Is God logically possible?

[atheist buddy]

Please consider the Bible passages below:

God is love - 1 John 4:8
Love is not jealous - 1 Corinthians 13:4
The Lord thy God is a jealous God - Deuteronomy 6:15


That's like saying this:

Skippy is a cat
Cats are not dogs
Skippy is a dog

Logically impossible. Therefore God does not exist.

Question for debate: Is there any way to escape the fact that the Biblical attributes of God are logically contradictory and clearly violate the Law of Identity? Is there any way to come to any conclusion other than that God, as described in the Bible, doesn't exist?

[atheist buddy]

.

Well let's see now? If you created a bunch of AI robots in your image, put them on a beautiful planet, with everything they will ever need, and they trash the planet, they kill each other . . . .

If a "creator god" was infinitely wise, omniscient, omnipotent, etc, etc it would be capable or smart enough to create "robots" or "humans" that did not trash the planet and kill each other.

That the proposed bible God supposedly produced humans that are defective (destructive, homicidal) mitigates against it being even moderately intelligent, much less "all-wise."

We debated this before, what you propose is a Vulcan population void of any human emotion. But give them all human emotions, and the freedom to exercise them, and this is what you get. The human emotions are not the problem, it is carelessly indulging in those emotions that's the problem.

The problem is people believing things on insufficient evidence.

Nobody is saying emotion is bad.

Supposedly the "God" realized its mistake a few thousand years ago and killed off all of humanity except eight it CHOSE to repopulate the Earth -- and even THAT did not solve the problem of trashing and killing.

I know, man forgets. Just like after a man gets married, and then some pretty legs walk by and there he goes forgetting he is married. I guess that's Gods fault, right?

Of course not. It's man's fault. That's because the God of the Bible (which I'm assuming you're referring to when you say "God") clearly does not exist. There is no evidence for it, and overwhelming evidence against it.

But if the God of the Bible did exist, then of course it would be his fault. Everything that happens is part of his plan, so everything bad that happens is his fault.

[ttruscott]

...

They are believed by some. Including you.

At least up until you stopped defending that belief. Changed your mind?

I'd have to say, not really. I accepted that this is what was taught but I rejected the implications so held it all in abeyance unit I found PCEC which allowed me to have faith in Genesis finally.

Peace, Ted

[DanieltheDragon]

Is God logically possible? Not the brightest of questions, as any scientist or mathematician will tell you, yes; it is very possible. The thing is applying logical to a non logical situation is fruitless and meaningless. The question has no merit. (I do not want o go down the 'logic' route that many others will in order to prove nothing)

The question actually has a lot of merit. Sure a god(s) is(are) possible but the OP is not referring to the general sense of the concept of god. The OP is referring to a specific god. Is the god of the bible as described logically possible? I say no, simply because that the god of the bible as described by the bible has mutually exclusive attributes.

using this definition of the word so there is no confusion

mutually exclusive adjective
: related in such a way that each thing makes the other thing impossible : not able to be true at the same time or to exist together

a thing that has mutually exclusive attributes is not logically possible. I cannot have a circle with 4 sides can I? or a rectangle in 4 dimensions? or a flat globe? those are all logically impossible things.

Just give it a try. List out the attributes that you assign god. Some will conflict with each other or in some way conflict with god's actions in the bible.

The problem is that the bible gives absolute traits to god. These are immutable unchangeable traits that have no other contextual inferences. For example

1 John 3:20

simply states god knows all.

using these two greek words

ginosko-which means to know

Panta - which means everything

So it is logically impossible for god to not know something

Genesis 18:20-21American Standard Version (ASV)

20 And Jehovah said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

yet here is Gen 18 we see that God did not know something and had to go down and see if something was true.

If god is all knowing he would have known and hence this action could not or would not have occurred. Hence god's actions is mutually exclusive to god's attribute.

As described this event is not logically possible.

[atheist buddy]

...

They are believed by some. Including you.

At least up until you stopped defending that belief. Changed your mind?

I'd have to say, not really. I accepted that this is what was taught but I rejected the implications so held it all in abeyance unit I found PCEC which allowed me to have faith in Genesis finally.

Peace, Ted

PCEC?

Prostate Conditions Education Council?

Sorry, that's the first thing that comes up in Google if you search PCEC.

