EdGordonRN wrote:
You can't define god into existence.

I'm just saying that if indeed there is a God, ontologically speaking
(that is, by the very nature of the word "God"), we wouldn't be able
to find evidence in nature that would stick out from nature. In other
words, the very existence of a rock, or a plant, or anything else
would be overwhelming proof of God's existence.

IF there is a god, then some arbitrary bit of 'evidence' would prove he
exists?!?

Are you for real? Do you realise that there are people who don't believe in
god, and for whom all the 'proof' that every believer tried to cite has not
made them change their minds? The rocks and plants prove *nothing* about the
existence of god.


We have to believe in God first, then all the proof stares us
in the face.

Do you know what "proof" means?


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk