Problem with Christian/Muslim/Jewish god

By giving 'god' omnipotent powers, knows everything in the universe, etc., it sets up a series of unsupportable suppositions:
One: Suppose you say god knows the acts, aspirations, crimes, good deeds, etc., of every person on earth and presumably every other sentient being in the universe, then the 'mind' of this god would have to reside outside of time and be unable to partake in the passage of time as we know it. This god would be like a movie editor looking at a movie frame by frame, the movie being the universe of course and each frame, the smallest time duration that can be, maybe what we know as plank's time, something like 10E minus 35 second being one frame, so this god would know what happens to every wavelength of energy, every particle, every gravitaional wave, etc., and the motions of all that from frame to frame from the birth of time to the end of the universe (thats only assuming the one universe we can see, it would have to include ALL possible universes if in fact there are multiple universes) So by this supposition, god knows at once from the beginning of the universe, 14.7 billion years ago or 6000 years ago, take your pick, it knows already who is going to fuk whom and who is going to steal from whomever, etc., and all the 'good' deeds by everyone. Knows all that stuff when the universe gets born. So that alone throws out free will, everything that will ever happen is already known by this 'god'. So using phrases like "god WILL judge you" is utter crap because the judging was done when the universe was born.
This god, assuming there is, as christians say, a heaven and hell, doesn't need to judge anyone at the end of time as christians are wont to say, we are in the ending days, blah blah blah, because this god already knew before the earth was even a pile of rocks just smashed together.
So on to point # 2:
Having said that, it would appear to me IMNSHO that this god would be the equivalent of a 5th dimensional statue, unable to participate in our time frame and so would have to have agents in our universe to be sent to what it thinks are critical times on earth. But if it knew the criticality of times, then it would not need to send an agent to 'warn' people about whatever, just send one person or whatever to the exact critical path needing adjustment and tweeking one thing, maybe an evil genius being born and a deft hand in the job to prevent it. So that would set up stories of Christ, Buhdda, etc. But there would be no need for such a thing because it could be arranged thousands of years in advance if thats what it wanted. You can't have both omnipotency and beings involved in our time frame simultaneously. Either its omnipotent or its part of our duration and therefore limited but not both.

Originally posted by sonhouse
By giving 'god' omnipotent powers, knows everything in the universe, etc., it sets up a series of unsupportable suppositions:

Does it now?

One: Suppose you say god knows the acts, aspirations, crimes, good deeds, etc., of every person on earth and presumably every other sentient being in the universe, then the 'mind' of this god would have to reside outside of time and be unable to partake in the passage of time as we know it.

OK.

This god would be like a movie editor looking at a movie frame by frame, the movie being the universe of course and each frame, the smallest time duration that can be, maybe what we know as plank's time, something like 10E minus 35 second being one frame, so this god would know what happens to every wavelength of energy, every particle, every gravitaional wave, etc., and the motions of all that from frame to frame from the birth of time to the end of the universe

Indeed.

So by this supposition, god knows at once from the beginning of the universe, 14.7 billion years ago or 6000 years ago, take your pick, it knows already who is going to fuk whom and who is going to steal from whomever, etc., and all the 'good' deeds by everyone. Knows all that stuff when the universe gets born.

Make up your mind. Is god in time or outside? If he is outside, then he does not know it "from the beginning" and your whole argument here falls flat. He does not know anything "when" or "from".

So that alone throws out free will, everything that will ever happen is already known by this 'god'.

Huh? No logical sense here. How would me knowing what you are going to do tomorrow affect your free will?

Just because I saw the Mona Lisa as a completed painting does not mean the artist did not have free will in painting it. If I watched the last 10 minutes of the Matrix movie before watching the rest, this would not mean that the Director has lost free will.

So using phrases like "god WILL judge you" is utter crap because the judging was done when the universe was born.

Or is that only after the universe ends? Remember god is supposed to be outside time you said. Before, after, none of that makes any sense then. It all simply IS.

This god, assuming there is, as christians say, a heaven and hell, doesn't need to judge anyone at the end of time as christians are wont to say, we are in the ending days, blah blah blah, because this god already knew before the earth was even a pile of rocks just smashed together.

You have not considered the implications of Christian doctrine which implies a God that is not only transcendent, but also imminent.

So on to point # 2:
Having said that, it would appear to me IMNSHO that this god would be the equivalent of a 5th dimensional statue, unable to participate in our time frame and so would have to have agents in our universe to be sent to what it thinks are critical times on earth.

