What do you think?
Rate this book
God's Grand Game: Divine Sovereignty and the Cosmic Playground
“This provocative book takes a wide-ranging look at religion and its place in our past, present, and future — and challenges readers to rethink God’s true nature.” (BookBub editorial)Author Steven Colborne is on a mission to awaken people to the reality that a sovereign God exists who is actively unfolding all events in creation. A first-class graduate with a postgraduate certificate in Philosophy and Religion, Colborne is the author of more than a dozen books in the philosophical theology genre.God’s Grand Game is Colborne’s bestselling book to date having sold more than five thousand copies - an impressive feat for a niche work of philosophical theology. The book is the result of more than ten years of study and reflection by the author in relation to the divine sovereignty versus human free will predicament.In the book’s eight parts and forty-five short chapters, and with reference to leading contemporary philosophers and theologians, the following questions are • How can we be sure God exists?• Do we have free will?• Is God in control of evil and sin?• Why would God cause severe suffering?• Is it logical to be a Christian if God is the cause of suffering?• Is God’s plan for there to be religious pluralism, or is Christianity the only true religion?• What will be the religious future of humankind?...and many more questions besides.Aside from his authorly career, Steven Colborne is well known for his website Perfect Chaos. The site was recognised by FeedSpot as a Top 10 UK blog in both the Philosophy and Theology categories in 2018 and has an ever-growing readership of subscribers in more than 200 different countries.God's Grand Game is the most comprehensive and articulate exposition of Colborne’s philosophical perspective to date, and as a radical and controversial book containing concisely worded and carefully reasoned argument, is essential reading for anyone interested in philosophy, religion, or spirituality.
246 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 25, 2019
38 people are currently reading
43 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
April 9, 2019
For work such as this, there is no need for worries of spoilers, as rather it is less a narrative and more philosophical. However, I implore you to read the work in-depth as my musings on the subject may be contrary to the views of others. Even that of Colborne himself. However, as he says in his work, this is how God wanted it. Some knowing of his existence, and those of us waiting in the wing for divine interaction.
So Colborne introduces himself first and his story was not an easy one to read. In his contemporary life, he has discovered a type of stasis, however, with illnesses inherent to him, he proclaims this may be taken away at any time. Such is the will of God.
It is also important to me that you do not mistake Steven for a man of blind faith, who have never known anything else. From reading his blog alone you would know this, and in his introduction, he explains his deep interest with all things spiritual since his teens.
In Part 1 we are introduced to the nature of God. Which can be summoned up by His omnipresence. He states his case quite clearly through the lens of scientific endeavours:
“Even scientists, who are very successful in describing how things happen, generally agree that they cannot say why things happen.”
The argument here for Colborne is linked with the philosophical paradigm of determinism. God is all there is, we are a part of God, however, he exists outside of us. Therefore he is all-powerful and knows how our lives will play out.
In Part 2 we are guided through the human experience, in which Colborne is certain is curated by God. Why he is certain of this is simple. We are used to experiencing things in a certain way, through a certain set of laws.
When something outside of these perceptions happened, rather than chalking them down to anomalies or mistakes, Colborne assures the reader that this is through the desire of God. It is because God is a higher being, that we cannot experience everything he does. In certain cases, he allows us a small window into his nature. Colborne asks that rather than dismiss these anomalous experiences we should accept them as God’s outer life.
Scientist have grappled for centuries with the concept of ‘thought’. Where does ‘thought’ come from? How does it arise? Now with modern science researchers have pinpointed the moment the brain sends the signals to, for example, move an arm. They have not, however, pinpointed the decision or the why.
Colborne makes it quite simple, this is God’s will. He is managing our every movement.
“If we consider the nature of God, particularly His attribute of omnipresence, it makes sense that He is controlling our conscious experiences because His being permeates every atom in existence and every cell of our bodies.”
For someone who has studied anthropology and humankind so closely, I cannot help but agree with Colborne to an extent. Although humans have spread ourselves across the planet, we have things that are so unique to us as a species that it appears wherever we are. The concept of God is universal and in favour of Colborne’s argument, this may be God’s own way of showing himself to us.
In our modern world, the war between science and religion has gotten us nowhere. I have often been an advocate for the inter-disciplinary cooperation of scientists and theologians. For many centuries now, scientists have been doing the work philosophers in ancient Greece once had the pleasure of.
