Exhaustive list of evidence for the existence of God

[Svartalf]

I thought I saw some evidence in a couple of the above posts, but on closer inspection it turns out to be grubby marks on my monitor.

I thought I had seen a divinely scribed proof of god's existence, then I came out of the fever delirium and saw that I was in the toilet, after a N°2, and that what I was seeing was the paper with which I had just wiped my rear.

[Svartalf]

Deersbee, God's death is not a scientific thing, it's a fact, the decease was certified by Dr Nietzsche in the early 1880s, though, if we believe the report, the event was earlier witnessed by Dr Zartosht of Fars, at an undetermined date between 1800 and 650 BC and most likely around 1000 or 1100.

[Svartalf]

Quacks believe in God and money.

while honest men believe only in money?

[Rum]

On the other hand there is apparently photographic evidence to the contrary! (well of Jesus and Mary anyway)..

http://jesusphotos.altervista.org/

[Pappa]

But here's the thing. As I discuss in my new book How Plato and Pythagoras Can Save Your Life (Conari, 2011), it's this matter of proof and evidence that gets to the source of the modern conflict between science and religion: science demands affirmative proof for what's essentially un-provable in the scientific arena. But perhaps, just perhaps, when it comes to "proof " regarding God, the evidentiary burden should instead fall on the atheists to prove that there is not a God or, at the very least, that there isn't some sort of cosmic purpose. Think about it; if an atheist is so quick to invoke science as their guiding rationale in their belief in a random universe, then shouldn't they prove it?

What a load of utter bollocks. If that was valid, then we'd need to believe in everything that's unprovable, from the Invisible Pink Unicorn to things we're not even capable of imagining up.

[Atheist-Lite]

But here's the thing. As I discuss in my new book How Plato and Pythagoras Can Save Your Life (Conari, 2011), it's this matter of proof and evidence that gets to the source of the modern conflict between science and religion: science demands affirmative proof for what's essentially un-provable in the scientific arena. But perhaps, just perhaps, when it comes to "proof " regarding God, the evidentiary burden should instead fall on the atheists to prove that there is not a God or, at the very least, that there isn't some sort of cosmic purpose. Think about it; if an atheist is so quick to invoke science as their guiding rationale in their belief in a random universe, then shouldn't they prove it?

What a load of utter bollocks. If that was valid, then we'd need to believe in everything that's unprovable, from the Invisible Pink Unicorn to things we're not even capable of imagining up.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy3EHf82 ... ure=fvwrel[/youtube]