Yet again: Such a God would see all the ways it could create the world, and all of the details of every single option, including exactly how it will play out from start to end. That's what being omniscient would mean. Making a choice for one option is making a choice for the whole package, including its entire history.
You have not explained WHY God making a choice for one option is making a choice for the whole package, including its entire history.
God does not
cause anything to happen in this world. Humans cause the things that happen by choosing to do them, so humans make history.
Ever heard of human history?
Of course, there are theists who argue that God quite literally created all of history because it exists outside of any notion of time and therefore created the entire 'block universe' of space-time in one action.
I would never argue that since it is not logical. God gave man dominion over the earth and free will to make choices, so humans create all history.
This is just silly. Even in human terms, if your message isn't getting through, and people aren't accepting it or understanding it, then it's time to think again about how you are delivering it. Ask any advertising agency. A God should do far better, because it would already know that it's message would get distorted, misunderstood, and rejected, before it started. Apparently, it was stupid enough to do it that way anyway.
You're making a great case for no God, or an idiot God here.
Why do you think it makes any difference to God if His messengers and messages from them are accepted or not? It does not affect God in any way.
God is all-knowing so God knew that His message would get distorted, misunderstood, and rejected by humans, but God also knows that humans are responsible for that, and none of this affects God in any way. God is not selling a product.
Why do you keep repeating this? They don't believe in one God, they believe in very different Gods, or multiple gods. Whichever religion you belong to most people in the world think you are wrong. If there is a real God that's trying to get its message across, it's failed.
God did not fail. Humans got the messages by the means that it was delivered in every age, but that message was different in every age, which is WHY people believe
differently about God. Because religious people cling tenaciously to their own religions, and they are emotionally attached to their religions, they FAIL to look at and recognize the messengers of God who came later with a new message. That's why Christians believe that the Bible is the ONLY Word of God.
There wasn't any. An omnipotent God could communicate directly without killing everyone. Saying it couldn't is a denial of its omnipotence.
Omnipotence means all-powerful. It has nothing to do with whether God could communicate directly without killing everyone.
You do not KNOW what an omnipotent God could do, but that is really a moot point. The point is that:
- There is no need for God to communicate directly to everyone, when God can communicate to one messenger who can communicate the message to everyone, and
- Nobody could understand what God communicated unless they were a messenger of God
Which means the messengers are not evidence of God, since they could have been deluded, mistaken, lying, or, in some cases, not have said or done what was attributed to them, or not existed at all. They also seem to have contradicted each other (I know you claim that they didn't, but you have no evidence of that, either).
Men who claimed to be messengers of God could have been deluded, mistaken, lying, or, in some cases, not have said or done what was attributed to them, but the existence of false messengers does not mean that there have never been any true messengers from God.
There have been many false messengers, but that does not mean that there were no true messengers.
If you assume that a messenger claimant is false based upon insufficient evidence you are committing the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization.
Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
en.wikipedia.org
Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern:
messenger a was a false messenger
messenger b was a false messenger
messenger c was a false messenger
messenger d was a false messenger
messenger e was a false messenger
Therefore, messenger f is a false messenger