Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

[Cyperium]

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal:

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.

Question:

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

Conclusions:

If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.

If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.

Cris

That God is omniscient doesn't rule out free will in our view. Also since He is omnipotent He can easily make us choose our own path for ourselves, or making the free will a part of His omnipotence.

Why do you say that He is a evil monster? You can't possibly comprehend his plan, little man.

 

[Cris]

Cyperium,

That God is omniscient doesn't rule out free will in our view.

And as several years of debate in this thread shows your view is faulty. The two conditions cannot coexist. The existence of omniscience necessarily means that everything has been predetermined, that in turn eliminates the possibility of free choice.

Also since He is omnipotent He can easily make us choose our own path for ourselves,

Then it isn’t our free will then is it, it would be his will.

or making the free will a part of His omnipotence.

Providing he isn’t omniscient, since the two conditions cannot coexist. But then if he isn’t omniscient then he couldn’t be omnipotent (he would be lacking something so could not be all powerful).

The problem for a religion heaping every super-superlative on their imaginary deity is that they end up defining something impossibly paradoxical, e.g. the Christian god.

Why do you say that He is a evil monster? You can't possibly comprehend his plan, little man.

Well, little man, if he has created a group of people (who have no alternative options) specifically so they could burn, suffer and be tortured for eternity then how would you describe such a being that creates such a monstrous condition?

 

[Cyperium]

Cyperium,

And as several years of debate in this thread shows your view is faulty. The two conditions cannot coexist. The existence of omniscience necessarily means that everything has been predetermined, that in turn eliminates the possibility of free choice.

What if He left some choices up to us? Or perhaps all choices we could do in a given freedom.

Then it isn’t our free will then is it, it would be his will.

We can share it, which we are supposed to do. If you give someone a thought, do you loose that thought?

Providing he isn’t omniscient, since the two conditions cannot coexist. But then if he isn’t omniscient then he couldn’t be omnipotent (he would be lacking something so could not be all powerful).

He wouldn't be lacking anything, we are to a certain degree a part of Him, so in all situations nothing can be added or taken away. He could know every possible choice we can make, but decide not to see the choice we make in order for us to have free will, that doesn't mean that He doesn't have the potential to see it.

Everything have a way of being.

The problem for a religion heaping every super-superlative on their imaginary deity is that they end up defining something impossibly paradoxical, e.g. the Christian god.

Paradoxes are common to people who doesn't understand enough. And perhaps no one understands enough to see why it isn't a paradox.

Well, little man, if he has created a group of people (who have no alternative options) specifically so they could burn, suffer and be tortured for eternity then how would you describe such a being that creates such a monstrous condition?

If that entity by the same rule is completely just, then anyone would get what they truly deserve, if that means that no one deserve hell, then that is what it means. But it is not up to us judge what one person deserves over another. That the ultimate punishment is the worst fate conceived is also only logical.

If there are truly evil people, that do deserve hell, then that is what they deserve. By the way, I don't think that hell is a fire in the worldly sense, but rather something consuming and causing suffering.


Also, I might add that the number of years that this thread has been up only shows how hard it is to get a definite answer to these kind of questions, it doesn't mean that it is settled in any way.

 

[Cris]

Cyperium,

What if He left some choices up to us? Or perhaps all choices we could do in a given freedom.

It wouldn’t be possible if he is omniscient. This means that long before you even exist he would know everything you will do, and since you would not have been able to make those choices at that time then it simply means you are committed to do what he knows you will do, i.e. your actions have been predetermined long before you have any notion of a choice in the matter.

We can share it, which we are supposed to do. If you give someone a thought, do you loose that thought?

But it would not have been your idea. Many regimes in the world spread specific ideas to control their people.

He wouldn't be lacking anything, we are to a certain degree a part of Him, so in all situations nothing can be added or taken away. He could know every possible choice we can make, but decide not to see the choice we make in order for us to have free will, that doesn't mean that He doesn't have the potential to see it.

I agree that being able to see all possibilities is not the same as knowing which one will occur. Given a six sided dice I know with perfection all the possibilities of a given throw, but I don’t know the result in advance of any specific throw. However, with omniscience a god would know with certainty all possibilities and also precisely which one will occur; he has no choice in the matter. Either he is omniscient (knows everything) or he is not.

Paradoxes are common to people who doesn't understand enough. And perhaps no one understands enough to see why it isn't a paradox.

Perhaps, but then no one has successfully explained why this isn’t a paradox yet.