Yes, you have discovered a real problem for God! So, are you suggesting that God should perhaps manifest His Image within existance to allow some meaningful interaction?

Either its omnipotent or its part of our duration and therefore limited but not both.

The doctrine of the Trinity evolved out of essentially an explanation of this. This is why the Image of God (imminent aspect) is equal in age to the Transcendent (as it is from the same essence) but is not equal to it in power (being limited by being part of our duration).

Originally posted by sonhouse
By giving 'god' omnipotent powers, knows everything in the universe, etc., it sets up a series of unsupportable suppositions:

You, and most people who try to make sweeping statements about God, have missed one very important point. It is impossible to know or understand God. However this is one of the key paradoxes of most religions. We cannot know God but we cannot follow or understand or agree with a religion without it makeing at least some fairly definate statements about God. But when you dig deeper or ask too many questions you always run into the 'you cant know God' statement. This is the falacy I pointed out in one of Freakys threads where he trys to make all sorts of words fit God. If we say that God is Just, then it follows that he must follow cirtain rules. Then when we find what we believe to be a violation of this Justness, a follower will say that we cannot understand it but somehow the rule has not been violated permiting God to be Just. The only problem of course is that the word 'Just' has different meanings for each individual and thus could actually be used to fit or violate God.

Originally posted by JadeMantis
Does it now?

[b]One: Suppose you say god knows the acts, aspirations, crimes, good deeds, etc., of every person on earth and presumably every other sentient being in the universe, then the 'mind' of this god would have to reside outside of time and be unable to partake in the passage of time as we know it.

OK.

This god would be like a mov ...[text shortened]... ) but is not equal to it in power (being limited by being part of our duration).

Or is that only after the universe ends? Remember god is supposed to be outside time you said. Before, after, none of that makes any sense then. It all simply IS.

And what if there is no end to the universe but just recurring cycles?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You, and most people who try to make sweeping statements about God, have missed one very important point. It is impossible to know or understand God. However this is one of the key paradoxes of most religions. We cannot know God but we cannot follow or understand or agree with a religion without it makeing at least some fairly definate statements about Go ...[text shortened]... ifferent meanings for each individual and thus could actually be used to fit or violate God.

I only made one supposition, that god cannot be both outside time and inside time.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And what if there is no end to the universe but just recurring cycles?

Then still irrelevent. The point is that a transcendent external just IS. It cannot be placed at the beginning or the end. Therefore no argument can be made based on "knowing at the beginning" etc.

Originally posted by JadeMantis
Then still irrelevent. The point is that a transcendent external just IS. It cannot be placed at the beginning or the end. Therefore no argument can be made based on "knowing at the beginning" etc.

That is no argument, it just IS. That is a statement unsupported by anything other than a statement.

Originally posted by sonhouse
By giving 'god' omnipotent powers, knows everything in the universe, etc., it sets up a series of unsupportable suppositions:
One: Suppose you say god knows the acts, aspirations, crimes, good deeds, etc., of every person on earth and presumably every other sentient being in the universe, then the 'mind' of this god would have to reside outside of time and ...[text shortened]... er its omnipotent or its part of our duration and therefore limited but not both.

Buddhism seems the most reasonable alternative when it comes to a worldview/philosophy....christianity, Islam etc can be critiqued to death and have been..

Originally posted by sonhouse
That is no argument, it just IS. That is a statement unsupported by anything other than a statement.

Indeed, that is the POINT.

You define a being that is outside of time, but then try to argue by placing it somewhere RELATIVE to existance. The problem is that such relativity only has meaning within the context of the different 4 dimensions (or however many dimensions you prefer to theorise). The fact is that, once you DEFINED a being otside of this existance, you cannot then make any arguments relative to this existance about such a being. This being simply IS (or IS NOT if you prefer), but is not susceptible to relativistic reasoning as there would be, by DEFINITION, nothing for it to be relative too.

Originally posted by JadeMantis
Indeed, that is the POINT.

You define a being that is outside of time, but then try to argue by placing it somewhere RELATIVE to existance. The problem is that such relativity only has meaning within the context of the different 4 dimensions (or however many dimensions you prefer to theorise). The fact is that, once you DEFINED a being otside of this ...[text shortened]... e to relativistic reasoning as there would be, by DEFINITION, nothing for it to be relative too.

Yes, and just defining something means there is no basis in reality, you just defined it. Ok, I define god as a transendent ice cream cone.
You want to argue with me about that?