(January 8, 2015 at 7:19 am)W.Smith Wrote: If we look past the issue of appearance when talking about God and instead use the word “God” just as a common dominator for all things that exists. What I mean by that is if we just use the word God to describe the existence of all things seem (and unseen, and because it is short) – What kind of proof would we need, to become convinced of the existence of God? ...What kind of proof would we need to convince us that there really is something (call it God!?) that holds everything “in” existence; that holds it all together? In other words, what would we need as evidence that God is real?If we look past appearance when talking about God (assuming the Abrahamic, Judeo-christian god), there are still other attributes which define it. Those attributes do not include 'being everything'. Your definition of 'God' as a synonym for 'everything' is not validated by the only set of definitions for God's attributes, the bible.
So the evidence would have to validate that a being, which is demonstrably existent, meets the documented attribute-definitions of 'God'.
Sum ergo sum