If that entity by the same rule is completely just, then anyone would get what they truly deserve, if that means that no one deserve hell, then that is what it means. But it is not up to us judge what one person deserves over another. That the ultimate punishment is the worst fate conceived is also only logical.

If there are truly evil people, that do deserve hell, then that is what they deserve. By the way, I don't think that hell is a fire in the worldly sense, but rather something consuming and causing suffering.

That’s fine but that is not what will occur if he is omniscient and the creator of everything.

For example he decides to create the universe and with people in it. At that instant of creation he will have designed all the conditions of everything that is about to occur and he can see perfectly which people are going to survive and those who will be condemned. And all of this before any of it happens or before any of us exist or have any say in the matter. Remember he is also meant to be omnipotent so he has total control and choice over exactly what can and will happen. If he wanted everyone to survive and be perfect then that could be his choice. The choice of who will die and live is totally his choice and not ours. With something that has total control and total knowledge then what occurs has had no choice in the matter. Human free will has no meaning in such a paradigm.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

sigh...

ah yes. the old "God can't exist because he cannot be omniscient and allow for free will, too" argument.

Let's imagine some situations for a moment. You are omiscient, and you roll some perfect dice. Does the fact you are omniscient and thus know what the dice will land on preclude the random nature of the dice? If you simply flip them without attempting to manipulate them, does your knowledge negate this randomness?

Another mind twister for you: As a 3 dimensional being we can perceive/experience the passage of time, but cannot perceive it in fullness or otherwise manipulate it directly. Now, imagine a 4th or 5th dimensional being, one which can perceive time in it's fullness. Because we are limited to 3 dimensional measurement and 4th dimensional awareness, could we perceive a 4th dimensional or 5th dimensional being. No more than a 2 dimensional being would be able to perceive us. As a 3 dimensional being, we are able to perceive everything about this 2-dimensional universe. Our effect on that universe could be viewed as "acts of god" by the residents. One would probably argue that god could not exist because they could not witness all events within that 2 dimensional world and allow the residents free will.

Let me give you some personal information. I am a christian, no particular flavor, just christian. I accept the fact that the Bible is attempting to make "blue" understandable to the blind, but is not a treatise on biology or physics. I know that my capacity for understanding is limited, and don't worry myself about things like,"If God exists why did X?". My question would be this, what is the definition of an omniscient, omnipotent, perfect being? Considering that God gets to decide what perfection is, without knowing what God's definition is how can I then question his "perfect" motives? I would think that such a being wouldn't need to create anything from minions(angels) to opposition(God created Satan, right?) to a further imperfect subspecies(us) to quantify his worthiness.

But I digress. The problem is there is no good answer to a question we can't fully fathom. If I don't believe you exist, there is no way you can prove your existence to me, because I have to make an assumption of the accuracy of my senses at some point to decide if you exist or not.
By my understanding, God created us, a sub-species, and has simply asked us to forego the fact we can't perceive God but to believe he exists.

In summary, God is bigger than a breadbox, God, as creator of lesser dimensions of reality can perceive their fullness without interfering with the sub-dimensional beings decisions by choice. Thus allowing them free will while maintaining God's omniscience and existence, but only by God choosing to do so.

Oh, and pigs have one of the highest levels of intelligence among land animals.

One last thought. I like this one. Who are we to say that there aren't an infinite number of parallel universes reflecting every possible choice, even subatomic motion. God as Omniscient gets to see and comprehend ALL of them. Like I said, God is bigger than a breadbox, and the crumbs inside the breadbox are not competent to decide if God exists.

 

[SnakeLord]

You are omiscient, and you roll some perfect dice. Does the fact you are omniscient and thus know what the dice will land on preclude the random nature of the dice? If you simply flip them without attempting to manipulate them, does your knowledge negate this randomness?

While I would personally grant this to you it's amazing how quickly theists backtrack when I mention my Bob and Jane principle. Let me explain it as simply as possible:

1) God has the ability to make anything, anyone, anyhow, anywho, (omnipotent).

2) God knows everything his creation will do from the loudest most public acts to the tiniest squeak of a fart, (Omniscient).

The theist will contend that even though this god knows every action man will do they still have free will. I know many atheists that contend otherwise but I might as well state for the sake of discussion that I tend to agree with the theist. Knowledge of a future action does not mean you decided it for them.

Having said that however, I will submit that every theist that reads the next few lines will instantly give up on that notion. They will indeed scream 'no free will' even though they contended otherwise 2.7 seconds ago.

