""God, as seen through the eyes of the biblical account cannot exist."

"Logic applies to everything with an identity, it is the method of non-contradictory identification. If you claim God is outside logic, he is outside identity, i.e. does not exist." Keep in mind I never said that I agreed with your definition of omniscience. I simply argued from the definition you gave of omniscience. When I speak of omniscience I define it as, God can do anything that does not go against His nature to do. For example, He cannot lie. He cannot sin. He cannot tempt or be tempted. These things go against his nature to do. By the way that you defined omniscience God can do anything he wants. He has not boundaries. "CREATING something more powerful than omnipotent is an action, and therefore possible if one can perform any ACTION. It is not possible to CREATE something more powerful than omnipotent." Your reasoning is circular because of the way you define omniscient. You say an omniscient being can do anything, yet he cannot work outside logic according to you. If God has boundaries in his nature then he is not omniscient. But you setting logic as a boundary, by your definition of omniscient, makes omniscience impossible. Therefore you contradict your own definition of omniscience. I believe that the Omniscient God of the bible cannot do the things that are outside His perfect Holy nature to do, as His character sets the boundary for all that is Good. I also believe that God created logic and works inside it. Though we may not always be able to reason as he does and are limited because we are not divine, he has created a universe that is logical. Creating something more powerful than omnipotent is a mute point if your definition of omnipotence is not applicable to the God of the bible. The Bible describes a God with limitations in His divine character. For example James 1:13 says, "When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone." We see in this verse a God with limitations in his character. You see the Bible does not describe omnipotence as you do, it describes a just God, who cannot contradict himself. To create a being greater than himself is to contradict His character in that there is none greater than him. Yet, omnipotence does mean that he is greater than we are, and His actions are perfect in nature, without flaw. "His intentions don't matter. Again, that "Eyes." The literal meaning of that phrase is "The Lord IS unsearchable." A property of the Lord, cannot be searched, without qualification." Again, you are the one that say that this universe is governed by logic however your interpretation of this passage is totally illogical. When I read poetry I want to know what motivated the writer, For example, "Why did he say his pain was unsearchable?" The writer wrote that to describe a pain he himself could not describe. There is a logic which governs biblical interpretation yet you have ignored the context of the passage, the genre, the writer, the history of the write, all of which have to do with how we understand the intended meaning of the passage. You could say that God was a chicken based on Genesis one if you took the spirit of the lord hovering of the waters literally. However, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, all have laws of composition they are subject to just like English. Interpreted correctly, we see a man who is using poetry in this passage to describe a God he sees as indescribable. I see what your saying in regards to causality. However, it is possible for God, who is biblically omniscient to know all of the mathematical possibilities for a potential choice. He can know what will happen yet still have no hand in its cause. In fact this is the principle of free will in that human beings are the agents of cause because they have freewill. God in his nature, will not circumvent mans freewill. That doesn't mean he isn't persuasive as an element of his love but he won't take away a persons freewill and their ability to be a change agent in their own life. "The fact remains that if a thing is knowable as a certainty, there is no choice left about it." Correct in matters of physics and science, incorrect in matters of metaphysics or the human heart. Probability is always knowable in matters of human choice however certainty is not, there is too many variables. How often have human beings surprised us with their brutality or their compassion. No one thought that someone would be depraved enough massacre 6 million Jews. But Hitler surprised all of Humanity with his disregard for Human life. What is knowable about the future in the biblical sense hangs only on human choice and the sovereign will of God which has already been made known to man. Therefore, the God of the Bible can exist. "All people living on the Earth will worship [The Devil], except those whose names were written before the creation of the world in the book of the living which belongs to [Jesus]." Revelations 13:8" For the record, the book is called Revelation, there is only one. This still does not negate freewill for several reasons. First, this is not what the verse says. It actually says, "All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world." Revelation 13:8 On top of that it is only the original language of the bible which is considered canonized. So, while the English version serves us well for this debate any truly scholarly discussion on the matter has to be taken from the original text. The verse literally says " And all who are dwelling on the earth will be worshiping it, everyone whose name is not written in the scroll of life of the Lamb slain from the disruption of the world." Revelation 13:8 The genre of Revelation is prophecy meaning it is a foretelling of what is to come. The writer didn't make the future happen, it simply is saying in foreknowledge that this will be the result of the choices made by man. "PRESDESTINED." and all of the verses you connected with it. Here's the deal. I am not a Calvinist so I can't say that I believe your interpretation of these passages. And the purpose of this debate is not to argue Calvinism, Armenianism, or the Weslyan/ Holiness persuasion. Even if, we were predestined to heaven or hell, we have no way of knowing who is predestined or not. I can also say that Calvinism is one of the most misinterpreted theological ideas. So, predestination doesn't remove the free will of man but rather exposes the total depravity of man and his inability to seek God on his own accord, as Calvin would say. But the Man who so adamantly believed in predestination, more so than any Christian scholar, believed that the scriptures gave a picture of a God that exists even if we are predestined. The debate isn't about man's free will or lack there of. You have to prove that God as pictured through the scriptures cannot logically exist. Your definition of omnipotence ruined your argument that God is not limited by anything except logic. Your interpretation of the scriptures demonstrated your total lack of any real understanding regarding literary comprehension, specifically by not taking into account any historical, cultural elements, also by not demonstrating that you understand the relationship between genre and the comprehension and interpretation of ancient literature. No one picks up the newspaper and reads it the same way they read poetry which is what you have done by treating elements of poetry like a discourse narrative. The things you've attempted to prove demonstrate a very shallow understanding of the faith you are attempting to criticize. If your going to say Christians read the bible wrong, [which is essentially what you are saying, because they would argue God exists] then you better have a logical way of how it should be read.