No, lets not. I provided counter evidence to one absurd baseless assertion of yours , that "information" only comes from "minds", you have not provided any basis on which to defend your original position.

Actually, I did. I pointed out that your simulation doesn't do what you said it does, even in a trivial way. I said information only comes from minds, so you provide a simulation programmed by a mind. I stated this only illustrates my point, but you insisted the output proved information doesn't have to come from minds. I just got finished pointing out that the whole thing is analogous to randomly piecing together letters of an existing language until you get a new word by chance. You still need the language for the word to mean anything, otherwise it is just nonsense. And you don't get the word without the language in the first place. If the boxcar simulation could produce helicopters, that might be something, but you're still dealing with the chicken and the egg problem. A system created by information which outputs information by design is not doing so without the involvement of a mind. A mind was behind the entire process and none of it could have happened without a mind so it doesn't count as an example. You can't use a design to prove there is no design needed. That's like saying you can prove you don't need a factory to build a car but you buy all of your parts to build the car from the factory.

Your "this is going badly, let's start over" tactic is cute, don't get me wrong, but you insist that your ideological position be taken seriously, and I intend to do so, until it lies in tattered shreds on the floor.

What I insist is that you substantiate your claims, which you have failed to do. Your overconfidence is amusing, but misplaced; the facts are not on your side. Abiogenesis is purely metaphysics and unproven.

So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by
non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a
retraction?

No, see above.

So now you accept that once you have atoms, gravity, time,
electromagnetism, you inevitably have the possibility of self
replicating molecular systems, and therefor "life"?

Nope, see above.

You seem to have decided that life is a magical barrier, but this distinction is false.

There most certainly is a barrier. Again, abiogenesis is pure metaphysics; it doesn't happen in the real world. Life doesn't come from non-life. Pasteurization, and the food supply in general, relies upon this fact.

The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.

So there is no difference between you and a rock? I can admit I see similarities, heart wise..:)

Let's see some evidence for your claim that there is no difference between life and non-life.

You acknowledge that once a mechanism for inheritance exists the rest
is inevitable, I agree, you simply lack the sense of scale on which
the universe operates, which makes the preceding step entirely
plausible.

No, I admit that if you don't have to do the work to get wheels and bodies, and you have a design that churns them out, boxcars are inevitable. If you already have the materials, and the blueprints, of course you're able to build the house. Without any of those things, it is an impossible proposition.

This is simply false. RNA codes for proteins, but RNA requires no
proteins for it's own replication, it is entirely plausible, arguably
likely, that once you have RNA, DNA would get a chance to compete.

It's not false. This is your pathway to DNA: RNA - (MAGIC) - DNA This is your pathway to RNA: ROCKS - (MAGIC) - RNA Just because you can get RNA to self-replicate doesn't automatically mean it is either likely or plausible this could happen.

You assume that the argument is Random -> RNA -> DNA, but it is not. There are many simpler organic self replicators that, in the absence of an RNA ecosystem, would be able to prime the pump, by converting simple molecules into those more likely to contribute to spontaneous RNA synthesis, very much in the same way that cells work by creating conditions where the high concentration of particular ingredients allows proteins to replicate DNA, which proteins would not be able to do in the wild.

The best science has been able to do is create some amino acids which is worlds away from a complex molecule like RNA. The difficulties are legion and many are just intractable. There is no proof that RNA could even survive in that kind of environment, because it is extremely fragile.

ID is not even a postulation, much less a hypothesis, it provides no information, illuminates nothing, it is theology dressed up in the garb of science. It's only science if it reliably predicts things, ID fails at this basic task, because, like all theology, it is useless
.

It most certainly is a theory and it is not theology; intelligent design only needs an intelligent designer, not an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity. It is a theory which states that certain elements and features of the Universe are better explained by intelligent causation than an undirected process like natural selection. It is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent" design in nature, which biologists acknowledge, is actual design. It is only useless to you because you have ruled out design apriori, which is just simply ignorant.

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Let's start over because you're just going all over the place

No, lets not. I provided counter evidence to one absurd baseless assertion of yours , that "information" only comes from "minds", you have not provided any basis on which to defend your original position.
Your "this is going badly, let's start over" tactic is cute, don't get me wrong, but you insist that your ideological position be taken seriously, and I intend to do so, until it lies in tattered shreds on the floor.
>> ^shinyblurry:
This is the point: Your entire example is irrelevent. Yeah, you can generate all sorts of stuff when a system is already in place, when you have a preprogrammed design that itself generates designs. If you already have wheels and a chassis, you can build a boxcar pretty easily. Boxcars are inevitable at this point.