3) God chose to create a certain specific being. I ask you now, why not create Bob and Jane instead of Adam and Eve?

You see, unlike Adam and Eve, Bob and Jane will never eat the fruit. He knows this, just like he knows what Adam and Eve will do. By choosing B instead of A he has saved so many billions from burning without impacting their free will.

That's where the theist backtracks on his own views even though there is no difference.

He chose to create Adam and Eve.

He could choose to create Bob and Jane.

He knows everything Adam and Eve will do.

He knows everything Bob and Jane will do.

One leads to wholesale slaughter, the other leads to wholesale happiness. He didn't make their decisions for them, he simply knew what they would or would not do. He specifically chose to create A when he could have just as easily specifically chosen to create B.

In picture format

* Kindly forgive me if my visual depiction of a god is inaccurate, I am not privy to the latest intel *

You see, the choice of this god was to create A - knowing full well exactly what they would do, exactly what the outcome would be. The same would apply equally for B, but the outcome would be entirely different.

Regards,

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

nice

I love it.

I personally have an alternate, somewhat scientific view of the biblical creation, not to say it 'didn't' occur, just that the Bible was meant to explain ideas to a pre-tech culture, thus God creates the world and humans, God gives them a deliberate design flaw as well as an antagonist who is constantly trying to entice them away from God. I'm all for Big Bang to evolution, I just put God as the cause.

Maybe it's a grand experiment on God's part. Maybe he's lonely and wants to feel loved by something that wasn't,"designed" to love God. What you propose is a good point, but I say it begs more of the question what does a perfect God need with creation at all? In christianity, because God is perfect, he decides what the meaning of perfection is. Thus we are not asexual immortal beings because God is perfect, though I'd suggest that if we were we'd be a more functional creation.

But, all of this is beside the point. If we throw out science and go purely to Adam and Eve, then what follows is simply that God chose to create these beings with the foreknowledge they were flawed and unworthy and would fail to follow simple instructions. He also knew that over time they would produce beings that would try to be as he has suggested. I hate throwing out the science, though.

Adam and Eve reminds me of Hansel and Gretel to be honest... "and then do you know what that naughty girl did? she broke the one rule they had to follow and convinced the man to join her, all in hopes of gaining knowledge of good and evil and being like God."

It's ok pre-tech, worried about survival, but not so much for the industrialized scientific minded human of today. Thus the bible is excellent social/semi-historical commentary, but not perfect.

 

[(Q)]

Thus the bible is excellent social/semi-historical commentary, but not perfect.

"And Gideon said, Therefore when the Lord hath delivered Zebah and Zalmunna into mine hand, then I will tear your flesh with the thorns of the wilderness and with briers" (Judges 8:7)

"Now Zebah and Zalmunna were Karkor, and their hosts with them, about fifteen thousand men, all that were left of all the hosts of the children of the east: for there fell an hundred and twenty thousand men that drew sword." (Judges 8:10)

"And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation. And all Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up also. And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense." (Numbers 16:32-35)

"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead." (Exodus 12:29-30)

"Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel..." (I Chronicles 21:12)

"So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men." (I Chronicles 21:14)

"And there came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian with an host of a thousand thousand, and three hundred chariots..." (II Chronicles 14:9)

So the LORD smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. (II Chronicles 14:12)

And, the "excellent social/semi-historical commentary" continues in this fashion.

 

[S.A.M.]

While I would personally grant this to you it's amazing how quickly theists backtrack when I mention my Bob and Jane principle.
Regards,

Suffering is a subjective view. For instance, do you care that 20,000 children die everyday so you can maintain your lifestyle? If yes, what is your reaction? If no, what is your reaction? Perhaps happiness is not all its cut out to be. If you could live forever, would that change how you lived your life? Your hypothetical alternate scenario is based on your viewpoint that it would work. Would it though?

 

[(Q)]

Suffering is a subjective view. For instance, do you care that 20,000 children die everyday so you can maintain your lifestyle?

Do you care that Allah causes this suffering and is killing those children to maintain YOUR lifestyle?

 

[S.A.M.]

Do you care that Allah causes this suffering and is killing those children to maintain YOUR lifestyle?

Allah does? How does he do that?

 

[John99]

Something that i cannot square away:

Why would GOD\Allah have a need\desire to be worshiped? Well, ia sak, why would it mattre.

Mod note: Perhaps, i should have made this into a seprate thread. Otoh, this casn get very hairy.

