You can’t imagine wanting a God to exist that doesn’t offer all that. How about just more justice or more peace than we currently see in the world? You wouldn’t want such a god to exist? Some wars that end a bit sooner, with fewer casualties and less destruction. I mean if we say wars are a bad thing and are to be avoided if we can, then gods that act to reduce how many wars occur are preferable to gods that don’t.
I would want that. Would you not?
Yeah, that’s certainly what I’m seeing. People were very responsive and specific, and I didn’t notice any “animosity” toward the idea of a supreme being from anyone. My sense is that he wanted to rail against the sort of things he thought people would say, and failing that, he decided to pretend they’d said them.
Does it matter if I want a square circle to exist or not? The god you’ve described is a necessary contradiction. It can’t exist, and my opinions on how nice or terrible it would be were it otherwise are irrelevant.
Where’s the contradiction, other than with the universe we observe?
So, it’s not so much that you want that there is a god, you want a god that has some pre-determined characteristics. This sounds a bit like you are molding god to suit your expectations or preferences.
What if the god of your expectations is an impossibility (logical, theological, even physical)? Would that change your desires and wishes?
In the ‘etc’ of the traditional Christian philosophical conception of god. Also, I’d say being in necessary contradiction with reality does a good job ruling out your existence.
No, simply comparing the responses to what I thought they might be. In a previous reply, I listed some of the comments that seemed to reveal, well, less-than-positive feelings toward God.
Sure, yes, if only such a god was available, I would certainly prefer it over no God at all. I was just saying that I am not familiar with all the long-forgotten deities of which there is to choose, so I was just listing some of the things I’d look for in one of them.
Indeed, and it was much appreciated.
Yes, thank you for asking, @John_Harshman. I was wondering about that as well. I think many centuries of theologians and philosophers would be interested in hearing the logical contradictions as well. No need to exclude “the universe we observe” though. There is no logical contradiction between the universe we observe and such a God existing.
Let’s see, one, two, three, four…twelve against one! I like my odds! 
Okay, first of all, I never said that all of you failed to give direct or unambiguous answers. I said:
I think the highlighted phrases make clear I was singling out certain comments and answers, not painting all with the same brush.
You @Faizal_Ali were fairly direct in your answer in the end, but you started out a little wobbly. Considering my definition of God was “as it would traditionally be defined by Christianity,” your first sentence added a bit of ambiguity to your last two. But, in the end you got your point across:
Eh, I’m not so sure about that. I don’t see any of these comments being directed toward the behavior of people with belief in God. They seem more animated by an animosity or frustration with [the idea of] God himself, or his actions or inactions:
I’ll explain what I want, and would you interpret this as God or something else? I understand this as the unconditional love that I call light.
What I witness is light in people radiate outward.
Then I assume this light lives in all of us, because rarely had I seen light in people radiate outward
I’ve fed on light fire burn that feeds my spirit
Also I notice I can have a relationship with light
I’ve been allowing light teach me in my situations how I can allow myself to feed from light
I either block or allow light
Now to your question do I want there be a God
Here’s what I want
to drink from light cause light takes care of my spiritual needs., other wise I’m spiritually hungry
so I think what I want is where I can rest and be home and drink from light and have a relationship., that’s what I want
So question what is this word God?
Oh wait, I would use the word unconditional love., that’s another thing I notice about light is unconditional love
I understand light as my best friend
I can go to my best friend who lives in me just as I am
So should I call light God?
Can I ask you what do you mean by the word God? Because it depends what people has as God.,
If I call light God is cause I’m understanding God as my best friend who teaches me and comforts me.
I think people created laws. I have zero laws. I don’t seek approval from God., I go to God just as I am, because I’m already accepted by light.
Here’s what I want, I want to drink from light here on earth and after my physically body pass away, I want to continue a relationship with light unconditional love and continue drinking from light and learn from light
I allow light teach me
My post is pending
I’ll quickly write this for now and when my message gets approve you can read that
Light is my best friend who lives in me and I drink from light fire burn in my spirit., light is unconditional love
so would light be God?
But that’s what I want is continuing my relationship with light as I’m on earth and after my physical body passes away, I want to continue a relationship with light that’s what I want, and I’ll call light God then and I understand God as my best friend
I allow light teach me
Hello @riversea, 
That was a very spiritual expression, and while I may not be in total agreement, I thank you for your openness and sincerity. 
Your definition of animosity or frustration is a good deal broader than mine. I’m not expressing either there. I’m remarking upon the empirical problem and upon the way in which, given that none of the gods appear to do much, it is difficult to care very much which ones of them exist and which ones of them do not.
Really? No possibility at all? Like, logically impossible? I think we both know that is not true.
I guess you mean if I ever utter words to the effect, “I am not capable of fully understanding or knowing the mind of God”? Any being worth even discussing with the label “God” would be beyond our ability to understand. You atheists/agnostics sure have a knack for setting bars, really, really, really high.
Sure, I’ll rip the lid off the can of worms. Do any 20th-Century atheistic regimes ring any bells? Was atheism entirely to blame for their atrocities? No, probably not, but I think a complete lack of belief in any ultimate moral accountability surely didn’t help.
Besides that, if you look at all the tremendous good belief in God has done throughout history, it becomes obvious that the consequences of that belief not being there throughout history (i.e., widespread unbelief) would have been tremendously negative.
You persist in ignoring the ambiguity that you yourself introduced. Nobody so far is objecting to all gods, only to the sort of god your ambiguous hints seem to be aiming at, i.e. the one whose actions are described in the bible, who is clearly a monster (and whose nonexistence is fortunate).
Alternatively, there’s the one whose characteristics you subsequently described with the multiple omni words, who is no monster but who is clearly incompatible with realisty as we observe it. Nobody at all objected to that one; in fact I said it would be nice if he existed.
It really does seem as if you read into people’s responses only what you want to read into them.
No way to know what the “etc.” would be, so there’s no way to tell if it’s self-contradictory. It’s certainly not a necessary contradiction. And contradiction with reality isn’t self-contradiction. What you’re describing here isn’t a logically impossible god, just one incompatible with the evidence. Not the same thing.
Now that’s where you’re wrong. But you had previously disclaimed any interest in such a discussion.
You would need the auxiliary hypothesis that we are incompetent to judge good and evil, so that what looks like evil to us is necessarily really good that we don’t understand. Is that what you rely on? That’s the usual defense of observed evil.
No, you’re sneaking in some room that doesn’t exist there. You have to be entirely incapable of understanding or knowing anything whatsoever about the ming of God. But in such a circumstance, you can’t know that he’s actually good, much less omnibenevolent. You’re incompetent to judge, right?
Sure, because Russia today, with all its enforced Christianity, is much nicer than those old commies, right? Your can of worms ends up biting you on the ass (it clearly contains a lot of mixed metaphors). Are you familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma?
Even if we credit your premise (we do not), the goodness of belief in God says nothing about whether God actually exists.
It is true.
No it doesn’t. You also have to look at the tremendous harm belief in gods has done throughout history. Religious wars and terrorism. Crusades. Genocides. Bigotry and racism. Inquisitions. Child abuse and protection of those responsible. Separating families. Forced conversions. Medical neglect. Witch trials and executions.
A lack of belief in moral accountability may not help, but belief that one is doing one’s god’s will can be actively harmful.
One assumes, at least, that two of the most common attributes are included, that is ‘omnipotent’ and ‘personal’. So commonly included it’s odd they weren’t included here, but I digress.
From the list provided alone, I could point to the contradiction between ‘omnipresent’ and ‘timeless’, since being everywhere demands existing in the universe and therefore in time. The typical counter is that ‘part’ of god exists outside of time. But if I said my house wasn’t on fire because ‘part’ of it wasn’t burning, you’d look at me funny.
Roping in ‘omnipotent’ brings the majority of the problems, since it is necessarily in contradiction with ‘omniscient’ and ‘changeless’. And potentially some of the others. ‘Personal’ is also in contradiction with ‘changeless’.
I’d end by suggesting that, if we can’t be reasonably expected to know the contents of ‘etc’, that would be evidence there isn’t a ‘traditionally defined’ conception of God in Christianity. In which case, the entire list is just as useless as the ‘etc’, this entire chain of comments is a waste, and @jmk00001 should go back and provide an actual definition.
So common that I didn’t notice they were missing. Still, I don’t see any contradictions.
Not a contradiction. “Timeless” doesn’t mean “outside time” (though it isn’t clear what it would even mean to be outside time). I take it to mean that he’s everywhere and everywhen, and experiences time as just another dimension of his extent.
How so?
Also how so?
This entire chain of comments is a waste regardless. I can’t believe I"m arguing Christian theology.
It does to many Christians that I’ve talked to, and that is (I think) the most common understanding. But our disagreement to the meaning is more evidence that there is not ‘traditional’ definition.
Taking ‘omnipotence’ to be ‘able to do all logically possible things’:
If an entity can change the expected outcome of events, they aren’t omniscient because they didn’t know the true outcome. If they can’t change it they aren’t omnipotent.
If an entity can change, they aren’t changeless. If they can’t, they aren’t omnipotent.
I’m uncertain of what a ‘personal relationship’ would be with an entity that doesn’t change as a consequence of that relationship. It is, I think, a necessary component of what it means to have such a relationship.