What proof do nonbelievers (to whom this question is appropriate) want for god?
What do you have?
I don't think that you can do better than demonstrate that a superhuman force exists, not that it is supernatural or created the universe. I like to discuss how science has already ruled out the god of the creationist god of the Christian Bible that wants to be known, understood, believed, obeyed, worshiped, etc.. If a falsifying finding overturned the theory of evolution, there is no other way to account for the mountains of what could then only be understood as deceptive evidence planted in the geologic strata and nesting biological hierarchies to make it seem that evolution had occurred when in fact it was an act of creation. I mention this because even then, you would not know that you had uncovered evidence of a god, since naturalistic explanations have not been ruled out, such as an alien species that was the result of abiogenesis and evolution on its own planet, and now was godlike in power.
The Intelligent Design people had the same problem. Even thought they claim to have been looking for an intelligent designer and not necessarily a god, had they found intelligent design, they never would have considered a naturalistic explanation for it such as the one I have suggested.
So given that, it may be impossible to prove that an entity is supernatural and a universe creator even if it is.
I get the impression that the theist think that skeptics need to lower their standards for belief if there is nothing that is convincing evidence of a god to those skeptics by those standards. Many of the comments I read suggest that we're merely looking for ways to bat off proofs of God, or that we had a bad experience with religion and are being irrational and unreasonable, that we should just believe their subjective reports of a god because that's how they understand the experience.
Then we tell you that our standard for belief is evidence better explained by positing the existence of a god (or any other thing - evidence of unicorns is evidence best explained by the existence of unicorns), and that no such thing exists, but that answer is dismissed out of hand. Surely the skeptic is playing some mind game, right? Nope. Our minds are conditioned to be unable to deny what the senses and reason convincingly reveal to it, and these specious arguments and second-hand experiences just aren't convincing to a mind willing and able to evaluate a compelling argument and be convinced by it.
What is god to you that you'd say its imagination?
Imagination in this context refers to ideas in the head that were created there rather than by experiencing something outside the mind. We can also imagine things that we have previously experienced, but that's not what's meant here. Is there an objective moral code out there that man can discover with his mind and senses, or is it just something imagined to exist. Is there really a god out there, or is it only imagined to exist? Does sin exist outside of the minds of men, or have they merely imagined that it does? When a believer tells me that he has mental experiences that he interprets as a received signal from some external source separate from himself, why should I rule out that he isn't just imagining that that is what his experience represents?
you can challenge personal experiences as proof of god by saying its culture created, upbringing, or maybe just an human need to find one's place (psychological)
Yes. I agree.
I'm a former Christian. We would gather in a church, smile and shake hands, sing pretty songs that life the heart, and praise God. All of this created a psychological milieu of connection and belonging, and often, one would feel a frisson easily understood to be the Holy Spirit. It was my first congregation (I became a Christian at about 18), I was in the Army, and when I was discharged and returned home, I went to a half dozen congregations that lacked that experience, and the services were uninspiring.
I ultimately understood that I had happened into a church run by an especially gifted and charismatic man in the Army, and that he, not the Holy Spirit, was the source of those feelings. I had had an experience that I was culturally encouraged to understand as confirmation of my faith, and did, until the evidence suggested otherwise. That's how I know how easy it is to get swept up in religious practices, which like cathedrals and stained glass, are designed to create that solemn and transcendent mood.
It seems to be non believers who are the ones demanding proofs for God and the reason seems to be so that they can debunk them.
I'm not. If there were a proof of God, I'd already know it, along with millions of other skeptics. I'd be able to share it with you as I can the proof of Pythagoras' theorem, or the proof that there is a sun. When I say that I need compelling evidence to believe, that doesn't mean that I expect you to provide it. I know you can't. I'm telling you why I don't believe, not asking you to change my mind.
When it comes to presenting the historical things that show God has revealed Himself in history, that whole idea has been attacked
You have no historical or other physical evidence of a god capable of convincing a skilled critical thinker. Rejecting bad arguments is not attacking you. It's reason.
Which skeptics are attacking you on this thread? Am I? If this is attacking you, what makes your dissenting comments not an attack?
You want empirical evidence as if God is an object that can be measured and studied.
Detectable in any reproducible manner would be fine. Show me anything best explained by a supernaturalisitic explanation, where naturalistic processes simply could not be responsible. That is what we require before believing.
Once again, I am not actually asking you to do that because I know that you can't. I'm telling you that because you can't, you can't convince, either.
Then you have to start practicing a spiritual teaching, because that is where the answers lay
That's where I found my atheistic answers.
Of course, you might not like that I equate introspection and self-examination with spiritual practice, because I don't use the word spiritual, and I don't indulge in the trappings like seeking a guru or playing inspirational music.
What I do is think about how I behave, and try to identify routines that aren't working well, how to modify them. How can I be a better husband and friend? How can my life be lived more effectively? What brings lasting happiness and what doesn't? I have done this for decades. This is my spiritual journey, and it has revealed no secret knowledge about the universe, just about myself and human society.
I have been tempted to ask you for months just what knowledge you have gained in your spiritual pursuits. What do you think that you are you learning using the method you have chosen not available to anybody leading an examined life?
if it made you into an atheist so be it. Personally spiritual practice formed me to who i am today, on both good and bad. But sufism ooened my eyes to seeing my own faults, on not only others "fault" or what I thought was faults in others. Actually I was projecting my own faults onto others, so what I saw was my own faults not their faults.