Some questions you'll have to address:

1) Empiricism. Is it true that if we have not apprehended X with our senses, then X does not exist? Look for counterexamples.
2) Experience. If we can experience an unappehended (with our senses) X, what is the ontological status of X?
3) Evidence. What is evidence? Is an experience (even if unapprehended by our senses, or communicable to others) evidence?

Another item in the list, which is beautifully alliterative, is "Evil", but that is better left for a later stage.

I must say 1) definitely have a fallacy in the question itself.

1. Let's say there is the true target of what we are trying to interpret as X.
2. Whatever we actually interpret about X is X', and not X itself. (X' can be X, but we don't know at this point.)
3. X' has been created with the same apprehensive ability we have. It follows that X' is able to apprehend by us with our senses.
4. If X' cannot be apprehend by our senses, then interpretation of X (= X') must be a mistake.
5. Therefore X' does not exist. (This does not mean X does not exist.)

In the OP, GreyScorpio is clearly referring to X' (our interpretation of God).

In the OP, GreyScorpio is clearly referring to X' (our interpretation of God). — FLUX23

I can see X'. It's right there in the computer screen. And I can see GreyScorpio's post, in the same place, a bit above.

Since I can see them, they exist -- right?

But the real question is not about X' (our interpretation of X), but rather about X. Any interpretation of X exists because there is an interpreter who conveys the interpretation (using instruments that reach our senses, such as pixels and sounds). But what about X?

But the real question is not about X' (our interpretation of X), but rather about X — Mariner

I don't agree on that. GreyScorpio is clearly referring to our (or actually a group of people in a specific religion) interpretation of God. Not the "actual" God that supposedly exists.

I understand that you want to talk about the "actual" God, but that is not the case here, so you are basically off-topic.

Interesting conclusion, that, since the expression "interpretation of God" is not present in the OP, and he refers to "my problem with God" (not "with other people's interpretation of God", or some similar expression). But I'll let GreyScorpio be the judge of what is and is not off-topic in his thread.

Is it difficult to understand that when people created a higher being for all the things one cannot explain?
Imagine the people that saw Auroa Borealis for the first time and are without the knowledge of what it is. They ended up calling it something to do with an omnipotent being. I also believe the social security that came with all believing in a higher being for those that needed a group to feel inclusive is another valid reason for why God exists. For the matter dealing with evil- if you commit evils against what god came to you in a fiery blaze told you during a moderately high opiate trip then you can decipher who is with god and who is against god so we can choose who to burn at the stake without really knowing.

"my problem with God" (not "with other people's interpretation of God", or some similar expression). — Mariner

I do refer to God as a whole, bringing both the religious aspect in along with God himself. As he cannot be God without the religious aspect, therefore we cannot exclude it from the OP. I do believe that we cannot apprehend X by itself as there are many other qualities combined to create X. Yet, we know nothing of the qualities of God (Primary and Secondary). Therefore, can we really say that we can apprehend God? Some might say that you don't need to see God to believe in him. But that just means that they are putting full faith into something that is not real. Believing and knowing what is real/the truth are two very different things.

But the real question is not about X' (our interpretation of X), but rather about X. — Mariner

I agree with this also. The question does seem to be about X itself instead of our interpretation of it. However, an interpretation lacks a certainty of truth does it not? But it does bring about a belief. Perhaps this is what people do with the issue of God. Instead of thinking of him directly, they think of how they interpret him to be leading them to develop a belief that this is the correct thing to believe in, resulting in the existence of X. However, I disagree with this because again, A belief is not always a truth.

also believe the social security that came with all believing in a higher being for those that needed a group to feel inclusive is another valid reason for why God exists. — Donny G

I agree this may also be the case!

Therefore, can we really say that we can apprehend God? — GreyScorpio

If we can't, does that mean that X does not exist? Is "apprehensibility" a requirement for existence? (Note, you can say yes or no :D. Both possibilities are in play).

