Why Earth?

[Guest shiloh357]

The Bible does not have to prove itself. It is those who charge the Bible with fault and fallacies that must demonstrate that such fallacies exist.

You mean if I write down the earth is flat everyone who reads that piece of paper will believe me just like that?

No... What I am saying is that if Sylvan wants to call belief in God delusional or says that the Bible is inaccurate, it is up to him to provide the evidence or stop treating his baseless opinions as fact. The Bible does not have to prove that God exists, if you are not able to conclusively show that the existence of God is lie, then you have nothing substantive to bring against the Bible.

[secondeve]

The Bible does not have to prove that God exists, if you are not able to conclusively show that the existence of God is lie, then you have nothing substantive to bring against the Bible.

Shoe on the other foot, Shiloh. Athiesm does not have to prove that God doesn't exist: if you are not able to conclusively show that the existence of God is real, then you have nothing substantive to bring against athiesm.

Half the problem is that you cannot prove God exists, anymore than I can disprove him. Whatever experiences you might have had to convince you, God - if he exists - remains an intenagible quality. So the burden of proof is just as rightfully yours as anyone else's.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shoe on the other foot, Shiloh. Athiesm does not have to prove that God doesn't exist:

We are not asking Atheism to prove the non-existance of God. We are saying that when accusations of falsehood or "delusion" are leveled, then it changes everything.

Christianity is based upon faith, not conclusive proof. We cannot prove the existence of God, nor can the nonexistance of God be proved. Both are given from where we stand. If atheists were willing to leave it at that, then fine.

The problem is that you are not willing to leave it at that. You, for some reason feel the need to jump on our boards an tell us that the Bible is inaccurate, that it is made up, full of contradictions, and whole host of other things that require "evidence" to back up.

We are told that the existence of God is illogical. That is not the same as saying He is "unprovable." Now that the arguements have entered, the "you have to crazy to be believe that God exists" phase, it takes a whole other dynamic.

Since you folks level the charge that the biblical accounts could never have happened, and that the Bible is full of wholes, that places you in the position of offering up substantive evidence to bolster your claims. If you can't, then it is a meaningless, silly, small-minded rant.

So far, all you folks have ever done is attribute false quotes and false values to the Bible and then condemn the Bible based upon those faulty platforms. You don't have the integrity or the discipline to actually study wha the Bible does say, so it follows that you probably lack the discipline to actually put in the effort to put a good rebuttal against the Bible.

[HAZARD]

I've been thinking lately, and have come up with a question that I'm curious to hear some answers to. Here it is:

According to the Bible, all souls originate with/are created by God. Christianity also states that God is omnipresent and omnipotent - he both makes and knows all things. Genesis tells us that Sin, God's punnishment for the actions of Adam and Eve, was permanent, so that the whole world after the Fall would be tainted by it. Human beigns are born, live and die on Earth, after which time - if they have been righteous - their souls are returned to God; if not, they are damned to Hell. Heaven is the reward/home of those who are true to the faith; the Bible specifically states that Heaven, regardless of what else it might entail, constitutes 'being with' or 'a closeness to' God. Presumably, when a soul is with God, the Devil can have no hold over it. So if God creates all souls - but can potentially keep them safe from Satan by not making them incarnate - why bother with Earth at all? If God can do everything, then he can surely make us in such a way that we exist peacefully in Heaven without our having to have been born or died. Why allow new babies to be born every day - thousands of them! - if all this does is place their souls temporarily in a Sinful world and provide the opportunity for the Devil to take them irrepairably from him?

________________________________________________________________________

All the theories of men aside, and just one reading of all the Scriptures in the following thirty points with an open mind and heart, and it all becomes easy to understand. God does not want us to be confused or hide anything from us regarding His entire plan for mankind.

[1]. God in the eternal past (Ps.90:2; 93:2; Mic. 5:2; Heb. 9:14).

[2]. The drafting of God's plan (Heb. 1:3; 11:3; Eph. 3:11; 1 Pet. 1:20).

[3]. Creation of the heavens, including the sun, moon, and innunerable stars in the entire universe (Gen.1:1; Col. 1:15-18; Ps. 8:3; 90:2; 95:5; 102:25; Isa. 40:12, 26; 45:12; 48:13).

[4]. Creation of the spirit world (Job. 38:4-7; Col. 1;15-18).

[5].Creation of the Earth. The Earth is created perfect the first time (Gen. 1:1; Job. 38:4-7; Isa. 45:18; Heb. 11:3).

