oh please drop the philosophy 101 - who made the watchmaker? Why should there be a watchmaker? It is futile proving or disproving gods. All you can conclude is that given the evidence it highly unlikely that there is a god or gods. Afterall you don't presumably believe in Thor, Loki and Zeus why not take it one step further?

It's genuinely impossible--and if you are intellectually honest you'll acknowledge this--to prove "God" doesn't exist.  Just like it's impossible for us to describe what happens on the far side of an event horizon or what the laws of "physics" are in another dimension.

It also is intellectually honest to challenge and question religious dogma and teaching.  "Because we say it is!" isn't a reason to believe something is true...but it also doesn't invalidate truth that might be there because you disagree with it or they misunderstand it.  A religious bigot doesn't make religion true but neither does he or she prove there is no God.  A skeptic wearing blinders with his fingers in his ears quaoting Hawkings or Dawkins and going, "Inconceivable!! Made up! Made up! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!" isn't an intellectual giant either and has nothing to bring to a serious discussion of possibilities.  These two are different sides of the same coin-- persons who believe "what they think" has to be "the truth"--no matter what facts or experience anyone else has had.

The bottom line is that if an actual God exists, It exists whether we believe or not, whether we can perceive or not and whether we can understand or not.  All the absurdists "intellectual"  challenges and "logic contests" we might present to such a being are akin to arguing with inhabits of another dimension about how they "can't exist" because they violate our laws of physics.  They would care less and probably laugh at the absurdity of our convictions.

Who is in a better position to assess facts--a being or beings who have insight into ours and their own separate realities or we ourselves who only perceive our own--and that one poorly?

So the only real arguments are, "Has anyone had any sort of experience that might conceivably reflect an actual experience with something beyond what the majority of us refer to as normal?".  There's lot of reason to look at that.  Many "God" experiences may be nothing more than things we don't yet understand but in all the things we don't yet understand it's quite possible some of these experiences actually might be the result of  an encounter we would be forced to call "God" because we lack the language and comprehension to describe it more beyond that.

I've heard many sides of this argument over many years and for me it simply comes down to, "I have had a personal experience."  I am not stupid, I can assess by subjective reality as well as anyone else can and I can conclude I've brushed against things that scientific explanation will currently strain at.  I'm fairly well read and pretty thoughtful but the fact is, after certain experiences, I have had to throw the old playbook out and look for additional answers.

I was blind and now I can see. That doesn't make me smarter than someone else but it doesn't make me stupid either.  I may see through a glass darkly but darn if I haven't seen something that isn't just "here".

Sinperium, the argument is not "has anyone had any sort of experience", rather "has enough people regardless of background had a significant amount of experiences that that might concievably...".

As I said, religion is the manifestation of fear of the limitations of our knowledge and a method of escape from unpleasant truths. It rears its ugly face whenever there is a void in knowledge or a big enough conflict between facts and hopes. While the existence of god(s) cannot be disproven, the fact that religion can be explained away easily by psychology gives the best argument against religion and via that route, the existence of god(s). Hopefully, some day we will reach a point where religion will not be needed by people.

As a phenomenom itself religion is not too bad and very understandable. The organizations abusing the concept of supernatural events is the problem.

By the way, the funny thing is that I had a personal experience that made me finally ditch the last bit of wonder whether there is something supernatural going on or not. It was when I learned about how water at certain temperature at any point of time is made of water molecules that are at different tempereatures within normal distirbution and it is only the mean that is at the temperature that we experience. This was many, many years ago but it was then that I understood how every single thing in the world from our behaviour to life, planets, molecules, heat, light and everything else is always tied to a probability distribution.

This is true in many specific cases but it also is often used as a convenient excuse by skeptics to dismiss all claims of any spiritual experiences.

As to the "Have enough people have enough experiences?" objection.  The problem is in "define, "enough".  For most skeptics "enough" means the majority and with experiences that are readily duplicable at will and scientifically explicable. That's not the nature of contact that must be initiated by another party, i.e., "God" and originates outside of the scope of practical science.  If God traveled in a spaceship and arrived every Tuesday, it would be a start for a skeptic but God doesn't need a spaceship.

The other objection to that objection is one I'll present from a movie (I like movies darn it).  Did  Dr. Ellie Arroway interact with an Alien in the movie Contact--despite the fact that no one else believed anything happened?  Did the fact that other people did not share her experience make it "less real"?  Should she have simply made an effort to forget it happened since it "just couldn't be"?

