Due to the simplicity of the concept that something greater than ouselves can potentially exist, the praposal for God lends itself as a component truth

Proof of God would eradicate faith.

The quest to prove the existence of God cannot begin without fully understanding the #1 axiom that pertains to the absolute constraint of our natural world, which is that it is impossible to consider, conjure, or create anything that simply does not exist. Let me explain. Factual truths are provable concepts that reasonable people agree to be unequivocally consistent in there existence (1+1=2). My simple equation is a factual truth made up of component truths. What we call the number 1 and number 2 exists, also the concept of the equation sign and the positive sign clearly exists. On the other hand, Falsehoods, such as Flying Pink Elephants are empirically provable (we simply do not see them) not to exist. What does exist is the revelation that falsehoods are simply compilations of component truths (pink exists, flying exists, elephants exist) and that is the utter constraint of our Natural World (Reality). It is impossible for component falsehoods to exist, every provable falsehood requires the compilation of component truths. Getting back to the provable existence of God, the question then becomes is the prospect of God a compilation (potential falsehood) or a component truth(s). Due to the simplicity of the concept that something greater then ourselves can potentially exist, the proposal for God lends itself as a component truth.

It's insignificant to use the term finding proof of God, as in some sort of outward evidence. The proof of God lies within, and within other people. This is the only way God can be seen.

I see it as the direct opposite.

It's insignificant to use the term finding proof of God, as in some sort of outward evidence. The proof of God lies within, and within other people. This is the only way God can be seen.

Due to the simple ability to consider the very existence of something greater then ourselves

while under the constraint that we cannot create or conjure anything without it actually existing as a compilation of truths (falsehood) or a singular component truth, because of the inherent simplicity of the consideration (God), and lack of potential convolution (inherent in falsehoods with multiple truths within the compilation), the proposal for God lends itself as a component truth.

Be careful with your use of "only".

Maybe.

If I go to the mountains, and some morning I wake before dawn to go watch the sunrise over the mountains, and then, when asked about the sunrise I reply "I saw God", would you object to me seeing God somewhere other than in myself or in someone else?

To me, God is the truth, whatever truth is. He is all that really exists.

Let me give you a sample of some of my thoughts on this subject.

All that exists must exist: there must be an All, so far as I can see. This All cannot have anything outside of it, or exist apart from any other thing, or else it would not be All.

This All cannot be a quantity, nor (in all likelyhood) can it consist of different things, or else something could concievably be added to it. For example, if All consisted of 2 things, then it could also consist of three, or four, or a million. The quantity 2, or any quantity, has a limit, therefore an outside. If it did not have a limit, or an outside, it would not be a quantity. In other words, if the universe (the All) had a limit--and if a limit is a boundary, a line of demarcation between 2 or more things--then something (perhaps empty space?) must be waiting on the other side of that limit.

One can count forever and never reach All. Whatever quantity one ends up with, another quantity can be added to it. If no other quantity could be added to it, could it still be a quantity? (This is the question that I am focusing on now, since it may lead me to an understanding of what quantity is.)

But now let's try to imagine dividing All into parts. One can draw a circle and then draw a line through it, thus dividing the circle into two parts. But the only reason why someone can do this is because the circle is finite. If the circle were infinite, then no line could ever reach from one point on its circumference to another. Each point of the circle's circumference would be infinitely distant from any other. In fact, the circle could not have a circumference, since if it did, it would not be infinite. An infinite circle therefore cannot exist, and a circle (any circle) is a quanitity--it is 1 circle.

But what if someome attempted to divide the All, not by drawing a line through it, but by drawing a shape within it, i.e. a bounded shape drawn or superimposed upon shapeless infinity? Now we're getting into some interesting stuff...