The bold is for emphasis. Sometimes we read and gloss over words. It messes up the points we try to make.
I have a reading disorder and long posts tend to take up a lot of my focus, sorry about that.
I will explain why I ask you these questions so that I understand your argument. To me, asking for proof for the god other people define as omnipotent, powerful, and so forth is like asking an invisible man to appear as proof just because Joe Smo says it does. (This is not an indirect statement.)
In other words: I am confused.
I am essentially trying to install into people that if you can't prove your god(s) exist, then don't assert that it/they do as though it were common knowledge.
I completely understand that it is likely no theist will ever be able to provide reliable evidence for their god belief, so I settled for the above.
I forgot to quote this, but you said: "you say i can't define god and I'll say you can't prove any god belief is correct about their god."
I did not directly state this. I am direct. I asked you to describe the god that you would accept as proof of his existence. Nothing more. No hidden messages.
My apologies.
I will answer by saying that any god of any form or personality will do, so long as it can be defined as a god via standard definition, everything else is irrelevant to me.
Assuming you are talking about the Christian god, I'd ask
1. Since you dont believe peoples' experiences are from their god (christian god), and those experiences are how people interpret their proof of god, how or in what other way do you want their god to express himself to you?
Yes, yes. I know your argument is "if he cares, why doesnt he appear'' Then again, he is god. So...
He can present himself in any manner he likes.
My question to you is:
2. In what way do you want him to appear since you wont accept the validity the experiences of the believers themselves?
This is like asking a Mathmetician how to solve for the problem one plus one and he takes to one finger left and right doubles it to two and you say, "but I dont believe that. I want proof" and the Mathametician says "I can show you many ways one and one is true but what would YOU accept as proof for this answer since you dont accept mine."
1. I don't think god cares, it has shown itself to care very little. It should just prove it is real to expect people to believe in it.
I don't care as to what method it takes, it is gods burden to prove that it is god.
2. Experiences can lie, as they often do. Math does not lie, there's a methodology to math that makes it a proof and an answer at the same time.
I disagree with your analogy.
3. Well, cause he's god. He presents himself (as believers say)in many ways. If you dont take it into account how they define god and his experiences with them, then again, I have to ask in order to answer your argument what would god's nature be in order for you to be convinced he is real?
You have to go by other people's experiences if you want to understand the nature of their god. You also have to accept that maybe you dont believe god exist and accept it may be impossible to find answers to the argument you are presenting.
Please read this in full. Take your time
Omnipotence, it should be all powerful and able to convince me of such.
It is god that has to prove it is god, I wont know what i would accept as proof until fully in the situation.
If I go by other people's experiences then I would never be able to define just one god, a thousand different ones pushed into one belief? No thanks.
I don't trust people in general, I'm very inclined towards evidence, not mysticism and fancy wording.
As a matter of fact I believe no god exists, I assert that based on the lack of evidence.
If I never find answers, oh well for me. I will always raise the question because the answer isn't the fun part.
