Hello,
In order:

1. I didn't specify a religion.
2. What I mean by perfect is a perfect god capable of making a reality without flaws. Flaws being human suffering, inequality, etc
3. because there are only 2 possibilities, its prudent to consider both of them. Also, what is your criteria to judge if a concept is worth considering?
4. an imperfect entity would allow for flaws in reality.

OK.

1. That's why I asked. Different religiuons describe their gods differently, not all of which are perfect.
2. Perhaps the reality created by this god meets its design breif perfectly and without any design flaws. Perhaps the competitive nature of life was part of the design for winners and losers. In the grand scheme of things, humans are winning at the expense of many other life forms.
3. See 2. Also. I refer to my original question how could you tell the difference.
4. Where are the flaws in reality? As far as we have been able to ascertain so far, it would appear that everything follows specific rules which have been shown to be consistent. Flaws would be things that don't follow those rules - like the supernatural, for which, so far, there has been no verifiable evidence to show that it exists.

All of which, in my opinion, is just more noise. I see no evidence anywhere for any sort of gods, perfect or otherwise.

"Thinking there's not enough evidence to prove there isn't a god doesn't mean there may be one." We all question, it's in our nature. The more elusive an explanation to an observed phenomina the more we seek those answers in my opinion. for this subject it's highly pragmatic to attempt to content oneself with not knowing nd relying on what one believes.

@Nothing If there's no evidence for a god, why believe it? Why even think any answer is a possibility when there's no evidence for it. These are just lies our families pass down out of fear.

There is evidence. It's skant evidence but evidence none the less. that fact that we are here

@Nothing That's opinion actually.

@Jsuischa It's not opinion actually it's logical deduction or inference. Using the axiom that everything that exists had a beginning, the universe exists, therefore the universe has a beginning. Since literally everything else has a beginning its simple inference. In fact it would be quite far fetched to make such a claim as the universe had no beginning with zero evidence to support that claim and all the other phenomena in reality demonstrating a causal nature

"The inconvenient problem is that the universe and our experienced reality don't look at all like they are under any sort of control, much less benevolent and prescient control."

I'd be interested in how you arrive at that conclusion

"Once you understand that gods are human created"

There either was or is a creator entity or phenomena which created the universe or there wasn't-we do not know. There is a point in created hypotheses science does it all the time

thank you for your comment

@Nothing To allege that the universe is being controlled is to allege that an agency exists which could control it, and for some discernible purpose. The universe gives every evidence of being under the influence of natural laws, but not of being directed.

No, we don't know whether or not there is a creator, but there's no valid reason to believe that there is, and no evidence in its favor. As for science, it increasingly does not state that the universe had a point-in-time beginning. Time breaks down and has no meaning, mathematically or logically, as you approach either the big bang or the big freeze. The universe may (or may not) be effectively eternal or cyclical and thus has no beginning. We don't know that either, although the likelihood of it seems to be increasing.

@mordant Human experience knows of no thing which has no beginning and if the universe is that thing it would be the first and only known thing that has no beginning. I'd say that pretty strong evidence right there that the universe along with literally everything else had one as well. As far as agency goes. I agree with you.

Following my logic, there's evidence that if there was or is a god that it couldn't be perfect in so far as the question or morality. Because this god would then be liable for any faults in its creation, namely suffering an pain. It becomes a moral question "If god knew there would be suffering and proceeded anyway, that that could possibly be immoral or at least the possibility that that suffering would outway the benefits

@Nothing well...if there is nothing perfect in the Universe...I guess we need not worry one way or the other? Which brings into question, if nothing is perfect...and if there was a 'god'...he would surely be imperfect too? So why are people going to 'hell' in a handbasket (by some religious teachings)? So that belies another question...why do we have so much punishment going on in the world, for all our imperfections? It is punishment here and in the afterlife!!

That's perfect. I always thought of God as "Mother Earth." The universe makes more sense.

Thanks, I got real high the other night and it occurred to me that God is the Universe. So I went from not believing in God to believing in a new definition of God. I hope they don't throw me out of here

If this were true, it would imply that the universe had no beginning if you agree that something cannot come from nothing...even god

@Nothing The Universe had no beginning, its always been here

@gater If that is true and thats "if" than the universe would be literally the only known instance of a thing having no beginning...seems pretty far fetched

@Nothing yeah, humans are geared to believing everything has a beginning and ending. But the universe has always been here.

@gater It's not a question of being geared to believe everything had a beginning-it's true. Everything we can observe had a beginning. Again, believing that the universe is the only thing in the universe that had no beginning would fly in the face observed reality. Thats why its more far fetched to believe that the universe had no beginning.

@Nothing Everything in the universe had a beginning - the universe itself did not have a beginning.

God by definition? A Deist merely defines god as that which was responsible for the creation of the universe. nothing more

There is Evidence for god its just not very prodigious evidence. Namely that fact that we are here. If yu believe that something cannot come from nothing...and that the universe began to exist, than whatever caused it to exist is god...whether thats a sentient entity or other.

That would just be presupposition and wishful thinking. No one knows is the honest truth, not that a god did it. To say that is to claim to have more knowledge than everyone else. That's God of the Gaps, something that is shrinking every century. See Douglas Adams Puddle Analogy. However, you are correct that an imperfect deity is much more probable than a perfect one.

Who can say if 'god' came into being perfect or got that way over time?

@Freedompath I suspect we doubt the entire premise, just enjoying our parlor games

Then you believe that something can come from nothing? or Is it that you believe the universe had no beginning?

@Nothing I don’t believe anything. Belief is nothing but taking something for truth for which there is no evidence. If I don’t know something, I do not insert deities to fill the gaps in knowledge.