Describe the "perfect God" that could be invented.  Come on!  Ham it up!\n\nIncidentally, we already know what the bad sport, overly sensitive, bible thumping false believers will say.  Let's get passed that and use our intelligence and imaginations here rather than merely (and too often rotely) quoting a resource.
119452
you need to use another example instead of your creator. the uncreated cannot define the creator's characteristics. it only works the other way 'round. have fun though.
377094
What you say is extremely true!\n\nIf atheists were to support the assumption of the universe having come into being without any agent, then they are accepting one of two things: one, that it has always existed i.e. that it has no beginning; or two, that nothing produced something. Both of these statements are very difficult to swallow. The only way for them to justify their positions is to say, “We do not know the answer to that,” which is the same answer that religious people are always criticized for when they are asked something about God that they do not know. It is also no better than when believers say that God has no beginning or that prophets produced miracles; in fact, it is worse. \n\nPeople seem to accept that if there was a God, He would be able to do anything; and yet, when they are told that God has no origin, their minds fill with unsettling doubts of how this could be true. They say, “Everything has to have a beginning!” The problem here is that many of them have a false conception of God as having human attributes. The question of God having a beginning is invalid. The very powers and qualities of God enable Him to do the impossible, to bend the rules of logic and physics. So if God can create something out of nothing – a concept which contradicts our rational view of how the world functions – is it so hard to believe that God has always existed? He is the only One without a beginning. It sounds unnatural, but it makes sense. It also gives the only logical – or most logical – explanation of how the universe began. \n\nAs a side note, I've been trying to contact you from before, but it says that you haven't confirmed your email. Anyways, I would love to have conversations with you! My email is soli__man@hotmail.com (2underscores)\n\nPeace be with you
394440
Exactly my friend....Exactly....Sadly Christians will never understand full what they are talking about....they can easily write off any other story ever written about Gods or things like that...but when it comes to what they believe it has to be real and true! Mucho props to you!
661036
I'm so with you on that one!! Everything starts and ends with God. But people are people.... Sad but true. It makes me sick to hear people mock their own Creator. They're playing with fire!Literally!
89611
Let us not forget:  Man created God, not the other way around.  Man created God to get him through whatever dilemna he was facing at the time.  Can't explain something rationally?  "Must be a god out there calling all the shots, right"?  Wrong.  There is a scientific explaination for EVERYTHING, it's just that we are not smart enough to know EVERYTHING yet.  In time.....
533938
Very thought provoking question! I am suprised that the responses you have received so far have been either negative or incomplete. It does pose a serious problem for conservative minded people. If the creation of a "Frankenstein" embryo by the hands of man is a religious abomination as you postulate, then supporting its existance is an equal abomination. But then comes the right to life issue. So far the responses seem to have been "well, too late to do anything about it". I think those responses are cop outs.\n\nI think that, should God make available to man the technology to perform such acts, then God must want us to be capable of doing it, otherwise he would prevent it.  Interestingly, it calls into question fundamental religious beliefs of whether or not this might be a "test" by God...\n\nI really dont have an off the cuff answer. This has provoked a lot of questions in my mind, and I have to sit back and think about it carefully for awhile. Thanks for the great question.
452299
God said, "I am tired of creating living things. let me just create a couple of bone like things to fox them when they're smart enough to find them."\n\nI have decided to be extremely silly for the next two hours. I ask everyone to give me some fun questions. I am starved for good humor today.\n\nWhere are the FSM believers?
328959
What would you call it if you were looking at a blank open field, and all of a sudden you were watching the super bowl taking place in that field? First a field then a stadium with players and people?  Kind of an explosive idea, isnt it? The Word says that the Lord "SAID" Let there be light, and there was light, so I can only say He spoke the world into existance.  Science is explaining more and more how biblical things happened, science just wont admit it.  As far as Darwin and evolution, look at the human being from conception to birth, we cover just about all stages in utero.