[ttruscott]

...

mutually exclusive adjective
: related in such a way that each thing makes the other thing impossible : not able to be true at the same time or to exist together

a thing that has mutually exclusive attributes is not logically possible. I cannot have a circle with 4 sides can I? or a rectangle in 4 dimensions? or a flat globe? those are all logically impossible things.

Just give it a try. List out the attributes that you assign god. Some will conflict with each other or in some way conflict with god's actions in the bible.

I don't think actions can count in this exercise as we do not always know the intent behind the action so we can't know if one attribute is in conflict with anther which is what you started out about.

The problem is that the bible gives absolute traits to god. These are immutable unchangeable traits that have no other contextual inferences. For example

1 John 3:20

...

1 John 3:20 If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.

Lets fill in from the context, eh? If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything...about / in our hearts.

HIS all knowing-ness is mentioned clearer in Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

All HIS works refers to HIS creative decrees, and they started with from the beginning of the world... not quite the same as everything extrapolated from the verse in 1 John as it leaves room of our free will to be not known because HE did not decree the results of our true free will decisions.

You have been sucked in by the pagan Greek philosophers, just like the church was, to believe that HE is omniscience by HIS nature from eternity past to eternity future but that is NOT what scripture says.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

...

They are believed by some. Including you.

At least up until you stopped defending that belief. Changed your mind?

I'd have to say, not really. I accepted that this is what was taught but I rejected the implications so held it all in abeyance unit I found PCEC which allowed me to have faith in Genesis finally.

Peace, Ted

PCEC?

Prostate Conditions Education Council?

Sorry, that's the first thing that comes up in Google if you search PCEC.

Now that got me chuckling! I'm sorry, I've been here so long I forget who might not know my heterodoxy is called Pre-Conception Existence Christianity...

the idea that all creatures created in the image of GOD were created at the same time in sheol before the creation of the physical universe, where we grew in intellect and bonded with others and finally made our true free will decisions as to the eternal relationship we wanted with YHWH.



Peace, Ted

[atheist buddy]

...

They are believed by some. Including you.

At least up until you stopped defending that belief. Changed your mind?

I'd have to say, not really. I accepted that this is what was taught but I rejected the implications so held it all in abeyance unit I found PCEC which allowed me to have faith in Genesis finally.

Peace, Ted

PCEC?

Prostate Conditions Education Council?

Sorry, that's the first thing that comes up in Google if you search PCEC.

Now that got me chuckling! I'm sorry, I've been here so long I forget who might not know my heterodoxy is called Pre-Conception Existence Christianity...

the idea that all creatures created in the image of GOD were created at the same time in sheol before the creation of the physical universe, where we grew in intellect and bonded with others and finally made our true free will decisions as to the eternal relationship we wanted with YHWH.



Peace, Ted

Ah. ok

And what's the reason for believing this?

[arian]

.

That the proposed bible God supposedly produced humans that are defective (destructive, homicidal) mitigates against it being even moderately intelligent, much less "all-wise."

We debated this before, what you propose is a Vulcan population void of any human emotion.

Correction: I propose NOTHING " However, I would favor (not propose or hope for) a population that was taught critical / analytical thinking, sound decision making, relationship / interpersonal skills.

Critical/analytical thinking = as described/interpreted by Zzyzx and team

I choose to avoid overblown emotionalism and decisions based heavily on emotion " because I have found that reasoning from evidence is superior to guessing from "feelings."

I see, so you choose to avoid overblown emotionalism, like adults who act like 2 year old children with temper tantrums because they can't have things their way. I agree, me too.

reasoning from evidence? How do you decide on evidence other than what you think/believe is evidence?

Oh yes, Zzyzx is perfect, so what he says is evidence, IS evidence. See how simple that is? No emotion, just the stone heart to make judgment on pre-conceived evidence. "You were at the scene of the crime, front of the body with a knife in your hand. That is enough evidence for me!"

"But, .. but, this is my mother, I loved her with all my heart!"

"HEY! We'll have none of that emotional wining. You have the knife and blood stains on your pants, .. take him away!"

The quicker you condemn the less likely you find other evidence. If a 10 year old granddaughter witnessed the horrible crime and is all shook up and full of conflicting emotions like fear, terror, and crying so hard at the loss of her grandma, nothing she says could be even considered evidence since the girl is just overwhelmed with emotion, .. right? her cries: "Daddy! PLEASE don't take my daddy away he tried to, .. sob, sob, .."

