This singular god without odds, who existed eternally then decided to get into gardening.. lmao. Does this really make sense to you? God isn't even a scientific theory.. since those involve peer reviewed evidence. It's a flimsy hypothesis. God is ridiculous. Dead people arent magical. Grow up, fish.

What does "without odds" mean?

As an aside, gardening can be quite therapeutic. Based on your post, some therapy might do you some good.

No. But what you said probably makes no sense to anybody.

I agree that God is not a scientific theory. The domain of scientific inquiry is material things. God is not a material thing.

Pretty sure nobody will argue against this deep insight.

I think you're floundering here.

(I love puns!)

I remember when I was a newb.

#metoo

it is a miracle that someone can post something as illogical as this, and think he is smart. that proves there is a God, and may he have mercy on your soul

If believing in God makes someone happier and more productive, please explain why it is folly to do so.

I think what's more likely is you haven't figured out how to do it and are jealous. Just smoke some weed and talk to Him.

The eternal question:

- If you have am omnipotent God and the answer he comes up with, to not have to send all his creations (people) to hell, even though he's the one that makes all the rules and can choose to send them or not, ...is to have them kill his son who is also in fact him, as the best path out of the conundrum of his own making... well???

This is bad -- so horribly bad. A horrible response to a horrible OP. Wow.

Why is it a horribly bad response?

It's a fine response but the atheist response to the response is typical

Exactly this, unless you are a religious bigot whats the problem!

I suppose if you only give it 5 seconds of thought, it's fine.

But let's move past that, and truly consider "if it makes you happy, what's the problem?" type of mindset.

Give it a minute -- one more minute -- there you go!

Being infinitely eternal and all, what was "He" doing for the trillions of millennia before he created man a little while back? What's the Bible say?

Is it that after infinite millennia, actually, he didn't like being alone and needed to create man? Is this reasonable? Then Hitchens' point about well after mankind flailed away at life for epochs suddenly he felt the need to show up on a socieity already rife with gods and savior stories? Or is this just one of those stories?

I was just listening to a video on "Jesus as God." They were interviewing religious PhDs, divinity scholars etc. Here are some of the terms they used to prop this up: transmogrification, mindbending, you need the mystery card to believe, faith, Jesus has two natures, think of it like a science fiction premise, there is a difference between the logic of belief and the logic of coming to belief, you have to use backwards logic, Jesus isn't god ... god assumed human nature, eternalist evidentialism, metaphysical apparatus of incarnation claims, explication via mystery card.

This is the crap they were saying. Anybody that swallows it is just being a true believer in lieu of investigating what's actually real. This is not to say that believers in it cannot be reasonable and reality based on other subjects, even all other subjects than religion. Indeed they can be and often are, but the not on religion ... and this is the very reason that the devious value of faith, posturing as the good, was interjected into it. It's actually the only way to believe it, which makes it not a virtue but a ploy.

If one accepts the "from the goo to the zoo to you" paradigm (e.g. Darwinism), then obviously religious belief has an important function in human evolution.

And if these (false) religious beliefs have significant value in the human evolution process, then a belief being actually true is not necessarily relevant to its contribution to human evolution.

Hence, evolution may be primarily survival driven, not truth driven.

addendum: Dr. Alvin Plantiga has written and spoken extensively about how the combination of "Naturalism+Evolution" (which is survival-driven) is incompatible with a truth-driven worldview.