If the Universe needs a creator, why doesn't god? If god doesn't need a creator, why does the Universe?

The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that GOD came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, GOD is not in the category of things that are created or caused. GOD is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing being is what we call GOD ,GOD is the un-caused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

Life without GOD is like an un- sharpened pencil it has no point..

You can't see the wind, but you know it is there because you can see what the wind is doing. You can know that the wind is there because you can feel it.GOD is like the wind, you can't see him.

~~~~~~~

That is a sound argument.

The fallacy lies with god and religion, the dispute themselves.

You are right about the universe though, no one knows everything for certain and much is theory. The difference between the BB and Universe theories and the God theory are one is based in factual science, god is based in fiction. Nothing about it is based in linear and bon-linear thought. God will always live in the realm of ideas with unicorns, fairies and the Easter bunny.

The universe has no why, it just is, much like gravity, we can only ever hope to know the how, not the why of its existence.

To be non-existent, as Christians and other religions propose their God is, means just that, he does not exist. You cannot not exist in reality, while existing. Also, convenient he shows himself in the ancient times, the time of magic and sorcery, of demons and Angela and minotaurs, of giant floods and inbreeding animals that somehow still live, unaffected by genetic degradation, of a 900 year old Moses in a time life expectancy was closer to 50. In a time of dragons and mermaids and any number of supernatural things. God just shows up and says hey, I am real, write this down, I beat up Zeus, and Allah and Shiva and all the other gods your superstitious race could think of.

Then Zeus says he is supreme and beat up God and Allah, and Allah says the same. Then Christianity finds themselves the seat of power and begin to wipe out religions by the point of a sword, burns witches and scientist for heresy. Then the dark ages happen, and the crusades.

Do not think yourself above me, because you live a life of ideological fairy tales and moral fallacies and hypocrisies. You feed a devilish beast everytime you enter your cults hall of worshiping the bon existent.

There's no such thing as a "submental fallacy."

And that rebuttal to various forms of the "everything has to have a creator" argument doesn't show "ignorance and lack of judgment" in any way.

Sorry, pal, it's your "argument" that is bad.

God is eternal (ageless) Spirit

The universe is physical and even science gives it age. And if it has age then it had a distinct beginning

One of the more idiotic arguments parroted by atheists on a regular basis. I have reached the point I don't even bother responding anymore, even most of the atheists in this forum know it is a stupid question.

Atheism requires the assumption "no God exist" is true; they believe that the lack of a proof for the statement "God exists" is true proves their assumption "no God exists" is true.

For a statement to be provable (using Aristotelian Logic, the same logic used in the scientific method) a statement or its negative must be true, that is statement A or statement Not A is true.

Suppose a statement about God is true, that means that either the statement "God exists" or its negative statement "no God exists" is true where the notion of God is defined in the Bible in verse Genesis 1:1. This verse states that God existed before God created the Universe, the space-time continuum. From the scientific theory of the Big Bang, we know that the space-time continuum has a beginning, so the notion of God as defined is before the space-time continuum. Using the scientific method, any scientific theory about God must explain the scientific facts of God, but scientific facts require observers independent of location (space) and independent in time (time) meaning that the observers are in the space-time continuum. To have scientific facts about God would require observers in space-time continuum before the space-time continuum, that is, observing the unobservable. A contradiction, so the statement "God exists" is false.

Because we suppose a statement about God is true, this means that statement "God does not exists" must be true. However, by the same argument there must be an observer not in the space-time continuum leading to same contradiction, so that statement "God does not exist" is also false. Since both the statement and its negative is false, the statement is not provable, that means that God (any aspect of God) is assumption.

It's an excellent argument. You have not really explained why you think it's a bad one.

The design of our universe shows creative style as opposed to the chaotic anti-structure of an accident.

As far as God goes, I've not had the opportunity to investigate His physical bring as of yet.

Any one who can't see an intelligent design is in denial. DNA proves that evolution is couldn't process.

See also: strawman argument.

You're making one.