Throughout history Deity/God has been defined in a number of ways.  Initially It was thought to be indistinguishable from nature.  Later, It was characterized as the personification of those qualities that man came to revere within himself.  This latter visualization introduced difference into our concept of Deity/God's nature -- a problem that has never been adequately resolved.  

Difference then led to belief oriented conflict.  This hastened the need for a more idealized representation of Deity/God.  However, once It's attributes were seen to be separate and distinct, we lost the ability to logically conceptualize their reunification.  Eventually, however, the idea of transcendence provided an easement.  It did so by abolishing the need to conceptualize Deity/God's form -- thereby nullifying the need to unify It's attributes.  Beyond time, Deity/God became indescribable and hence indubitable.  

Limited to being singular by way of relevance, acceptance of this characterization inherently doomed polytheism.  In spite of its advantage there were also serious disadvantages to its adoption.  Transcendence reduced all issues to Deity/God's will.  This caused disagreement over It's willing to become irresolvable.  Eventually this led to the questioning of Deity/God's intent and then It's existence.

Because transcendence thwarted description, Deity/God's existence couldn't be proved.  You can't prove what you can't define.  However, it couldn't be disproved either.  Transcendence thus rendered reason inoperative when it came to Deity/God.  This was unsettling to many, since the use of reason still remained integral to understanding how It might judge us.  Nonetheless, it wasn't until much later, when common sense returned to form, that the idea of Deity/God's transcendence was again questioned.

Thus thinking had returned full circle, with paradox once more holding sway.  Form implied limitation due to its dependence upon description and limitation precluded itself from association with Deity/God.  If the idea of transcendence was to remain viable, it needed something more.  This time that something took the form of "total knowledge."  By attributing 'total knowledge' to Deity/God, it became conceivable that It could be of form and yet not be limited by way of it.

However, this linkage proved to be inherently problematic to the defining of man.  Unlimited knowledge in the hands of Deity/God imposed a predestination that destroyed the possibility for ''freewill.''  You can't be free to choose when your choice is restricted by what Deity/God already knows; and hence, what  will inevitably become your eventuality.  The dynamics of "time" prevent it.  

As a result this linkage endorsed determinism, an idea that would otherwise be without foundation.  No one has ever found a logical way around this quandary using any of the conventional understandings of 'time' we've embraced to date.  The reason is quite simple, none exists.

Nevertheless, many religions still continue to promote this linkage between 'total knowledge and Deity/God' in lieu of something better.  The results from this union are so bad that only "mystery" can hide the contradictions.  In an attempt to conceal the obvious, religion has relegated Deity/God to the task of straightening this whole mess out.  How anyone can know that It might be so inclined, or will in fact do so, is yet another mystery that defies explanation.

Hence we are left adrift in logical inconsistency with only mystery upon mystery by which to sort out our responsibility to Deity/God and self.  Yet we are not allowed, by any of the religions that rely upon it, to resort to 'mystery' to justify our own perceived inadequacies.  This inequity obviously runs counter to common sense.  It also suggests that Deity/God sanctions injustice at our level of knowing, thus leaving the door wide open to the possibility that It might do so elsewhere.  

As a result, the use of 'mystery' promotes chaos within thought as opposed to order.  It does this by preventing us from logically determining where our responsibility begins and ends.  This is why 'mystery' is fatal to our 'freewill.'  And, without the existence of 'freewill,' everything religious immediately becomes meaningless.

So what is the answer to the freewill debacle?  The answer is actually quite simple even though the debate has spanned millennia.  It all depends upon how you exercise your right to believe that determines whether you have freewill or not.  If you choose to believe that you do,  then you acquire an implied responsibility to understand its constraints (as best you can) and act accordingly.  This includes adopting an image of Deity/God that does not preclude freewill's function.  

The result is the activation of your freewill.  Anything less promotes the obstruction of one's self, violates the integrity of one's self, results in the condemnation of one's self and otherwise shuts down the possibility of realizing freewill's potential.  

If you believe you don't have freewill then there is no necessity for you to do anything; and, in the process of doing nothing the potential for your freewill dissipates.  This alternative is called determinism.  In effect, you assume responsibility for nothing, purposely promote nothing, expect nothing in return, and have no logical right to bemoan anything.  This is because it is logically inconsistent to react to what you have no control over.  This belief inherently denies one the right to the qualification of self; and hence, any route to the legitimization of either their actions or dignity.  

Deity/God's role in this whole matter is more than obvious.  Since It provides for the choice to believe in 'freewill' it is obviously an option.  Whether it survives subsequent usage depends totally upon the wisdom of one's selections and the limitations that they wind up imposing upon this potential.  

************

Bar one exception, language constrains all ideas to the limitations inherent to itself.  That exception occurs when we attempt to characterize the "unknowable."  Since the 'unknowable' exceeds the constraints of language (by definition) reason must be called upon to infer its difference.  This results in three variations in idea that satisfy the original need constituted by the term 'unknowable' -- as opposed to just one.

This change in number results from the way we perceive the potential to which the idea of the 'unknowable' is to be made relevant.  When characterized relative to language alone (the potential of which appears to be infinite) the idea of the 'unknowable' is limited to being a singularity. 

When characterized relative to the individual (whose potential is obviously finite) the 'unknowable'  necessarily becomes plural.  One aspect of its difference pertains to that which is pre-self, while the other pertains to that which is post self.  The latter contains the results of our activity, the former does not.  It is in this way that we confirm their difference.  

When combined, our perception of  'the unknowable' as a singularity (as dictated by language) and as a plurality (as dictated by our temporal limitation) results in our perception of the 'unknowable' as a totality manifesting the qualities of both succession and simultaneity.