@Trailblazer
The problem for the Abrahamist is that he or she has chosen to believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god, but lives in a world that should be different if that were the case. For much of that, there are the myths that explain why man is mortal and lives a difficult life rather than in a paradise, or why there are so many mutually unintelligible languages. Those put the blame on man for eating a forbidden apple or building a tall tower.
But then there are the countless occurrences that cause harmful and/or useless suffering that we know that we would prevent were we tri-omni gods, so why doesn't that happen here and now? Once again, the blame is shifted to man to sanitize this god despite ours being a world of more pain and suffering than we would allow. Thus we are told that this deity gave man free will, and what he does is his fault.
This is what you are about to do. You will invoke mutually exclusive ideas and simply insist that they are not contradictory. You will say that the creator knows all, can do all, and is all-loving, yet doesn't seem to do much to prevent the things we would prevent. This is usually met with some form of it being inappropriate to try to second-guess what a god should do or what is good.
You will say that the deity gives man free will yet knows everything every person will do before they are born, and simply ignore the objections to that. You will say that giving man free will absolves the deity of responsibility for what it foresaw that man would do.
God's omniscience means that [he] knew everything that would ever happen anywhere at any time in this universe, but that does not mean that God intended for everything to happen as it did.
If this deity was the only creative force for the universe, then it means that the deity is morally responsible for what it created and knowingly caused.
If there were/are other creative forces apart from the creator god such that it can know what those other forces will cause to happen but can't prevent or alter them, then it is not responsible for some of reality either as its cause or morally. In that case, it can't be said to be the creator, just the foreseer, like any other creature with foreknowledge but without the power to alter the course of events.
If it is the sole creative force as Abrahamists allege, and if it can see what will follow if it acts to create that universe, then it is responsible for whatever follows. Those are humanist values, and we apply them in our laws. Even if you can't foresee exactly what will happen if you create a dangerous situation such as leaving your car running with a case of beer in the front seat, and somebody steals the car, get drunk on the beer while driving, and causes an accident, that car owner will be held liable for negligence.
The outcome was foreseeable, and so the cause of it is held to account. The humanist will judge the deity by the same standards. The believer dares not.
God only intended for things to happen that God actually caused to happen.
If the god you believe in exists, it caused everything to happen. Here's another area where you'll make claims that seem incoherent to the critical thinker, and just insist that your claim is reasonable anyway.
You're simultaneously claiming that this deity is the source of everything and saw what it was about to do before it did it, yet it didn't cause some of those things and isn't to blame for what followed.
Why do that? Why not say that you believe in a tri-omni god and accept that this world is consistent with that, and not try to reconcile the apparent discrepancies with arguments that don't convince? You can say that this god is the universe's efficient cause and is morally responsible for what it created, and say that you accept that a tri-omni god might create such a world for reasons you feel no need to defend.
Of course, you'd have to admit that you aren't qualified to judge what is good and what is bad when it comes to gods, and that you are just trusting that it is a tri-omni god and that this world and what happens in it define good and bad for you. If it happens, a good god foresaw it and made it happen, therefore, what appears to be preventable misery is actually good for man, which some apologists do, but then go on to try to explain why it is good by human standards once again bringing his own ideas of good and bad to bear on the matter and explaining how this god meets his standards.
I think I'd modify my description of the god from tri-omni to something else. This god doesn't care about our problems, or is powerless to help, or is indifferent to man's suffering. The world is consistent with such a god. Could you worship such a god? You could throw out all of the mental gymnastics. There'd be nothing to explain or justify.
God does not cause the actions of men so God does not intend for those to happen.
Again, the humanist disagrees. If a god caused mankind, it caused its subsequent actions. That's a principle you'd apply elsewhere in your life, but not here. The humanist doesn't make an exception for alleged deities.
It means that we won't ever think, say or do anything other than what God perfectly foresaw.
It does not mean that we can't ever think, say or do anything other than what God perfectly foresaw.
You can't have it both ways. Well, maybe you can, but I can't.
God's omniscience does not put human free will out of the question.
It does according to the rules of critical thought, but you aren't required to use them. You are free to apply rogue logic, but you shouldn't expect those experienced in the academic laws of inference (standard logic) to agree with you.
I think you know that and don't expect to ever win over a critical thinker with such claims. I don't see why you try. I don't see why you write words that you know will be rejected and the arguments criticized. It must be for some perceived personal benefit or else you believe that your god expects you to do this.