Some might say that you don't need to see God to believe in him. But that just means that they are putting full faith into something that is not real. — GreyScorpio

If we cannot see X, does that mean that it is not real?

Search for counterexamples. I'll give you a few members of the class of "stuff which cannot be seen, but which is real". Justice. Seven. British.

Believing and knowing what is real/the truth are two very different things. — GreyScorpio

Sure. An analysis of belief (an epistemological issue) must follow upon the ontological inquiry. Belief is another member of that class, incidentally.

However, an interpretation lacks a certainty of truth does it not? But it does bring about a belief. Perhaps this is what people do with the issue of God. Instead of thinking of him directly, they think of how they interpret him to be leading them to develop a belief that this is the correct thing to believe in, resulting in the existence of X. However, I disagree with this because again, A belief is not always a truth. — GreyScorpio

Well, now you are exploring "certainty", which is a third concept. We have truth, belief, and certainty, and they are quite independent. But all of this is epistemology. Ontology must come first -- we must get to the heart of what exists, how it exists, how it comes into existence and ceases to exist, before we approach the question of how do we know about it.

Of course, our only avenue into those questions is through our intellectual acts; the ontological enquiry places epistemology "on hold", but it surely must return to it, sooner or later. However, it is quite harder to deal with epistemology if we don't begin by presuming the correctness of our intellect (a naive approach) and explore the world before we turn our focus into our intellectual processes.

If we can't, does that mean that X does not exist? Is "apprehensibility" a requirement for existence? (Note, you can say yes or no :D. Both possibilities are in play). — Mariner

Indeed, I believe that if something has the ability to be apprehended, in any way, must be real and therefore exist. What reason does it have not to be. Saying something exists because it is there is not a contradiction. But, saying that something exists but isn't there is a contradiction is it not? I think of a chicken (For lack of a better example). The chicken is there and I can apprehend it. Therefore, I believe that it exists. The chicken somehow is not there when I look again. I believe that the chicken is still there. Is this a rational belief? I cannot be because this is a contradiction and is therefore impossible.

If we cannot see X, does that mean that it is not real?

Search for counterexamples. I'll give you a few members of the class of "stuff which cannot be seen, but which is real". Justice. Seven. British. — Mariner

Agreed, but these things you have listed are concepts. Things that are unreachable by the senses. Alright, this could be the explanation for God. But this would still make him a concept and that is what he will remain until we have validation.

Ontology must come first -- we must get to the heart of what exists, how it exists, how it comes into existence and ceases to exist, before we approach the question of how do we know about it. — Mariner

Indeed, So how does God exist then? If he does then he cannot cease to exist otherwise he wouldn't be God. Yet we don't know about it for certain. I have shown how God could possibly exist, and yet I still cannot approach the question of whether I am certain of this or not because there is no validation.

Vague, stock questions based on equally vague, stock assumptions that are asking for stock answers make for really, really boring and pointless threads. You're telling us that it has "only recently" come to your attention that people believe in God? Please, spare us the faux curiosity. Assume your audience has some awareness of the problems associated with the topic of God and pick a specific problem that you have spent more than twelve minutes thinking about to discuss.

I believe that if something has the ability to be apprehended, in any way, must be real and therefore exist. What reason does it have not to be. Saying something exists because it is there is not a contradiction. But, saying that something exists but isn't there is a contradiction is it not? I think of a chicken (For lack of a better example). The chicken is there and I can apprehend it. Therefore, I believe that it exists. The chicken somehow is not there when I look again. I believe that the chicken is still there. Is this a rational belief? — GreyScorpio

Well, "if A then B" (if apprehended, then existing) is a reasonable rule of thumb. But does it imply "if not-A, then not-B"? You later referred to concepts. Do they exist? How do they exist? Compare "British" and "Seven". Can we say that Seven existed before there was any mind that could count up to seven? Will it still exist if all of those minds are extinguished? And how about British (or, British-ness), did it exist before the Big Bang, and will it exist after the heat death of the universe?

We get back to how do X's exist, come into existence, and fade away.

