god's existence can't be proven

God's existence can be proven, if God is defined in meaningful terms. It is common to define God so wishy-washy and in nonsensical terms to allow for agnosticism on the issue and simply equivocate the meaningless God thusly defined as a meaningful one. Such conclusions are unwarranted and unneeded. -- * If we were to define God as caring who answers prayers of devout believers we could do a very basic test of statistics to see that far fewer than 100% of prayers are answered and, in fact, no statistically significant occurrences happen with or without prayer. * If we could define God to be all-powerful and all-good then we could find a contradiction if there were suffering or evil present anywhere in this world. * If we defined God as just and punishments for non-belief strict we would expect that unbelief would be completely unreasonable, completely unjustified, and this debate would be trivially false. * If we could define God as the pantheists do, as the universe and all phenomena within it (which I contend is a meaningful definition even if I disagree with its application), then we could show that God exists as easy as we show the universe exists. * If we define God as Jesus accurately described in the Bible, who said that before everybody in a crowd of first century Israel would not perish before the second coming occurred, we could see failure in that prophecy and in that God. As the oldest individuals alive today are only as far into their second century as I am into my first, a far cry short of the several thousand years so required to hold out hope. ---------------- you say we can define God in meaningful terms and prove him, and then go on to disprove him. i don't think it's possible for you to do both. plus, defining him and then disproving him, even at your best argument, was, actually, my premise.... if we define God in any meaningful terms, his existance cannot be proven. i'll take your disproves as arguments in my favor that most meaningful definitions don't fly. (or at least very well... i think some points could be argued for things such as why evil exists with a good God, but that's not really the subject of htis debate) intelligence is all i need to show a possible attribute of God that you haven't disproven, but that is plausible. (just not proven) so that there's no attributes that can even be considered, and that God's existance must be necessarily concluded, is false. even richard dawkins doens't say God doesn't exist. (just like i don't say the spaghetti monster doens't exist,,, noting i think these anaolgies are more different than the same, but) plus your other problem is that you say you are proving God by defining him, which is not a proof but merely an absotraction, like a square is a circle. the context of my opening statement i think was pretyt clear, that when you do define God in meaningful terms, it must be provable. this hasn't been shown, and you haven't shown it, but in fact seem to agree, with ocnfusion in how you're conflating defining an abstraction with proof and also seem to be trying to conclude that even considering God is wrong. i think what your motive is, is that you want to argue that agnostics are really athesits without balls. i think my disclaimer on this "presumptive proof" that i qualifeid at the end refutes being atheistic. now, this is something that a jury were it to decide could be split on, so i don't think i've refuted it per se, objectively end of discussion. but anyway, this stuff isn't the point of my debate, but id be glad to debate you on it elsewhere.