God's Basic Directions.

The Abraham story cannot be definitively related to any specific time, and it is widely agreed that the patriarchal age, along with The Exodus and the period of the judges, is a late literary construct that does not relate to any period in actual history. A common hypothesis among scholars is that it was composed in the early Persian period (late 6th century BCE) as a result of tensions between Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and traced their right to the land through their "father Abraham", and the returning exiles who based their counterclaim on Moses and The Exodus tradition...

In the early and middle 20th century, leading archaeologists such as William F. Albright and biblical scholars such as Albrecht Alt believed that the patriarchs and matriarchs were either real individuals or believable composites of people who lived in the "patriarchal age", the 2nd millennium BCE. But, in the 1970s, new arguments concerning Israel's past and the biblical texts challenged these views; these arguments can be found in Thomas L. Thompson's The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (1974), and John Van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition (1975). Thompson, a literary scholar, based his argument on archaeology and ancient texts. His thesis centered on the lack of compelling evidence that the patriarchs lived in the 2nd millennium BCE, and noted how certain biblical texts reflected first millennium conditions and concerns. Van Seters examined the patriarchal stories and argued that their names, social milieu, and messages strongly suggested that they were Iron Age creations. By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible historical figures. [Wiki]

I hope that helps.

God is not your copilot.

Atheism is your religion.

Thank you for an, entirely expected, non-sequitur, and for ignoring the developments within modern scholarship I mentioned. 

You also really ought to be able to distinguish between a religion which is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods - and something just followed religiously, that would be (in one meaning) something followed with consistent and conscientious regularity, such as attending to discussions on this board. I am sure by conflating the two you are not at all being disingenuous.

Live and let live.

Leaving aside the fact that free will is but an illusion, do you suppose Enoch had free will? Why not create people to have natures such as Enoch's?
The best possible world is not one where people choose good, but where people do not choose evil. It is certainly not enough that a very few people choose good most of the time, a lot of people choose good a lot of the time, and a great many choose good only some of the time.

Many conservatives in the US think Trump is the bee's knee's. Most liberals, however, think he's a piece of shit. Are they talking about different people? No, it is merely different interpretations of the same person. In just the same way, Jews, Christians and Muslims have different views of what the God of Abraham is like. But it's still the God of Abraham.

    Leaving aside the fact that the law considers you have choices whatever nonsense "science" you through at them, you are just playing with words and missing the point. Being able to "choose" good requires that there be something else to choose that is not good, however scary or nonsensical that might seem to you.  Can you not image a world where the newbies are at last done and everyone makes good choices freely?

    Since you have no better answers to these conundrums yourself, and you are not likely to lead anyone anywhere anyway, your speculating about what would be a perfect world is utterly useless, if anyone's is. I certainly don't think you know any better what would be a perfect world. Why should anyone think you know better? It's not like the "problem of evil" is not just as much your problem as it is other people's. It isn't really something I have to solve for you. If you were truly a "fatalist" you'd know better than to complain anyway.  Has the issue of your competence been a problem before?

    Also your attitude that if someone else can see something and you cannot, they must be the one mistaken is highly suspect. Please consider you could be just as mistaken and they could be the one (or vast group) correct.

You're quoting me as doing just the opposite.



Of course it's either yes or no. But the Bible says both. Read Paul.



Yes, those are gods, too, but none of which claim to be the God of Abraham.



It can be any number. But of the three main Abrahamic faiths, sure, not all can be correct. But all can be wrong, of course.