>>> 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'd use bold or some other type of emphasis - I've too often seen quotation marks used to denote a non-standard meaning of the word. We're clarifying matters today, anyway, and this is progress - we are getting in the clear.

>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.

IOW, that's proof in the domain of a believer's own experience, not of general population, which is OK but I still wouldn't call it proof, not in mixed company.

>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.

And that's where we bifurcated - you mentioned "empirical" and "proof" in the same paragraph; in science, "empirical proof" is proof by experiment, i.e. a reproducible and verifiable series of events that can be observed and checked by anyone.

>The dictionary defines "empirically" as being proved by experience. I stand by this statement.

This is where the word "empirical" got a double meaning. In science, it's "anyone's experience"; you took it as "one's experience"... which is still a valid meaning, but then it's not the same as in "empirical proof". English can be heavy at times.

>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".

I agree this is probably better way to express what you meant so that I can't misunderstand it :).

>>> 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.

Now I'm quite sure you don't know where I want to be :).

I also don't live by logic all the time - there's the intuition, wild hunches, adrenalin rushes, caprices, habits, and wild bursts of ideas. Most of them not logical, nor do I expect them to be. But then I also don't take them on any sort of faith either, only on knowledge that they're mine, whatever they are.

However, when I want to know something for a fact, to know whether something is true or false, real or fake, or simply to know how it works - I don't take anything on faith. I want to see proof.

>>> 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.

No need to - I'm grateful that you have the patience to stay on this matter with me, clearing things up.

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

Belief doesn't need proof in the first place. But then it probably isn't too firm, and it may take whatever makes it so as proof. To each his own - I wouldn't take any of that as proof, but I'm not a believer anyway, so I wouldn't even get that far, the issue is moot.

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

I'm getting that a lot lately :).