I guess I misunderstood your comments then. I thought you
were laying down that gods would have that kind of nature
(perfect, all-powerful) independent of Christian doctrine.

If God created the Univers, who or what created God?

Without an answer -- a real answer -- to that, there is no point beyond where we invariably get bogged down. Skeptics invoke reason, believers invoke fairy stories, and never the twain shall meet.

••

No you didn't -- but it's so much more FUN to pretend you did, isn't it?

Trying to understand other peoples ides is certainly fun.

Is seeing hidden agendas from the comments of fans, while
politely insulting their integrity in the process, FUN for
you?

The watch/watchmaker analogy is a poor one.  It puts too much emphasis on the finished product as a "done-in-one" feat of engineering that requires an engineer.  There are numerous examples of intermediate stages in biology that demonstrate how complexity might develop from simplicity given sufficient time (billions of years) and enough generations with minimal changes occuring between them.

It's the chicken or the egg situation.  Creationism says that the chicken was first, created whole, as is, and that it subsequently laid an egg that led to another chicken.  Evolution says that the egg came first, and although it hatched a chicken, it was laid by something that wasn't quite a chicken.  Given that we know of thousands of species of birds that aren't chickens, and given that we know that mutations do occur naturally, why would it be difficult to imagine the almost-chicken's existence, even if we couldn't point directly to it?  And if there's fossil or other evidence of the almost-chicken, why add unnecessary layers of complexity?

The almost-chicken arose from the not-quite-an-almost-chicken, and so on, as far back as you want to go. 

As to dirt giving itself a soul, or life arising from non-life, there are organic molecules in interstellar space.  Atoms combine into predictable combinations, and simple arrangements lead to more complex ones according to natural laws.  That makes me think that life is almost unavoidable. 

Thomas wrote:

If consciousness did not exists before life, what other things could be born when you get the right combination?

**

Once again you're focusing on consciousness as if it's somehow more special than other attributes of organisms.  Non-conscious behavior is shown by single-celled organisms when they react to light, or to chemical cues that signify nearby food.  Chemical receptors that are "shaped" to fit specific chemicals like keys fit locks aren't making conscious choices, but like the almost-chicken I mentioned before you can see how simple response to stimuli might lead eventually to more complex responses to more complicated stimuli, until you have an organism that can ponder itself and it's own existence.

http://www.nfb.ca/playlists/1960s-explosion-creativity/viewi ng/cosmic_zoom/#panel2 

This is a link to a bit of animation from 1968 that every Canadian has probably seen at least once on television.  Watch the sequence from the ends of the universe to the nucleus of an iron atom and tell me why, on these scales of big and small that comprise reality as we know it, the boy is somehow LESS inconsequential than the dog or the mosquito.

We fool ourselves into believing that we are somehow necessary and important, when we are very very close to being nothing at all.