Now more than ever we need to listen to, and read about experiences had by human beings such as Steven Colborne. In my opinion, his belief in God is not a dirty secret or an unfortunate quirk. There are many people I love who both believe in God and many who do not. With all the varieties in between.
There is no denying that Colborne has done his homework, and he entertains the philosophies of those who would be considered his opposite. In Part 4 he discusses the American Philosopher Sam Harris, who is a prominent figure surrounding materialism and free will. Harris believes that all we are is physical, and this matter is calling the shots. Whereas of course, Colborne argues this is nonsensical. How can inanimate matter create the diverse realms of thought that humans enjoy?
“How something that is purely material could create awareness of the kind that human beings experience is an area of ceaseless confusion for neuroscientists.”
There is also the espousal of the major world religions, (not discounting the thousands of others he would not have had time to mention). Colborne is not dismissing your version of God. His simple truth is this. God is omnipresent and God is our creator (at birth and each and every moment of our lives).
Colborne wants what I think is lacking in the Christian faiths (among others) of the day. A modern church were a scientific debate is not only welcomed but part of the general practice of religion. A church of God which has thrown off the shackles of the cruelness of human doctrines, and allow only love to flow. An inter-faith dialogue, a safe place for everyone, in which to look at God from all unique perspectives and experiences of the human condition.
There is room for everyone in the debate so I would ask for the comments to be respectful, and I implore you to read this book. There is more benefit here than you realise.
So Colborne introduces himself first and his story was not an easy one to read. In his contemporary life, he has discovered a type of stasis, however, with illnesses inherent to him, he proclaims this may be taken away at any time. Such is the will of God.
It is also important to me that you do not mistake Steven for a man of blind faith, who have never known anything else. From reading his blog alone you would know this, and in his introduction, he explains his deep interest with all things spiritual since his teens.
In Part 1 we are introduced to the nature of God. Which can be summoned up by His omnipresence. He states his case quite clearly through the lens of scientific endeavours:
“Even scientists, who are very successful in describing how things happen, generally agree that they cannot say why things happen.”
The argument here for Colborne is linked with the philosophical paradigm of determinism. God is all there is, we are a part of God, however, he exists outside of us. Therefore he is all-powerful and knows how our lives will play out.
In Part 2 we are guided through the human experience, in which Colborne is certain is curated by God. Why he is certain of this is simple. We are used to experiencing things in a certain way, through a certain set of laws.
When something outside of these perceptions happened, rather than chalking them down to anomalies or mistakes, Colborne assures the reader that this is through the desire of God. It is because God is a higher being, that we cannot experience everything he does. In certain cases, he allows us a small window into his nature. Colborne asks that rather than dismiss these anomalous experiences we should accept them as God’s outer life.
Scientist have grappled for centuries with the concept of ‘thought’. Where does ‘thought’ come from? How does it arise? Now with modern science researchers have pinpointed the moment the brain sends the signals to, for example, move an arm. They have not, however, pinpointed the decision or the why.
Colborne makes it quite simple, this is God’s will. He is managing our every movement.
“If we consider the nature of God, particularly His attribute of omnipresence, it makes sense that He is controlling our conscious experiences because His being permeates every atom in existence and every cell of our bodies.”
For someone who has studied anthropology and humankind so closely, I cannot help but agree with Colborne to an extent. Although humans have spread ourselves across the planet, we have things that are so unique to us as a species that it appears wherever we are. The concept of God is universal and in favour of Colborne’s argument, this may be God’s own way of showing himself to us.
In our modern world, the war between science and religion has gotten us nowhere. I have often been an advocate for the inter-disciplinary cooperation of scientists and theologians. For many centuries now, scientists have been doing the work philosophers in ancient Greece once had the pleasure of.
Now more than ever we need to listen to, and read about experiences had by human beings such as Steven Colborne. In my opinion, his belief in God is not a dirty secret or an unfortunate quirk. There are many people I love who both believe in God and many who do not. With all the varieties in between.
There is no denying that Colborne has done his homework, and he entertains the philosophies of those who would be considered his opposite. In Part 4 he discusses the American Philosopher Sam Harris, who is a prominent figure surrounding materialism and free will. Harris believes that all we are is physical, and this matter is calling the shots. Whereas of course, Colborne argues this is nonsensical. How can inanimate matter create the diverse realms of thought that humans enjoy?
