Working backwards.

[Aoi Magi]

What approach MK? Yes one can assume a "god" exists, but from that point on, what attributes that being has is entirely subject to ones own imagination, now in the third step looking for a religion and sect matching this preconceived notion is nothing but "confirmation bias". How can one accept a biased view as proof?

You have to agree with this much.

The Creator would know how to proves things beyond subjectivity and make a case for his will, his light, his proofs, his design, his plan.

You can accuse every human of not being able to make the case, but, you cannot accuse the Creator of that. 

Again, which makes sense, instead of waiting to believers to come prove the right religion, you search yourself. And you play the odds, you eliminate highly irrational ones and keep an open mind on one's that are possibly true. You don't just let majority claim a religion by the fact they happen to testify to a sect more then others who believe in that religion, but you see the arguments for each sect, and perhaps in that, you will find true chosen teachers that God has chosen and who compliment the revelation, that you begin to understand revelation and see the truth. 

I'm not saying you even to give this a high probability of being true. All I'm saying is consider a more serious approach to letting God prove his case and the case for his true religion if there is one.

Yes, I agree till the point that if a creator exists only he should be able to properly present his case and am open to such presentation.

But the thing is all of the views being presented before me are being done by "humans", not by the creator himself. These humans have presented claims to have been chosen or appointed by this said creator, but as you yourself understand, these people cannot and have not presented a remotely convincing case yet. Think about it for a bit, even in your religion, is god making a case for himself or is a human acting as the intermediary and making claims on the supposed creators behalf?

[Mystic]

You have to agree with this much.

The Creator would know how to proves things beyond subjectivity and make a case for his will, his light, his proofs, his design, his plan.

You can accuse every human of not being able to make the case, but, you cannot accuse the Creator of that. 

Again, which makes sense, instead of waiting to believers to come prove the right religion, you search yourself. And you play the odds, you eliminate highly irrational ones and keep an open mind on one's that are possibly true. You don't just let majority claim a religion by the fact they happen to testify to a sect more then others who believe in that religion, but you see the arguments for each sect, and perhaps in that, you will find true chosen teachers that God has chosen and who compliment the revelation, that you begin to understand revelation and see the truth. 

I'm not saying you even to give this a high probability of being true. All I'm saying is consider a more serious approach to letting God prove his case and the case for his true religion if there is one.

Yes, I agree till the point that if a creator exists only he should be able to properly present his case and am open to such presentation.

But the thing is all of the views being presented before me are being done by "humans", not by the creator himself. These humans have presented claims to have been chosen or appointed by this said creator, but as you yourself understand, these people cannot and have not presented a remotely convincing case yet. Think about it for a bit, even in your religion, is god making a case for himself or is a human acting as the intermediary and making claims on the supposed creators behalf?

This getting into semantics of what is considered God's direct guidance and what is considered not his guidance.

I would give a chance of those claiming to be intermediates between God and us. If they cannot show any wisdom of why they would be intermediates and cannot prove it, they you can let them be and even argue against them.

But without giving them even a chance, and just dismissing them because there happens to be mathematically more wrong religions, is lazy. If there is a true religon, most religions would be false. If there is no religion that is true, only one more religion would be false.

Therefore talking about majority of religions or believers of different religions not presenting a good case, if you look it objectively, doesn't really mean much.

[Jesster]

If there is a true religion, those claiming is to be true, would be claiming it while others would be claiming false religions to be true.

Giving it consideration means what exactly? How did you study? Did you break down questions into smaller questions. Did you investigate those questions? Did you make notes when studying a holy book? Did you try to see things in there?

Tell me how you approached it.

I approached it by reading into the texts with any interpretation I could find, asking questions wherever I could, investigating and evaluating any religious claim I came across, and really attempting to connect with the divine beings that were supposed to exist. I even actively believed for a while until it ended up going nowhere. Nothing came of any of it in the end.

But that's probably not enough for you, is it? If you want me to try anything at this point, give me something solid to work with. Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me.

[Harry Nevis]

There certainly is no proof for god.

What is for certain is there no proof for that claim of yours. At least, none presented by anyone here.

Well, prove him wrong, hotshot. Tell us what you consider "proof". Hell, if it's proven, there must be objective, testable evidence.  Throw in some of that, also.

[Mystic]

If there is a true religion, those claiming is to be true, would be claiming it while others would be claiming false religions to be true.

Giving it consideration means what exactly? How did you study? Did you break down questions into smaller questions. Did you investigate those questions? Did you make notes when studying a holy book? Did you try to see things in there?

Tell me how you approached it.

I approached it by reading into the texts with any interpretation I could find, asking questions wherever I could, investigating and evaluating any religious claim I came across, and really attempting to connect with the divine beings that were supposed to exist. I even actively believed for a while until it ended up going nowhere. Nothing came of any of it in the end.

But that's probably not enough for you, is it? If you want me to try anything at this point, give me something solid to work with. Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me.

