repent and are in a state of rebellion against HIM thoughout this lifetime. Their punishment being to exist without HIM (meaning they are without hope of GOD's intervention).

 

[cottage]

It's logically possible but not practically possible. Almost EVERYTHING is logically possible. It's not God's knowledge that made Adam and Eve fall. You keep getting the dependency backwards. We have the knowledge we have because the truth is what it is. The truth is what it is because what happened happened. Thus we have the knowledge we have because what happened happened. And the same is true for the case of someone -- God or a psychic -- who knows the truth about what happens in the future. Why do they know it? Because, as it happens, that's what will happen through the free actions of people. Honestly, there's no need for further metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

If it was logically impossible that A & E would not sin, it must therefore be logically impossible for God to prevent it. And so the simple unavoidable truth of the matter is that if A & E sinned then it was either because it was God's will or it was because he was usurped and confounded by his own creation. Either way you have a contradiction. It is the Adam and Eve thing that is self-contradictory, metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

I agree. But since he's not directly implicated.....

If an engineer designed a bridge and let it be built, while knowing it to be faulty, he would be held criminally responsible in event of a tragedy. A prescient God was fully aware of every inadequacy and insufficiency that would exist in the human creature, yet it he produced it anyway! The story is nonsensical in its entirety.

 

[Humanistheart]

Meaning, I'm speaking English. :sarcastic.

You went to all that trouble just to say 'I'm speaking english'? Dautbful. More like you cannot prove or even make your point and your getting snippy now.

The analogy is simply to try and explain the oneness of quality and difference of quantity between the soul and God. That's all. Using this analogy doesn't mean that God has waves or surfers on those waves. Don't take the analogy beyond its intended use. .

It is not my fault that you chose a bad analogy, or prefer not to think too much.

I mean, by nature..

Right. These souls, which were not created by god in your proposal, somehow have it in their nature to bow down to this 'god' dispite the absence of any reason to do so. I'm going to resist putting a 'lol' in there.

They are subservient by nature. Your question is no different than asking, "if God is eternal, then how is it He came to be all-powerful or all-knowing, etc.?" The answer is that God is eternally those things. There is no question of "came to be." Similarly, souls are eternally subordinate to God. .

Indeed there is the question. You say that god being 'eternal' means he's automatically all powerful and all knowing. Yet you maintain that souls were eternal without god, so by your logic we must be all powerful and all knowing. All your arguments are doing is reinforcing the question 'why would these souls be under gods heel?'

The analogies have nothing to do with each other and therefore can do nothing directly with themselves. .

They contradicted themselves, just like the above argument of yours I dismantled.

No. I am not making it up as I go. And I am not posing an argument in this regard. There are no premises and no conclusion regarding this fish analogy. I am simply attempting to explain the situation between God and souls. .

Then perhaps you can put more thought into your explanation so you stop contradicting yoruself.

The situation is this: God and souls are co-eternal, where God is the controller and souls are the controlled; God is the supreme and souls are the subordinate. If you ask why souls are subordinate, the bottom line answer is: "cuz that's how we're defining them." Souls are eternally subordinate to the eternal God. It really is that simple..

We? No, I'm not defining them that way without a reason to do so. YOU can all you like, but be prepared to deal the logical errors that creates, and that I or others will point out to you.

The souls don't exist independent of God. They weren't previously independent and then became trapped. I have never stated nor implied this. Souls are eternally dependent upon God. .

You stated that souls were eternal, that they did not owe their creation to this god, that they existed before creation. You also state taht souls are eternally dependent upon god, but offer no reason why this would be the case in your scheama.

You have demonstrated no such thing. You just keep insisting that eternality necessarily means absolute independence from God. .

I'm pointing out that there is no reason in your proposal for these already existant souls to depend on this god for anything.

Then you nitpick my analogies, try and place them on top of each other, and then say I am contradicting myself. I am honestly beginning to doubt your genuine interest in this discussion. It almost seems like you're just having fun. .

It is fun to poke holes in poorly thought out arguments. Is there something wrong with that on a debate site? Perahps you'd have some fun too if you were able to defend your position.

That does not follow. God creating a world in order that the sinners may try and fulfill their desires does not make God a sinner. Building a casino does not make me a gambler..

Sure it doesn't. Just like if I give a homicidal maniac who's holding a knife to a womans throat a gun, and he shoots her, doesn't make me a killer? What your suggesting takes away any sence of responcibility for ones own actions. But this is hardly surprising. Most people who believe in god make excuses for his misdeeds. I could call myself perfect to if I bent over backwards like christians do to excuse their god's unethical condact.

Besides, you miss the point. You said having desires outside of god is a 'sin'. God must, for some reason, desire souls experience those desires you previously indicated lead to the creation of the world. So, by your own logic, god is desiring something outside of himself and thus is a sinner.

Maybe "God" to you means chocolate doughnuts. I'm not playing that game. I am using the common idea of a supreme being..

Common to whom? You already stated in the beggining that your idea's were not compatible with mainstream chrisitains (and I'll add jews and muslims). Your idea is not the 'common idea of a supreme being' but now you want to consider the definition of that common idea? Make up your mind.

By my example we are eternally dependent upon God. .

By your example you've offered no reason for that to be the case.

you are failing to understand my example if you think otherwise. God is the eternal controller and we are the eternal controlled living entities. In what way are we dependent on God? The eternal way. Our eternity, bliss and knowledge are dependent upon God..

You already stated that we're eternal. If you want to make this claim explain why this god would be necessary.

If God didn't exist, we wouldn't exist. We are extensions, so to speak, of God. We are extensions that are similar to God in quality but not in quantity. I have already explained all of this and all of this still stands. .

No you havne't, and no it does not stand, unless you'd care to explain HOW it is you think that makes sence.

No. I did not say that. You are drawing something out of what I am actually saying that does not follow. Souls are not independent of God. Eternality does not necessarily make them independent of God. Even if the sun globe and the sunshine were to exist eternally, one could understand that the sun globe is the "root" of the sunshine..

The sun generates the sunshine. You're claim is that god did not create people. Poor analogy for your purposes. Analogies don't seem to be your thing.

Semi-powerful, so-called "gods" are indistinguishable from martians with mind powers or evil galactic rulers named Xenu. The point is that by "theism" I'm obviously talking about monotheism.

Obviously? Oh I'm so sorry I took theism at it's actual definition instead of your limited personal view that only recognizes your specific form of monotheism. So which monotheism are you reffering to then, judaism or islam?

"Sin" just means to go against or act in ignorance of God. .

Then sin means less than nothing. I'm a better being than any god you care to name, no god has any moral authority over me. And you already claimed it's not a matter of might makes right so that's that.

God is the supreme perfection, the reservoir of eternity, knowledge and bliss. .

If you look into the statistics you'll find that countries with the highest levels of organic atheism are the healthiest nations in the world. You say this god's the peak of knowlege and bliss, but in actuality it's the complete opposite. Where beleivers of this god exists, so do unnecessary problems and suffering. I guess we have different definitions of bliss.

The eternal occupation of the soul is service. You cannot but serve. Daily you serve friends, family, nieghbors, pets, your senses, etc..

I 'serve' no one.

Loving devotional service toward God constitutes self-realization. It is the perfection of that service capacity. It is the root through which all parts of the tree (other souls) are nourished..

That is really sad.

I remain unconvinced of any holes.

Yet you make them every time you post.