(January 9, 2015 at 3:04 pm)GalacticBusDriver Wrote:(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?
Before we can even begin to discuss what forms of evidence would be acceptable to prove (or falsify) the existence of god(s), we first need a coherent definition of what a god is.
In my experience, the more clearly defined a god is, the easier it is to falsify and the more vague the definition gets, the less it matters if that god exists or not.
God is right here. (Points to crotch and wiggles).
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
