[Zetetic11235]

There was a fairly interesting discussion going on in my thread on god proofs that perhapse you might find interesting, protoman.

Here is my take:
In considering anything, such consideration is only an amalgamte of experience such that it cannot exceed that whithin which it is contained, the mind, nor can it include that which cannot be physically experienced or concieved i.e., nothing which is concieved can be anything but a conglomerate of sense experience and a priori cognition applied to it.

It follows that any conception of god must be limited to physical reality and deductions made thereof, and thus the conception of god is of essentially the same nature as any conception derived from experience.

Further, if one wishes to disregard cartesian mind matter dualism, a thought is a part of the physical universe as a chemical trace and thus bounded within the physical, therefore, conception of god is a part of the physical universe supposed to be god's creation and thus a creation of gods.
God must be related in some manner to this universe assuming it to be god's creation, as god is of a nature by which the medium of physical reality can be shaped and indeed created by god, and assuming that god is not only the physical universe, proving god through any mental or physical means is akin to showing a totality by one of its constituent parts. Such an attempt is nonsensical, unless the whole is of the same nature as the part, no more no less, which is a contradiction to the assumption of an extraphysical god.

A few side points of interest include that:
1) The hebrew conception of god is more along the line of god being that which is unknowable
2) It is impossible to prove anything without defining it, and god is not definable universally
3)By citing anyone your argument gains no credibility, authority is not a means to a proof, just putting that out there.