No Stupid Questions

The solution to that question is easy. Your premise is faulty; there is no such thing as a god or gods. They're man made ideas and there is literally zero evidence to support any god exists. There is loads and loads of evidence that each and every god has been created by humans.

If there is such a thing as a god anyway, it is beyond what can ever measured and it also never interferes with human life or any physical process. In that case, it may as well not exist as it literally doesn't do anything, making the question moot.

The answer differs depending on which religion/sect/philosophy you adhere to, but God is usually attributed some sort of emotion, or at least a will, because without it the belief in God can't serve a societal use.

Say you assume a God without emotions. From this it results that nothing we may do or fail to do would impact them, so there are no sins, no divine laws, prayers and rites are useless... So your belief can't be a religion; nor can it be used to control people. There's no physical use to preaching belief in God, and not much of a metaphysical need either since God doesn't care whether you believe in them. "God" becomes a concept like the laws of physics, there's not even much meaning in considering it as a being. There's little difference between an emotionless God and no God at all. So all religions will personify God to some extent.

Maybe we're endowed with Godly emotions.

Well you kind of have the thing reversed.
All gods are created by man in mans image. And gods are generally exactly as selfish childish (narcissistic) and emotional as a 4 year old, because that's the mentality of the people with the delusions that created the gods in the first place. And then the people who think they know what god is and want.

Why are we satisfied with the idea that God made man intelligent in his image, while being all-knowing, but not this? Isn’t this the same thing? God could have made man with emotions in his image, while being in no way limited to those emotions himself. Why would we limit ourselves to an uncaring God above all that when he could also be all-caring, all-feeling

(Insert misogynistic crack about an all-emotional God being proof God is a woman)

Whipping out my clover and putting on my best Irish Accent to explain the Holy Trinity

Giving a serious answer with serious consideration that follows serious rules, is impossible with religion, as all the rules are made up, there's no consistency, and they're all silly.

The answer will, of course, vary depending on religion and even depending on sect or school of thought within the same religion, but here's the Sunni Islamic answer as I understand it: God has emotions befitting of His grace and perfection, as opposed to our imperfect human emotions. For example a human might get angry and say or do something that they regret, but God's anger doesn't take away from His wisdom (I think Christianity has something about God regretting flooding the Earth in Noah's time, but islam rejects that sort of thing out of principle). God's mercy doesn't make Him commit injustice, as a human might. Etc etc. We humans don't need a deeper understanding of Allah than this, so Islam doesn't really get into the details of these things, but that's the gist of it. This does contradict your premise that God should be beyond emotion, but there's really no reason for that to be the case. God should obviously be beyond imperfection, but emotions aren't inherently imperfection; only humans' flawed emotions are.

What gets me is in that belief god is essentially is the real person in the real world and he is the head honcho but there are other angels there. heck some things in the bible suggest other gods. definately a we oftentimes. well then our existence is created by him and he has totaly control of it. so from gods perspective our universe is essentially virtual reality. the matrix.

The following are my personal views regarding the divine. In order to better address my views, I'm going to use verbs such as "to be" (is/isn't, are/aren't) and "to have" (has/hasn't, have/haven't). However, it doesn't mean factual statements, so it shouldn't be taken as absolute truth. It's just what I believe, so I may be wrong.

For context, my belief is the result of a syncretic approach that encompasses several religions and belief systems, with some borrowing from scientific concepts. I tend towards Luciferianism, but I'm neither restricted to a specific belief system nor I'm religious nor initiated.

Also, it's very complex and multifaceted. It's very complex and multifaceted to put into simpler words. Throughout this comment, I needed to try and simplify a lot of concepts, should it be much longer in order to fully grasp the complexity of the cosmic and divine principles.

I see the divine as two complementing poles, akin to Yin and Yang: there is a Goddess and a God. Many ancient religions used to believe and worship a dual divine, from Ancient Egypt (e.g. Isis and Osiris), Hebrews (Asherah and Yahweh), indigenous people such as Tupi-Guarani (Jaci and Tupã), among others.

They're both opposite and complementary aspects within the divine. Complemented in balance, they make the Divine, similar to Baphomet: the androgynous, hermaphrodite, fully perfect Divine, the convergence of Lucifer and Lilith, whom are archetypes of the Divine.

Opposing, they get into a kind of a cosmic tug-war yet they seek balance, not exactly a "fight"/"war", as It's complicated to put into words, but it's just the nature of opposites: they attract each other, but they are still opposites trying to be the frame of reference to the other (it's like they're eternally arguing: "Light came from my Darkness!", "no, Darkness came from my Light!"; it's just a matter of each one's perspective, both are right).

This is mirrored within the creation of the cosmos (as per Hermetic Principle of Correspondence "As above, so below"): matter and energy, antimatter and ordinary matter, black-holes and stars/planets/asteroids/nebulae), etc. Fundamentally, it's darkness and light, absence and presence, non-existence and existence. By darkness, it doesn't imply "evil" or "bad": what we see as "good" and "evil" are oversimplifications of a much complex cosmic tapestry. Neither She is necessarily evil nor He is necessarily good. They are both capable of both good and evil (just like there's Yang within the Yin, and there's Yin within the Yang).

However, what we see as "human emotions" are different kinds of energetic signatures. Scientifically, we could point out how neurotransmitters are composed by different chemicals, which are composed by different atoms, which are composed by a different sum of charges (different count of electrons and nuclei). This "energetic signature" could be seen as resonating with equivalent energetic signatures (so a happy song resonates better with a person currently in a happy mood, for example; a grayed sky, devoid of chromatic diversity, resonates better with a person currently in a sad mood, which is experiencing a "lower energy state").

The distinct poles within the Divine resonate with different energetic signatures (with Goddess, imbued with what we'd call as feminine energy, resonating with a much larger spectrum of emotions than God, imbued with what we'd call as masculine energy), which in turn resonate with different "emotions". We, humans, interpret this as "Divine with emotions", but it's just a cosmic principle. As we experiment "emotions", we're experimenting the same cosmic principle, so we are just the micro mirroring the macro, "as above, so below".

Again, it's just my current belief, it's just my way of seeing the Divine. I may be wrong, I don't know.

Human is created in God's image.

Therefore human emotions are similar to God's emotions (this does not tell whether or not God's emotions are superior in some way or other)

The answer depends on your religion, but in the monotheistic traditions of the major religions, the notion of God might be better aligned with “oneness” or “integration” than a personification as we think about them. In that way, God is “everything” (including the contradictions) which would also mean emotions. To say God feels things, it means “God has the capability to feel, because God is all powerful.”

Whether God is impacted by those emotions or their reasoning changes because of them, I think the realities and contradictions are a part of faith. If it all made sense, faith wouldn’t be necessary. You’ll find reasoning similar to this in someone like Kierkegaard.

I’m a UU (raised Catholic, was an atheist for 20 years, followed Buddhism for a few years). My internal conception of God has changed a lot over that time: mostly expanded and includes more grace about this “grand everything” rather than “Old man in a cloud who can be sorta weird and spiteful.” I like that the UU lets me ask questions and develop my own faith.