That's funny because if anyone actually did prove the existence of God we'd just tell him 'nice proof, Fraa Bly' and start believing in God.

You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason — -if you pick the proper postulates.

The point is that his authority would be derived in the only way that such authority ever is — by making claims about the world that can be corroborated by further observation

You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason — if you pick the proper postulates.

I would like to be able with authority to present the case for believing in God, but I would far rather be an authoritative argument for believing in God. The saints are the best argument for Christianity. They have the highest authority in the world for they coerce us and yet our coercion is a willing one. They drive us along the way which in our best moments we want to go. When we read their lives, and even more when we touch their lives with our own in day-to-day living, we meet Christianity’s unanswerable argument. We know, with an authority nothing can resist or overcome, that Christianity changes lives and that if Jesus Christ were given a chance he would change the world.

You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason — if you pick the proper postulates. We have ours and Cutie has his.

... God's opinion is still an opinion, and the prophets of God are only expressing their opinions too; they're just claiming more authority than they actually have. Arguments from authority are worthless. You need to have a verifiable reason that can be determined objectively, regardless of what anyone has to say about it, including God.

Journalist: According to you, the term "proof" does not apply to God. You prefer the term "sign". Why? God is not an entity of the same order as an atom or a galaxy. The existence of the atom is corroborated by theoretical schemes and experimental evidence. Almost the entire scientific community recognizes its existence. God, at least from my Christian point of view, is not a matter of demonstration. He is a personal God with whom we can establish a relationship. This is an act of faith and freedom. The word "proof" does not apply to the existence of God, because proof is a matter of logical reasoning, not of personal choice. When faced with a mathematical proof, we do not have the freedom to accept or reject the result. Even in physics, where there is no absolute certainty, scientists reach situations of consensus. The theory of general relativity, for example, is accepted by almost all scientists. But this is far from the case with the existence of God! A sign, however, requires interpretation. And interpretation refers to the freedom of the interpreter. If we have a pleasant encounter on the street, we can see it as a sign of God's benevolence or simply as a result of chance. It is a question of freedom of interpretation. No demonstration can conclude that we should have met that person on that day and at that time. The believer can be free to find signs of divine action in the structure of the universe. Isn't it a sign of something that the universe is so coherent? There is room for debate here. But this is not proof.

Such reasoning [that God cannot be falsified] is absurd. Why would anyone try to prove that God doesn't exist when it can be proven that He does? Creation proves scientifically and absolutely to any sane mind that there is a Creator. His existence is axiomatic.

A witty statesman said, you might prove anything by figures.

You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason - if you pick the proper postulate, We have ours and Cutie has his.

"What is not so generally recognized is that there can be no way of proving that the existence of a god, such as the God of Christianity, is even probable. Yet this also is easily shown. For if the existence of such a god were probable, then the proposition that he existed would be an empirical hypothesis. And in that case it would be possible to deduce from it, and other empirical hypotheses, certain experiential propositions which were not deducible from those other hypotheses alone. But in fact this is not possible. It is sometimes claimed, indeed, that the existence of a certain sort of regularity in nature constitutes sufficient evidence for the existence of a god. But if the sentence "God exists" entails no more than that certain types of phenomena occur in certain sequences, then to assert the existence of a god will be simply equivalent to asserting that there is the requisite regularity in nature; and no religious man would admit that this was all he intended to assert in asserting the existence of a god. He would say that in talking about God, he was talking about a transcendent being who might be known through certain empirical manifestations, but certainly could not be defined in terms of those manifestations. But in that case the term "god" is a metaphysical term. And if "god" is a metaphysical term, then it cannot be even probable that a god exists. For to say that "God exists" is to make a metaphysical utterance which cannot be either true or false. And by the same criterion, no sentence which purports to describe the nature of a transcendent god can possess any literal significance."

“How can you prove God’s on your side?” Boyd asked.

Proof itself, of any sort, is impossible, without an axiom (as Gödel proved). Thus faith in God is a prerequisite for all proof.