“How something that is purely material could create awareness of the kind that human beings experience is an area of ceaseless confusion for neuroscientists.”
There is also the espousal of the major world religions, (not discounting the thousands of others he would not have had time to mention). Colborne is not dismissing your version of God. His simple truth is this. God is omnipresent and God is our creator (at birth and each and every moment of our lives).
Colborne wants what I think is lacking in the Christian faiths (among others) of the day. A modern church were a scientific debate is not only welcomed but part of the general practice of religion. A church of God which has thrown off the shackles of the cruelness of human doctrines, and allow only love to flow. An inter-faith dialogue, a safe place for everyone, in which to look at God from all unique perspectives and experiences of the human condition.
There is room for everyone in the debate so I would ask for the comments to be respectful, and I implore you to read this book. There is more benefit here than you realise.
December 20, 2022
Philosopher Steven Colborne’s self-published book God’s Grand Game: Divine Sovereignty and the Cosmic Playground seeks to reconcile God’s sovereignty (e.g., omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.) with human agency in the service of proposing a “Church of the Future.” (Apparently, each of the world’s major religions suffers from terminal flaws, and Colborne proposes what he believes to be the singular path forward.) It’s a Herculean task birthed from a seductive theological problem that has attracted many of history’s greatest minds, yet it doesn’t take long for readers to realize Colborne won’t provide an intellectual return on their investment. His nearly half-serious attempt fails at everything but contradiction, which makes it extraordinarily difficult to appreciate God’s Grand Game (GGG) as anything approaching a serious work of philosophical and theological exegesis. Most of the 45 chapters rehash the same basic concepts, and Colborne’s quotidian writing style feels less like an attempt to simplify complexities for the reader than a betrayal of some alarming vacuity. Think “self-published diary” rather than Summa Theologica.[1]
Colborne claims he is neither a Calvinist nor a pantheist {40}. I’ll take him at his word, though his worldview, as expressed in the book, aligns with those positions in incredibly intimate and multivalent ways. What he can’t deny, however, is his unshirted embrace of an uncompromisingly hard-determinist position that makes absolutely no room for anything else—not human agency, not mental creativity [2], not physical processes, and not even basic notions of perception {37, 49, 53}—and this belief motivates every one of his epistemological and ontological moves. The most charitable characterization of Colborne’s argument might be that we’re living in a supernal, spirit-based version of the Matrix, where an impersonal “God” informs and controls and imparts all experience and action, from our physical senses to the most nuanced mental states.
If defending fatalism were the entire project, however, then one might envision an alternate universe where GGG wasn’t so bad. Bring in Nick Bostrom, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and John Searle, layered above a comprehensive overview of relevant historical thought (e.g., Aquinas, Augustine, etc.), and Colborne could have uncovered a substantive discussion concerning the intersection of free will, consciousness, and the potential for (either God- or computer-based) simulation. Instead, he fumbles for a prescription of theology that leads to many kinds of embarrassing errors, including faulty hermeneutics, straw-men attacks, confirmation bias, and circular reasoning. I won’t do a deep dive into every single non-sequitur, but I hope readers will be largely (if not completely) persuaded by the following examples:
(1) God is omniscient, yet the future is uncertain until He decides what comes next {35}.
(2) Our “modes of mind” can influence the “modes” of others {55}, yet causation is a fallacy {168} and all mental states—including psychoses—are a function of God’s design {37}.
(3) The proof of randomness (i.e., the fact that we’re not in control of our own thoughts) is randomness (e.g., of choice, of word association, etc.) {59}.
Of course, there are straightforward (theo)logical problems as well. To wit:
- God is the reification of both love and hate {25}
- God controls Satan’s actions {87}, but Satan doesn’t exist {119}
- God causes us to sin and imparts to us sinful desires {51 ff., 74}
- God created all the religions {79 f.}
- God possibly forgets things {237, fn 2}
. . . and so forth. These are obviously absurd claims, yet Colborne has no choice but to admit them because his initial conditions demand their inclusion. It may be God’s “game,” but Colborne makes the rules.
