Thank you for quoting me Outlaw, but not to derail the Cofty, Outlaw despute, I did feel my question on my last post about " proof of Gods existence" warranted a reply....if I do get a reply to my question I feel it's more on topic.
Its a shame that sincere questions get lost in the shuffle of a thread, but then again I may have assumed my question was an important question, now what was my question again, as I've forgotten?
Oh Yes, I remember " Could I therefore assume that if we all define God as all persuasive and existing wisdom, that God is the indestructible nature of reality and life, then could we not agree there is scope for accepting God?
Ok my question may be stupid, in fact it probably is stupid, but nevertheless I feel it's a valid question, based on my early studies of trying to find an answer to the O.P " proof of Gods existence" from a Buddhist perspective.
The Rebel:- who would be the envy of all his friends if he could proove God either exists or doesn't exist :-)