The answer so much depends on your understanding of what God "is."

If your belief is that he is a supernatural being, then, no, evidence will not be available to us in the earthly sphere. Science is limited to what can be observed and measured, and by its very definition the supernatural cannot be.

But if you are a pantheist, like me, you see God in everything that exists. God is nature, God is the universe.

Uummm... I was pointing out that humans invented the concept of omnipotent gods relatively recently, that is: for a long time gods weren't omnipotent. Thus it isn't MY choosing a single "scenario". — LuckyR

In the Christian bible, God is also depicted as "Almighty" in various parts. It proves the concept of God has been linked with the property of omnipotence from the ancient times. Not relatively recently.

You seem to be confused with God and the word God. They are not the same. God is the god, and his residence is in the word "God". You are not able to distinguish between the two i.e. God and the word God. They are different concept.

God manifests into the physical space and time whenever it is called by the word God. We know God by the word, but when we make up the sentences with the word God, it is not the same concept. The word God then become a metaphysical entity in the sentence where it instantiates.

Actually, you were the who demonstrated that you don't understand by arguing that you can prove that God exists by typing "g" "o" "d".

Another red herring. Bible verses is irrelevant to what I pointed out about your argument. So, how about you defend your argument instead of presenting a red herring.

Actually, you were the who demonstrated that you don't understand by arguing that you can prove that God exists by typing "g" "o" "d". — night912

So what is the part of the proof you didn't understand? Please explain your points on which point of the proof was not making sense to you providing some details and examples related to the points, and I will try to explain with more depth.

Bible verses is irrelevant to what I pointed out about your argument. — night912

Why is it irrelevant?

I don't know, could the reason for why it's irrelevant is because the "god" in your argument has nothing to do with the Christianity and its god? :chin:

Can't have a 'God'-Being as First and Fundamental; any being is a system, its constituents having to come before, so a being can't be fundamental. Look to the future for higher beings, not to the past.

I don't know, could the reason for why it's irrelevant is because the "god" in your argument has nothing to do with the Christianity and its god? :chin: — night912

It made my proof more probable, so it is very relevant. Remember no proof is 100% true especially when it is about the existence of God. If the proof collects more evidence from the popular main religious holy scriptures supporting its conclusion, then it is relevant.

You should make statements on these points with solid logical or evidential arguments. You cannot say the proof or points in the proof or other people's arguments are wrong, irrelevant or red herring, when you don't have any reason or ground in saying so. It will look as if you are blurting out your emotional state rather than making philosophical statements.

I have been making this same point to @Amad in the other thread, when he kept coming back and saying my point is just wrong and not supported without giving out his reasons, grounds or arguments why it is wrong and not supported.

I am not sure what God you are talking about, but if we talk about the Christianity, then omnipotence of God is evidently implied in the Bible describing the creation of the world and humans by the God. God can also allow people to resurrect after their deaths ... etc. It sounds too naive to say that omnipotence of God is recently invented by humans, therefore not omnipotence. It screams a loud contradiction here.

Unless you are talking about a woman you met recently as your God, it is quite reasonable to assume religious Gods are omnipotent

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Okay. Now, "what god"? All gods (that is all 10,000 of them). Are you limiting your discussion/understanding to a single god? How quaint.

Animistic deities were definitely not omnipotent and animism started over 14,000 years ago. Polytheistic gods are also not omnipotent. Omnipotence, as you noted was invented by monotheistic religions about 3500 years ago, but had only minor, regional popularity. Monotheism didn't really take off until about 1500 years ago. So yes, omnipotence of gods is a relatively recent invention.

If you decided to take up a religion, then you would be expected to read up on the principles and traditions of the religion. and study the objective definition of God, and be knowledgeable about the God.

Once you take up a religion, then that would be your religion for the rest of your life accepting all the code of conducts, principles and definition of the God

Several things:

First the overwhelming majority of theists dont "decide to take up a religion" in particular. Rather they are indoctrinated into the religion of their family from early childhood, no requirement to "read up" and study anything. What you're describing are what adult converts tend to do, but they make up a tiny fraction of the religious.

Second, even a simpleton knows that if you ask 10 members of a religion the details of their personal belief system, there will NOT be a universal concensus on codes of conduct, priciples and definitions of the qualities of their god. The beliefs of American Catholics on divorce and birth control are only the most obvious example of this reality.

Okay. Now, "what god"? All gods (that is all 10,000 of them). Are you limiting your discussion/understanding to a single god? How quaint. — LuckyR

If you insist going back to the times when there is no written records on the theistic studies, then it is not philosophical topic we would be discussing. It would be then shamanism, totems and superstitions you would be talking about. They are subjects for parapsychology, occultism, esotericism, anthropology or historical discussions at best.

There would be nothing for you to find there apart from the superstitious customs, and shamanic beliefs on the prehistorical hypotheses bereft of any meat for philosophical or logical discussions.

Several things:

First the overwhelming majority of theists dont "decide to take up a religion" in particular. Rather they are indoctrinated into the religion of their family from early childhood, no requirement to "read up" and study anything. What you're describing are what adult converts tend to do, but they make up a tiny fraction of the religious.

Second, even a simpleton knows that if you ask 10 members of a religion the details of their personal belief system, there will NOT be a universal concensus on codes of conduct, priciples and definitions of the qualities of their god. The beliefs of American Catholics on divorce and birth control are only the most obvious example of this reality. — LuckyR

My point was, for anyone to be able to engage in a logical proof of God, he / she must start with some sort of definition of God. I was expecting you to come up with your own definition of God, and premises for your own arguments for the proof of God.