Perhaps the most significant deficit of GGG, aside from the disqualifying problems of circular reasoning and self-contradiction, is Colborne’s failure to engage in real theological debate when opportunities do arise. For example, he asserts the predestination doctrine of orthodox Calvinism simply because it aligns with his first principle of hard determinism. This means Colborne must ignore the myriad biblical scriptures that qualify salvific theology as an engagement with (and of) subjective will, while also failing to address the obvious fact that “preordainment” inexorably leads to the nullification of God’s existence.[3] This was a wonderful opportunity for Colborne to conjoin his theological and philosophical positions in a powerful and convincing way using a “real world” problem, and he punted. Of course, considering the above examples, one would expect Colborne to be unfazed by the problem of a God who makes people sin and then destroys them for sinning, and the reader is not disappointed. Examples like these are littered throughout the text.
One should certainly applaud Colborne for conquering the difficult process of writing and self-publishing a book, but in the end, GGG is internally inconsistent and commits the most fundamental errors in logic; unfortunately, that’s reason enough to dismiss it as a spasmodic, pseudointellectual exercise. There are other problems too (e.g., the complete lack of academic research and references, etc.) that give the reader the distinct impression this should be a very first (and very rough) draft rather than a pristine product ready for publication—though, even then, there should be cause for serious concern—but those issues would have been overlooked had Colborne crafted a logically consistent and compelling narrative.
In God’s Grand Game, we all lose.
Footnotes:
[1] Numbers in square brackets indicate footnotes; those in curly brackets denote page numbers within the text.
[2] This is known as occasionalism whose endgame is pantheism.
[3] According to Colborne, God chooses “one of the innumerable worlds” that “veils” preselected minds from knowing Him {75}. So, if God causes everyone to sin—because all human behavior is really God’s invasive action operating through us without our consent—and then punishes a preordained subset of those fully determined persons (i.e., the non-elect) with eternal damnation for ostensibly rejecting Christ (when they possessed no free will to do so), then God must be unjust. But if God exists, He must exist as a perfect, and perfectly moral, being, a state that requires He adjudicate justly and righteously. Therefore, God cannot exist.
Colborne claims he is neither a Calvinist nor a pantheist {40}. I’ll take him at his word, though his worldview, as expressed in the book, aligns with those positions in incredibly intimate and multivalent ways. What he can’t deny, however, is his unshirted embrace of an uncompromisingly hard-determinist position that makes absolutely no room for anything else—not human agency, not mental creativity [2], not physical processes, and not even basic notions of perception {37, 49, 53}—and this belief motivates every one of his epistemological and ontological moves. The most charitable characterization of Colborne’s argument might be that we’re living in a supernal, spirit-based version of the Matrix, where an impersonal “God” informs and controls and imparts all experience and action, from our physical senses to the most nuanced mental states.
If defending fatalism were the entire project, however, then one might envision an alternate universe where GGG wasn’t so bad. Bring in Nick Bostrom, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and John Searle, layered above a comprehensive overview of relevant historical thought (e.g., Aquinas, Augustine, etc.), and Colborne could have uncovered a substantive discussion concerning the intersection of free will, consciousness, and the potential for (either God- or computer-based) simulation. Instead, he fumbles for a prescription of theology that leads to many kinds of embarrassing errors, including faulty hermeneutics, straw-men attacks, confirmation bias, and circular reasoning. I won’t do a deep dive into every single non-sequitur, but I hope readers will be largely (if not completely) persuaded by the following examples:
(1) God is omniscient, yet the future is uncertain until He decides what comes next {35}.
(2) Our “modes of mind” can influence the “modes” of others {55}, yet causation is a fallacy {168} and all mental states—including psychoses—are a function of God’s design {37}.
(3) The proof of randomness (i.e., the fact that we’re not in control of our own thoughts) is randomness (e.g., of choice, of word association, etc.) {59}.
Of course, there are straightforward (theo)logical problems as well. To wit:
- God is the reification of both love and hate {25}
- God controls Satan’s actions {87}, but Satan doesn’t exist {119}
- God causes us to sin and imparts to us sinful desires {51 ff., 74}
- God created all the religions {79 f.}
- God possibly forgets things {237, fn 2}
. . . and so forth. These are obviously absurd claims, yet Colborne has no choice but to admit them because his initial conditions demand their inclusion. It may be God’s “game,” but Colborne makes the rules.
