Is the existence of God provable?

Elijah proved the existence of God by calling down fire from heaven. I can prove the existence of God by speaking to Him. By the way, how can you prove the existence of Oxygen. I don't think you can if you totally disbelief in its existence. God's existence is also proved by showing his property, works and the way He reacts with situation. You can't bring God to some one by force and say this is God. Do you know that the Israelites asked Moses to show them God's face. But before they really saw God, they told Moses to let God go back. It is imposible to see God face to face in His real nature and form. But those who have seen Jesus have seen God in a human form.

Maybe you don't understood what I sad... I'm saying that God is not provable, not that he can't be believed. "Knowing about" and "believing in" are two different things.

(How can I prove the existence of oxygen!!!??? A very simplistic answer: by breathing!!! If the air wouldn't consist of oxygen I couldn't breath it) I'm not saying God is unseen, therefore there is no God. It's just.. none of my senses or my reasons can't detect God.

Only in kind of question: isn't it perfect that the sun is coming out every morning? That you see the moon and the stars every night? Don't you consider that the seasons relevate between them every three months? Isn't the nature perfectly - plants breathing our monoxid and giving us oxygen? Plants giving us health and animals giving us to eat? Pregnancy and giving life, isn't it perfect the possibility to give life? To love? To study? The function of the brain? Human and animals behaviour? Are you really sure that nothing is perfect? Why do you thing that nothing is perfect?

I'm familiar with this explanation, but in this universe nothing is perfect...

The kind of proof that I'm looking for is the proof that can be tested with our senses and can be reproduced in an controlled environment.

I see, then can you first provide the same kind of proof that you are conscious? all the best urban

And this is the only reason why I don't believe.

The concept of belief is not a problem for epistemology nor metaphysics. It is more a problem for ethics, the branch of philosophy that deals with what is morally right or wrong. I learned about two general approaches to ethics from reading Ayn Rand: one is altruism (i.e., believing in others) and the other is selfishness (i.e., believing in oneself). If you subscribe to the first, you'd be accepting the arguments of others based on their observations. If you subscribe to the latter, you'd be accepting your own arguments based on your own observations. If Ayn Rand was alive today, she'd have you choose the latter and ignore the former. But I think it's plausible to mix the two. Before you choose, it's good to understand from Ayn Rand what the purpose of ethics as a branch of philosophy really is. Ethics, according to Rand, was created to enable rational beings like us to survive. Reasoning is our defense against the harsh elements in nature. I discussed all these to advance my recommendation: You don't need a categorical answer about the existence of God to survive. Depending on your environment, it is a good ethical choice to believe on whatever the situation demands. Otherwise, you'll find yourself battling the forces of nature or society.

You have a good argument. Believig in God, I must admit,it has some advantages that cann't be dismissed. But, believing is not something that we can choose, it must be based on some kind of proof. That's the proof that I'm looking for, the proof that can start the process of believing.