god's existence can't be proven

Yes, my point is that defined in meaningful ways the proposition of God is falsifiable. We can prove or disprove God depending on the data. It only seems that several of those meaningful Gods were disproved as such because they tend to get proven false when they are falsifiable. My contentions on this point are two fold: 1) Proving God existence false is still proving God's existence one way or another. Your primary claim may be seen as an objection to falsifiability that it is impossible to prove the existence of God in any way. Whereas in reality we can prove it either true or false, if God is defined in meaningful ways. Most iterations are proven false in such a context because, if there is a God, it isn't that one. 2) You still *could* run into a meaningful definition (such as pantheist) where God's existence is verified. Simply failing many definitions is not a valid argument for agnosticism. Meaningful definitions might be proven true, depending on whether that meaningful definition correlates with an existing God. Faulting the meaningful definition of the attributes of God because it has yet to prove a God is uncalled for... it allows for the existence of God to be proven. Further, clearly meaningful definitions are going to largely relate to different incarnations of God. As such, one could only expect most of them to fail. They can't all succeed without proven the existence of mutually exclusive gods. However, I should remind you one of my definitions was a proof of the existence of the Pantheist god. -- How does proving intelligence relate to your case? In fact, your previous argument seemed to be a pretty good argument against intelligence. Sure, if you define God as the intelligence used to create lifeforms you have a fairly meaningful definition. I don't get the point to your argument here. If I concede the point and accept that that is proof for the existence of God then I apparently win the argument. You would thusly prove the existence of God and prove that the existence of God can be proven. -- Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in God and things the proposition is quite likely false. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is assembled to show that the same logic that allows one to continue believing in an analogous God is flawed as you should also believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If God is completely unproven and unprovable, then you're in the same boat as the Pastafarians. You seem to hold that you find God as likely as the FSM, which is suppose to be the conclusion. However, you're suppose to find them equally impossible. -- I was not proving God by definition. Arguments which do that are usually the ontological argument redux. Those aren't meaningful definitions by any stretch. If you look back at the definitions of gods I gave, you'll find they aren't contradictory and are gods which could be (and are) believed in. -- A meaningful God is provable. In fact, it's a consequence of how I'm using the word 'meaningful'. If there is some falsifiable understanding which could be tested and not just change with the apologetics then there is clearly a meaningful definition. Those definitions are falsifiable and they do allow God's existence to be proven -- typically false. However, that shouldn't be discouraging or by any stretch prove that there is no God because a large section of meaningful definitions are false. The only way you can successfully prove your case is by showing that there is no way that any meaningful definition of God could correlate with reality. In short, you need to prove the non-existence of God, or at the very least prove the non-existence of all meaningful gods. -- I did have a side note against the position of agnosticism. Which, if you are to accept the above position requires. If God is unprovable then agnosticism is unwarranted. I think that if God talks to you, proves his power to you and asks for your belief, that that suffices as a proof of God's existence. As such, agnosticism is unwarranted as any number of meaningful gods could exist. I read your note on presumptive proof. Frankly, it didn't seem to make any points about the topic. It also seemed to make some odd claims about third arms or whatnot. It also included oddities like the presumption that miracles are more complex than God. -- The existence of meaningful gods can be proven -- so far they have been proven false, but perhaps sometime there will be a meaningful definition of God which succeeds. Save my opponent having disproving the existence of all possible meaningful gods, I do not see how her argument succeeds.