Do you believe all religions are truly one and the same?

No problem.

truth
Qkid, and on what basis can you logically deny that your creator god had to be created by some superior creative power that served as HIS/HER/IT'S God?

Statement I: For all X, if X is an object that exists then X must be created.
Statement II: God exists.
Statement III: For all Y, if Y exists then Y does not create Y itself.


Form:
I is true, II is true, and III is true
_______________________________(therefore)
God is created but does not create God himself.


However there may not be a proof of the Statement I being true.
And this is merely a display of logical form. I do not necessarily agree with the statement derived.

It does not make logical sense. Start with one. That is simply false. The existence of something is no indication that it was "created".

SAY WHAT? I guess you have just been wandering around forever.

The weakness your logic that "if something exists, that it must have been created" can be easily demonstrated. Mind you, I don't accept the same underlying concepts that you do, so the following shouldn't be ascribed to my beliefs.

Things exist, so they must have been created, and that creator is God, therefore God exists.

Next proposition that must follow: God exists, so he must have been created, and that creator is .................." And so it goes Ad infinitum, which brings us back to the concept that the universe is infinite.

All of your argument hangs on the notion that the universe is real and finite with some sort of "outside". This description of reality poses a lot of problems, and is terribly complicated in its structure and fails the test of Ockham's Razor. It isn't an elegant description of the universe. We generally find that the more beautiful and elegant the solution, the more likely it will be correct and stand the test of time. An infinite universe is, on the other hand, very elegant and has many fewer problems for us to deal with.

The logic form above can be modified as follows:

Statement Ib: For all X, if X is an object that exists and if X is not God then X must be created.
Statement II: God exists.
Statement IIIb: For all Y, if Y is created then Y does not create Y itself.


Form:
Ib is true, II is true, and IIIb is true
_______________________________(therefore)
An existing object other than God does not create itself.

There is no logical basis offered to argue that if something exists it was created. It's a hell of an assumption and basing an argument on a false assumption is not logical.

But it IS easy.

With logic form you can clarify the arguments involved.
(Prolog or Lisp can be used for more complicated logic forms.)

Yes, and the logical form you posted is correct. But it's based on an assumption that is not logical.

Watch:

1. If the earth is round god does not exist.

2. The earth IS round.

3. Therefore god doesn't exist.

Number one is stating a rule, the rest follows the rule logically.

But number one is a rule posted with no logical basis.

Likewise the claims that 1) If something exists it must be created and 2) that if it were created it was created by god have no logical basis.

All humans (as a group not necessarily individuals) hold a belief in the supernatural. That is things that are extraordinary and can not be explained by ordinary means. We organize these beliefs into coherent forms of explaination and assign it meaning ie religion. We hold our beliefs and explanations about the world to be correct and therefore "sacred". Because what we hold sacred is untimely our understanding of ourselves and our world so by extension is our understanding of the extraodinary or the supernatural. Therefore it also must be sacred. This is the underlying assumption of all religious belief and why it is so tenacious a belief among all humans.

With your logic form you can clarify the absurdity of an argument like, "As the earth is round there isn't god." Clarifying misconception is the aim of my showing logic forms.
(And in part it is a joke with too strict a logic form for colloquial talks.)

I agree, and if your point was to illustrate the absurdity of the assumption you did a good job.

You know my intention here, now.

truth
A wooden house must have been CREATED (constructed, made, etc.), but the trees from which the house was made must have GROWN.
Acquiunk, I like your equation of supernatural with extraordinary. Obviously not all extraordinary things are supernatural in nature, but the reverse does hold. I think that, at the level of meaning, not fact, SUPERnatural is to natural what EXTRAordinary is to ordinary.

God emerged.

truth
Satt__, you mean that God GREW like a tree?

Or that he emerged from the recesses of primitive (sequential, not a comparative) minds?

Once there was no law. Then law emerged and the law was god. The law was also love when revealed in humans..

Not to quibble, but to expound on what you have said. I believe you
are correct in your statements. Since I am with you, would you go
as far as to also say that the Law of God was given to humans to show
that they were incapable of keeping it and needed God's grace? That
the Law that was also revealed in humans as love would be the "agape"
God kind of unconditional love and not "philo" the conditional human
kind of love? That the Law of God emerged after humans fell from His initial grace they first enjoyed? That keeping the Law only covered the
wrongs that humans did by disobeying the Law? To institute the grace
again, humans needed something that would fulfill the Law for them without doing away with it? To give God a way to blot out the wrongs
against the Law rather than just covering them? A substitute to stand
in the gap for humans that would embrace the substitute? Humans would
no longer have to struggle with keeping the Law which had proved
impossible to do from mere human effort? At the point where a substitute
took the place of the Law, God could work with humans from the inside
out instead of from the outside in as He had to do as long as they were
under the Law? Humans could then enjoy the "agape" knid of love
inside of them to strenghten their "philo" kind of love? Just asking.