 

[SnakeLord]

Suffering is a subjective view. For instance, do you care that 20,000 children die everyday so you can maintain your lifestyle? If yes, what is your reaction? If no, what is your reaction? Perhaps happiness is not all its cut out to be. If you could live forever, would that change how you lived your life? Your hypothetical alternate scenario is based on your viewpoint that it would work. Would it though?

I don't really see any relevance in the first half of your quote. Bob and Jane is there to show that a god could just as easily have made beings that don't "fall" into suffering while retaining their 'free will' and how - if one argues that it isn't free will - it equally affects the claim from a biblical perspective regarding A&E and ultimately the rest of us.

Your question to kids suffering - sure, it bothers me but it wouldn't if the Bob and Jane principle was put into effect because there wouldn't be any kids dying every day. As to whether there is any value in eternal life, no death etc etc that's something that the theist must answer and that answer I would have thought must be "yes" if he is the kind of theist that believes in eternal afterlives.

If one is to argue that "happiness is not all it's cut out to be", I would be under the impression that they are about to argue that such god put it all into motion that people would fall so that they could experience sorrow and grief etc. I have no personal issue with this - indeed I recognise it as so from a biblical perspective unless one contends that this god was blissfully unaware of the universes only talking snake sneaking into the garden to corrupt his ignorant kiddies. What this does do is completely remove any value in trying to point the finger of blame at mankind who were, from the above, forced into a position that they had no ability to avoid.

This, in my estimation, reduces god to cosmic imbecile or cosmic butthead.

I would lastly contend that if "happiness is not all its cut out to be" then heaven will be a bit hellish.

Regards,

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Hmm. I would suggest that God would allow challenges to be before us that we might benefit from overcoming them or learn of our need for his assistance in doing so.

As far as happiness goes... I don't recall eternal happiness being a part of one's salvation, even from a biblical perspective. Heaven, like God is way bigger than the breadbox, so I look at it as an unknown. Hell was not designed for "sinners" but for rebellious angels, rebellious humans just wind up there.

As for current suffering on Earth, it can be argued that it is all due to humanity creating a bad situation for itself and its children. From a cosmic point of view, aren't these children getting a merciful end to a brutal life? It has been suggested by some that the "age of innocence" is a time during childhood that is a free pass to Heaven.

God being a cosmic imbecile or butthead. Every imbecile or butthead I've ever met was quite sure that everyone else had the problem. God is bigger than a breadbox. He is NOT human, or humanlike. His concerns are far bigger than what we can comprehend.

Let's take Bob and Jane for a moment, and suppose the biblical creation story is exactly how it went, and is not meant to be a story we can learn about human nature from. God creates Bob. God decides that Bob is lonely or incompetent(in need of a helpmate) so he creates Jane from one of Bob's ribs. Jane, being the one created from a piece of a previous creation is now inherently weaker(sorry ladies, no offense meant) and so it is Jane that Satan in the form of a "serpent"(and let's remember that God made Satan to be his main choir director, But Satan decided to lead the choir in a revolt) attempts to bring down.(I'm assuming the red-costume was out for dry-cleaning) Still with me?

Jane (more competent than Eve) says,"No way, God said that was naughty" and runs away. I guess we should expect the story to end there, right? Why? Now Satan bakes a fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil pie and brings it to Bob. He tells Bob,"It's hot, It's tasty, and it will make you just like God"(why Eve liked the idea). Bob says,"OK!" runs off, convinces Jane to have a tasty slice. Hilarity ensues.

Like I said before, creation is easy to poke holes in, but as a christian I don't preclude it from possibility. I wasn't there to see creation, yet I don't think God intended the Bible to be God's big book of astrophysics and bioengineering. It's a story that tells us it is our nature to fail to do God's will, and that embracing God's will from the beginning will simplify our lives. Ignorance of good and evil (or innocence) is good enough to be allowed into the presence of God.

Now that we are nice and far off-topic, I'd like to reiterate that Omniscience does not preclude Free Will, that God did not pop out of existence at this suggestion, and perhaps we should undertake further discussion in a new thread.

 

[Laser Eyes]

Holy crap! 71 pages!! None of which have I read! And the OP is here on the last page still debating the issue. There is of course a simple answer but I doubt giving it would achieve anything. But the OP can take a bow for starting such a long thread!

 

[Cris]

Mr. Hamtastic,

Ignorance of good and evil (or innocence) is good enough to be allowed into the presence of God.

