God Part N....

[Kanamori]

There`s nothing to discuss, it is no proof/disproof to either side, it`s all futile.

Because you know of none does not mean that there are none. I suspect it would be very difficult to prove that there are neither any proofs of God's existence nor that there are any disproofs of God's existence.

I say there's earth and there's proof of earth.
I say there's the moon and there's proof of the moon.
I say there's God, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.

Claim 1: I would like to see proof. Claim 2: I would like to see proof. If those two claims are granted, the conclusion is still erroneous.

It seems clear that a person may have heard of horses, but prior to their experience, they had never actually seen a horse, yet the horse exists. In such a case, the horse was quite independent of the individual and existed whether or not the person has seen them (if it is assumed that "seeing" amounts to some sort of proof). Further though, seeing is not in itself a proof that something exists. If seeing alone showed us the nature of things, then we would gather that the sun is only a yellow circle in the sky (sun1), yet, that is not how we understand the sun as it is (sun2). In such a case, our beleif of sun1 would be an erroneous representation of sun2, and sun1 which we perceive cannot be said to exist except in our minds as an idea.

[W]hat's the difference between a Leprechaun and God?

A leprechaun is a little person that lives in Ireland, whereas my idea of God is of a being that is supremely powerful, intelligent, infinite in the number of qualities possessed, and is the definition of perfection.

God doesn't even have a physical property.

The base of this claim? God most certainly must have "physical" properties if He can be said to be infinite in nature.