This depends on how God’s omniscience works. The idea of anterograde omniscience holds that:
So, there’s that arguement.
It seems like yet another example of trying to avoid the paradoxes created by all those “omnis” by claiming that God is not actually omniscient, while insisting on still using the word.
Pretty much, yeah.
Right-it totally avoids the “all-powerful” aspect which allows this deity to make the right decision to get the right outcome every single time. If I wired up my house for electricity myself I wouldn’t need the gift of prophecy to know that when I flip the switch the light will go on.
Speaking of the gift of prophesy, a perfect god that gave this gift to mere mortals once in a while would certainly have a perfect version of it hemself, wouldn’t he? Thus, any world where this gift existed is a world where god knows what is going to happen.
We are assuming we have an idea of what god wants. We do not. We cannot even assume that god cares about the outcome.
If we’re speaking of the Christian conception of God, the Scriptural basis for omnipotence is actually debatable. God is described as All-mighty; which can be taken as “supreme” rather than “omnipotent”. In other words, the Bible supports an interpretation of a very, very powerful God as well as an omnipotent one.
Coupled with the logical problems presented by omnipotence as a concept, I have no trouble disregarding the conception of the omnipotent God, though others certainly do.
This is the reason I insist that a request about whether I believe in “God” be accompanied with a complete description of the abilities and attributes of said “God”, otherwise the question makes no sense.
Many people assume they know things not in evidence. This is one of them. They even assume they know the motives and thoughts of others. It is not wise to assume anything when it comes to people.
I believe God has set us a tough learning curve but desires a positive outcome.
That seems like a wise practice.
Do you get dizzy when you spin around that fast?
In this thread you use the term “believe in”. Would you please tell us what you mean by that term?
I don’t think so.
The OP is asking us to define our own god. The current discussion is about what omnipotence and omniscience entails (i.e. if god has those properties, what can we conclude)?
In neither situation is “Who are we to know the mind of god?” / “God works in mysterious ways” a relevant response.
Do tell. 
I believe we can make well founded assumptions about people based on their prior actions.
Positive outcome for whom? Can you think of any examples where a positive outcome for god was in contrast with a positive outcome for humans?
I can imagine a god that is not subject to the rules which govern the universe he presumably created - just because he created it doesn’t mean this is the only way to run things, does it?.
I can imagine a god in possession of all the omni-qualities.
Because we are limited by this universe and this reality, I don’t know how we can intelligently speculate on god’s motives. So what can we successfully conclude, afterall?
*I want a new God
One who won’t make me sick
One who won’t make us die in wars
Or have disciples that are pricks
I want a new God
One who won’t make us bow down
One who’ll spank TV preachers
And kick proselytizers out of town
One that won’t make me nervous
Wonderin’ what to do
One that won’t insist that we kill off all them Jews
Cause that vibe’s just bad news*
Great, a new earworm for today.
All we can do is rationally reason things out.
And, in this specific context, all we’re doing is assuming god is self-consistent. That ‘If god has property X, then he has property X’. If even that doesn’t work with god, then essentially the concept is undefined and no discussion is possible at all.
No sentence including the word ‘god’ would make any sense, including “I believe god exists” or “God is omnipotent”.
Don’t worry, I changed the music too.
I think this is where (we) atheists run into trouble; Trying to frame god inside some consistent set of parameters.
Can you elaborate on the quoted above? I’m not sure I understand the reasoning.
That was my take as well, applying reason to God and the attributes thereof, to deduce the implications of those attributes. This, of course, assumes that God is subject to logic.
Otherwise, as Mijin notes, discussion of God is effectively impossible.
Many humans are sadistic. And many others try but fail to stop suffering. If I can stop suffering within my grasp, I try to do so. Sometimes I don’t succeed, but I don’t have unlimited power. Some suffering doesn’t rise to the level of sadism and those may be judged on their own merits. A god that has the power to stop the suffering, and more importantly, to make everyone happy, has a duty to do so unless it is sadistic