Alright, this could be the explanation for God. But this would still make him a concept and that is what he will remain until we have validation. — GreyScorpio

"A concept" has many aspects. It exists in minds, sure, but it also has extra-mental references (if it did not, it couldn't be communicable). The "concept of God" is not merely (or even particularly) what is written in books about Him, or what is present in minds about Him, but it is also a symbol for the experiences that sustain it (the concept), and these experiences are the core of the "God-phenomenon". What must be explored is the experiences that lead people to God-talk, rather than God-talk itself.

I have shown how God could possibly exist, and yet I still cannot approach the question of whether I am certain of this or not because there is no validation. — GreyScorpio

Validation is an epistemological matter too. Look back at my first reply to you. Empiricism, Experience, and Evidence -- that should be the order of inquiry. Is reality restricted to what can be perceived with our senses? What is the status of experiences? And what counts as evidence? We are getting to the second question now.

If you don't like the topic, don't come to my thread. It's as simple as that. My problem is clearly stated in the title. I am having trouble believing why people place so much faith in this 'being' due to the reasons above. Do not bring your negativity if you have nothing to say that will further my knowledge and contributes to the thread in a positive way. Thanks.

You later referred to concepts. Do they exist? How do they exist? Compare "British" and "Seven". Can we say that Seven existed before there was any mind that could count up to seven? Will it still exist if all of those minds are extinguished? And how about British (or, British-ness), did it exist before the Big Bang, and will it exist after the heat death of the universe?

We get back to how do X's exist, come into existence, and fade away. — Mariner

I still think that these are concepts, things that do not exist to the extent that they are apprehend able. I cannot go over to the corner of my room and pick up a seven and place it in my hands. I cannot go and push British and I cannot stab justice (not a metaphor).

Validation is an epistemological matter too. Look back at my first reply to you. Empiricism, Experience, and Evidence -- that should be the order of inquiry. Is reality restricted to what can be perceived with our senses? What is the status of experiences? And what counts as evidence? We are getting to the second question now. — Mariner

Sorry, I am straying from the main point a tad. I just feel as though some sort of validation is in order for us to put so much faith in this 'being'. I think, yes, reality is something that is restricted to our senses because it has no truth or certainty value, again. (This may be a stray). I am seeing your point and agree with you to some extent. But this still doesn't prove why validation or apprehension of God must be excluded from the question of whether he exists or not.

I still think that these are concepts, things that do not exist to the extent that they are apprehend able. — GreyScorpio

Sure, but they exist in some other way. right? They don't exist "to the extent of...", but, somehow, they exist. Right?

"Reality is not composed only of stuff that can be grasped by the senses." Can you agree with this sentence? Note the dilemma here -- if you disagree, you will basically shut down communication (which is done through concepts which cannot be grasped by the senses), but if you agree, then you'll have to explore the gradient of reality; some things are "more real" than others.

Note that this is still far from looking at the matter of validation and evidence. You must explore this situation by yourself; I won't be able to give you validation, or evidence, that shows that reality has a gradient. All I can do is to form some sentences that plant the seeds of inquiries into your mind.

I can just as easily say that if you don't like my comment, don't respond to it. So you're a hypocrite. You also bring up, both tersely and nonchalantly, several different problems, not just one. But let's take just one: the problem of evil. "Why would God allow evil?" you ask. If you were really interested in knowing the possible answers to that question, you would know that there is a body of literature on this topic going back literally thousands of years that you could try to acquaint yourself with, if only at first by consulting things like encyclopedias. Then, if you have more specific questions you could come here and raise them. Starting a thread by asking, "Does God exist? Can I see him? What about that problem of evil?" in rapid fire succession, and without clarifying or defining to any adequate degree of specificity what God is, what evil is, what the nature of experience is, etc, is dropping the reader in the middle of the ocean and telling him to swim for land.

