No, but a great deal of them have, and when they have been answered, then have been so powerful that it has proven to me that God does exist.
Its just insanely difficult for someone to have faith because they want a solution to everything. If we were told what to do all the time, life would be pointless and our existance would be meaningless.
What are the Officially Accepted Methods of Proof? (Unless you cram like a mutha on a shitload of epistemology links, prepare for a deluge of items you “believe in” that haven’t been proven to exist.)
So, Jab, doesn’t that mean you mystify yourself?
After all, you believe that there is not deity and yet there is no way to prove that there is no deity anymore than there is a way to prove that there is a deity.
But I tell you what your method of “debate” here on this issue tells us about you, if nobody else beats me to it.
If a thing cannot be proven to exist, then I will not believe that that thing exists. It has not been proven to me that God exists, therefore I will not believe that God exists. Show me good evidence that God exists and I will believe.
We now have 100% proof that jab is allergic to Logic. Just look at his/her last posting just above.
Jab: if it can’t be proven to exist or to not exist, that does not mean that it does not exist. All that it means is that its existence or lack thereof can not be proven.
If something exists, its existence should be provable.
Explain why that is wrong.
Because you may not have the tools to prove it. Could a medieval doctor prove the existence of bacteria?
According to Christian doctrine, we all have the means to detect the presence of God: our souls. (Of course, the existence of souls cannot be proven either, right?)
The fact that medieval doctors could not detect the presence of bacteria does not mean that the bacteria did not exist, true. However, I’m not sure you ought to be comparing the detection of the corporeal (bacteria) with the detection of the incorporeal (God). Being totally different types of things, the means of detection would have to be totally different, right?
I suggest you believe God exists just in case that He does. (If you have to believe there is a God in order to go to Heaven, then you better believe, just in case it’s true.) Well, then, I suggest that you ought to believe there are leprechauns, just in case that they are real. (If they are real and you don’t believe, you’re going to miss out on getting some easy money, right?)
This is called “Pascal’s Wager” and it’s dead wrong. Read the link and find out why.
jab1, that’s a nonsequitur. genie merely disproved your statement:
How did you come by that information? Or do you believe it without evidence? 
So in other words, he believes out of fear.
Hey, isn’t that exactly what that EternalStudent guy was saying, before he was banned?
Man, it’s a shame he was banned. I’m new here, but I was just reading over some of his old posts and the controversy the caused. Probably because his viewpoints hit so close to home for a lot of people, so they just got rid of him by sheer force instead of acknowledging him and actually participating in intelligent discussion. People knew that any logical discussion with him would probably end up in them chaning their viewpoints, and g0d forbid that should happen in a forum that prides itself on fighting ignorance.
Same thing happened with Galileo, didn’t it? Set off in exile for citing reason over myth? Yeah, sure did. Looks like EternalStudent was a modern day Galileo. Man I wish he was still around ;).
Well good luck Jab in your quest. Hopefully you won’t fall to the same fate that EternalStudent did.
…assuming you have the means to demonstrate that it does exist. If you fail to show that said object person, or entity exists, then you should not say that it does. You should remain undecided. But the more you fail to demonstrate that said object, person or entity exists, the more credibility you lose, the more foolish you look.
If I tried to demonstrate that leprechauns exist and failed a hundred times, trying a different method each time, what would you think of me? Diligent, perhaps, but what else?
A person who believes in God in spite of the fact he or she cannot demonstrate that God exists is likely doing so only in case God exists and the possibility that not believing He exists would have grave consequences.