Careful! - you tried proving this once before and failed after descending into rambling incoherence. (not that this has much to do with the topic in hand).
You’re the one who said you cannot place a condition upon God!
I replied that God is necessarily a synonym for everything and/or anything in that case; and an easier synonym to spell at that.
Does God even exist? You became wishy-washy on any condition. I’m not getting the part where this was incomprehensible. I asked for a condition, you said God is unconditional.
-Justhink
Here is the thread in question; admittedly, I didn’t know you would need an exhaustive description of God, but I don’t think my summing up of the way the thread ended is too far off the mark; You certainly didn’t follow up on your statement:
A very negative statement regarding open-mindedness. 
[sup]And there is even more if you visit the site.[/sup]
I personally think that being open-minded is being open to and respecting the opinions of others. It is not a mindless acceptance of all ideas. Obviously, this isn’t a cut and dried subject.
regarding kniz’s cite…
It is pretty hard for me to take anything seriously that is signed:
-Jesus
June 18, 2002
I would comment that this is a pretty poor sermon, and can be destroyed logically in about two seconds. It starts with the premise that the only kind of open-mindedness is the “where your brains fall out your ears” type…
It appears to be arguing specifically for closed mindedness. At the risk of being completely over the top, I would say the thinking displayed at jesus.com is directly on the path to a nazi-esque society.
Wow kniz. The quote you found is amazing. I’ve never heard a definition of being open-minded that is so polar opposite of how I view and use the term.
Remember that my definition of open-mindedness means that what I currently believe is provisional. If I were an ancient cave dweller with a machine gun, I might consider it to be magic (or supernatural) in that I couldn’t explain it. But I would have tangible evidence that there was something rather than nothing. A better example of something that appears magical may be something like magnetism.
Supernatural causes are inherently lacking evidence. From my perspective, once there is evidence it is no longer supernatural. It is just new evidence that is not explained by current theories. Since my beliefs are provisional, this would likely result in my beliefs changing.
To echo scotth again. I too would love to see evidence of a true supernatural phenomenon.
I reserve the epithet “close-minded” for somebody who rejects an idea primarily because it is a “new” idea (new to them, at least). It seems that “close-minded” is often used to mean “uses an inappropriate criterion for judging the validity of an idea,” but often there is a more specific (and IMO more appropriate) epithet that can be used in its place. F’rinstance, in the thread that scotth linked to, the offender was ostensibly open to new ideas, it’s just that he used the (IMO inappropriate) criterion that “theological statements made by atheists are definitively incorrect and are not worthy of consideration.” I’d call him “biased” and “prejudiced,” and possibly even “bigoted” and/or “irrational,” but I wouldn’t necessarily call him “close-minded” – that would be reserved for somebody who use the criterion “this idea is new to me, therefore it is definitively incorrect and not worthy of consideration.” This may be an overly narrow use of the term “close-minded,” but in this way I can attempt to better objectify the epithet and avoid having somebody else throw it right back in my face (“You’re being close-minded by rejecting scientific evidence.” “Yeah, well you’re being close-minded by rejecting biblical evidence”). Otherwise it turns into just another worthless insult (“You’re a jerk-face for disagreeing with me.” “Yeah, well you’re a jerk-face for disagreeing with me”).
God is meaningful to millions, nay, billions of people. Because some wish to do evil in His name changes nothing.
I would love to have the open-mindedness to define things with impossible criteria and then laugh when no one can apply the definition.
erislover, I am apparently dense.
Help me to understand your comment. Are you criticising my desire to see evidence? Or are you criticising my implicit acknowledgement of supernatural phenomenon?
(Just to be clear, I don’t believe in supernatural phenomenon.)
That much is obvious. You request to see evidence for something which you define to be “inherently lacking evidence”. Well, hey, if it makes you feel better, keep asking. But I don’t know what you expect this to prove. 
Was that really necessary?
I am having a trouble with you statement as well.
It seemed like you were having fun with semantics to me, rather than critiqueing the position. But, I wasn’t really sure.
If I say that supernatural claims have been really long on claim and really short on evidence to date. And, I am very open to exploring the supernatural. But, before I put much credence in the notion, I want to see some evidence to back the claims.
What is the problem there?
Taken in the context of what was said before, that was how I understood the original statement. So, I was rather puzzled by what your comment meant as well.
Actually I now understand erislover’s criticism. I made the following two statements…
a) Supernatural causes are inherently lacking evidence.
b) I too would love to see evidence of a true supernatural phenomenon.
These two statements are, on the surface, conflicting. How about this?..
a) Supernatural causes are inherently lacking evidence.
b) I too would love to see evidence of something that was previously considered to be supernatural, yet with evidence, move out of the supernatural and into the natural realm (explained or not).
I read a) as saying that most things attributed to supernatural causes are done so, because they lack evidence.
and
I read b) as desiring to see solid evidence of something truly supernatural (which in mind meant documented functional telepathy, telekenesis, yogi flying/levitation that was not a hucksters trick)
[Louvin Brothers]
That word, “broad-minded,” is spelled S-I-N.
[/Louvin Brothers]
Man, I love old country music. 
The wierd thing about being accused of closed-mindedness is that anything you say to defend yourself is used to support the accusation. I know this from personal experience.
She: You’re closed-minded!
Me: No, I’m not!
She: See! If you were the least bit open-minded you would see just how closed-minded you are!
Me: Hmmm… So the only way I can prove to you that I am open-minded is to claim that I am closed-minded?
She: Well…yes, I guess so.
Y’all seem to have ignored this part of my post. My point was that I was open to a statement like the one I quoted, but I’m willing to state my own opinion, which disagrees with it.
I just want to note for the record, this could be a very snarky comment if it was taken as a reply to “I’m apparently dense,” but it was actually in response to, “I don’t believe in the supernatural.” I just want to be clear I wasn’t trying to be an asshole.
Still, this takes the matter of “supernatural” and defines it away. I see no need to do that, do you?
scotth mentions, “as desiring to see solid evidence of something truly supernatural …” Well, hey, who wouldn’t? But the point is, with a definition like Algernon’s second one has evidence for a supernatural phenomenon is the second it ceases to be supernatural. I would be quite comfortable then saying the supernatural doesn’t exist because it can’t. But I would hesitate to describe this as “open-minded”. (For the record I wouldn’t call it close minded, either.)
Many times people disregard the supernatural because science requires reproducibility among a peer group, or at least the possibility of it. But this doesn’t claim that the supernatural doesn’t exist, only that it, by definition (along with miracles), cannot be scientifically studied.
One wonders why something like a ghost or haunting couldn’t at least be observed with regularity, though, even if no instrument can detect it…
And for the record, I didn’t take erislover’s comment the wrong way. And I didn’t take the time earlier to thank you for coming back to explain what you meant a little more clearly. I appreciate it (not leaving it hang there as a drive-by).
And your statement that…
…places us pretty much in the same camp.