[6].Creation of "the world [kosmos, social order] that then was" (2 Pet. 3:5-9; Isa. 14:12-14; 45:18; Jer. 4:23-26; Ezek. 28:11-17).

[7]. Lucifers reign over "the world that then was" (Isa. 14:12-14; Jer. 4:23-26; Ezek. 28:11-17; Col. 1:15-18). The length of his rule is unknown.

[8]. Other thrones, dominions, principalities and powers placed over other parts of the universe (Col. 1;15-18; Eph. 1:21; 3:10; 1 Pet. 3:22).

[9]. The Kingdom of God universal; God the supreme Moral Governor of the universe, and all in harmoney with Him (Job 38; Dan. 4:17, 25, 32, 35). The length of the rule of the universal harmonious kingdom before Lucifer started his rebellion is unknown.

[10]. Lucifer, the origional ruler of the planet Earth, concieves the idea that he can get the co-operation of other angelic beings of the universe, dethrone God, and become the exaulted supreme ruler of the universe (Isa. 14:12-14; Ezek. 28:11-17; 1 Tim. 3:6).

[11]. Lucifer carries out his plans, and through pride falls and forments rebellion by slander and accusations against the Almighty. He causes his own earth-kingdom subjects and over one third of God's angels (Rev. 12:7-12) to rebell against Him. The Earth enters its first sinful career (Isa. 14:12-14; Ezek. 28:11-17; 1 Tim. 3:6). The length of the uprising is unknown.

[12]. Lucifer instigates rebellion and persuades everyone possible to rebell. He openly breaks relations with God and His government, and leads his rebells from the appointed place of mobilization on Earth into Heaven to dethrone God; but he is met by Michael and the faithful angels, and is defeated and cast as lightning back to the Earth (Isa. 14:12-14; Ezek. 28:11-17; Luke 10:18).

[13]. God completely destroys Lucifers kingdom on Earth, and curses the Earth by destroying every bird, animal, fish, city, inhabitant, and all vegetation. He then turns the Earth upside down and by means of a great flood makes it empty and a waste (Gen. 1:2; Ps. 104:5-9; Isa. 14:12-14; Jer. 4:23-26; Ezek. 28:11-17; 2 Pet. 3:5-9). The length of the pre-Adamite flood on the Earth is unknown.

[14]. The Spirit of God begins to move upon the flooded Earth and in the darkness which covered the waters to restore the Earth to a habitale state, and to creat new land animals, fish, fowls, vegetation, and Adam as the new ruler of the Earth (Gen. 1:2; Ps. 104:6-9). Length of re-creation is six days (Gen. 1:3-2:25; Ex. 20:8-11; 31:15).

[15]. The earth is made perfect a second time and all things in the universe are again in harmony with God as before Lucifers rebellion; except Lucifer and his spirit rebels are still at large in the heavenlies to further God's plan in the probationary periods of the human race should man fall (Gen. 1:3:25; Eph. 2:1-3; 6:10-18; Job. 1:6; 2:1; Rev. 12:7-12).

[16]. THE FIRST PROBATIONARY PERIOD. The Dispensation of Innocence. The length of this period was about six days (Gen. 2:17-3:24).

[17]. Lucifer (now the devil or adversary of God and man called Satan) enters the restored Earth, tempts man and causes his fall, thus regaining dominion of the Earth and all things therein (Gen. 3; Luke 4; John 12:31; 2 Cor. 4:4; Rev. 11:15; 20:1-10).

[18]. Rebellion starts again on the Earth by the second ruler of Earth. Man is judged, the Earth is again cursed and enters its second sinful career, and all creatures are brought under bondage of sin and corruption (Gen. 3; Rom. 5:12-21; 8:19-23).

[19]. "The heavens and the earth which are now" since the restoration work of the six days, and since the new curse on the Earth await the time of the second renovation, and the third perfect state of the Earth, called the New Heavens and the New Earth (2 Pet. 3:5-13; Rom. 8:19-23; Heb. 1:10-12; 12:24-28; Rev. 21-22).

[20].THE SECOND PROBATIONARY PERIOD. The Dispensation of Conscience (Gen. 3:1-8:14). The length of this period was 1,656 years (Gen. 5:1-29; 7:11).

[21]. THE THIRD PROBATIONARY PERIOD. The Dispensation of Human Government (Gen. 8:15-11:9). The length of this period was 427 years (Gen. 11:10-12:9).

[22]. THE FOURTH PROBATIONARY PERIOD. The Dispensation of Promise (Gen. 11;10-Ex. 12:51). The length of this period was 430 years (Ex. 12:40; Gal. 4:30).