Take this emotional wreck of a kid and book her too, .. as an accessory to murder! We can't have any emotions distract us from our New World Order! Order, we will have order, you winy little brat full of emotion!

But give them all human emotions, and the freedom to exercise them, and this is what you get. The human emotions are not the problem, it is carelessly indulging in those emotions that's the problem.

Is it "carelessly indulging in emotions" when one worships an invisible, undetectable, proposed, supernatural "god?" Or, is that based on sound, verifiable evidence?

Not if they worship a supernatural 'god/gods', and even whip themselves, and sacrifice their children to these deities, no.

I am talking about God the Creator of all things. Not gods that you are limited to by your religious views. You really should at least test the water 'outside of religious doctrines' Zzyzx. Like there is no evidence of gravity, you have to logically accept a definition of it and believe it. What is evidence if you don't believe in it, or that it is evidence?

Supposedly the "God" realized its mistake a few thousand years ago and killed off all of humanity except eight it CHOSE to repopulate the Earth -- and even THAT did not solve the problem of trashing and killing.

I know, man forgets.

If one proposes that their favorite "god" created humans "in his image" then the "god" produced forgetful humans " on purpose (unless "he" wasn't smart enough to realize what "he" was doing).

Man forgets (on purpose) that he is married too, .. especially when that hot-sexy secretary winks and says in a sexy voice; "Antonio's Sports Bar after work John?"

I know, .. I know, .. that could never happen to you because that would be illogical to meet her at Antonios, .. lol. Right?

Just like after a man gets married, and then some pretty legs walk by and there he goes forgetting he is married.

Speak for yourself. Many other men do not "forget they are married" but instead are monogamous (regardless of pretty legs).

But of course, silly me. What was I thinking of? So what is you answer to the billions throughout history who are bad monkeys and they may have forgot their place in their hierarchy as evolving apes, and just jumped on the dominant males female because she was in heat? You know, .. taken over by 'EMOTION' of the sexual drive.

I guess that's Gods fault, right?

Let's see . . . . according to many Christians "God created humans in his image" " which might suggest that "god" has a thing for pretty legs and created human males to have similar characteristics?

Or is it more likely that humans created "gods" in their own image?

I won't even waste my time explaining to you Adam and Eve and how God created man in His Own Image. You would not find it 'logical' since God does not have a 'female' companion, so why Eve for Adam? You are buried way too deep in religious doctrines to be able to understand. You can't seem to understand basic things, like emotion for instance. To you, emotion conflicts with logic.

"Why cry after someone dies, especially when you know they were dying?" correct? I mean they are dead, crying will not bring them back, right? The next logical step would be after the funeral; .. see what 'winking', and "see you at Antonio's Bar" means from that fellow 'long legged' co worker, right?

'Mourning', or remorse, or regret, or guilt now there is a waste of precious time right?

Is the "God" just not smart enough to insure that humans are above such behavior? Perhaps an incompetent shouldn't be in charge -- even in the imagination.

So are you competent enough to take the blame for every wrong your kids do?

I have no "kids" " my daughter and son are in their fifties. They have offspring who have offspring. I " and did not control their characteristics (as a "god" supposedly could / did).

Sorry Zzyzx, I really didn't mean to call them young-goats (kids), wrong species. The only problem here is that I am embarrassed to call them little apes, so I went with the common world view, 'kids' meaning human children, and I sincerely apologize since I realize how illogical that may seem to you.

But you did contribute to your offspring's characteristics, right? I mean they don't look and act like the mailman, .. right? Since you mentioned that; "I did not claim to make ANY of them in my image". I say this because most of us humans definitely 'claim' to have them children when they are born to look like us daddy's! They better not look like my neighbor, if you get my drift?

Or do you have your kids all Vulconized? If so, may they "Live Long and Prosper".

It is generally considered rather low order "debate" to resort to personal comments. The Forum needs capable Theistic debaters who can debate issues honorably without foolish personal comments.

