If God exists, whether or not you or I or anyone else is satisfied that he created us for his sake doesn't matter, because like I said, he couldn't have done anything for our sake before we even existed. So the only reasonable conclusion is that God created us for his benefit. Personally, I don't feel the need to question why. I'm content enough with my life to be grateful that he bothered. It's up to you whether you will be grateful, whether you will admire or like him. It doesn't bother me if you don't. And despite what some people say about him, I'm pretty darn sure it doesn't bother him either. Why should it?

Cant you see my frustration in your reply? everything is ,if you believe, a product of god.Dont exclude god them exhume for your purpose..

Again, everyone constructs their own notion. I don't see why people are approaching this objectively - the notion is constructed by us!

Think about it. Sit down. When you say you don't believe in "God", what exactly don't you believe in? The nonexistent cannot be spoken, the existent can be spoken. Therefore, notionally, you've created a God, believed the notion exists, and then chose to denounce it. If you didn't have a notion in mind, there would be nothing to believe or not believe, as it would be nonexistent to you. And don't give me "I don't believe in any notions of God!". That's a lie, considering you don't know every notion of God; you can only believe or not believe whatever notion exists to you.

Therefore, Solace, when you say "Why should it?", you're applying a notion of "God" you've constructed and asking a question about it almost objectively. Again, this is delusional thinking. The only reasonable conclusion is not that God created us for his benefit - this attaches human foibles. Is it so radically uncalled for to construct a notion that doesn't have God fall short to our feeble emotions?

I believe unicorns created me to protect their herd. It's the only reasonable conclusion.

I have no problem with anyone considering a creator and being unable to find or describe him, name him or her..I can understand the necessity to be open minded BUT if you describe him say he exists i demand the details..

No, I don't see your frustration. That's his notion of God.

What the hell is so difficult to comprehend here????

It angers you that people hold different notions of the same word? Well, you're going to be pretty ******* angry your entire life then, my friend.

It does not concern you he made us for his benefit..this superior creator existing for ever in the infinity of time or no time..at what time did he decide to create these play things..They have to be play things or was he just plane lonely..He does not consult us consider us or care about the eventual suffering he knows we will endure for his benefit..his amusement.If he is as you describe, he is more than a sick sad old man but an insane meglomaniac..You have confirmed my disbelief even more..thankyou..

No, you're not only demanding the details. If you only demanded the details, me saying God is the sun and it's proven because it gives me warmth everyday would be enough for you. You are demanding logical proof, where none can be found!!!

Im angry ? hows that because i insist on an answer to a description that someone glibly throws at me.If there is any anger being shown its yours..

He hasn't confirmed anything! You are denouncing less and less a construct you've constructed! He should have nothing to do with it!

Then dont make claims you cant prove or expect me to leave them unexamined..

You said you're frusterated. You got your answer, but it doesn't satisfy you because it doesn't coincide with the logical proof you require in a nature of God you have a possiblity of believing...

There's nothing to prove. That's what you're not grasping. These are notions we have independently constructed. Asking someone to prove their notion of God is like asking them to prove that they like vanilla icecream. Would you construct a subset of rules to denounce their belief that they like vanilla icecream? Of course not, only because there is a preconceived notion of something mystical with the term God do you choose to take it personally.

EDIT: Frankly, that's not a great analogy, but I can't understand what part of this doesn't sit well with you.

I have no possibility in believing in his god thankyou, he is making the claims im merely requesting the proof. Should i take these assumptions or leave you holy lies to your faithful ramblings.

If you want to put your beliefs in an open forum you should expect them to be examined or have you forgotten this is not a pulpit..

He presented his notion of God.

You denounce his notion of God.

There is no objective proof because the notion was constructed by him, like every notion of the word.

:brickwall::brickwall::brickwall:

You believe there is no God. Prove it to me.

So should i leave him to his presentation..is that what a forum is, a notice board for the faithful to tell the world of their wonderful God and we should sing alleluia praise be to your lord..I dont think so..

Ah so you believe in GOD tell me what particular god you want me to prove does not exist..the pink elephant with wings?

No, you don't have to accept anyone's notion of any God.

I'm just saying it's silly to demand objective proof concerning a notion we've constructed in the first place. You can ask of their reasoning, but don't then say their God doesn't exist just because it doesn't correlate with the rules you've constructed to prove a certain nature of God. To do this is not just examining their notions, but discarding them on account of your own nature of what God can and can't be.