The answer so much depends on your understanding of what God "is."

If your belief is that he is a supernatural being, then, no, evidence will not be available to us in the earthly sphere. Science is limited to what can be observed and measured, and by its very definition the supernatural cannot be.

But if you are a pantheist, like me, you see God in everything that exists. God is nature, God is the universe.

Uummm... I was pointing out that humans invented the concept of omnipotent gods relatively recently, that is: for a long time gods weren't omnipotent. Thus it isn't MY choosing a single "scenario". — LuckyR

In the Christian bible, God is also depicted as "Almighty" in various parts. It proves the concept of God has been linked with the property of omnipotence from the ancient times. Not relatively recently.

You seem to be confused with God and the word God. They are not the same. God is the god, and his residence is in the word "God". You are not able to distinguish between the two i.e. God and the word God. They are different concept.

God manifests into the physical space and time whenever it is called by the word God. We know God by the word, but when we make up the sentences with the word God, it is not the same concept. The word God then become a metaphysical entity in the sentence where it instantiates.

Actually, you were the who demonstrated that you don't understand by arguing that you can prove that God exists by typing "g" "o" "d".

Another red herring. Bible verses is irrelevant to what I pointed out about your argument. So, how about you defend your argument instead of presenting a red herring.

Actually, you were the who demonstrated that you don't understand by arguing that you can prove that God exists by typing "g" "o" "d". — night912

So what is the part of the proof you didn't understand? Please explain your points on which point of the proof was not making sense to you providing some details and examples related to the points, and I will try to explain with more depth.

Bible verses is irrelevant to what I pointed out about your argument. — night912

Why is it irrelevant?

I don't know, could the reason for why it's irrelevant is because the "god" in your argument has nothing to do with the Christianity and its god? :chin:

Can't have a 'God'-Being as First and Fundamental; any being is a system, its constituents having to come before, so a being can't be fundamental. Look to the future for higher beings, not to the past.

I don't know, could the reason for why it's irrelevant is because the "god" in your argument has nothing to do with the Christianity and its god? :chin: — night912

It made my proof more probable, so it is very relevant. Remember no proof is 100% true especially when it is about the existence of God. If the proof collects more evidence from the popular main religious holy scriptures supporting its conclusion, then it is relevant.

You should make statements on these points with solid logical or evidential arguments. You cannot say the proof or points in the proof or other people's arguments are wrong, irrelevant or red herring, when you don't have any reason or ground in saying so. It will look as if you are blurting out your emotional state rather than making philosophical statements.

I have been making this same point to @Amad in the other thread, when he kept coming back and saying my point is just wrong and not supported without giving out his reasons, grounds or arguments why it is wrong and not supported.

I am not sure what God you are talking about, but if we talk about the Christianity, then omnipotence of God is evidently implied in the Bible describing the creation of the world and humans by the God. God can also allow people to resurrect after their deaths ... etc. It sounds too naive to say that omnipotence of God is recently invented by humans, therefore not omnipotence. It screams a loud contradiction here.

Unless you are talking about a woman you met recently as your God, it is quite reasonable to assume religious Gods are omnipotent

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Okay. Now, "what god"? All gods (that is all 10,000 of them). Are you limiting your discussion/understanding to a single god? How quaint.

Animistic deities were definitely not omnipotent and animism started over 14,000 years ago. Polytheistic gods are also not omnipotent. Omnipotence, as you noted was invented by monotheistic religions about 3500 years ago, but had only minor, regional popularity. Monotheism didn't really take off until about 1500 years ago. So yes, omnipotence of gods is a relatively recent invention.

If you decided to take up a religion, then you would be expected to read up on the principles and traditions of the religion. and study the objective definition of God, and be knowledgeable about the God.

Once you take up a religion, then that would be your religion for the rest of your life accepting all the code of conducts, principles and definition of the God

Several things:

First the overwhelming majority of theists dont "decide to take up a religion" in particular. Rather they are indoctrinated into the religion of their family from early childhood, no requirement to "read up" and study anything. What you're describing are what adult converts tend to do, but they make up a tiny fraction of the religious.

Second, even a simpleton knows that if you ask 10 members of a religion the details of their personal belief system, there will NOT be a universal concensus on codes of conduct, priciples and definitions of the qualities of their god. The beliefs of American Catholics on divorce and birth control are only the most obvious example of this reality.

Okay. Now, "what god"? All gods (that is all 10,000 of them). Are you limiting your discussion/understanding to a single god? How quaint. — LuckyR

If you insist going back to the times when there is no written records on the theistic studies, then it is not philosophical topic we would be discussing. It would be then shamanism, totems and superstitions you would be talking about. They are subjects for parapsychology, occultism, esotericism, anthropology or historical discussions at best.

There would be nothing for you to find there apart from the superstitious customs, and shamanic beliefs on the prehistorical hypotheses bereft of any meat for philosophical or logical discussions.

Several things:

First the overwhelming majority of theists dont "decide to take up a religion" in particular. Rather they are indoctrinated into the religion of their family from early childhood, no requirement to "read up" and study anything. What you're describing are what adult converts tend to do, but they make up a tiny fraction of the religious.

Second, even a simpleton knows that if you ask 10 members of a religion the details of their personal belief system, there will NOT be a universal concensus on codes of conduct, priciples and definitions of the qualities of their god. The beliefs of American Catholics on divorce and birth control are only the most obvious example of this reality. — LuckyR

My point was, for anyone to be able to engage in a logical proof of God, he / she must start with some sort of definition of God. I was expecting you to come up with your own definition of God, and premises for your own arguments for the proof of God.