“The subjective feeling of omniscience might in fact be a symptom of a profound ignorance—being unaware even of the existence of those domains of knowledge you lack. How, for that matter, do you know the answers are right? This is a particularly thorny problem when combined with omnipotence: If reality is whatever you decide it is, does it even make sense to speak of true or false beliefs? Beliefs, after all, are supposed to be true or false of an independent reality.”
As a Christian you have the curious case of the incarnation as well. Jesus, being fully man and fully God appears at times to wonder about his purpose on earth. Of course, it isn’t any easier if you are a human observer:
“As the Oxford logic professor Alfred Ayer points out in Language, Truth and Logic, verifiable phenomena demonstrate only themselves, and not any metaphysical properties you might want to associate with them. So, for example, if we had definitive proof that the Biblical parting of the Red Sea did, in fact, occur, and that there was no other readily available naturalistic explanation for that phenomenon, you might be tempted to say that it was a miracle and proved the existence of God. But all that it really proves is that there exists something we don’t yet understand which caused something else to happen.”
As far as it is worthwhile to have a debate about God or gods or theology in general in the public square, I rather prefer this to the sort of antics of the New Atheists and their symbiotic nemeses at various creationist think tanks where physical sciences are supposed to clearly resolve metaphysical issues.