1. Let's say there is the true target of what we are trying to interpret as X.
2. Whatever we actually interpret about X is X', and not X itself. (X' can be X, but we don't know at this point.)
3. X' has been created with the same apprehensive ability we have. It follows that X' is able to apprehend by us with our senses.
4. If X' cannot be apprehend by our senses, then interpretation of X (= X') must be a mistake.
5. Therefore X' does not exist. (This does not mean X does not exist.) — FLUX23

This is complete nonsense. First, in number 2 you allow that an interpretation could be the thing itself, which is impossible. Then in number 3 you state that the interpretation, X', must be apprehensible with the senses, but this is nonsensical. How would you apprehend with the senses an interpretation?

But, saying that something exists but isn't there is a contradiction is it not? — GreyScorpio

"There" implies a particular spatial location. But concepts are apprehended without having any particular spatial location, so it is incorrect to say that something must be "there" to be apprehended, and therefore must be "there" to exist. We apprehend concepts through the means of sensible objects, which are "there", but the concept which is apprehended is not there. This is called abstraction.

Agreed, but these things you have listed are concepts. Things that are unreachable by the senses. Alright, this could be the explanation for God. But this would still make him a concept and that is what he will remain until we have validation. — GreyScorpio

God is known to have the same type of existence as a concept, i.e. immaterial, but this does not mean that God is a concept. A concept is one type of immaterial object, the type produced by the human mind. Plato and the Neo-Platonists demonstrated the need to assume other immaterial objects, Forms, which are not themselves human concepts. So God is like these, an immaterial object which is independent from the human mind, not a concept.

I just feel as though some sort of validation is in order for us to put so much faith in this 'being'. — GreyScorpio

It is a complex, metaphysical, ontological issue, one which is not readily understood. The issue must be approached with a philosophical attitude, a mind which is open to the forcefulness of logic, despite what one's intuition might tell oneself. To state it simply, Aristotle demonstrated with logic, that "what" an object will be, must precede the existence of that object. This is because the object comes into existence as the object which it is rather than as something else. The existence of an object is not the feat of randomness. Therefore the "form" of the object must exist prior to the material object itself, in order that when the material object exists, it exists as the object which it is, and no something else. The Neo-Platonists used this principle to support the idea of separate Forms, having immaterial existence, being necessarily prior to material existence.

I agree with this also. The question does seem to be about X itself instead of our interpretation of it. — GreyScorpio

Which is impossible because then you are implying that the premise X' = X. Any interpretation arising from God is X' in any religion and disproving this does not disprove X at all. Then either the OP question itself needs to be revised so that we can actually talk about X like you intended, or that we just talk about how X' is wrong.

This is complete nonsense. First, in number 2 you allow that an interpretation could be the thing itself, which is impossible. Then in number 3 you state that the interpretation, X', must be apprehensible with the senses, but this is nonsensical. How would you apprehend with the senses an interpretation? — Metaphysician Undercover

Let's make this clear.

First, an interpretation can be, by accident or not, the thing itself. If you deny this, then every single thing that every single person on this forum says, are misunderstanding. I hope that is not true.

If a god really do exist, then he can be deistic, materialistic, or omnipotent, and etc. We don't know that. Whatever it is, we just name it X. However, OP provides a type of God in certain religion (most likely Abrahamic God). We name this type of interpretation of God as X'. Then we comprehend the properties of X' and can draw out conclusion that there are flaws and contradiction in its properties. Thus, X' can be proven nonexistent. That is independent of whether X exist or not.

I am claiming that this thread fails to account for the "actual" God (X) as it only talks about "one interpretation" of God (X'). But the OP and several others are mixing X' and X up and trying to prove or disprove X by arguing existence or nonexistence of X'. This is a fallacy (as Mariner mentioned). I am wondering how they are going to talk about X with a OP like this.

First, an interpretation can be, by accident or not, the thing itself. If you deny this, then every single thing that every single person on this forum says, are misunderstanding. I hope that is not true. — FLUX23

An interpretation is an explanation or description of the meaning of something. How can that be the thing itself. To say what something means, is not the thing itself. An interpretation may be judged as an understanding or it may be judged as a misunderstanding, but this is irrelevant to the fact that an interpretation cannot be the thing itself which is being interpreted.