[23]. THE FIFTH PROBATIONARY PERIOD. The Dispensation of Law (Ex. 13:1-Matt. 4:1; 11:11; Luke 16:16). The length of this period was over 1,718 years from Moses to Christ.

[24]. THE SIXTH PROBATIONARY PERIOD. The Dispensation of Grace (John 1:17; Matt. 4:1-Rev. 19:21). The length of this period will be from the first advent to the second advent of Christ, and the binding of Satan in the abyss at the end of this age. It has already lasted over 2,000 years.

[25]. THE SEVENTH PROBATIONARY PERIOD. The Dispensation of Divine Government or Millennium (Rev. 20:1-10). The length of this period will be 1,000 years (Rev. 20:1-10).

[26]. At the end of the Millennium Satan will be loosed from the abyss to deceive the nations on Earth; then will cme the last rebellion on the Earth, and the destruction of all human rebells (Rev. 20:7-10).

[27]. The second resurrection and final judgment at the end of the Millennium (Rev. 20:11-15).

[28]. The end of the Earth's second sinful career by the renovation of the immediate heavens and the the Earth and the removal of all the curse and its effects (2 Pet. 3:10-13; Rom. 8:19-23; Heb. 1;10-12; 12:24-28).

[29]. The confinement of all spirit and human rebells of all ages in the lake of fire forever (Matt. 25:41, 46; Rev. 14:9-11; 20:10-15; Isa. 66:22-24).

[30]. The New Heavens and the New Earth-----the eternal perfect state with God all-in-all again, as before rebellion started in the universe with Lucifer and Adam (1 Cor. 15:24-28). The earth will be made perfect again the third time (Isa. 65:17; 66:22-24; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21-22).

Any Christian with a lion-like courage against the teachings of men must accept what the Scriptures say regarding God's plan for men, and they will be able to defeat all sickness, poverty, discouragement, failure, and every other thing that causes defeat in the Christian life.

[SoulGrind]

The Bible does not have to prove that God exists, if you are not able to conclusively show that the existence of God is lie, then you have nothing substantive to bring against the Bible.

Shoe on the other foot, Shiloh. Athiesm does not have to prove that God doesn't exist: if you are not able to conclusively show that the existence of God is real, then you have nothing substantive to bring against athiesm.

Half the problem is that you cannot prove God exists, anymore than I can disprove him. Whatever experiences you might have had to convince you, God - if he exists - remains an intenagible quality. So the burden of proof is just as rightfully yours as anyone else's.

Ah, so regardless of the the fact that many people's lives have been changed by believeing in God is irreleavant because you feel it is some "intangible quantity"?

If it is so "intangible" (as you say), then how could so many lives lives be changed by something that does not exist?

And if this is all just a manifestation of the mind and all Christians are "crazy" - why aren't we all committed to the funny farm? Typically, those who are not of sound mind have a difficult time interacting with society - such as going to work, to school, etc.

And how do you explain sports teams who attribute their winning by having a strong "team spirit" or "team moral"? By your standards, isn't this idea just as proposterous and as intangible as the idea that people's lives have been changed by their belief in God?

But I don't see anyone refuting them upon victory touting, "Team Spirit? Oh whatever - there's no such thing!"

Why do non-Christian's feel it necessary to hold a double-standard for comparing Christianity to anything else with the same or similar attributes that they themselves ignore?

Edited July 17, 2006 by SoulGrind

[SoulGrind]

So far, all you folks have ever done is attribute false quotes and false values to the Bible and then condemn the Bible based upon those faulty platforms. You don't have the integrity or the discipline to actually study wha the Bible does say, so it follows that you probably lack the discipline to actually put in the effort to put a good rebuttal against the Bible.

AMEN TO THAT!

[Guest shiloh357]

No... What I am saying is that if Sylvan wants to call belief in God delusional or says that the Bible is inaccurate, it is up to him to provide the evidence or stop treating his baseless opinions as fact. The Bible does not have to prove that God exists, if you are not able to conclusively show that the existence of God is lie, then you have nothing substantive to bring against the Bible.

You're the one making extraordinary claims, you're the one who has to show they're true. Sure, I certainly wouldn't attack the validity of the Bible without saying what's wrong with it, indeed I usually refer to the Flood and then laugh as people try to show how all those animals could have fit on a boat and how fishes could have survived. However you don't have the luxury of telling people to show proof when you're the one going around saying something incredible like that god actually exists. The burden of proof is always on the shoulders of whoever makes the biggest claim and since you recognize that religions can be invented by rejecting Hinduism you're going to have to bear the burden of proof forever.

