Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
I think I've said this to you before: I don't really understand the need for some people to make an absolute statement on the existence of God. Making such a statement requires that we truly understand what God is, and it is far more probable that such a being is beyond our collective comprehension at the moment. So the question is: What piece of evidence would exist as proof of God's existence? How do we know that it would be proof?

Assuming that we can currently understand God strikes me as hubris, personally.
I'm not sure what would suffice as proof; perhaps the whole universe would have to pass some kind of Turing test to prove that there IS a higher agency. As for evidence, some well-documented examples of supernormal phenomena would be a good start. If you believe in God-the-abstract-being, presumably you believe It has some effect on our physical world, no? That's why physical evidence is needed. It's pointless to argue about an abstract god that has NO effect (and never has) on our physical world, but nobody really seems to think that. If the God you're talking about has no physical properties, It still has to physically manifest itself (even if only in the creation of the universe) to be worthy of any debate.

I'm still not understanding the objection. "There's no evidence for God or gods, and there's no evidence for unicorns, therefore each is as likely as the other" is my argument. You're saying the comparison is false. Then what, if not evidence, makes God more likely than unicorns? Or, if something satisfies the criterion of evidence to you, what is it?

It strikes me as hubris to say that God is all powerful and all knowing, and then presume to know His desires. I'm not saying that's you -- it's more of a religious thing. I'm just saying.