Why then were Adam and Eve punished, and the entire human race that followed, for eating the fruit that gave them the knowledge of good and evil? Remember that before they ate they could not have been aware that eating the fruit or disobeying God was a bad thing to do; they would not have possessed that ability until after they ate. Punishment is only just when the offender knowingly and intentionally does something wrong knowing it is wrong. That cannot be the case here.

I'd like to reiterate that Omniscience does not preclude Free Will, that God did not pop out of existence at this suggestion, and perhaps we should undertake further discussion in a new thread.

There is no concern that he would pop out of existence, the paradox indicates he could never have existed.

The issue you must answer is if every event in your life is entirely known before you exist then what actual free will can you have to do anything different? If omniscience exists then your entire life is pre-determined and free will cannot exist.

Simply asserting this is not so does not explain away the apparent paradox. And this is entirely the correct thread to discus this.

 

[Laser Eyes]

Can I this? Why is it said that omniscience equals perfect knowledge of past and future events? Where does that definition of omniscience come from?

 

[Oli]

Erm, maybe because the prefix "omni" means "all": omniscience therefore meaning "total knowledge".
Past and future, of course, tend to be subsumed in the totality.

 

[Cyperium]

Cyperium,

It wouldn’t be possible if he is omniscient. This means that long before you even exist he would know everything you will do, and since you would not have been able to make those choices at that time then it simply means you are committed to do what he knows you will do, i.e. your actions have been predetermined long before you have any notion of a choice in the matter.

But it would not have been your idea. Many regimes in the world spread specific ideas to control their people.

I agree that being able to see all possibilities is not the same as knowing which one will occur. Given a six sided dice I know with perfection all the possibilities of a given throw, but I don’t know the result in advance of any specific throw. However, with omniscience a god would know with certainty all possibilities and also precisely which one will occur; he has no choice in the matter. Either he is omniscient (knows everything) or he is not.

Perhaps, but then no one has successfully explained why this isn’t a paradox yet.

That’s fine but that is not what will occur if he is omniscient and the creator of everything.

For example he decides to create the universe and with people in it. At that instant of creation he will have designed all the conditions of everything that is about to occur and he can see perfectly which people are going to survive and those who will be condemned. And all of this before any of it happens or before any of us exist or have any say in the matter. Remember he is also meant to be omnipotent so he has total control and choice over exactly what can and will happen. If he wanted everyone to survive and be perfect then that could be his choice. The choice of who will die and live is totally his choice and not ours. With something that has total control and total knowledge then what occurs has had no choice in the matter. Human free will has no meaning in such a paradigm.

Well, you might be right (what you say about the view you have), but knowledge itself doesn't rule out the free will itself. God is beyond space and time, perhaps everything changes, not in any future or past but in a stationary reality of some kind where there is no future or past, but a fluid "now".

The Bible does mention some kind of eternal timelessness as the region that God is in. If there is no past or future then there is no reason to know about it.

 

[Doro]

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal:

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.

Question:

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

Conclusions:

If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.

If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.

Cris

This is such a very old atheist notion, no more typical than saying "How can God create an unbreakable shield, and then also a sword that can shatter anything."

It's not a paradox at all. First of all, I can understand how you think, being an atheist myself for many years. But one thing atheists always want to do is put God in abox. It's like a disease they carry, they feel they must understand EVERYTHING, and if understanding can't be made, then that which cannot be understood must be illogical and wrong.

We are free creatures because of evolution, in fact, if God exists, I feel evolution is the only way we could ever be truly free were He to want us for companionship. A species that evolved freely by chance, from a process He began, and once we formed to His likened, He gave us eternal souls. Want to understand more of what I'm talking about? Read "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller.

Your paradox is nothing of the sort, and ages old. Why do you think many theologians thought up election and predestination? Or election vs. free will? These are ago old problems, but not really problems at all, until one dives into philosophical thought. Yes God knows everything, how things will turn out, who will choose Him, who will not. Yet that in no way erradicates freedom, it simply means what it says, God knows everything. But instead of forcefully applying His will, He steps back and allows us to make our own choices, knowing that whoever seeks the Truth (Him) will eventually find it FREELY, rather than being forced or molded into it like a robot, or controled as a puppet.

I see no contradiction in this.

There are some things about God that we cannot understand (I said those horrible words, 'cannot understand') but that in no way proves He doesn't exist. Hey, maybe He doesn't, but I tend to believe He does, for many reasons and that is why I believe. And though trials come, my life is so much better and beautiful since.