No, the burden of proof does not rely on the size of one's claims. The burden of proof always lies on the person saying casting doubt on the accuracy of such claims. Again, I don't have to "prove" the Bible, because I do not make the claim that the Bible is "provable." People throw around words like "proof" and "prove" without realizing that there are different standards of "proof."

If you want to claim that the Bible is factually incorrect, then provide your evidence, but don't waste time on "proving" God and all that rot. As I have already noted, all we ever get are misquotes and misrepresentations of the Bible and people like you who opertate from those claims as if they were established fact. So far, no one has yet provided anything intellectually satisfying. Just a lot of the same tired "biblical fallibities that were going around in the 80s.

[Copper Scroll]

He was happy with His creation, at least when He created it. But He made man free, and man freely went astray and ruined himself.

...

This perfect/imperfect dichotomy is causing trouble not because the idea of a perfect God is incomprehensible for us... but because the idea of perfection itself is incomprehensible for us.

Perfection is not incomprehensible, it's non-existent. It's an abstraction on reality, like a number or a name. We can comprehend perfection fully by defining it; e.g. the perfect beauty could be defined as what is shown in Botticelli's Venus and to comprehend it you just have to look at that painting. It's a human concept that changes as humans change (the Venus by today's standards is fat) and doesn't exist in reality. You can consider it as a set of features chosen among those that appeal most to us. Indeed, when you say that God is perfect, what you say would be devoid of any meaning if you didn't really mean that he has perfect knowledge, omniscience etc. The perfection of God really is a collection of perfect attributes.

Concepts like omnipotence or omniscience are abstractions. A man cand do this and that and another man can do that and that other thing but nobody can do everything; however I can abstract on that reality and imagine the ability to do anything one wants. As long as we take them separately those properties seem fine - omnipotence is defined as "being able to do antyhing" and there's nothing misterious about it. However as we group them together and attribute those abstract properties to a being we start to get in trouble.

Why would a being with perfect knowledge and omnipotence repent about anything? Surely he could have seen what was going to happen and make sure everything would go smoothly. Even granting us free will he could have forseen every single action of every single human being. It seems there is an inconsistency between the way god is defined and reality. Can you guess where that inconsistency come from? I would say it comes from the fact that no thing that is real possesses any of those properties but I'm sure you can come up with a different explanation.

I would say it comes from the fact that no one knows or understands God's attributes fully but God, and human beings fill in their gaps in knowledge and understanding what ever ways they see fit. No, it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist or that God is not all-knowing or all-powerful. But asking if God knows every micro-detail of the future is like asking if God can turn an object left and right at the same time. If we answer those questions "No", that does not take away from God's omniscience or omnipotence... because we can reason logically that those things are impossibilities.

Once you take in account the human nature of those abstractions many things click into place. Like the concepts of "perfect beauty", "perfect house" or "perfect movie", the concept of god changes with time and across cultures. It stands to reason that we made up the concept of god like we made up everything else that is perfect and that has never been observed in nature; that explains the existence of a lot of religions much better than the "satan corrupted them" and "they misunderstood" nonsensical theories that require the assumption of the existence of a single god, which hasn't been proven.

The last time we conversed I think I demonstrated to you why the idea of God's existence does not require "proof" (the way we normally understand "proof"). God is not an object. Asking for proof of God's existence is like asking me for proof of my own consciousness.

[secondeve]

So far, all you folks have ever done is attribute false quotes and false values to the Bible and then condemn the Bible based upon those faulty platforms.

1. Genetics/Inbreeding: The world could not have descended from Adam and Eve, or from Noah's family, as the genepool would have been too small; similarly, the animal species would not have been able to reproduce for more than three or so generations from only two breedings pairs. Mitochondrial Eve is not an example of how this could have happened: it says there was a bottleneck in population, but also that there was NOT"only one woman" alive at the time, as this is impossible. The smallest number of unrelated human beings that can restart the population is something like 14 men and 17 women, if everyone has a child by everyone else. Arguments to the effect of "we were created perfect and have been getting worse with time" with regards to genetics and ageing are theories constructed by belivers based on Biblical stories; they are not, in fact, what the Bible says, and cannot be used as proof in this respect.