If you insist going back to the times when there is no written records on the theistic studies, then it is not philosophical topic we would be discussing. It would be then shamanism, totems and superstitions you would be talking about. They are subjects for parapsychology, occultism, esotericism, anthropology or historical discussions at best.

Ah yes, the fallacy of the familiar. Predictable.

Ah yes, the fallacy of the familiar. Predictable. — LuckyR

What do you mean by this? It doesn't sound intelligible, relevant or meaningful for supporting your points. Could you further elaborate with some more detail?

In classical theism, God is not an entity, a thing, an object, or something which may or may not exist. Classical Christian metaphysics understands that for any created thing, there is a difference between what a thing is and that it is.

I.E There is a thing's essence, and its act of existence. Nothing about the essence of a blueberry bush tells you if it exists or not, so it requires an act of existence over and above its essence, its form, its source of individuality and intelligibility.

God is Being Itself, that for whom essence and existence are identical. God cannot not be. God is that-ness. God donates that-ness in limited forms and you get a creature, some constrained form of existence.

God is Being Itself, that for whom essence and existence are identical. — Bodhy

What do you mean by Being itself? How can essence and existence be identical?

In the bible it states that Sin is opposite to God. Sin is the things we do that benefit our pleasure sense, often things that have negative associations like greed making us obese or consuming too much from the land; lust, provoking us to commit crimes against fellow men, or again do something wrong where resource management is concerned; and more.

If God isn't considered a deity, which in some people's views God is not, then I would prove God by saying, it's opposite to Sin, so it would be the things we can do which prevent us from taking pain, in effect helping us to survive. These things can happen, so there is God proven.

Sin is opposite to God. — Barkon

It sounds like a grammatical mistake in the statement. God doesn't like sin, or God doesn't approve sin sounds more intelligible. Sin is opposite to God sounds unintelligible.

These things can happen, so there is God proven. — Barkon

God cannot be proven by the unintelligible, groundless and illogical statements.

God is a concept in the bible, and in the bible it says "sin is opposite to God". I'm just putting 2 and 2 together. Nothing unintelligible about it, I understand what's opposite to Sin. That's not to mention the word God is close to the word good, considering the lexis of both words. It seems the authors of the bible are referring to something related to good; in my eyes, the consistent good, that is, the higher need for beneficent behaviour where living is concerned, is what God originally meant. We need to act in accord with what's beneficent, otherwise we will fail to survive. Again, it even mentions in the bible, "sin is opposite to God".

I don't really care for the book, if anything, I'd put it in my own words. Do I regard highly that which is opposite to Sin? Yes. It is necessary for us to benefit ourselves.

God is a concept in the bible, and in the bible it says "sin is opposite to God". I'm just putting 2 and 2 together. Nothing unintelligible about it, — Barkon

Some parts of the bible need sensible interpretation using your reasoning. You cannot make up your own subjective claims using the word by word citation from the bible, and say it says in the Bible so it must be true. Remember only a statement or proposition can be true or false, when it corresponds to the fact in the real world.

When you say, Sin is opposite to God, it sounds so abstract, ambiguous and empty, no one will understand what you mean.

The concept of sin changes through time and cultures in the world, and the pleasure senses are not regarded all negative as you try to make out.

1. It doesn't make any less sense it being abstract, must we fear the abstract?
2. I never said pleasure sense is all negative, I said it has negative associations.

1. It doesn't make any less sense it being abstract, must we fear the abstract? — Barkon

When it is abstract, it must be also intelligible or logical supporting the abstractness. Being abstract, unintelligible and illogical all at once is not acceptable.

2. I never said pleasure sense is all negative, I said it has negative associations. — Barkon

The problem here is that you associated pleasure sense with sin, which is nonsense.

Pleasure is associated with sin - take greed for example - the want for more of something(some pleasurable source).

I wouldn't even call God under the meaning I have subjected it to is even abstract at all - it's simply the things we do which are good. Can be thought of as 'little good', or that which must be taken care of properly with consistent good behaviour.

Pleasure is associated with sin - take greed for example - the want for more of something(some pleasurable source). — Barkon

One example of greed is not a sufficient reason for all pleasure senses to be defined as sin. Pleasure senses are also vital factor in survival for the bodily and psychological well-being for the biological agents.

I wouldn't even call God under the meaning I have subjected it to is even abstract at all — Barkon

When you said, "opposite of sin is God", at first glance, it sounds abstract. People would wonder how God could be opposite of sin? But when they think about it further, they immediately would realise that is nonsense, illogical and unintelligible. Opposite of sin could be many different things. No one really would know what you mean by the statement. Defining God is identical with opposite of sin, and saying God is proven sounded absurd.

Well. Each to their own.

Sure, just giving out a counter argument against your argument. :)

Just like the world, God is perceived in different ways to mind.

When one sees God in his dreams, illusion or hallucination, it is a Mind-Created God.

When one reads about God in the Bible or Philosophical texts, and think about the God, it is an abstract God, or Metaphysical God.

When one goes into the computer, types GOD on the keyboard, GOD appears on the screen visible and readable, then it is a physical or material God. It is the most material and physical way one can get to God.

In the beginning there was nothing. Then something came into existence. Whatever created existence is the god that still exists. We are all literally a part of that god. The hydrogen atoms in our body are billions of years old, going back to the "Big Bang" (inaccurate but cute name).

In the beginning there was nothing. Then something came into existence. — alleybear

How did something come into existence from nothing?