I liked your questions. So I will ask you, as a theist, what evidence would be acceptable proof that your God doesn’t exist?

I had been under the impression that faith was too powerful of an argument/principle to ever overcome. That if you ever decided that God did not exist, it meant that your faith was lacking. Faith is too securely wrapped in its own trappings. Religion says Faith is necessary for salvation. Faith is not a perfect knowledge but a belief in things not seen, a hope in things unprovable by humanity (I think). So it seems there must always be some element of doubt to accompany faith else it would change to knowledge.

The argument of the necessity of faith means that God would have to create an environment where He could not be proven. If he could be proven, then faith would be unnecessary or impossible to have in the face of having actual knowledge of God. This would mean that no matter how many experiments were undertaken and how many negative results were returned, the belief of the believers would necessarily remain unchanged, because if God allowed those experiments to prove his existence, the validity and necessity of faith would be destroyed.

Anyhow, all of this has led me to believe that there really can’t be any evidence that would prove that God didn’t exist to a theist. And if evidence existed that would prove God to an atheist, it would destroy the faith of theists (replacing it with knowledge) as atheists would only ever accept empirical results of the existence of God.

Whew. That was a bunch of malarky. So, my long-winded blathering aside, do you have an answer to your own proposed answer?
Thanks.

It’s fine and dandy to repeat your questions, but you still did not answer my previous question to the full extend. I really don’t see any way you can get true answers from those two questions. They are kind of impossible to answer no matter what side you are on. To have proof for something on this scale practically speaking is impossible. If you want partial proof, you can compromise and say “Oh yeah, because we found that every indication of the acts of God was by some strange physical phenomenon” or “because God actually came down on Earth, showed us things that are not explainable by science and more”

Like you said, in either case, you are not fully sure if these data proves the nonexistence of God or if these sightings prove the existence of God. The former being the lack of parameters in which these data apply and the latter being that this “God” may be something like another powerful Q from Star Trek. To say, by your standard, that constitutes the premise of acceptable proof is purely relative to your own belief. At best you can get a good approximation, but even then, what is the proof if it is compromised?

To me, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to even consider these questions other than for mind exercise because you’ll never get anywhere with these.

Well that’s a bit extreme don’t you think? Especially when most of religion is based on faith and not factual data. Tell a catholic the Earth wasn’t made in 7 days, he’ll tell you:
1. It’s not actually 7 days, it’s more like a metaphor. Actually, God made the Big Bang to start which made everything.
2. This could also be an indication of the fact that God spreads knowledge to people through these metaphors. What God is actually trying to say is that Earth was made in 7 periods, and these 7 periods cover the entire time Earth was made by the Big Bang.

These are complete nonsense arguments because they are all based on faith. The only true argument these religious people can make is: “We aren’t sure, but hey there’s a possibility for everything right?” and then change themselves to just optimistic Agnostics.

Pardon my lack of your fancy philosophy terms, I’m just a common man with a common mind using his common logic. Obviously not to compare with great minds like that of Gnifius[?] the Great and Vnutz the Nut.[I couldn’t resist]