So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a retraction?
So now you accept that once you have atoms, gravity, time, electromagnetism, you inevitably have the possibility of self replicating molecular systems, and therefor "life"? You seem to have decided that life is a magical barrier, but this distinction is false. The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.
You acknowledge that once a mechanism for inheritance exists the rest is inevitable, I agree, you simply lack the sense of scale on which the universe operates, which makes the preceding step entirely plausible.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You have to have proteins to create DNA and you have to have DNA to create proteins.

This is simply false. RNA codes for proteins, but RNA requires no proteins for it's own replication, it is entirely plausible, arguably likely, that once you have RNA, DNA would get a chance to compete.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Science has attempted to solve this problem by saying that RNA molecules evolved from the soup, yet there is no logical pathway for this to happen, because natural selection and mutation cannot account for it.

You assume that the argument is Random -> RNA -> DNA, but it is not. There are many simpler organic self replicators that, in the absence of an RNA ecosystem, would be able to prime the pump, by converting simple molecules into those more likely to contribute to spontaneous RNA synthesis, very much in the same way that cells work by creating conditions where the high concentration of particular ingredients allows proteins to replicate DNA, which proteins would not be able to do in the wild.
>> ^shinyblurry:
The problems are far too vast to overcome, and experiment has yieled no conclusive results. So, my point stands, that intelligent design is a better explanation for the complex coded information in DNA, which naturalistic processes cannot account for.

ID is not even a postulation, much less a hypothesis, it provides no information, illuminates nothing, it is theology dressed up in the garb of science. It's only science if it reliably predicts things, ID fails at this basic task, because, like all theology, it is useless.

A few thoughts:

1. Personal Revelation: I'm not sure why "God Told Me" is accorded a privileged, absolute position (by many, not sure if by sb) in terms of an information source. Surely a universe that includes supernatural beings interested in human behavior could also include a trickster-God capable of whispering things to someone or creating literally any kind of mental experience or situation (you know, for giggles)? Now, this could be claimed as a counterpoint to almost anything, and it's not really evidence for anything. It's not a good reason to not believe the whispering or something. However, doesn't it preclude absolute surety here? I mean, sure you could say it's more likely the whispering would be from the more powerful, "right" God - but, again, can you be absolutely sure? And if you can say "OK, I'm not absolutely sure - but I'm pretty dang sure" I think that's healthy. There's nothing wrong with picking what you feel is the vastly more likely explanation for an experience, I'm just objecting to the way some attribute absolute value here (again, not sure if this applies to specific participants of this discussion, but would value their thoughts here).

2. Punishment: I don't believe there's any "virtue" to justice or punishment. I think there's a practical societal requirement for deterrent to certain behaviors, and I think jail is a horrible, currently necessary evil (jail is marginally better than some other options, I think, because it mechanically prevents further offenses during incarceration as well as being a deterrent - and ideally it would provide education for reform, etc.. though I don't have much faith that that's happening currently). I don't understand the value of "justice" as an ideal or why it's seen as a virtue independent of these practical concerns. If people have free will and some are good and some are bad... well, whatever. As long as we can keep the bad people from hurting the good people (which, again, doesn't require any notion of justice), I don't see why we'd need to go about punishing anyone.

3. The End of Days: I will point out that shinyblurry's vision of how the whole final judgement scenario goes down is not shared by all of Christianity. There's significant variation between Christian denominations (though many of those, I assume, sb would not consider actual Christians - like Catholics or the previously mentioned Jehovah's Witnesses).

I think some of the confusion in this thread revolves around differing visions of judgement, differing ideas about what "Hell" constitutes, and the nature of God's omnipotence (which I think is a very big question). SB's posts here are essentially Theodicy, and that's a muddy job when these premises aren't well defined. I have some general ideas on SBs positions on these ideas, but I think it might clarify the discussion a bit if we knew his positions more clearly on things like:

1. Who will be in Hell, and does Hell include actual pain/torment (or is the torment more like, say, regret)?
2. What is the nature of God's omnipotence? Does it extend to control/creation of logic? What is his general relation to virtue/right?
3. What is the nature of God's omniscience, and what is your general conception of free will?

To be clear, I'm not trying to ask gotcha questions, or suggesting these questions don't have answers. I'm just asking what your answers are, as I think it'll clarify the discussion.

More generally, I think it's funny that they show all these complicated, inefficient, impractical biological systems and then claim that these crappy designs must have been God's doing. You'd think an omniscient, omnipotent God could have done a better job than your average Chrysler engineer.