2. Animals on the Ark: Not possible. If it weren't invalidated by the above reason of genetics or the obvious physical constraints of size, then the difficulties involved in insuring that that the predators would not have eaten the prey, and the prey would not have had enough food, are sufficient. Think of the logistics of bringing enough food for forty days and nights for two of every species on the planet onto the Ark, as well as preventing accident/injury/eating of other species! Think also of animals like the dinosaurs: if they existed - and some Christians claim that they are present in the Bible as Leviathon and Behemoth - did they go on the Ark, too? If they didn't exist, what of their bones? They have to have come from somewhere. Did Noah go to Australia to get the kangaroos? Would he have had time to travel the whole world over for creatures before the flood came as well as building the Ark? The Bible does not mention God doing anything to help in this respect except for giving him the schematics (to say nothing of how many men would be needed to build a boat of that size). I have heard some Christians claim that there was, at that time, a very small number of species, and that the diversity we have today is because those originals have evolved into different sub-groups; but this, again, is just another theory. It isn't supported Biblically, and, additionally - for someone who believes in a literal Ark - seems to contradict the idea that evolution is false.

3. Evolution/Selective Breeding: Evolution of species. This goes against Adam and Eve. In my mind, most Christians accept basic principles of evolution on the small-scale, but disagree with how this works on the larger in accordance with Darwin's theory. We have observed that selective breeding works, even on the level as simple as early farmers preferring to breed bulls with stronger cows rather than sickly ones, because they didn't want sickly offspring. We know that most every breed of domestic dog has come about because of selective breeding, and that this has led to vastly different appearances: a chihuahua next to a Great Dane, for instance, an English Sheepdog compared to a whippet, a daschund compared to a bulldog, or an Afghan compared to a boxer. We know, definitively, that many of these breeds have come about by the hand of man - a dashund was bred to go down thin holes after rabbits, Jack Russel terriers were bred to hunt rats, huskies were bred for endurance, and so on. The best example of this is the Brittish Bulldog, the puppies of which breed must, in almost all cases, be delivered by Caesarian, which could not possibly occur without human intervention. Why does this happen? The heads of the dogs are too big for the mother's pelvis. We know this process has gone on for thousands of years. We also can look at examples like the Hawkshead Moth, a creature of England whose wings are white, with a few genetic exceptions whose wings were black. The white camoflauged them against the white trees of their habitat. With the industrial revolution, however, soot from factories turned the trees black; the white moths died out, while the black exceptions, previously easy to pick out, stayed alive. This process led to the white gene becoming the exception - and then, recently, when this impact was realised and the factories were shut down, the moths changed back to white again, because the trees changed colour. Natural selection, right there for us to see. All the different bird species on the Galapagos Islands are another example; but I'll get back to the point. While most Christians accept these examples, their stumbling block is the idea of changing from one species - say an ape (NOT a monkey, which is different) - to another - like man. What this view ignores is that the science they accept is, on the small scale, the same as what they refuse to accept on the large, except that the large-scale deals with a massively bigger timescale.

The first life was simple. It changed into many simple things, which diversified again, and again, and again as millions of years went by, from oceans onto the land. A common argument thrown at this is, "why have we stopped evolving, then?" The answer? We don't need to. The moths kept changing because it was required; but they stayed moths because it wasn't required that they do anything else. Nature takes the simplest path. On the other hand, think of a poor little aquatic creature who is finding it harder and harder to extract oxygen through its gills, because other gases or toxins have been seeping into its water supply as the result of an earthquake. The creatures with weak gills will produce fewer and fewer offspring until they die out; those with stronger gills survive, adapting to the changes - but the creature still needs oxygen. The gills/lungs change, until one day the thing sticks its head above water and breathes that way, like a dolphin, even though it lives underwater. But maybe the same changes it's been dealing with have been killing off its food, too, so the change doesn't end there. It needs more and more time above water for oxygen and to get low-flying insects, so its limbs get stronger and stronger - natural selection, because head above water for longer = more oxygen/food = stronger lifeform = more likely to breed more young than weaker specimins - until one day it hauls out of its lake, and lives on land. Maybe it goes back to the water to hunt, but now it gets insects from the ground, too. Fastwind forward in time: the original catalyst, or one like it, has happened in other places, too; scientific evidence supports more than one period of drastic global climate change in history. Different aquatic species have become different land-species. It is incredibly difficult to see how something like a fish can become something like an elephant in one step, if that is how people persist in thinking of the whole process: it is not nearly as hard to see a link between an axolotl and a salamander, a snake and a sea-snake, or between a turtle and a tortoise. Add time to the mix - millions of years, a span we can't wrap our heads around - and most anything is possible. It's all about intermediary stages, need, and time.

