>>> You see, here in the reality, "proof" is something that can be executed regardless of what one believes. You don't have to believe in gravity - any unbeliever can fall from a horse. It just works.
>
>>> Anyway, I'm not disappointed. I saw what I expected I'll see.
>
>My whole point is that spiritual reality can be "proved", but only on a personal basis. In other words, "Seek and ye shall find." But I cannot "find" for you. You must do that yourself.

Or I can chose to avoid that search, and look for my spirituality elsewhere. Fair enough, and a honest use of quotation marks around the word "proved". In your context, the word doesn't have the same meaning as the regular one. Normally, proof is independent from the person executing it, and should be possible to be reproduced at will. In other words, when I say "proof", I take it scientifically. You take it personally, which is fine, but different from what I expect, and surely not something for which I'd want to have a front row seat - it's your personal thing, needs no spectators.

>

If you are waiting for someone else to "prove" God's existence to you before you choose to believe, you will have a long wait.

I know. The whole concept is outside of logic, and actually is mutually exclusive with it. The belief is required because logic doesn't apply. One who applies logic, seeks proof. With proof, there's no need to believe. And yes, believing is a matter of choice.

BTW, at what age is one supposed to make that choice?

>One need not go his/her whole life clinging to a "faith" with no proof of the reality in which he/she believes. What a desolate life that would be. God promises proof to the believer. This proof comes by way of subjective personal experience. I'm sorry but that is the way it is- by design. It is subjective.

It's an assurance, then, not proof in usual terms. One of the minimal requirements for a proof is that it's reproducible by anyone. But then one can believe they received a proof - which is a contradiction, if it's a proof it should be a proof regardless of one's belief. But like I said, I don't expect any logic to apply.

>But the reward of proof is given to the persistent.

Again, we seem to differ in the meaning of the word "proof". If it's so personal, and irreproducible, then it's not proof - and of course, I didn't expect it to be. From where I stand, there can't be one, neither positive or negative. IOW, in the discourse over the existence of deities their definition was honed over the last couple of millennia to the point where the existence of one is exactly undecidable. It is impossible to prove or disprove. Logic being impartial as it is, the believers simply have to believe, as there can be no proof, and the unbelievers can choose.

The proof you mention is just one more detail believed by those who already believe.