>> Or I can chose to avoid that search, and look for my spirituality elsewhere.

Yes. It's your choice.

>> 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.

(I use quotation marks to draw attention to a word, not to imply that it has a different meaning.)

I see now that what you mean by "proof" is something that I can produce scientifically that would convince a reasonable person of the veracity or existence, in this case, of something. I was using the term as more like having a matter proved to oneself. In other words, being able to accumulate sufficient evidence regarding a matter that one would be able to come down on one side or the other.

In this connotation of the word, I still contend that sufficient evidence can be accumulated that a man could make the determination that God does exist. And having then made that determination, and subsequently taking the correct steps, that God would prove Himself to that man.

And what better way can He prove His own existence to him but by revealing Himself to him. Jesus told His disciples, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." John 14:16-18.

>> 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.

In my original post on this topic, the one that kicked off this particular tangent, I stated that there was a reality behind the scriptures that could be encountered empirically. The dictionary defines "empirically" as being proved by experience. I stand by this statement. The existence of God can be proven empirically, when the word is used in this context. Moses had all the proof he needed when he saw the burning bush. Saul on his way to Tarsus received proof that Jesus was the messiah when He knocked him off his horse.

Perhaps I should say "personally convinced beyond a doubt".

>> 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.

Absolutely. Faith is a personal thing. But don't for one minute believe that I haven't proven to myself that which I embrace. The very fact that it is provable will be the basis for judgement.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:16-22


>> 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.

But the demand for proof and the abandonment of belief will not get you where you want to be. Because God has determined that "The just shall live by faith." Not by logic.

>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.

I do believe you are correct. It is an "assurance" and not proof. I was using the word "proof" in much too wide a sense. I apologize for muddying the issue.

But having said that, I must emphasize that the quality of that assurance is so overwhelming that the recipient needs no further proof. :-)


>> 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.

So sorry- you are right!

>> 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.

Touche