611933
Read this article and decide your self ...\nAn atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty. He asks one of his new students to stand and.....\n\nProf: So you believe in God?\nStudent: Absolutely, sir.\n\nProf: Is God good?\nStudent: Sure.\n\nProf: Is God all-powerful?\nStudent: Yes.\n\nProf: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?\nStudent is silent.\n\nProf: You can't answer, can you?\nLet's start again, young fellow. Is God good?\nStudent: Yes.\n\nProf: Is Satan good?\nStudent: No.\n\nProf: Where does Satan come from?\nStudent : From...God...\n\nProf: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?\nStudent: Yes.\n\nProf: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?\nStudent: Yes.\n\nProf: So who created evil?\nStudent does not answer.\n\nProf: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?\nStudent: Yes, sir.\n\nProf: So, who created them?\nStudent has no answer.\n\nProf: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?\nStudent: No, sir.\n\nProf: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?\nStudent: No, sir.\n\nProf: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?\nStudent: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.\n\nProf: Yet you still believe in Him?\nStudent: Yes.\n\nProf: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?\nStudent: Nothing. I only have my faith.\n\nProf: Yes Faith. And that is the problem science has.\n\nNow the student said can I ask something to you Professor.\n\nStudent: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?\nProf: Yes.\n\nStudent: And is there such a thing as cold?\nProf: Yes.\n\nStudent: No sir. There isn't.\n(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)\n\nStudent: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it. (There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)\n\nStudent: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?\nProf: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?\n\nStudent: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something.\nYou can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light... But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?\nProf: So what is the point you are making, young man?\n\nStudent: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.\nProf: Flawed? Can you explain how?\n\nStudent: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?\nProf: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes,
239319
Show a floating ring gear assembly and ask how clean free energy can be produced from it. If you are smart and belive in God and Jesus, you will be allowed to see how it works. It has taken me over thirty years to see the final answer, but it was worth the pursuit. Upon seeing and understanding how it works, the rush is on as to who first presents it to the rest of the world in a working model. May you be a person of God and Jesus and then you will see how it is built. Trust me, it can be done. Dave.
665240
I find it hard to comment on this, because it is clever, well scripted and I suspect the questioner at some point had a belief in the Christian faith. I would agree with all your assertions, taking hombrage with the claim that you created earth. God is in all of us and are all of us. Ambiguous messages from organised religion are the bane of humanity.
605863
"If God is good and all-powerful, why does evil exist in this world?"\n\nTime to bust out the big words:  Theodicy.\n\nTheodicy:  "an explanation for the presence of evil and suffering that is consistent with the nature and character of God."\n\nBoy, I'm not sure where to start.  There's so many points to make and I'm not sure how to organize my thoughts....but here goes nothing.  This is my theodicy:\n---------------------------------------------------------\nFirst, let's start by defining "evil."  Evil is not a force or a created thing, so it would be faulty to use the circular logic that either God created evil (meaning God isn't good) or that God isn't the Creator of everything (since He didn't create evil).\n\nEvil is the absence of good, much like rust on a car.  God, by giving us free will, allowed us to "create" evil by choosing against Him.  For, if God is good, then to choose against Him would by evil and the consequences would be death (since God gives life).  Just as darkness is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good.\n\nSometimes evil is the perversion of good.  Cancer is a good non-moral example.  It's a harmful mutation of otherwise healthy cells.  Whether evil twists good or flat-out rejects it, the results are the same.\n\nEvil is not God's fault.  He created only good and we distorted it, which is evil.\n\nEnough on this topic.  I'm leaving a few loose ends and there's much more to say on this, but I would be getting off track.\n\nSecond, let's point out a major implication of the question.  Anyone who asks our topic question for today is demonstrating the influence of Christianity on western thinking.  Hindus don't ask this question.  Animists don't grapple with it.  To them, the gods themselves are evil and corrupt and evil is to be an expected, embraced part of this world.  Suck it up and live with it.  It's the ying and the yang.  The Dark Side and the Light Side of the Force.  It's still the same Force.\n\nBut by asking the question, you are saying that there is a definite "evil" in this world that can be defined and identified.  There's something wrong and not right.  There is injustice.  And you presume that whoever this God fellow is, it's supposed to be His job to oppose this stuff and He's doing a lousy job.\n\nThis is a Christian worldview:  that evil is not normal and should be opposed.  The Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc. are Christian influences in our society.  There is something in us as human beings that desires to fight injustice, help the suffering, etc.  This would make sense if we are made in God's image... but I'm getting off track again.  Let's move to the third point.\n\nThe question is usually vague and impersonal.  What I mean is that people who ask this question usually have in mind for God to go over and fix that mess in Iraq, or do something about sweat shops and child labor in China.  Why doesn't He oppose child pornography, or hold to account genocide in Africa?\n\nBut they don't want God to interfere with the sin and evil in their own hearts and lives.\n\nSee, for God to come in judgment, He would have to be fully just and judge all...  and this brings me to my final point.\n\nThe question neglects another key element of God's character.  Yes, He is good.  Yes, He is omnipotent.  But He is also merciful.  This may seem like a contradiction (i.e., why would He then allow suffering?), but let me explain.\n\nGod holds back His judgment with patient love in order to give us time to repent and be set right.  The painful side of this is that we also then have more time choose evil.  But the day will come when He will judge the earth.  The sweat shop owners will be held to account...and so will you and I.  God is good.  He is perfect, holy, and righteous.  He is pure.  He opposes evil.  We all have evil in our lives:  the t
383783
If we'd invented God recently he would probably be a bit more tech savvy. Since people are hanging onto the God invented a few thousand years ago he's a little behind the times. Writing on stone tablets was probably cutting edge stuff back then. Funny question!
