A logical response to a skeptic friend of mine

(An associate of mine, an avowed skeptic, and I were discussing the topic of God and wanted proof that God existed. My oh, my....)


As a skeptic asking for proof of God, how or in what method would you demand or accept, regardless of proof or not?

If your acceptance would be of a scientific parameter, where or in what "field" of science would you look?

Conversely, if the description of God - or "A" god - is described as omnipotent, not only in characterizations but also as an "all-powerful" source / entity able to span the entire universe as well as any and all within it, how is it possible that science would be capable to measure such omnipotence?

Comparatively speaking, (with literary license at work here), one would have a greater chance in determining how many cups of water the world's oceans contain by scooping it one cup at a time!

If God - or "A" god - would not be so omnipotent, then that "god" would not BE a "God" - right?

Since the determined character or nature of "God" as one of being omnipotent, and science NOT being omnipotent, how does one justify that which is less in its presumed nature, to "expect" or "demand" accountability from that which is presumed greater in nature?

For one to embrace the man-made approach (science - all fields) toward understanding life and to it, the degree that whenever a theory is proven as fact - hailed is the fact, to the slender line of worship. It is at this point that those who rely on science to discover, prove, display - AND RELY WHOLEHEARTEDLY UPON ITS EVERY PREMISE, BECAUSE OF THE TOTALITY OF CONFIDENCE MAN HAS PLACED IN SCIENCE - what portions of life is understood, makes science a "God". Since science is man-made and man controlled, man has made himself a "God" right next to its creation - science!

So now (as history has brought forward for the past few centuries) man's made "God" - science - challenges "THE" (presumed) God.

But / and God, being omnipotent, looks at this ongoing childish folly with complete silence. Why wouldn't God be silent because of these circumstances? God's silence is the same as if some one gossiped about you. Would you do the "reactionary thing" and chase down the source of the gossip - or - would you do the "wiser thing" and remain silent, letting the gossip flames die out?

Would God BE "God" if God were reactionary? What if I did not believe you existed and demanded, asked, etc., ("prayed") in this letter for proof of your existence? Would you be reactionary and show up at my front door or consider this a childish, foolish demand by ignoring it and remain silent? If you did the former, you would prove yourself less in character than you once believed (and cause me to think less of your character as well). Would not God's character be lessened by showing proof of existence also? God would not, then, BE "God".

If you did the latter - well now- what is so wrong in God doing the exact same thing? So - why does a skeptic ask God for proof of existence? (Sometimes I wonder "to WHOM" -
the skeptic is asking the question. . . )

Going on the assumption that God is "up there" (and without going into a rather in-depth dissertation of the following question of which I could answer) why does humankind expect God to "come down" to prove existence, rather than mankind focusing "up to" God to prove its worthiness as a living entity? At this point, one wonders - "In just which direction is mankind really focused on?"

Descriptively speaking then, in what position does that leave the "agnostic," the "atheist" - or the "skeptic"?