If you use rules of scientific debate and the scientific method to rigidly determine your choices in life you are going to end up miserable.  Fail to many times?  Then you have a flawed psyche and should just settle for less.  Have an idea no one else has ever had?  Inconceivable so don't believe it and forget it. Galileo and Copernicus, you can just pack your bags and leave.  Benoît Mandelbrot and Christopher Columbus--you're crazy. Saw something no one else has ever seen?  Pictures or it didn't happen. It speaks of conformity--your individuality and potential are not valuable beyond the estimation of the crowd.  Pfft.  look who the crowd elects every few years to run their nations.

I have had actual experiences that have shaped my views.  Some of the experiences I have had have no doubt not been shared by you.  Your lack of my experience doesn't make my experiences untrue and valueless just becasue you don't see any application or effect of them for you.

If I saw Bigfoot in a field eating potato ships and playing cards and I sat down with him and had a long discussion for several months in a row while we played hands of cards, I wouldn't de facto conclude I was insane, work on blotting out the memory and check myself into a mental institution.  I'd think over the experience and try to understand what it was an how it came about.  If during that process I found that Bigfoot had apparently taught me several card games and strategies that I had never heard of before and that my bank account had grown by $500 during that time, I might consider it possible I had indeed played cards with him. If it went further and he had given me a standing invitation to play with him whenever we ran into each other--and I seemed to do so now and again--I'd see value in accepting the perception of our relationship.

So the "expert" on the corner who "knows" there is no Bigfoot and argues I imagined it all is someone I am not strongly inclined to listen to. Opinion won't win an argument  with genuine experience.

You can't tell individuals to "forget their experiences and be silent about them" because they weren't shared by a majority of other people.  In fact, if you spend enough time--real quality time--around enough people of faith, you will find shared experiences.  A skeptic will never see that becasue he won't "waste his time" as he "already knows" its "impossible".

Well I met a few religious people and though they all were a little nuts, ergo, "All religion is nuts"...Sez you.  I can just as easily turn your quote around and say, "Skepticism is the manifestation of fear of the limitations of our knowledge and a method of escape from unpleasant truths."  In many specific cases, this is actually true.

If you do happen to see Bigfoot, please remind him he owes me $50.

P.S.  I'll correct the water drop analogy you used.."everything of this world".

I want to correct one thing in your post above. I'm absolutely not saying that people just forget their experiences and be silent about them. On the contrary, I would prefer people to be open about their experiences. I just don't like organized religion to own these experiences, I would rather understand what is actually behind the experience.

I actually would guess that you agree with me here. If I've understood you right, you just support general spirituality, and oppose organized religion. At least I hope you do, as if I were to believe in the supernatural, I would reject organized religions as abusers of this. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Btw, about defining what is "enough", there's a method of determining empiric results as significant with a certain probability. The thing is, these supernatural events you describe are far, far outnumbered by experiences that are explainable away. I admit that the actual difficulty is choosing what events to include in our sample, but it's a tough task for supporters of the supernatural to convince me that their supernatural experiences that are not currently explainable are in any way significant. They're just outliers. We always have outliers. But I understand that it's hard to sway those that are convinced by their experiences.

To me, I feel like accepting the lack of the supernatural is a testament to the strength of will of those that are able to resist believing. I feel kinship to those people, and prefer such company. Over the years I've lost interest in trying to convert people. That said, I kind of regret joining this conversation, as it often leads me to hurt people with my relatively aggressive way of writing.

Yep--we are really aren't that far apart.  Dogmatism works badly on either side of the divide.  I am a believer in the human experience and value it above everything else in creation.  If there is a God and no way for humans to experience it--then it is nothing we can even begin to imagine.  If a person can have an inspiration and see through a veil that covers the eyes of the rest of us, I want to hear about it.  I don't have to believe or follow anything anyone says--but i can listen and consider anything.

If you want, I'll pm you some specific experiences and you can tell me what you would do with them.  I'd be interested to hear.

And sometimes, outliers are precursors to new revelation...not just statistical flukes.

Go ahead, I wouldn't mind hearing those out.

More than likely, it is just another force of nature. It justs exists. It is there, always has been. But it is not a being, it is not something to worship... it is just not something we can understand. YET.

