After all this time, you have a gross misunderstanding of what "evidence" is.
Evidence means "that which is apparent," and it allows us to infer conclusions about any number of things to which the evidence is relevant.
However -- and this is really, really important for you to know -- the inference will only be as true as sound reasoning allows it to be. If you don't know what sound reasoning is, then your inference will be untrue (unless you make a lucky guess, and even then wouldn't know your guess is correct).
Because evidence is "that which is apparent," and because perception is fallible, what is 'apparent' may not actually be what it is, either in part or in whole. Sound inference reconciles perceptual fallibility, and this is precisely why the scientific method is valid. In contrast, your continual disregard for the rules of sound inference leaves you completely unable to reconcile your own perceptual fallibility.
So, where does your perceptual fallibility lie? Simple -- you know that link of yours with all that "evidence" or "proof" or "evidence pointing to evidence" of God's existence? Well, it's plainly not. To you, that information is evidence (et al.) of God's existence because it appears that way...to you. But, you can't reconcile that with the fact that your conclusion is logically impossible. Those of us who understand what we can and cannot infer from an empirical data set know it is logically impossible. You will never have physical evidence for an intelligent designer because it is impossible to infer intelligent design from physical evidence. I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E.
Clarifying further, on one hand, a person may understand both the scope and limitations of empirical inference and apply this knowledge to draw true conclusions from a set of evidence. In a scientific paper, the scope of inference is already known and needn't be mentioned (except to you, apparently) because they are directly guided by the limits of Empiricism. Scientific conclusions always concede to a margin of error, and the lack of absolute certainty in the truth of scientific conclusions is reconciled because we never attempted to extend our search for truth beyond physical phenomena in the first place. Why should we care about what's absolutely true when we have pre-selected a method of learning that precludes our ability to consider absolute truth?
On the other hand, a person such as yourself, who has no idea of the rules of sound inference nor the scope/limits of Empiricism, lacks a consistent means of drawing conclusions from a set of evidence. The key word here is 'consistent.' Your logical consistency is atrocious, and it's precisely why you always contradict yourself and don't even know it. You think that you can suggest just about anything you want so long as you can imagine some way to connect the dots from some set of evidence to whatever conclusion you have about it at the time.
Logic simply does not allow for this flexibility. Those who think it does sound like you. Other examples include those who assert that truth is 'only' relative and never absolute, or those who assert the known existence of imaginary or hypothetical beings.
You actually fall into the latter category. Specifically, you begin with an unproven, arbitrary definition of God, and then try to prove that your God is correct with evidence. Nope, you can't do that -- inductive reasoning can't allow you to.
But do you know what is totally hilarious? The fact that you believe you have found empirical evidence for God makes you an idolater!
Let me use the shark and the goldfishes in the fish tank.
There is a glass fish tank. It is divided into two parts by a single pane of tough glass. One part holds a school of goldfish. The other part holds a shark.
The shark sees or otherwise recognizes the goldfishes, and the goldfishes similarly see the shark.
The shark naturally wants to eat the goldfishes. It swims full speed at the goldfishes, but is stopped by the pane of glass... even hurts its "nose" when it runs full speed into the glass divider.
After a time of attempting to attack the goldfishes, the shark becomes conditioned to the fact that it can't get to the goldfishes, that it hurts its nose when it tries, so it stops trying. In addition, the goldfishes become conditioned to the fact that the shark can't get to them.
The divider pane of glass is removed, and the shark and the goldfishes swim together for a time. The shark doesn't eat the goldfishes, and the goldfishes aren't afraid of the shark. Their conditioning keeps them apart. However, if the shark accidentally sucks in a goldfish in its natural process of breathing, the conditioning starts to break down.
The machine/Machine-Maker example found at
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 is overwhelming and abundant proof that God exists. When one throw in the fact that scientists are constantly using the scientific method on parts of the universe (albeit mostly parts here on earth) thereby proving the machine-like qualities of the universe, one can easily see how the machine/Machine-Maker analogy not only applies, but is being proven by scientists on a daily basis.
The point of the fish story, above, is, your conditioning simply keeps you from seeing the obvious. Unlike fish, human beings have the ability to reinforce their own conditioning. And that is exactly what you do when you use the idea (be the idea yours or others) that inference can't be used as proof. I'm not saying that circumstantial evidence in the courts is always used correctly. But much of the time it is.
Your conditioning is starting to break down. Why is your thinking conditioning and mine not? Because it is the natural state of mankind to recognize God in the workings and existence of the universe. It is only conditioning that stops some people from recognizing God. The evidence for this is, like the
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 link says, the world is full of people who naturally recognize God. That's why we have the religions.
EDIT: Wow! 227 pages!
Lol Oh, why thank you for going back into the "...stops some people from recognizing God" spiel.
As if I don't believe in God or something.
Was that post in response to me? There isn't a single mention about 'anything' i said in my post.
