Who Made God?

Well, they're less plausible than Bigfoot - but just as funny. Sure. Why not? (Hint: talking snake.) On the contrary, many of us take leprechauns just as seriously as we take your God. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. But YOU're the one who throws out the parts of the Bible that you don't like - i.e. you treat them like folklore. Of course not. It's a false hope, like hoping you'll win the lottery.

That's a flawed analogy. An activity doesn't have to "get you anywhere" to be worthwhile.

False dichotomy. There could be a God who was not made up by humans and who has no desire whatsoever to communicate with us. That possibility and the possibility of no God at all are more evident than your gregarious God.

We already have that function built in, as a result of our evolution as a social species. We don't need an external entity to motivate it, much less one that hides.ABE: Should be a response to Message 403.Edited by ringo, : No reason given.

Perhaps the supposed "communion" with God is just a bad link. Not at all. Of course, all of the REAL options come before unevidenced ones - and YOUR God isn't even close to the top of the list of plausible gods. Some of us might be. I predict that 500 years from now some of us will still be smoking too.

Doing the right things in the commandments is doing the right thing for our society and our species. Doing the wrong things for ourselves is a separate issue. There is no Satan. He never was anything but a metaphor for our own imperfections - i.e. God's screw-up.

Or... it's a scam by shamans to set themselves up as intermediaries on our behalf. It never said it was a one-time irrevocable decision either. To use a very obvious cliché, life isn't always back and white.

Of course you can call it fiction. A definition doesn't make something real. We have definitions of leprechauns, unicorns, etc., all of which you call fiction.

Whether your definition of God is "traditional" or not has no bearing on whether or not he's fiction.

It isn't an "abusive" attitude. It's a realistic attitude. Traditions can be fiction. In fact, people like you who insist on the literal truth of your traditions often miss out on the real value of those traditions.

You're the one who disrespects tradition by treating obvious fiction (hint: talking snake) as if it was yesterday's newspaper. Instead of learning something from it, you use it to line bird cages.

Belief is always limited to what we don't know.

If God didn't have a beginning - i.e. if He always existed - why couldn't energy and matter?

That isn't what the Bible says. God Himself said that Adam and Eve became more like Him - i.e. they were improved. They could not have been created perfect.

And every time you mention the "Fall", I'm going to point out that it's a lie.