Perhaps the most significant deficit of GGG, aside from the disqualifying problems of circular reasoning and self-contradiction, is Colborne’s failure to engage in real theological debate when opportunities do arise. For example, he asserts the predestination doctrine of orthodox Calvinism simply because it aligns with his first principle of hard determinism. This means Colborne must ignore the myriad biblical scriptures that qualify salvific theology as an engagement with (and of) subjective will, while also failing to address the obvious fact that “preordainment” inexorably leads to the nullification of God’s existence.[3] This was a wonderful opportunity for Colborne to conjoin his theological and philosophical positions in a powerful and convincing way using a “real world” problem, and he punted. Of course, considering the above examples, one would expect Colborne to be unfazed by the problem of a God who makes people sin and then destroys them for sinning, and the reader is not disappointed. Examples like these are littered throughout the text.
One should certainly applaud Colborne for conquering the difficult process of writing and self-publishing a book, but in the end, GGG is internally inconsistent and commits the most fundamental errors in logic; unfortunately, that’s reason enough to dismiss it as a spasmodic, pseudointellectual exercise. There are other problems too (e.g., the complete lack of academic research and references, etc.) that give the reader the distinct impression this should be a very first (and very rough) draft rather than a pristine product ready for publication—though, even then, there should be cause for serious concern—but those issues would have been overlooked had Colborne crafted a logically consistent and compelling narrative.
In God’s Grand Game, we all lose.
Footnotes:
[1] Numbers in square brackets indicate footnotes; those in curly brackets denote page numbers within the text.
[2] This is known as occasionalism whose endgame is pantheism.
[3] According to Colborne, God chooses “one of the innumerable worlds” that “veils” preselected minds from knowing Him {75}. So, if God causes everyone to sin—because all human behavior is really God’s invasive action operating through us without our consent—and then punishes a preordained subset of those fully determined persons (i.e., the non-elect) with eternal damnation for ostensibly rejecting Christ (when they possessed no free will to do so), then God must be unjust. But if God exists, He must exist as a perfect, and perfectly moral, being, a state that requires He adjudicate justly and righteously. Therefore, God cannot exist.
December 1, 2020
An outline of the author’s philosophies looking particularly at what he thinks God is like and looking at how a Sovereign God couldn’t possibly give his created beings any free will. If you’re familiar with Christian thinking and biblical teaching on this topic you won’t find much to agree with here. He goes on to say that any belief in a God would give common ground whatever background or belief system you have. The only good thing is that the chapters are short. If you sat down to come up with a new way to think about a creator God without reference to anything from a “revealed belief system” is this really the best you could do? Is it theology? Only in the sense it talks about God. Is it philosophy? It seems to be a personal way of thinking. Do I find anything to interest me? Sorry, no. Had to give one star because I couldn’t give less.
July 18, 2020
Infantile
Writing a whole book about ones faith is both boastful and infantile.
It is understandable that someone who is as emotionally disturbed as the author and someone who underwent a psychotic breakdown might wish to celebrate their recovery. Certainly this only happened because God is great and compassionate but it hardly requires a book, when a silent prayer of thanks to the Almighty is what is required.
Writing a whole book about ones faith is both boastful and infantile.
It is understandable that someone who is as emotionally disturbed as the author and someone who underwent a psychotic breakdown might wish to celebrate their recovery. Certainly this only happened because God is great and compassionate but it hardly requires a book, when a silent prayer of thanks to the Almighty is what is required.
July 6, 2025
Steven's explanation of the presence of God in all things (all that exists is, in essence, God) as the reason we do not have free will is clear. Though I don't agree with all of his points (I challenge any two philosophers to agree on all matters!), I found his logic clear and appreciated the way he addressed various counterarguments and alternative philosophies. Clearly written and an enjoyable read. :)
March 12, 2022
This was not what I was expecting at all. I was looking for more information about the different religions and how they compare, but this was not that. It was one man's thoughts on God, essentially, which made me think at times, but mostly I was a little bored and disengaged.
July 7, 2020
One man's take on the divine. Rather perfunctory, brief chapters. Thoughts could have been further developed. Not conventional. Interesting concepts, however. I would recommend giving it a read.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews