Why trying to prove or disprove god is stupid

Question? What if God is not creator?

And if God exists logic, then how can he also exist within it? For example... Miracles, and faith experiences.

But then again, Language proves a gap here. When we sometimes say we are trying to argue for or against God, sometimes that God might only be a Superhuman entity or other higher deity, and not God, as we know it.

For example, which God are we proving? A Christian God? a Buddhist God ect..

I think of it this way. We're not trying to prove the existence of a God, but more we're trying to find out whether all this morality crap is actually worth while.

God by all accounts is beyond human understanding otherwise he would be useless as he would hold no answers that we could not potentially know without him.

Pondering the existence of anything isn't stupid.

Question? What if God is not creator?

And if God exists logic, then how can he also exist within it? For example... Miracles, and faith experiences.

But then again, Language proves a gap here. When we sometimes say we are trying to argue for or against God, sometimes that God might only be a Superhuman entity or other higher deity, and not God, as we know it.

For example, which God are we proving? A Christian God? a Buddhist God ect..

I think of it this way. We're not trying to prove the existence of a God, but more we're trying to find out whether all this morality crap is actually worth while.

I absolutely agree and lend my full support to you. Philosophy is never stupid.

How do I "thank" you for your post?

It seems that if we can understand god he hold no answers that we do not or rather cannot. If he is beyond us, then he holds no answer that we can comprehend in our current form or any form that our current form can understand assuming that humans somehow can transcend our current form which is a very wild presumtion.
Forgive me for being so brash in my presentation, I find it to be the quckest way to lay all cards on the table for sorting and discarding. I at no point said that the consideration of god or a creator is stupid, you misunderstood the structure and meaning of my statement. I simply stated that any attempt to prove or disprove a creator is irrational.
To didymos, perhapse I should have clarified; I meant more specifically a creator, all creation myths included. The very concept of a creator is somthing which has no grounding logically because logic begs the question of who/what created the creator and it turns into an infinite line of reactions with no solid base. That being said, logic cannot be used in discrediting a creator theory because it has little to no place in such an idea unless the creator is of similar nature to us in which case see above arguments.
I again reiterate that I am in no way attacking those who believe or disbelieve in a creator; nor am I attacking considerations based upon the assumptions of a creators existence or nonexistence, but rather I hold that logic is not sufficient in proving or disproving a creator.

I don't mean to make you feel bad but I am both utterly confused and absolutely in shock of what you just said because it's one of the stupidest posts I've ever seen. I'm not attacking you personally, I'm attacking your statements.

I'm sorry, honestly. If I'm going to be reported or banned for this, so be it, I can accept that. I am just pointing out I am offended by the absolute nonsensical nature and stupidity of his guy's post. It frankly pisses me off it's so stupid.

Again, I'm sorry for lowering myself to being extremely harsh but I'm sure everyone here has called someone stupid before so let's be fair here.

One of the wonderful things about life is that one only expresses that which one is so

and

Another thing I'd like to point out to all you philosophers is that one express what's within and therefore recognized the faults within oneself and points fingers at another.

I agree that this is sometimes the case, perhaps even often the case, (whether it applies to the present situation I'll not speculate,) but to say "that one only expresses" suggests that this reasoning applies to all situations, and I don't think it does. Yes, people often point the finger at reflections of their own flaws, but it's somewhat drastic a generalization to say that those are the only flaws we point out.

Umm... I think you sort of answered your own question, DT. Unless you love to fight, then criticizing someone's love of fighting is not pointing out a flaw that you possess.

This is also a generalization that I simply don't agree with. To say that you are capable of having a flaw, isn't to say that you have it.

to say "that one only expresses" suggests that this reasoning applies to all situations, and I don't think it does. Yes, people often point the finger at reflections of their own flaws, but it's somewhat drastic a generalization to say that those are the only flaws we point out.