Thoughts on Hell?

[Mr.Obvious]

---

You are saying things that are inherently incombinable. And that's the entire point. It's like you are some character from 1984 trying to believe two opposite things at once. Or like you are saying something has all the proporties of a square and then say it's a circle because of all of those properties.
The bible can talk about free choice all it wants. You can claim it would be silly for him to bother with an experiment he would know the outcome for, but that is what omniscience entails.

You are trying to turn the argument back on me with what I stated, want work. I haven't said anything about believing opposites and I haven't called something one thing and then said it was something else. You are having trouble understanding God because you do not know Him.

Relax man. I'm not playing semantics here. Of course you haven't said anything about believing opposites. People usually don't notice when they hold conflicting ideas in their head. In your case; the idea that, accepting that there is an all-knowing all-powerfull creator of the universe, we can choose to do something outside of that creator's 'divine plan'. Of course you don't say anything about that. And that is why I point it out for you. That's kind of how conversation and discussion work, you know? I give you new insights to your established ideology. You do the same for me. We both strengthen or dissolve our views accordingly, ... Basic stuff.
 

It boils down to this:
1) Omniscience => Knowing how any one of an infinite ways to create his creation would turn out for every individual ever in it.

Wrong, omniscience means God knows all things as in knowing how to create the perfect universe. You are confusing omniscience with omnipresence.

Yes. As I said. God knows all things, including how to create the perfect universe. Omnipresence does not come into play with this. All it means is that he is everywhere at all time. The reason why it is irrelevant is because he doesn't need to be everywhere to know everything that happened, happens and will happen. After all, he's already omniscient. If he doesn't know exactly what will happen without being there, he is not omniscient. (Though your weird idea that omnipresence is somehow the thing that allows for free will is something I would like you to explain in detail, because it's one jump in logic you either didn't provide the necessary steps for, or that don't exist.)
But in any case... we agree, right. God would know how to create his universe in such a way that it would be 'perfect'. And in a 'perfect' world, we would all come to accept him as our lord and savior.

2) Omnipotence => Being able to choose any one of those infinite ways, including the best one in which everyone would come to him.

You are defining these things to fit your argument, to prove your point you have use your argument against who God is. You can't just make this stuff up and expect a learned Christian to swallow this stuff.

Omnipotence means that God has the power to create and destroy the universe at His desire. Creating something from nothing is omnipotence.

I'm just trying to be honest about what these traits would entail. You are the one saying your God has them.
Omniscience = All knowing
Omnipotence = All powerfull
So he has all of infinite possibilities on how to create a universe in his grasp, with not one being any harder for him to accomplish than another. And he knows how each of these infinite possibilities will turn out if he chooses to create the universe in that exact way. That's just what it entails.
I'm not being dishonest or intentionally deceitfull in the way I present these traits, I just use them in this point to illustrate my point. That's not some devious move on my part, it's just what relates to the point I'm making. Now you can tell me God doesn't know how any of these infinite possibilities would turn out or that he couldn't make all of the infinite possibilities. But then your God is not limitless.

Oh and: Omnipotence doesn't mean that God has the power to create and destroy the universe at his desire. That' is a part of omnipotence. An omnipotent God would have the power to create any universe whatsoever. He could create it in any which way he wanted. (And even that would only be an insignificant part of his limitless power.)

3) The act of creation => Actively chosing whatever would happen and be chosen within a creation he has total control over due to "1" & "2"

Your statement #3 shows you know nothing about God. You want to argue against Him yet you want use the book that describes who He is. That's like trying to redefine math and never opening a math book.

Your dodging of the conclusion of statement 3 shows me a lot more...
I'm guessing you mean I "don't want to use the book that..."
Do I, by the way, need a doctorate in cryptozoology and a decade of intense studies in horned-equine-dissection to be allowed to say I have not come across any evidence for an invisible, pink unicorn? Do I need it to be able to point out that while I don't say there is no unicorn, to call it pink and invisible at the same time is a logical impossibility?
Now maybe I'm being unfair. I'm sure you read the Koran, all the hindu scriptures, went through all the african an native american tribalisms, read the book of mormon, investigated voodoo and hoodoo, went through the religions of the aboriginals, studied the greek, roman, viking, egyptian, persian, ... mythologies extensively. After all, if you want to argue against any of those, you need to be able to use the texts and such that describe those deities. If you can't, you have to just accept that whatever is written in them is true and that they are all true, don't you?
But to be fair. I was a tad harsh. I just saw you referring blindly to the bible in other posts. That is the kind of baseless claim you should avoid. But, as with any holy scripture or any scripture for that matter, if you can give a good reason as to why someone should accept it as true, you can use those bitts you've proven as true to support your claim, if it aligns.
Its just that I haven't ever seen anyone that did just that with a holy text.

This is a square, kid. You want to explain to me where my reasoning is wrong and how it makes the circle of 'free choice'? Protip: you have to point out where its not logical, not where 'scripture says so'.

First thing I'm not a kid. Secondly you have no idea what you are talking about so your definition of who God is doesn't wash. Until you study the scriptures you are backing up. The scriptures come from God telling us who He is unless you know of a better source. See how the Bible is the only one you need to read it. What you have said is not logical because you do not know what the definition of God's attributes are and you left out omnipresent which explains why you can't possibly understand who God is.

Alright. Not kid then.
I'm not berating you, bub, for not mentioning that I didn't mention omnibenevolence, now am I?
I didn't mention omnipresence because it is irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. (See above.) I could have mentioned omnibenevolence, but it makes the entire thing less orderly and you already agree that God would prefer for everyone to come to him of his or her own 'free will'. And as you already seem to be struggling, I think it wise I didn't muddy the water here.

I'm not twisting the burden of proof because i haven't tried to prove God to you, I'm telling you what I know about God because He has revealed such things to me and many other Christians. By the way if you make the claim God isn't real the burden of proof falls on you, I do not have to nor need to prove He is real I already know He is.

Yes, you don't seem to put much effort in trying to prove God. And that's okay, I don't need to watch your attempts at undertaking this Sisyphean task. But you do agree that, as you claim to know that he exists, the burden of proof is still on you, right? Wether you attempt to fullfill it or not.
And I guess it's a good thing I'm not claiming there is no God. I'm just not impressed by the assertions and logical inconsistencies you fail to back up and explain respectively. I lack faith in your claim, mainly because you can't or at least won't defend it.
Insofar all this has been, is me pointing out that your unicorn can't both be pink and invisible at the same time, if it were to exist.
You can't have a divine plan for everything by an all-powerful, all-knowing God that created our world and then have that creation act in a way he did not desire and foresee.

---