307362
Delightfull!Teasing the "believers" is such a pleasant diversion. I see they are the only ones answering your question, so permit me to offer a change of pace.Lets see now,could it be the christian god?Perhaps allah?The jewish one? I give up,surely such a barbarous,murderous misanthrope would not be considered a god?No?
98521
Yeah, crawl back under your Satanic rock!\n\nHonestly, Atheist, I always enjoy your input, and I'm glad that you've asked this question, because it boggles my mind that people continue to put such stock in mythology.\n\nThe truth of the matter is that people like you and I may never be able to wrap our minds around this issue. If Dean Hamer is right and there is a "god gene," we have no more hope of knowing what it is to be a person of faith than we do of knowing what it is to be a gay man. (Apologies if you're gay, but you know what I'm saying.)\n\nIt also comes down to the so-called "leap of faith" that you and I are unwilling to take. We see the crumpled bodies at the base of the cliff and think "That's nuts. Those rocks are sharp." \n\nI'm amazed that we live in the twenty-first century and people are still putting things, both good an bad, down to "god's will."\n\nI'll make the same argument I've made a hundred times before: Two hundred years ago many young mothers died shortly after childbirth. The cause was unknown. It was not until the invention of the microscope and the discovery of infection that the reasons behind this daily tragedy were finally revealed.\n\nIt's very easy to say that things are "god's will." It's very hard to invent the microscope. Perhaps it is human nature to always take the path of least resistance.
106051
There is no one god, no argument with that. Does it prove that every single other claim by any religious system is false? Not necessarily. All the flaws you pointed out refer only to the axiom of single omnipotent entity. How about the collective of entitites who created the universe together, without actually creating the man, at least not intentionally? Just a suggestion, no brainwashing intended here.\nSome people have taken the modern science as a god of its own, and refer to it just as religiously as Muslims to their\ngod. I suppose this god has to be more benign, but that is not the point. How was Stonehenge built? The Pyramids?\nWhat happened a single second before the big bang? To my mind, science doesn't give satisfactory answers to those questions because it is intent on the materialistic view, rejecting the interactions of several kinds of energies.\nScientific assumptions are not invalid, they are just, in my opinion, part of the greater whole, of the science that encompasses everything that has been discovered, and more.\nIn the same way, I can see a seed of wisdom in certain religions, without accepting them as the whole truth.\nTo me, any inflexible outlook on the world, being totally monetheistic, or totally scientific, is inaccurate. Binary thinking, black versus white, is a the kids thinking mode. Adults ought to realize the world is more complex than that. And yes, there can be a Democrate who is a Republican. I would probably vote for such, because he would share some of the Republican opinions that I welcome, and some of the Democratic ones, that I would approve of.\n(Our problem is that there is no such person currently, we always choose one extreme or the other). T.S. Elliot said it's a property of the brilliant mind to contain two contradictory notions at the same time. At the same time, this is my own addition, inability to do so, is the trait of the younger mind. Not a worse one, just a younger one.\nThe fundamentalistic view of the Muslims is based on their inability to operate with complex notions. It is all about\nus versus the enemy, even if "us" happen to abuse us. Good versus bad, "we" being the good of course. And so on. Brainwashing is easier accomplished when the mind decids it wants simple explanations to anything, and is too rigid to accept any other. In main stream religions, Muslims are guilty of it more than most, no matter what the politically correct approach says. But they are not the only ones. Communists, Atheists, Democrates and other monotheistic religions are just as guilty of it, and there are many other kinds of thinking categorically.\nThe point is, don't dismiss everything, just because one crucial point of their creed fails. Or else, you're being just as inflexible in your mode of thinking as they're in theirs. Would you reject all mysteries of the world just because God doesn't exist? Would you believe in science as blindy as they believe in their god? What is then the difference between you? Are scientists not real people? Don't they write their dissertations to prove what they intend to prove? How many of them can be completely, inhamanly, objective when one of their baby projects is challenged? Some of them have simply different techniques of brainwashing. If they decide the string theory is looking good, how many scientific publications would be allowed that claim differently?  How different are some of them from the preaching pastors? Just food for thought, no attempt to convert, I don't really have anything to convert you to. LOL.
379626
soldier of GOD's account has now been suspended.\n\nI am sure any 'God(s)', if they exist,  would have better things to do, than make sure some people have lots of best answers. \n:).