If a god really do exist, then he can be deistic, materialistic, or omnipotent, and etc. We don't know that. Whatever it is, we just name it X. However, OP provides a type of God in certain religion (most likely Abrahamic God). We name this type of interpretation of God as X'. Then we comprehend the properties of X' and can draw out conclusion that there are flaws and contradiction in its properties. Thus, X' can be proven nonexistent. That is independent of whether X exist or not. — FLUX23

Let's say that there is an existent thing referred to as X. If an interpretation of this thing contains contradictions, that does not mean that the thing does not exist, it means that there is a faulty interpretation, a misunderstanding. It is nonsense to assert that the faulty interpretation indicates that the thing does not exist. If I say that my shirt is blue, when it is really green, because I am colour blind, this does not mean that my shirt doesn't exist.

I am claiming that this thread fails to account for the "actual" God (X) as it only talks about "one interpretation" of God (X'). But the OP and several others are mixing X' and X up and trying to prove or disprove X by arguing existence or nonexistence of X'. This is a fallacy (as Mariner mentioned). I am wondering how they are going to talk about X with a OP like this. — FLUX23

I don't understand your point. All we have to go on, with respect to any existing things, is our interpretations of those things. According to your claim then, we cannot prove the existence of anything, and this is probably true, we take the existence of things for granted. But that's just extreme skepticism, to claim that we can't prove the existence of anything. However, if we are talking about an "interpretation", rather than a fiction, then it is assumed that the thing exists, in order that there is an interpretation of that thing. Perhaps you think that we should determine more clearly whether we are talking about an interpretation or a fiction?

I don't believe that there is enough evidence for us to place complete trust and faith in this being that we have not seen, heard, or even experienced. — GreyScorpio

Nor do I believe there is enough evidence for us to assume there isn't a supernatural entity of which we would call God.

Methodological naturalism requires conditional atheism, but I have my doubts about metaphysical naturalism. It seems almost as much of an extraordinary claim to say there is no God, whatsoever, as to say that there is a God.

Probably the best position to hold is disinterested agnosticism. See where inquiry takes us and evaluate as we go along. But let's not pretend either theism or atheism are motivated purely by rational deliberation, because almost certainly they are not and indeed, if I am correct, cannot.

An interpretation is an explanation or description of the meaning of something. How can that be the thing itself. To say what something means, is not the thing itself. An interpretation may be judged as an understanding or it may be judged as a misunderstanding, but this is irrelevant to the fact that an interpretation cannot be the thing itself which is being interpreted. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree that my wording was not good. What I meant was the resulting object (X') derived from the interpretation of the evidence produced by supposedly existent actual object (X).
Maybe I should've said "interpreted God" or something.

Let's say that there is an existent thing referred to as X. If an interpretation of this thing contains contradictions, that does not mean that the thing does not exist, it means that there is a faulty interpretation, a misunderstanding. It is nonsense to assert that the faulty interpretation indicates that the thing does not exist. If I say that my shirt is blue, when it is really green, because I am colour blind, this does not mean that my shirt doesn't exist. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is pretty much rephrasing what I've said. I don't understand what you disagree.

I don't understand your point. All we have to go on, with respect to any existing things, is our interpretations of those things. According to your claim then, we cannot prove the existence of anything, and this is probably true, we take the existence of things for granted. But that's just extreme skepticism, to claim that we can't prove the existence of anything. — Metaphysician Undercover

Who said we can't prove the existence of anything?

For example, when we see Indica rice, we know that it is Indica rice. This is because we have defined Indica rice. People mistaking Indica rice as Japonica rice is because such people have no clue of the definition, and this is not the same as misinterpretation.

This is different from god(s). First of all, no one actually met a god (some claims so but without evidence). We don't even know if it exists. The concept came before observation of the actual object (unlike Indica rice). For this reason, the definition of god comes from the complete opposite approach than how we defined Indica rice. The definition of god is not definite at all because we have plenty of religion out there.

