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

wrong. his image refers to our free will, our mastery of our world.

Oh, I see. So now we were not made in his image but his perverbial image. So wait.. How did you come to this conclusion? Funny, I don't remember that definition in the bible.

Who said I took the bible litreally.

So the bible is subject to your interpretation? If that is the case then you cannot prove God because you don't even have a constant. You may be able to prove what you think God is but that is by NO means a proof of God the constant.

who said a book sets the constant for the enitre universe? whos being nonsensical now?

Description...describe your god...please... so we can ascertain our necessity for evidence

To prove a god without description....this is after a bottle of red...circumstantial evidence is it appropriate ? Circumstantial evidence is all we have this as has been exposed by the lack of real evidence..
What is circumstantial and is it relevant....our position in the cosmos..our ability to ponder without evidence...our humanity...our inability to not discount the soul or prove our conscious mind is not party to our brain...our inability to understand our desire for eternity...why do we philosophize for no apparent benefit...these things give me a clue that not everything is so clearly defined..excuse my red wine thinking..

Come now, alcohol can make for very interesting, though incoherent, conversation.

it helps if both people are drunk, and I haven't yet had the pleasure this evening.

are you saying im talking interesting hollocks? got to go to the cellar now to find another asncient red....

My proof is not of the kind you will like. But it is proof established by a rational logic. Answer my questions and we will see.

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:

If it is a proof no one will mind.



I want proof established by a rational logic. Because it is that type that you consider proof.

Have we gotten anywhere at all here?? In 12 pages of this thread??

You began the thread with the following:

I will prove god's existence if you tell me what kind of proof you require, and why it is proof at all.

You have been offered a whole list of the kinds of proof various people require and why we consider it proof. But you haven't once accepted your own challenge to prove god's existence.

All you're doing is trying to undermine the kind of proof we say we require, rather than fulfilling your half of the challenge.

Are you intentionally trying to waste everyone's time?

No but there have been about three actual responses meeting the terms of the thread, and only one that did it in any depth, and none of my objections to any of them were answered.