You enter a debate explaining your side and then slam the door of debate by presenting a bias that you won't permit to be overcome.  You have framed the debate saying you would like to hear what other people have to, but have defined 'open-minded' and 'rational' insofar as they fit into the frame that God is not a being, not something to worship.  You have instantly close yourself off and ended the debate.

You want facts to support God is not a being, not a creator of all things, and since not creator, incapable of making demands on your person and thus rightly to be taken with a grain of salt.  Religion -primarily Christianity- says God is creator without having been created himself, is capable of making demands on us as his creation and is by his very nature worthy of being worshiped.  This isn't so much 'Religion', but relationship. 

Accepting that there is a God, whose attributes are explained next, there is a choice to have a relationship or to not.  If there is no God, like described next, then there is nothing personal about the universe, no relationship, and no promise beyond this physical existence.  If this is all there is, then take whatever you like for there is no God to hold you accountable, nor judge to avenge your victims.  However, if there is such a God who is a being, creator, king -not simply Elohim, but Yahweh Elohim; not power, but person and power- then there is a God to hold you accountable to the rules he has set out and a judge to avenge your victims.  This is what is either a blessing to mankind or its greatest fear.  Rejecting this personal God, as you do, diminishes him not a bit, but only yourself.

What you really want is a God that is not God.  God, as he defines himself, to the Jewish people and later Christians through his Messiah, is Spirit, Independent and Self-Existent, Immutable, Eternal, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Good, Holy, Righteous, Faithful, Sovereign with none on par with Him, and Omnipotent.  To say, God is not God, but a mere force is to make Him a thing instead of person (no relationship with thing possible), Dependent on the other forces at work in the universe, Changeable just like the universe itself undergoes change over time, Limited in life/presence/knowledge/power, has no goodness because there is no power to do anything, without personal nature there is no goodness, holiness, faithfulness, rulership and again -no true power whatsoever.

A God who could be fully understood by his creations would be no God at all but a cheap trickster.

I really suggest you read through "KNOWING GOD" by Packer or "Your God is too small"; great books, analytical, dense!  But... best source is bible -old and new.

It is really quite easy to accept God as he explains himself in the bible even if humanity, even those claiming to follow him, acts an opposite manner.  Once God is accepted as he is, then scientific pursuit seeks to give an understanding of his majesty.  But, you have framed this debate to exclude a God who is outside your limited definition and to convince you there is a God as I've described is not my responsibility to prove to your satisfaction, but the domain of the God I have described to you.  But I can yell all day that the sky is blue, but if you refuse to open your eyes even the slightest bit you could tell me it is one of a billion different colors, say that I am a lunatic, and/or say the sky doesn't exist at all.

Up to you m8.  But a 'debate' or 'discussion' really can't happen yet, can it?

You tell me who is out of touch with reality here; the theory of evolution scientifically backed or the creation of everything out of nothing which is backed by nothing. Maybe the word reality needs to be addressed better, who knows. What is the purpose for animal existence if not to peruse life to its fullest? How do you fulfill anything if you think you are starting out with all the correct answers to … well everything … it all seems so pointless from a religious perspective. For those who feel all the knowledge they need in life is gleaned from what lays between the covers of a book compiled a couple thousand years ago from myths and fables handed down verbatim for countless generations … is a fool at best. No matter what one thinks, can life for humans be boiled down to who can memorize the most of the bible?

I once heard a little girl, six or seven years old, scream of pain for three hours until she passed out and consequently died. Before I believed, and after I did not. You can believe what you want, but I tell you with an absolute certainty there is no benign or good god present in our universe.

(and no, there was no "sinner" of mankind involved in making her suffer. Just a matter of one a not matching up with a b )

I would be willing to discuss the question of a higher power that created the universe, but anything to do with the Bible as a basis for characterization of God is pure farce. 

I began my life with an open mind towards God and it was slowly closed with rather conclusive evidence that he is not anything more than wishful thinking. And you have to be pretty sick to wish that on the universe.  

I also find it funny he called God immutable. He is pretty damn mute. 

im·mu·ta·ble ( -my t -b l). adj. Not subject or susceptible to change. im·mu ta·bil i·ty, im·mu ta·ble·ness n. im·mu ta·bly adv. immutable [ɪˈmjuːtəbəl]. ad

Dictionaries are so five minutes ago.

All the kids today know that words are what you mean, not what they mean.

Or maybe it's "they mean, not what you mean." I can't make up my mind about those pesky pronouns...

I know what it means. I was making a little joke. But points for being literal. That makes you one up on the Revelations.