First of all, no one actually met a god (some claims so but without evidence). — FLUX23

Lots and lots of people claim so and present what they consider to be evidence. But whether what they consider to be evidence is, indeed, evidence is a matter for inquiry -- it is not a given. Which is why part of the problem is an examination of what is evidence and what is not.

(Note that it is possible, and even very common, for evidence to be ambiguous, and also for it to support contradictory theories).

The concept came before observation of the actual object (unlike Indica rice).

Nope, the "concept of God" certainly developed later than the experience of gods -- and any experience of gods is (in the viewpoint of the subject) "observation of the actual object".

Lots and lots of people claim so and present what they consider to be evidence. But whether what they consider to be evidence is, indeed, evidence is a matter for inquiry -- it is not a given. Which is why part of the problem is an examination of what is evidence and what is not.

(Note that it is possible, and even very common, for evidence to be ambiguous, and also for it to support contradictory theories). — Mariner

You are right.

But for me, most of the "evidence" that they claim to be as one is expedient, otherwise downright wrong. One example is "probability". Probability is probably one of the common defense that I see people use to justify intelligent design (usually by a god) because the chance of the Earth happening is extremely slim. This is such a bad argument because 1) they seem not to understand what "probability" (precisely, what unit) they are talking about, and 2) they are lacking basic knowledge in statistics and is making a hilariously wrong interpretation of probability.
I am surprised especially when one of those person was studying statistics. So like you said, one can use it to support contradictory theories. Honestly, to me, what they do is more like a double standard.

That is of course, one example. I am definitely not going to go through tons of other examples because I don't have the willpower and time to do so.

Nope, the "concept of God" certainly developed later than the experience of gods -- and any experience of gods is (in the viewpoint of the subject) "observation of the actual object". — Mariner

This is begging the question. Your conclusion essentially implies that god(s) were actually experienced by people, which requires as a premise that god(s) actually do exist. This is circular reasoning.

I'm not going to argue with you, I haven't been hostile to you or anyone else. So you continue throwing your pointless tantrum, and I'll continue having conversations with these other people who are actually teaching me things rather than being dicks. Thanks.

I'm not going to argue with you — GreyScorpio

And yet you are. Irony abounds with you.

I don't believe that there is enough evidence for us to place complete trust and faith in this being that we have not seen, heard, or even experienced. I am interested on all of your views, don't be afraid to comment. — GreyScorpio

One point that is often overlooked in this secular age is that it seems widely assumed that the Bible, and texts of religious revelation from other cultures, are to be disregarded as evidence or testimony, and then the question asked anew, as if nobody had ever asked it before, as if there were literally no evidence in the sense of testimony and history.

I think, from such a naive perspective, there would be no reason whatever to believe in anything divine, unless you yourself had some kind of epiphany or vision which was sufficient to convince you of its reality. And they are known to happen - an example - but they're exceedingly rare, and also in the absence of a broader interpretive context, they might not even be lastingly meaningful.

So what is it you're wondering about placing your trust in? If you approach a Christian church, they will have a good deal more than simply a gesture towards some alleged 'invisible being'. That contextualises and grounds the idea in history and in a community of faith. From within that perspective, there are reasonable grounds for faith. If, for example, one really believes the resurrection narrative, then it is grounds to believe that there is some cause for that to have happened.

Whereas asking the question in the abstract, as it has been here, simply reduces it to abstractions.

What is lost here (in the abstract existence of some abstract God) is pretty much everything God is good for ---- away from systematic philosophy. I can cook up a new abstract God every evening if anyone's buying. Of course some ideologists do in fact make a living this way, but they seem to have no choice but to sell a less potent if more plausible substitute. We might call it "pep talk." I don't resent the existence of this pep talk. That's largely what life-philosophy is, even if it's grim like Schopenhauer's. It's still an ideology that functions like aspirin or caffeine.