Animals can't sin, it isn't about right or wrong for them. The passage states the way of all flesh had been corrupted..that could mean a number of things, but it isnt expressly said what that meant for animals. I think God might correct an animals behavior since it doesn't have free choice, personally. An animal doesn't have rights, they were put here under the dominion of human beings, for our benefit.

We're all born with a sin nature, so there isn't such a thing as an innocent person, child or not. I think it is to say that the world was so bent on evil at that point that they wouldn't have a chance. As far as where the water came from, it also came from underground. Here is one underground ocean that was discovered:

http://www.livescience.com/1312-huge-ocean-discovered-earth.html

>> ^Grimm:
As silly as that statement is that all animals had become wicked...it can't be true according to the story since Noah and his crew had to collect a bunch to be saved.
You believe that all the children and all the infants were not evil but destined to be evil? Now what happened to this "freedom" that God gave them?
The reset button? Now that IS something I think an omnipotent being would be capable of. With one flip of the almighty reset button all the wicked men, women, and animals would be dead...gone...turned to dust. But this whole Noah has to build a big ass boat and collect all the species of the planet and then a rainstorm that floods the ENTIRE earth...even covering the tallest mountain? Have you even thought of how much water that is? That doesn't sound like the work of an omnipotent being. It sounds like a campfire story created by primitive men.>> ^shinyblurry:
It says all flesh, which would include animals. At that point the entire world had been overtaken by wickedness, so the children of the time were destined to grow up even worse than their parents. The animals, too, had their ways corrupted by their close contact with human beings. Basically, evil had reached a point of total saturation and God hit the reset button.
>> ^Grimm:
So you actually believe the was a point in time that EVERY living human was evil? Every man, woman, child and infant except for a single family?
Also why the need for this omnipotent being to destroy all living animals on the planet as well?

As silly as that statement is that all animals had become wicked...it can't be true according to the story since Noah and his crew had to collect a bunch to be saved.

You believe that all the children and all the infants were not evil but destined to be evil? Now what happened to this "freedom" that God gave them?

The reset button? Now that IS something I think an omnipotent being would be capable of. With one flip of the almighty reset button all the wicked men, women, and animals would be dead...gone...turned to dust. But this whole Noah has to build a big ass boat and collect all the species of the planet and then a rainstorm that floods the ENTIRE earth...even covering the tallest mountain? Have you even thought of how much water that is? That doesn't sound like the work of an omnipotent being. It sounds like a campfire story created by primitive men.>> ^shinyblurry:


It says all flesh, which would include animals. At that point the entire world had been overtaken by wickedness, so the children of the time were destined to grow up even worse than their parents. The animals, too, had their ways corrupted by their close contact with human beings. Basically, evil had reached a point of total saturation and God hit the reset button.
>> ^Grimm:
So you actually believe the was a point in time that EVERY living human was evil? Every man, woman, child and infant except for a single family?
Also why the need for this omnipotent being to destroy all living animals on the planet as well?

Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. Then God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth. (Genesis 6:11-13)

It says all flesh, which would include animals. At that point the entire world had been overtaken by wickedness, so the children of the time were destined to grow up even worse than their parents. The animals, too, had their ways corrupted by their close contact with human beings. Basically, evil had reached a point of total saturation and God hit the reset button.

edit: Sorry I missed your question earlier. It isn't about punishment and reward. It is about right and wrong. If you're a wicked person who disregards the warnings because you value your autonomy to sin over doing what is right, you deserve what you get. You won't be able to say it wasn't made clear to you what would happen, nor will you be able to deny your guilt. You have no idea how terrible even one sin is, or what its effects and implications are. Just one wicked act could spawn many others, and effect many lives. You can see this effect when people duplicate crimes and reprobate behaviors that they witness others doing. It's not a gun to your head, it is the content of your character and what is in your heart; it is the imperative to do what is right and the consequences of failing to do so. God doesn't get any pleasure from punishing the wicked. Even still while we are sinners, God is patient with us because He desires all of His children to come to repentance.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

>> ^Grimm:
So you actually believe the was a point in time that EVERY living human was evil? Every man, woman, child and infant except for a single family?
Also why the need for this omnipotent being to destroy all living animals on the planet as well? What "law" of his did they break?>> ^shinyblurry:
God destroyed the entire world in a flood that left 8 people alive. God is sovereign over His creation and we are under His law, and His judgement. Specifically, His condemnation was against wickedness:
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."



>> ^Grimm:
So you actually believe the was a point in time that EVERY living human was evil? Every man, woman, child and infant except for a single family?
Also why the need for this omnipotent being to destroy all living animals on the planet as well? What "law" of his did they break?>> ^shinyblurry:
God destroyed the entire world in a flood that left 8 people alive. God is sovereign over His creation and we are under His law, and His judgement. Specifically, His condemnation was against wickedness:
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

So you actually believe the was a point in time that EVERY living human was evil? Every man, woman, child and infant except for a single family?

Also why the need for this omnipotent being to destroy all living animals on the planet as well? What "law" of his did they break?>> ^shinyblurry:


God destroyed the entire world in a flood that left 8 people alive. God is sovereign over His creation and we are under His law, and His judgement. Specifically, His condemnation was against wickedness:
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

You said god allows evil to exist so people will "know" him. If he can stop evil, but does not do so, he is not a good being.

And your morality response is an absolute cop out. As far as we know, Hitler never murdered anyone. But because he ordered the deaths of millions we consider him evil. Your god ordered the deaths of an entire people (1 Sam. 15:2-3), the theft of property (Numbers 31:7-18), the abduction and rape of virgins (Deuteronomy 20:10-14) and the slavery of anyone not born an Israelite (Leviticus 25:44-46) and yet you consider him good? God specifically mentions the people of Samaria and that "their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open" (Hosea 13:16). How fucked up do you have to be to think this is a benevolent god?
>> ^shinyblurry:

What I admitted to is that God allows you to have matches, and warns you that you could burn your house down, but if you ignore the warning He will still save your life..and you probably won't play with matches again in the future. If you listened to God you never would have burned your house down in the first place. God created a world in which evil did not exist; that He allowed us to screw up and bring it into the world means we have the freedom to choose. To take that away means we have no choice. What you are advocating is that God doesn't allow you to have matches, or if He does, to continually prevent you from abusing them. That isn't freedom.
As far as God breaking His own commandments, He would really only be subject to two of them, since the rest couldn't apply to Him. Lying, and murder. He never done either. He has never lied. He has killed, but it was never murder. Murder is to kill unlawfully. Under the law the penalty for sin is death. So if you want to point to places in the bible God took life, that was entirely lawful. Over 2 million people are born and die every day..giving and taking life is something God does all the time. That He is patient with us even though we are sinners shows His mercy. That He sent His Son to take our place so we could be forgiven and obtain eternal life shows His love.
>> ^Skeeve:
If I allow someone to burn your house down, only so that I can run in and save you when it is on fire so that you like me, am I a good person? You just admitted that your god does the same thing - allows evil to exist so humans will like him - so how can he be good? Why would anyone worship such a horrible creature?
As for the argument from morality that you have provided, if you provide me with something that is objectively evil, I will provide you with the bible verse in which your evil-ass god commanded someone to do it.>> ^shinyblurry:
Debunked? You're not a very good philosopher if you don't think there are any counter-arguments to this claim. First, the assumption here is that God and evil are mutually incompatible, or that God couldn't use evil to achieve His goals. If the entire purpose of your existence is to know God, and evil facilitates that, then God is capable of using it for beneficial purposes. Second, it presupposes that evil actually exists. So, if there is evil there also must be good, and there must be a moral law differentiating between the two, which leads to a lawgiver.
>> ^Skeeve:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?
Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)
This garbage was debunked 2300 years ago.

What I admitted to is that God allows you to have matches, and warns you that you could burn your house down, but if you ignore the warning He will still save your life..and you probably won't play with matches again in the future. If you listened to God you never would have burned your house down in the first place. God created a world in which evil did not exist; that He allowed us to screw up and bring it into the world means we have the freedom to choose. To take that away means we have no choice. What you are advocating is that God doesn't allow you to have matches, or if He does, to continually prevent you from abusing them. That isn't freedom.

As far as God breaking His own commandments, He would really only be subject to two of them, since the rest couldn't apply to Him. Lying, and murder. He never done either. He has never lied. He has killed, but it was never murder. Murder is to kill unlawfully. Under the law the penalty for sin is death. So if you want to point to places in the bible God took life, that was entirely lawful. Over 2 million people are born and die every day..giving and taking life is something God does all the time. That He is patient with us even though we are sinners shows His mercy. That He sent His Son to take our place so we could be forgiven and obtain eternal life shows His love.

>> ^Skeeve:
If I allow someone to burn your house down, only so that I can run in and save you when it is on fire so that you like me, am I a good person? You just admitted that your god does the same thing - allows evil to exist so humans will like him - so how can he be good? Why would anyone worship such a horrible creature?
As for the argument from morality that you have provided, if you provide me with something that is objectively evil, I will provide you with the bible verse in which your evil-ass god commanded someone to do it.>> ^shinyblurry:
Debunked? You're not a very good philosopher if you don't think there are any counter-arguments to this claim. First, the assumption here is that God and evil are mutually incompatible, or that God couldn't use evil to achieve His goals. If the entire purpose of your existence is to know God, and evil facilitates that, then God is capable of using it for beneficial purposes. Second, it presupposes that evil actually exists. So, if there is evil there also must be good, and there must be a moral law differentiating between the two, which leads to a lawgiver.
>> ^Skeeve:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?
Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)
This garbage was debunked 2300 years ago.