4. Old Humans: Adam and Eve supposedly lived hundreds of years, as did Noah and Methuselah, to name some others. As with genetics, I have heard Christians say that this is because we are getting further from the originals and so our lives are getting shorter, so that now, people live less than they did at the dawn of days. There are several problems with this theory. 1 - It isn't Biblically stated; it isn't proof, which is what has been asked for. 2 - Logically, if we want to follow the hypothesis, the same should have applied to animals, too, but there is no evidence of that in fossils, which show us how long, to a reasonable degree of approximation, ancient creatures lived. 3 - Due to better medical and dietary knowledge, we now live longer than any other period in history (if those Biblical ages are suspect). It is hardly evident that we, as a species, have lifespans which get shorter with every passing generation. If medical science were the only remedy to this trend - to the point of concealing it - then we would still be in trouble, because only in very recent years has such medicine become available to all in first-world nations, rather than just to those who could afford it. And before that happened, we weren't dying faster each generation; in fact, in the middle ages, it was rare to live longer than 40 or 50 years, while the ancient Egyptians, who had better medical knowledge, have records of some people living into or over their 90's. Without medical assistance (ie, life support or a hospital) the mother of one of my father's friends lived until 105, and lived on her own, unassisted; this is hardly consistent with our lives getting shorter, or with medical science being the only explanation for cases like this. It also seems prudent to note that no normal people in the Bible who lived concurrently to figures like Methuselah are said to have lived that long, nor is it mentioned that such ages were the norm. Indeed, it seems more likely that Methuselah's age was mentioned exactly because it was unusual, not because it was commonplace.

5. Corrections: OT and NT laws are different, due to the Old and New Covenants. My question is this: If God is perfect, and knew exactly what was best for humanity with regard to law and behavioural practise, why was the New Covenant necessary? Why are parts of the Old Testament now unpractised, if they were the perfect laws of God? I have heard it said that OT laws pertained specifically to Israel and her people; but why would there be a divine law only for one people, the common-sense and need of which could not be applied to other races, or, indeed, to modern Christians, if God was their all-knowing author? Was God wrong; or (for example) was cleanliness/uncleanliness as described in Leviticus really not necessary all along, if it is now unnecessary to practise such purification rituals? We don't segregate menstruating women now as much because there is no good reason to do so as because of anything else; but if we know that to be the case, then why was it ever a holy law?

These are just five to get you started. I'm interested in all and any answers.

Edited July 17, 2006 by secondeve

[Copper Scroll]

I would say it comes from the fact that no one knows or understands God's attributes fully but God, and human beings fill in their gaps in knowledge and understanding what ever ways they see fit.

Don't wiggle away, please. If you can't reason why you can't reconcile reality with your religion the most obvious conclusion is that your religion is a lousy one, not that all of the humans are dumb.

What's wiggling? I wouldn't go as far to say that humans are dumb, but I hope we can agree that humans don't know everything... and that we use our imagination and reason to fill in our gaps in knowledge. I also wouldn't go as far to say that my religion is lousy, but I know that we can agree that it's not perfect. It was created in communication between humans and God and it is both conceivable and evident that humans have and continue to foul it up to some extent.

No, it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist or that God is not all-knowing or all-powerful. But asking if God knows every micro-detail of the future is like asking if God can turn an object left and right at the same time. If we answer those questions "No", that does not take away from God's omniscience or omnipotence... because we can reason logically that those things are impossibilities.

So that would mean you have to redefine either "omniscient" or "omnipotent" or both. Those new definitions must reconcile the inconsistencies between reality and your definition of god. Good luck. When you're done let me know. Btw, you may find something on the internet about it.

You'll have to give me a little more than that. The inconsistencies you speak of may be obvious to you, but I don't know what you are talking about.

The last time we conversed I think I demonstrated to you why the idea of God's existence does not require "proof" (the way we normally understand "proof"). God is not an object. Asking for proof of God's existence is like asking me for proof of my own consciousness.

Special pleading. Your existence does require proof and as long as you can communicate with someone you can provide sufficient evidence that you exist. Why doesn't God show himself like he did in the OT?

What evidence is "sufficient" is determined subjectively. For you, this correspondence is enough to prove my consciousness. For you, the order that we find in the world is not enough to prove God's existence. You might have alternative ways of explaining the organization of nature that are more believable for you, but you could also decide to investigate and accept alternative ways of explaining this correspondence.

And I don't mind the accusation of "special pleading." God, as the Creator of everything in existence, is afterall special.