But the God that's not just ideological preference is the embarrassing God, the God of miracle and providence, the anti-scientific God. In short, this personal God that bends the rules of nature is the God whose existence matters or not, at least to the non-philosopher. We annoying philosophical types have all written (and continue to write) our own precious little theologies within the limits of the usual laws of nature. (Not too many around here challenge science on its own turf. Instead there's just gang war over the margins.)

I sit and wonder how and why would it be possible for 'an all powerful being' to exist if we, ourselves, have not seen him. — GreyScorpio

Is the God which you are trying to prove one that exists inside or external to the natural, physical world? For example, the Ancient Greeks believed in Gods which existed in the physical world along with them (on Mount Olympus), whereas the Christian God is believed to exist outside the universe (or at least partially such).

If your answer is the latter, then it is impossible to prove the existence of such a God (or lack thereof), because he/she exists outside of our observable universe. Science cannot understand things beyond our universe, as all its laws may be no longer applicable. In other words, Science can only help us understand everything in the physical, natural world (such as the existence of Gods within our world, which have been disproved), but it cannot reveal anything about the external world to our universe (if it exists).

Thus comes the problem with evil, Why would he allow evil to exist if he is an 'all-loving being' it would be expected that he would want the best for us all, and therefore eliminating all evil. — GreyScorpio

Have a look at this: The Three Spectra of Morality.

Basically, it poses that there exists a hierarchy of spectra through which certain events/actions are perceived to be good or evil. We, as Humans, use Sociological Morality, and are unable to comprehend Omniscient Morality (that being the uppermost echelon of ethics), which, presumably, is the morality possessed by an all-knowing God.

As such, the 'evils' which we see in the world could possibly actually be 'good' events in the long run (even if only minimally) when perceived from an omniscient perspective, with us as Humans being unable to interpret them as being so because we are not omniscient. Hence, we must use our own, flawed morality to perceive these events/actions, and thus come to the realisation of them being evil.

Who said we can't prove the existence of anything?

For example, when we see Indica rice, we know that it is Indica rice. This is because we have defined Indica rice. People mistaking Indica rice as Japonica rice is because such people have no clue of the definition, and this is not the same as misinterpretation. — FLUX23

Sorry for the delay in response Flux. What I meant here is not that we haven't defined what it means to be X (this or that type of rice, or whatever), but that we haven't defined what it means to exist. That's why we can't prove the existence of anything, we just take it for granted that things exist. So we see this or that type of rice, and we assume that these things exist, but we have no way of proving that they exist, because we have no specific definition of what conditions must be fulfilled to qualify as existing.

This is different from god(s). First of all, no one actually met a god (some claims so but without evidence). We don't even know if it exists. The concept came before observation of the actual object (unlike Indica rice). For this reason, the definition of god comes from the complete opposite approach than how we defined Indica rice. The definition of god is not definite at all because we have plenty of religion out there. — FLUX23

So the point made already, is that things like concepts exist, but we don't meet them, we don't even sense them at all. And a concept need not be derived from an actual object. We have the concept of a circle, and pi, which relates the circumference to the diameter. But there is no actual circle, precise to the definition of pi, which expresses an irrational ratio.

In my own thinking, the answer to the question "does a God exist?" depends on how 'God' is being defined, on what we are using the word to mean.

1. If 'God' is used in the manner of natural theology to refer to whatever the answers might be to the biggest metaphysical questions -- 'Why is there something rather than nothing?', 'What was the first cause?', 'What is the fundamental substrate of being itself?' 'Where did the universe's rational order come from?' -- then I would have to call myself an agnostic. I don't know the answers and what's more, I don't think that any human being does. I'm not convinced that the 'something-from-nothing' question is even answerable in principle.

2. If 'God' is used to refer to particular figures from human religious mythology, Allah, Yahweh, Krishna or whoever, I just think that it's exceedingly unlikely that whatever the ultimate principles of reality might be, that they will correspond to one of these personalized anthropomorphic figures. So when it comes to the deities of the religions, I'm essentially an atheist I guess.