> if God knew or didnt know that the people would be bad.

The answer to this is a clear "yes." God knew that people would be bad.

> And yes, God did create bad people.

Now this you have to support. Where in the Bible could we ever get the idea that God created bad people. You need to support your claim, and I'll need to see it.

> They may have chose to be bad, but it was God that created them knowing they would be bad. No way around that.

This is completely different. If I paint my house red, and you come while I'm on vacation and pain it blue, you can't claim I am responsible for the blue. If God created people good, and then people by their own choices and doings turned bad on their own recognizance, then you can't claim God created bad people.

> Your explanation really doesn't matter if God already knew exactly what would happen.

Of course it does. Knowledge isn't causative. Only power can be causative. Knowledge doesn't make anything happen, and knowledge doesn't make anyone do anything. Everyone has a chance to make their own decisions and figure things out. God adjusts (Jer. 12.1-18; Jonah 3-4). I could be the smartest person in the world, and I could know you inside and out, but my knowledge has no causative effect on your behavior (I'm not a Jedi). Even if I were omniscient, that doesn't cause anybody to do anything. God knows everything, but that doesn't mean he makes everything happen.

I understand what you have been saying, but the point of the OP is asking if God knew or didnt know that the people would be bad. Its not really about free will or that people made bad choices or God giving opportunities. And yes, God did create bad people. They may have chose to be bad, but it was God that created them knowing they would be bad. No way around that.

Your explanation really doesn't matter if God already knew exactly what would happen. There would be no reason for God to give opportunities because if God is omniscient, then God already knew they would "insist on being evil". Can't be both that God knew but was still trying to help them. That would be sadistic because God would know they would not change and God would need to destroy them. The logic falls apart.

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to respond.

First of all, please read more carefully. I never tried to rationalize ISIS. That would be sick, and I would appreciate not being blamed for doing that. What I was saying was that good people work to reduce hatred and evil. So if God is good, he would also work to reduce hatred, corruption, and evil.

Secondly, God didn't create anyone bad. People become bad by their own choices and their own doings. Back in the days of Noah, just as today, there were repeated efforts on the part of good people to help bad people become good (2 Pet. 2.5). Back in the days of Noah there were people walking with God (Gn. 5.22-24). God was using people to help people NOT be bad. God was giving them opportunities to turn away from their badness, and if they had they would not have been killed (see Jonah 3.10; 4.2, 10-11). It can't be any more clear. God cannot be blamed when people choose bad despite many efforts to turn them away from it. It's an either/or, as you say: if they will just turn to God, they'll be spared (Jonah story); if they don't and insist on being evil, God has a right to punish them for their evil and to stop it from spreading to the rest of society. It simply doesn't follow that because people choose badness God can't possibly be omniscient.

The issue/question in the OP is if God is omniscient, then God would not have created these people knowing they were bad and knowing God would need to destroy them or God did not know and makes really big mistakes. Its an either or. Has nothing to do with trying to rationalize ISIS, which is pretty sick.

> The concept itself is internally inconsistent.

What concept is internally inconsistent? Lay it out for me.

Every religion has its list of Dogmas which Must be believed. Even though One uses the term 'catechism' for that list, that doesn't mean that other religions don't have the same thing.

The fact that "God cannot be either omniscient or omnipotent" under the properties generally ascribed to it, is totally unrelated to whether it exists or not.

The concept itself is internally inconsistent.

Of course, it's easier to be irrational about something that doesn't exist, for the simple reason that it is impossible to examine the real thing.

Don't make too much out of the analogy. It's just an analogy saying that something could be perfect and flawless and still breakable. The fact is that since God, by definition, is uncreated, anything created would be less than God. Therefore anything he created, no matter what material he made it out of, would be susceptible to corruption (less than purity), sin (less than good), and death (less than eternal life). There's no way around it. God cannot create something uncreated, and therefore there is no option except to make something that is made, i.e., susceptible to some kind of weakness. God is not to blame. We are fantastic creatures with amazing abilities. Watch sporting events, musical concerts, art shows, science and technological discoveries—we as human beings are astounding with fantastic abilities. But God cannot possibly make something that is uncreated. It doesn't mean he is to blame for our choice to turn evil.

You decided to make art out of glass. There are other, stronger materials to make art out of.

That is the problem. God decided to make humans this way. If he really wanted humans to "not break", he wouldn't make them out of "weak materials" in the first place.

> I am only following what supposedly happened with Noah's Ark which makes no sense.

What is it about the story that makes no sense? The Bible views people as godly or ungodly. A large flood in the ancient world was used as a theological lesson that God judges bad people, as any courtroom judge worth his salt would. Noah was warned by God that this flood was coming, and he built a large boat (nowhere near the size of what the Bible hyperbolically claims) to rescue animals, especially domestic ones. When the flood was over, he sacrificed animals to God and continued on with his life. What about this doesn't make sense?

> God knew that almost every person was going to be bad before God created them and God knew that he would have to kill all of them

God knew, yes, but remember the flood was a large local flood, not a global one. God killed the clans of people that were corrupt beyond hope. The Allies did the same thing in WWII. Right now a coalition of Western nations are doing the same thing with ISIS. What is the problem here? We work for justice and goodness on the Earth. So does God.

> including innocent children.

How many children were killed, just so we have a figure to work with for our discussion. And how do we know there were any except by making an assumption that there probably had to have been?

I am not implying anything. I am only following what supposedly happened with Noah's Ark which makes no sense. God knew that almost every person was going to be bad before God created them and God knew that he would have to kill all of them, including innocent children.

There is no way this ever happened.