I will prove god's existence if....

Prove he is benevolent..by examples..

examples mean nothing if they cannot be established as representative- I could give the example of Christ's healing a leper but you could no doubt find fault with this.
I would say that existance itself is good- that by giving us being and enabling us to live and be, he is benevolant. But no doubt you have an argument against these.

No argument ..just that you have given me faith not proof...

you asked for examples.

Now you are being evasive. You are argueing against the premise I have set. I don't care. Tell me what kind of proof you want me to give, essentially the same kind of proof with which you justify your other beliefs, and if you can justify the proof as proof, I will either prove God by those terms or I will concede the point.

Not at all. I don't think God's existence can be proved. So, I am not able to supply you with a proof I "want" you to give. I don't think God can be proven or disproven, as those words are commonly used. So, naturally I am questioning your premise. If God exists, I don't think this existence can be established as we would establish other things, because, at the philosophical level, at least, God is generally described (deliberately? necessarily?) in such an abstract fashion that what we normally consider proof can have no application. I wish God's existence could be proven or disproven, but I don't believe that is possible.

Now, you seem to believe God's existence can be proven. Why? And then, how?

yes and you gave me none..dont play games just answer the request or i will assume you are full of empty promises and i have won the debate and you can not prove gods existance..

you asked for examples of god's benovolance, I don't know why you asked that but I gave them. What it your problem?
Or you could be unwilling to answer this question- what do you regard as proof? and why?
I wonder why you are unwilling to anwer that because nobody has done that so far. Are you afraid of my response?:listening:

Im not afraid of your response im bewildered...i did not ask you to quote scriptures they for the agnostic have no valid reason for belief..if i wanted scriptures for proof i could have read the bible..written by man..I assumed by your claim you could give me a new insight a new revelation not yet privy to me..it seems you have no new proof just old rhetoric replayed for effect..no your a scam ..im sure you can do better..

Indeed I can. First meet my very simple request- tell me what for you constitutes proof- for instance here you say the bible is not, so obviously you have a specific idea as to what proof you will accept. Then tell me why this is the kind of proof you accept. Why not just do it? Just meet my request instead of asking questions that have little or nothing to do with this.

Please dont delay.. one confirmed act of benevolence..not difficult just one act of proven benevolence..I dont expect you can deliver but the exercise was revealing... no one can prove god..not even you for all your promises....

Before you can ask what a proof of God would look like, you will have to define God.

you tell me what kind of proof you require, and why it is proof at all.

Ok. Part the Red Sea for me.
----------------------------------
not a proof of god

that would disprove god. he would have done this before if he was going to do it at all. obviously we are to come to believe in god through other means

I do have a quibble as it so happens. What makes science and the scientific method a valid system with which to prove anything?

you tell me what kind of proof you require, and why it is proof at all.
So post away and we will see if we prove or disprove anything by the end of it. :shifty:

You believe only in your senses? Yet your senses can fool you- hallucinations, chemical changes in the brain, damage to the senses- is your view of the unvirse so limited and fragile? Why put your trust so totally in the senses?

Not that I trust only my senses - but I trust them a lot more than I trust other people's words.

Trouble is, people who have direct communication with god are often described as insane... How would I know I'm not insane? I wouldn't. But that same question could be asked of any person who is religious.

It would prove it to me.

So what you're saying is that if God were provable, he would have already proven himself. So you're either admitting that you cannot prove God or that he cannot or will not prove himself.


Yup, I knew you'd hide behind epistemological minutia Science may not offer ultimate proof, but it offers sufficient proof -- after all, that pill you took the last time you were sick could have killed you, but you trusted the science that developed and tested it.

I can prove to you that I've got blue eyes. Wanna know how? Come here and look. We can convene a panel of 10,000,000 experts to form a concensus.

Now you do something similar to prove God.