Buddy, you left capable and honorable debate when you referred to me and all humanity created in Gods image as evolving apes who have offspring's who have offspring's who resemble more like the more intelligent chimps rather than the less intelligent apes, .. as in your evolution theory. That, and you keep referring to my God to religiously created gods made by some evolving apes is also personal, and dishonorable to my family and my ancestors.
My God is the Creator, not some created ape who created man/ape in his image through some long evolutionary fairytale process.

Can you define for me 'honorable' from an Evolutionary perspective? Thanks.

Sorry, .. I forgot you don't watch TV or Movies. You can Google what I was referring to if you wish!? I don't watch all the garbage either, but I do look into it to see what is going on around me.

It is common for people to claim that they are very selective in what they watch on television but the national average is 29 hours per week. I prefer to use that time more constructively " in actual reading and research (and some in debating " which occasionally presents an intellectual challenge).

I am truly sorry my old debating friend, but your version (what I have observed from hundreds and hundreds of your debates) your version of 'intellectual challenge' is when someone agrees with your highly religious POV's. You are smart for sure, and I find it an honor to debate with you, and we could go on great heights, achieve such Godly wisdom that even Stephen Hawking's science fiction couldn't come close in comparison. But religion is definitely an obstacle, a bottleneck here.

Also, I found that I get more News and information out of watching todays movies, especially sci-fi, and YouTube some Lady Gaga/Miley Cyrus (and other Satan worshipers) concerts then what News is on TV.

You called me out on my claim that I can prove scientifically the existence of God, I have also claimed that I can scientifically prove the existence of 'nothing', the paradoxes that are actually lies in the Theory of Relativity etc.. and buddy I am still waiting for an 'intellectual' response from you. I believe I have done my part, and 'intellectual', until recently like the last ten years of my 58 years of life, was never one of my traits. More like: "You stupid dumb dog, here is your chicken bones now get back outside and stop wining you're hungry!" That's right, my parents were not much into emotion either.

And NO! I am NOT expecting an 'emotional response' from anyone, I am pointing out FACT's. I have witnessed and experienced the pain and suffering from a Religion that was built on religious emotions, hearsay, assumptions, doctrines instead of FACTS observed from the world and its people around us.
I know the difference between emotion and fact and I live by it. You see, I KNOW God our Creator, not just claim that I do. And all your created gods that you don't believe in, and all the religiously created gods are nothing compared to Him. The difference is as great as; finite is from Infinite.

And your insistent distortions of these facts will not deviate me from this knowledge. God is not your theistic gods that you claim you don't worship. We can claim whatever we want, but the facts always reveal the truth. In debate, your words reveal the truth, which is that you are religious, and your entire philosophy is built on your religious views including your version of 'logic'.

If you honestly believe that you are living by reason, and by facts, I tell you as a friend (doesn't matter what you consider me as), and as a friend I am telling you that you cannot even distinguish between right and wrong, between truth and a lie outside of your religious POV's. Now if you call this logic and reason, while not listening to reason, .. well then you are no different then the billions upon billions who are trapped by religions.

Distorting the truth does not make one 'intellectually superior'.

[atheist buddy]

.

That the proposed bible God supposedly produced humans that are defective (destructive, homicidal) mitigates against it being even moderately intelligent, much less "all-wise."

We debated this before, what you propose is a Vulcan population void of any human emotion.

Correction: I propose NOTHING " However, I would favor (not propose or hope for) a population that was taught critical / analytical thinking, sound decision making, relationship / interpersonal skills.

Critical/analytical thinking = as described/interpreted by Zzyzx and team

I choose to avoid overblown emotionalism and decisions based heavily on emotion " because I have found that reasoning from evidence is superior to guessing from "feelings."

I see, so you choose to avoid overblown emotionalism, like adults who act like 2 year old children with temper tantrums because they can't have things their way. I agree, me too.

reasoning from evidence? How do you decide on evidence other than what you think/believe is evidence?

Oh yes, Zzyzx is perfect, so what he says is evidence, IS evidence. See how simple that is? No emotion, just the stone heart to make judgment on pre-conceived evidence. "You were at the scene of the crime, front of the body with a knife in your hand. That is enough evidence for me!"

"But, .. but, this is my mother, I loved her with all my heart!"

"HEY! We'll have none of that emotional wining. You have the knife and blood stains on your pants, .. take him away!"

The quicker you condemn the less likely you find other evidence. If a 10 year old granddaughter witnessed the horrible crime and is all shook up and full of conflicting emotions like fear, terror, and crying so hard at the loss of her grandma, nothing she says could be even considered evidence since the girl is just overwhelmed with emotion, .. right? her cries: "Daddy! PLEASE don't take my daddy away he tried to, .. sob, sob, .."

Take this emotional wreck of a kid and book her too, .. as an accessory to murder! We can't have any emotions distract us from our New World Order! Order, we will have order, you winy little brat full of emotion!

But give them all human emotions, and the freedom to exercise them, and this is what you get. The human emotions are not the problem, it is carelessly indulging in those emotions that's the problem.

Is it "carelessly indulging in emotions" when one worships an invisible, undetectable, proposed, supernatural "god?" Or, is that based on sound, verifiable evidence?

Not if they worship a supernatural 'god/gods', and even whip themselves, and sacrifice their children to these deities, no.

I am talking about God the Creator of all things. Not gods that you are limited to by your religious views. You really should at least test the water 'outside of religious doctrines' Zzyzx. Like there is no evidence of gravity, you have to logically accept a definition of it and believe it. What is evidence if you don't believe in it, or that it is evidence?

Supposedly the "God" realized its mistake a few thousand years ago and killed off all of humanity except eight it CHOSE to repopulate the Earth -- and even THAT did not solve the problem of trashing and killing.

I know, man forgets.

If one proposes that their favorite "god" created humans "in his image" then the "god" produced forgetful humans " on purpose (unless "he" wasn't smart enough to realize what "he" was doing).

Man forgets (on purpose) that he is married too, .. especially when that hot-sexy secretary winks and says in a sexy voice; "Antonio's Sports Bar after work John?"

I know, .. I know, .. that could never happen to you because that would be illogical to meet her at Antonios, .. lol. Right?

Just like after a man gets married, and then some pretty legs walk by and there he goes forgetting he is married.

Speak for yourself. Many other men do not "forget they are married" but instead are monogamous (regardless of pretty legs).

But of course, silly me. What was I thinking of? So what is you answer to the billions throughout history who are bad monkeys and they may have forgot their place in their hierarchy as evolving apes, and just jumped on the dominant males female because she was in heat? You know, .. taken over by 'EMOTION' of the sexual drive.

I guess that's Gods fault, right?

Let's see . . . . according to many Christians "God created humans in his image" " which might suggest that "god" has a thing for pretty legs and created human males to have similar characteristics?

Or is it more likely that humans created "gods" in their own image?

I won't even waste my time explaining to you Adam and Eve and how God created man in His Own Image. You would not find it 'logical' since God does not have a 'female' companion, so why Eve for Adam? You are buried way too deep in religious doctrines to be able to understand. You can't seem to understand basic things, like emotion for instance. To you, emotion conflicts with logic.

"Why cry after someone dies, especially when you know they were dying?" correct? I mean they are dead, crying will not bring them back, right? The next logical step would be after the funeral; .. see what 'winking', and "see you at Antonio's Bar" means from that fellow 'long legged' co worker, right?

'Mourning', or remorse, or regret, or guilt now there is a waste of precious time right?

Is the "God" just not smart enough to insure that humans are above such behavior? Perhaps an incompetent shouldn't be in charge -- even in the imagination.

So are you competent enough to take the blame for every wrong your kids do?

I have no "kids" " my daughter and son are in their fifties. They have offspring who have offspring. I " and did not control their characteristics (as a "god" supposedly could / did).

Sorry Zzyzx, I really didn't mean to call them young-goats (kids), wrong species. The only problem here is that I am embarrassed to call them little apes, so I went with the common world view, 'kids' meaning human children, and I sincerely apologize since I realize how illogical that may seem to you.

But you did contribute to your offspring's characteristics, right? I mean they don't look and act like the mailman, .. right? Since you mentioned that; "I did not claim to make ANY of them in my image". I say this because most of us humans definitely 'claim' to have them children when they are born to look like us daddy's! They better not look like my neighbor, if you get my drift?

Or do you have your kids all Vulconized? If so, may they "Live Long and Prosper".

It is generally considered rather low order "debate" to resort to personal comments. The Forum needs capable Theistic debaters who can debate issues honorably without foolish personal comments.