If I allow someone to burn your house down, only so that I can run in and save you when it is on fire so that you like me, am I a good person? You just admitted that your god does the same thing - allows evil to exist so humans will like him - so how can he be good? Why would anyone worship such a horrible creature?

As for the argument from morality that you have provided, if you provide me with something that is objectively evil, I will provide you with the bible verse in which your evil-ass god commanded someone to do it.>> ^shinyblurry:

Debunked? You're not a very good philosopher if you don't think there are any counter-arguments to this claim. First, the assumption here is that God and evil are mutually incompatible, or that God couldn't use evil to achieve His goals. If the entire purpose of your existence is to know God, and evil facilitates that, then God is capable of using it for beneficial purposes. Second, it presupposes that evil actually exists. So, if there is evil there also must be good, and there must be a moral law differentiating between the two, which leads to a lawgiver.
>> ^Skeeve:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?
Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)
This garbage was debunked 2300 years ago.

Debunked? You're not a very good philosopher if you don't think there are any counter-arguments to this claim. First, the assumption here is that God and evil are mutually incompatible, or that God couldn't use evil to achieve His goals. If the entire purpose of your existence is to know God, and evil facilitates that, then God is capable of using it for beneficial purposes. Second, it presupposes that evil actually exists. So, if there is evil there also must be good, and there must be a moral law differentiating between the two, which leads to a lawgiver.

>> ^Skeeve:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?
Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)
This garbage was debunked 2300 years ago.

Indeed. God is logically impossible, therefore according to this video, God cannot do God. No wonder he hates masturbation!
>> ^Skeeve:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?
Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)
This garbage was debunked 2300 years ago.

>> ^packo:
omnipotent means no limits in power...
by saying God is limited to LOGICAL possibilities, and can not do something LOGICALLY impossible is a LIMITATION
ALL POWERFUL means no LIMITATIONS
OMNIPOTENCE means yes, you could create a square circle and a circular square
throwing "logical" into this is APOLOGETIC at best, especially since its used to counter 1 thing, "could God create a rock big enough that even he couldn't lift it"
and the rest, again all APOLOGETIC and failed reasoning...
why would an omnipotent/omniscient (that means KNOWS everything, that includes everything past, present and future) care if people followed him? why could he not create everything, but NOT let it exist without any further intervention?
sounds like pride, which is a pretty petty emotion to dominate an all powerful all knowing beings decision making process
and if the best answer that can be given for that is "He works in mysterious ways", well then nothing has been "proven" has it?
nice animations though, content is trash


Having all power means being able to do everything which is *possible*. What you are saying is that there is nothing which is impossible, which is untrue. I can easily think of many things which are impossible for God. For instance, it would be impossible for God to remember a time He wasn't omnipotent. Does this mean He isn't omnipotent? No it doesn't.

In regards to Omniscience, it means to know everything that can be known. Could God create a scenerio in which absolute foreknowledge wasn't possible? Absolutely. If He couldn't He wouldn't be omnipotent. Having limited foreknowledge doesn't violate Omniscience, since He still knows everything that can be known.

Your scenerio is a false dichotomy. You assume pride is the only reason God created people to know Him, or that it would be better for beings to be left alone. In no discernable way could it better for beings not to know who their Creator is. What you are advocating is ignorance as being superior to knowledge, which I am sure is not something you could support.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?

Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)

This garbage was debunked 2300 years ago.

omnipotent means no limits in power...
by saying God is limited to LOGICAL possibilities, and can not do something LOGICALLY impossible is a LIMITATION

ALL POWERFUL means no LIMITATIONS

OMNIPOTENCE means yes, you could create a square circle and a circular square

throwing "logical" into this is APOLOGETIC at best, especially since its used to counter 1 thing, "could God create a rock big enough that even he couldn't lift it"

and the rest, again all APOLOGETIC and failed reasoning...

why would an omnipotent/omniscient (that means KNOWS everything, that includes everything past, present and future) care if people followed him? why could he not create everything, but NOT let it exist without any further intervention?

sounds like pride, which is a pretty petty emotion to dominate an all powerful all knowing beings decision making process

and if the best answer that can be given for that is "He works in mysterious ways", well then nothing has been "proven" has it?

nice animations though, content is trash