Ok I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but as you grow is there a limit to what you can learn? Is there questions you might not have posed? Is there angles you have not thought about?

I would give this approach a retry time to time in life. Never say, I already asked all the right questions, and there was no proper answer.

I believe the family of the reminder is best suited to answer the questions of humanity, for they not only know the answers, but are most eloquent in explaining them. I cannot convince you to search for what they say...all I can say, is to give religion a chance.

[Harry Nevis]

There certainly is no proof for god.

What is for certain is there no proof for that claim of yours. At least, none presented by anyone here.

 In fact what a god is supposed to be has never really been explained to me.
What is it made of?
What does it look like?
How does it do these magical things its supposed to do?

I want well supported and peer reviewed scientific articles to back up anything you might put.

So you will want Scientists to prove and explain all these things to you, but won't give the Creator a chance to speak by closing your ears to what potentially is from him?

Please see the OP, and see the argument I made for the case, of why I think Atheists should consider this approach.

Scientists are proven to exist.  And who could stop your "creator" from speaking if he wanted to?

---

What is more trivial than a thing that has so little impact on my existence that don't think it exists at all.

God by definition would be a being that ought to be valued the most, and hence, the least trivial thing in the world, and in fact the most non-trivial thing in the world. 
And you would relate to him, in that your value would be linked in how you value that being. And your value is linked to your purpose, and hence, your purpose would be linked to the Divine.

---

What is more trivial than a thing that has so little impact on my existence that don't think it exists at all.

God by definition would be a being that ought to be valued the most, and hence, the least trivial thing in the world, and in fact the most non-trivial thing in the world. 
And you would relate to him, in that your value would be linked in how you value that being. And your value is linked to your purpose, and hence, your purpose would be linked to the Divine.

By whose definition?

[Mystic]

What is for certain is there no proof for that claim of yours. At least, none presented by anyone here.

Well, prove him wrong, hotshot. Tell us what you consider "proof". Hell, if it's proven, there must be objective, testable evidence.  Throw in some of that, also.

What if myself am need of guidance regarding the questions he asks? What if I need proofs? I am arguing in this thread, give the Creator, if he exists, a chance. Give those claiming to be intermediates an ear seeking the truth, and don't accept things without proof. That is all.

[Jesster]

Ok I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but as you grow is there a limit to what you can learn? Is there questions you might not have posed? Is there angles you have not thought about?

I would give this approach a retry time to time in life. Never say, I already asked all the right questions, and there was no proper answer.

I believe the family of the reminder is best suited to answer the questions of humanity, for they not only know the answers, but are most eloquent in explaining them. I cannot convince you to search for what they say...all I can say, is to give religion a chance.

Yes, I am always learning. I prefer to fill my head with the truth instead of woo, though.

[Harry Nevis]

What approach MK? Yes one can assume a "god" exists, but from that point on, what attributes that being has is entirely subject to ones own imagination, now in the third step looking for a religion and sect matching this preconceived notion is nothing but "confirmation bias". How can one accept a biased view as proof?

You have to agree with this much.

The Creator would know how to proves things beyond subjectivity and make a case for his will, his light, his proofs, his design, his plan.

You can accuse every human of not being able to make the case, but, you cannot accuse the Creator of that. 

Again, which makes sense, instead of waiting to believers to come prove the right religion, you search yourself. And you play the odds, you eliminate highly irrational ones and keep an open mind on one's that are possibly true. You don't just let majority claim a religion by the fact they happen to testify to a sect more then others who believe in that religion, but you see the arguments for each sect, and perhaps in that, you will find true chosen teachers that God has chosen and who compliment the revelation, that you begin to understand revelation and see the truth. 

I'm not saying you even to give this a high probability of being true. All I'm saying is consider a more serious approach to letting God prove his case and the case for his true religion if there is one.

Tried that in my younger years.  Nothing happened.  But, somehow, I think you'll come up with some crap that says it proves your point.

[Mystic]

You have to agree with this much.

The Creator would know how to proves things beyond subjectivity and make a case for his will, his light, his proofs, his design, his plan.

You can accuse every human of not being able to make the case, but, you cannot accuse the Creator of that. 

Again, which makes sense, instead of waiting to believers to come prove the right religion, you search yourself. And you play the odds, you eliminate highly irrational ones and keep an open mind on one's that are possibly true. You don't just let majority claim a religion by the fact they happen to testify to a sect more then others who believe in that religion, but you see the arguments for each sect, and perhaps in that, you will find true chosen teachers that God has chosen and who compliment the revelation, that you begin to understand revelation and see the truth. 

I'm not saying you even to give this a high probability of being true. All I'm saying is consider a more serious approach to letting God prove his case and the case for his true religion if there is one.

Tried that in my younger years.  Nothing happened.  But, somehow, I think you'll come up with some crap that says it proves your point.

See my reply to Jester.