Buddy, you left capable and honorable debate when you referred to me and all humanity created in Gods image as evolving apes who have offspring's who have offspring's who resemble more like the more intelligent chimps rather than the less intelligent apes, .. as in your evolution theory. That, and you keep referring to my God to religiously created gods made by some evolving apes is also personal, and dishonorable to my family and my ancestors.
My God is the Creator, not some created ape who created man/ape in his image through some long evolutionary fairytale process.

Can you define for me 'honorable' from an Evolutionary perspective? Thanks.

Sorry, .. I forgot you don't watch TV or Movies. You can Google what I was referring to if you wish!? I don't watch all the garbage either, but I do look into it to see what is going on around me.

It is common for people to claim that they are very selective in what they watch on television but the national average is 29 hours per week. I prefer to use that time more constructively " in actual reading and research (and some in debating " which occasionally presents an intellectual challenge).

I am truly sorry my old debating friend, but your version (what I have observed from hundreds and hundreds of your debates) your version of 'intellectual challenge' is when someone agrees with your highly religious POV's. You are smart for sure, and I find it an honor to debate with you, and we could go on great heights, achieve such Godly wisdom that even Stephen Hawking's science fiction couldn't come close in comparison. But religion is definitely an obstacle, a bottleneck here.

Also, I found that I get more News and information out of watching todays movies, especially sci-fi, and YouTube some Lady Gaga/Miley Cyrus (and other Satan worshipers) concerts then what News is on TV.

You called me out on my claim that I can prove scientifically the existence of God, I have also claimed that I can scientifically prove the existence of 'nothing', the paradoxes that are actually lies in the Theory of Relativity etc.. and buddy I am still waiting for an 'intellectual' response from you. I believe I have done my part, and 'intellectual', until recently like the last ten years of my 58 years of life, was never one of my traits. More like: "You stupid dumb dog, here is your chicken bones now get back outside and stop wining you're hungry!" That's right, my parents were not much into emotion either.

And NO! I am NOT expecting an 'emotional response' from anyone, I am pointing out FACT's. I have witnessed and experienced the pain and suffering from a Religion that was built on religious emotions, hearsay, assumptions, doctrines instead of FACTS observed from the world and its people around us.
I know the difference between emotion and fact and I live by it. You see, I KNOW God our Creator, not just claim that I do. And all your created gods that you don't believe in, and all the religiously created gods are nothing compared to Him. The difference is as great as; finite is from Infinite.

And your insistent distortions of these facts will not deviate me from this knowledge. God is not your theistic gods that you claim you don't worship. We can claim whatever we want, but the facts always reveal the truth. In debate, your words reveal the truth, which is that you are religious, and your entire philosophy is built on your religious views including your version of 'logic'.

If you honestly believe that you are living by reason, and by facts, I tell you as a friend (doesn't matter what you consider me as), and as a friend I am telling you that you cannot even distinguish between right and wrong, between truth and a lie outside of your religious POV's. Now if you call this logic and reason, while not listening to reason, .. well then you are no different then the billions upon billions who are trapped by religions.

Distorting the truth does not make one 'intellectually superior'.

What is this user saying? I truly don't understand. Can somebody translate?

It's on my thread so I suppose I should at least get an idea of what is being said.

Any help from translators familiar with whatever language Arian is using, would be greatly appreciated.

[McCulloch]

reasoning from evidence? How do you decide on evidence other than what you think/believe is evidence?

Yes, it is possible that crucial bits of evidence can be missed. One way to minimize this from happening is to critically analyze all claims of evidence from various sources and points of view.

You called me out on my claim that I can prove scientifically the existence of God, I have also claimed that I can scientifically prove the existence of 'nothing', the paradoxes that are actually lies in the Theory of Relativity etc.. and buddy I am still waiting for an 'intellectual' response from you. I believe I have done my part,

I have looked at your repeated claim to have scientifically proven the existence of nothing. It resembles nothing else I have ever seen written by practicing scientists. In fact, to me your arguments for the existence of nothing are a collection of barely comprensible word play.

You see, I KNOW God our Creator, not just claim that I do.

One of the important things about science is that one can explain clearly how one knows what he knows. How do you know what you claim to know about God?

God is not your theistic gods that you claim you don't worship.

Theism is defined to be the belief in some form of god. You claim that God himself is not theistic. Therefore, God does not believe in God. I am indeed in good company in my disbelief!