Rev Willie, if you require strict proof or disproof, you can 'know' nothing, since all knowledge is based on certain basic assumptions or 'axioms', which cannot in themselves be proved.

In the real world, all we can do is assess the balance of evidence for and against each side of a proposition.

So inability to prove or disprove is irrelevant - it does NOT justify an assumption of equivalent truth status to both sides.

Your quest is doomed, if you are seeking proof or disproof..

Especially with respect to the God question, since there are an indefinitely large number of alternative potential 'explanations' for existence, especially if you are prepared to allow infinite attributes of any kind, and 'magic', ie disembodied minds able to simply 'will' stuff into existence.

If you assume there are 1000 alternative specific forms of God, then the chance of any one being the true one, by your approach, is 1 in 1000.

To get better than that you need to assess the relative plausibility of each. 

Since we have essentially no way to assess the plausibility of any (non-contradictory) God concepts with such open-ended sets of attributes, you are stuck.

Even requiring "God's help" to help you 'prove' his existence doesn't get you anywhere, even ignoring the hopeless circularity of the idea. How do you prove that something that seems to settle the question is God 'helping you', and not just a product of your own imagination, or an error in your own logic or reasoning???

Face it man, that is why Theists go on about 'faith', which is only a psychological trick, putting a nicer sounding label on what really is "I have  no f**king idea about what is the ultimate truth behind it all, but I like this one".

IOW, going for the God hypothesis means abandoning all claim to any level of certainty about anything, it all becomes a matter of personal opinion.

God belief assumes a whole bunch of things which we do not observe in any way via modern science, which can measure things far beyond our bodily senses capabilities, and we find nothing that points specifically to a God.

We can demonstrate easily by experiment how many patterns can form from purely natural forces - I gave several examples.

We have plausible general explanations for the origin of the Universe which do not assume the existence of a supernatural magic being, which makes them far more reasonable.

Once again, IT IS NOT ABOUT PROOF OR DISPROOF!!!!

It is about relative likelihood and how many wild assumptions (like infinite magic beings) are involved in the various ideas.

It's like when we look at a rock falling to the ground, and we say that there is steady force existing between the Earth and any nearby object which pulls on them with a strength predicted quite accurately by a fairly simple mathematical equation.

But then someone else insists that there is some invisible, intangible being pulling things down to the ground. And our 'force' is also invisible. We can't disprove the invisible being idea, so what would you go with, and why?

I agree with Bob on that, most of us here would.

Which is why you should abstain from believing in god.  There are an endless list of things that possibly exist that you don't believe in, you should be consistent with your beliefs.

Actually I think it's because you're conditioned to believe, as I've said several times. 

Ask yourself what makes YOUR view better than yours.  Why don't you believe in Zeus, Thor, Allah, Poseidon?  All of those gods could possibly exist as you said... and since you believe in everything that possibly exists, why are you cheating yourself of the infinitely long list of ridiculously illogical concepts you could believe in when you choose to believe in one: THE GOD YOU MADE UP.

I've been holding my tongue here because I didn't want to seem like I was belittling you but I want my friends here to know... the similarities between you and I (re: when I first came online to discuss religion) ended on the first post.  I was able to recognize my flaw in logic in one post. 

Before I begin, Rev, paragraphs are your friends. Instead of bulking up everything you want to say into some big long paragraph. Break them up. It makes you look less crazy.

That's what happens when you make a claim of existence. The burden of proof is upon YOU.

Of course you see patterns. Our minds naturally seek out patterns. The problem is, where you see pattern, you call it god. When I see patterns, I call it nature. Ask yourself why you add something to what we both are viewing, that doesn't need to be there ?

Kinda hard to prove yourself wrong when you can't even prove yourself right isn't it ?

No. There may be a god. However all claims of existence require objective proof. When that is not provided, there's no reason to believe in the claim. Hence why we are asking you all of these questions.

nope.

Just like there's very little likelihood that Snarfwidgettes exist.

No, as I demonstrated before, it doesn't. If I drop a brick on your head from 400 feet up, its going to smash in your brains no matter what your perception is.

That's fine. You can believe in anything you want. It doesn't mean you are justified in doing so though. I can choose to believe that throwing nickels into my toilet will keep bad things from happening to me. It doesn't mean it's real.

Occam's Razor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Simply put, when two or more hypothesis are given for an event, the one that's the simplest is usually the right one. You see patterns and you want to add a god to it. I see patterns and I add nothing to it. I understand that the patterns exist naturally from the universe and that my brain works in a way that finds patterns out of seemingly random things. Ever sit on the grass and watch the clouds form shapes ? Is there someone in the clouds making one look like a car, or a boat ? Is there someone designing the clouds to look like familiar things for our entertainment ? Of course not. It's just the way our brains work.

Usually, a lack of evidence for something, is a pretty good sign that thing doesn't exist. You have no objective proof for your god. So why believe ?

It couldn't hurt.

Sure you can. I can say that if you hold a pound of C4 and ignite it, I am absolutely sure you will die in the explosion. I can say with absolute certainty that if two cars traveling at high speeds impact each other, that both cars will have signs of damage. Just a few examples.

Based on what ? All you have is subjective evidence of a god that you can't even define and doesn't even need to be included ? Why would you assume that you are right ?

Eh, just bored really. 

You can't prove something doesn't exist. You can only negate the proof given of it's existence.

Well I guess most people here simply believe in what they hear, see or feel or assume can be proven by hypothesis, that is fine.  You guys obviously argue only logic but that is based only on what you can understand, if God exists it would be beyond all of that beyond supposedly perception.  You have many opinions some I agree with and some I don't, some people would assume I am on the fence between athiesm and thiesm I am not I have held my beliefs for a long time and worked through many theories to get to here.  Now I am going to put it bluntly you guys seem to want to attack anyone that doesn't agree with your logic or viewpoint I am quite content to agree to disagree I am not saying you are wrong I am saying at this time I do not believe as you do.  Now quite frankly I am trying to reply to about what 5 of you and I am not going to.  I will take what you say and think about it some of what you have discussed I have already thought about before and still thinking about now.  However I just want to point out you guys seem to think you know something, I don't think you know anything you just think you do.  I at least admit I don't know anything but I will keep learning and weighing and testing to have a constantly evolving hypothesis.  Unless you somehow come up with something I haven't heard before or a view I haven't looked at before my opinion probably will not change.  Jake and the rest of you guys bring up some good points but you have your own assumptions and perceptions and I have mine. 

Reverend Willie G.

Practical knowledge does not require that everything be provable, that is just one of your mistakes.

We are not "attacking" you, but when you make statements like " I don't think you know anything you just think you do. " then you are attacking us, you hypocrite. 

We are just pointing out the deep flaws in your arguments.

We accept as likely to be true what has well-documentes and plausible evidence to back it up.

You don't prove anything by 'hypothesis', you show that some hypothesis (aka educated guess) may be true by testing it against the real world, by observation and experiment.

If it passes, it may be elevated to a 'theory'.

That statement alone shows you don't know what you are talking about, or at the very least don't understand the meaning of many of the terms you are throwing around.

Exactly. 

I figured he would ponder his views over a week or two and realize that believing in something just because you want to is not logical.  Unfortunately he has decided instead to move on to calling us [Brian37] fundamentalists. 

See this post.

And if it doesn't you'll make it fit anyway?