Evidence that God exists

[Mark]

@Mark: You miss my point entirely, and the point of this thread it seems. You can't keep saying "well there's no proof of God so I know he doesn't exist". It's an absurd assumption! What I am saying, if you read the OP, and repeatedly through this thread, is that belief can't be provable. Please don't keep on repeating the same thing at me, like I haven't answered it already.

I am sorry if I post offtopic, but I think what I post is at least tangentially relevant here.

Let's be clear: I am not talking about proof of a god, but of any evidence at all of a god. There is no evidence at all of the Great Cosmic Horned Toad, of Baal the Destroyer, of the Olympian Pantheon, of the Earth Mother, or of the Evil Queen-Regent of All that Is. The list is endless of things for which there is no evidence. So I have as much reason to sacrifice a bowl of rotten eggs in the altar-basin of the Great Toad, to slaughter a baby on the alter of Baal or an ox on that of Zeus, to build a ring of great stones in honor of the Mother, or to give five-fold obeisance to the Evil Queen-Regent while I stand on one foot, as I do to go into a church and worship the supposed Lord of Hosts. There is no reason to pretend that any of these absurd figures actually exists, although some have been thought to exist by many people at various historical times. There are infinitely many supposed gods that demand same recognition, all on perfectly equal "logical" basis.

No collection of literary works as obscure and varied these is able to be reconciled with a coherent set of doctrines.

Yet it is

It appears that we have reached the limit of fruitful discussion of this particular point.

Well, life offers a full life, doesn't it?

It has the potential to. Do you deny all wisdom? Or are you just prejudice against one particular origin? Why would anyone think themselves above advice accepted over time? I guess that's the arrogance of this modern life.

Do I deny all wisdom? I would like to think not. I recognize, for instance, that there is a good deal of it in the Bible, and very beautifully expressed in the King James version, which is the only one in English worth reading. Then too, there's a lot of it in Moby Dick and Leaves of Grass. But if you want to talk about what's accepted, a great many religions are and have been accepted by vast numbers of people. Does this imply that one of them should be accepted, and if so, which? Or does it rather imply that religion is a form of mass delusion, and that all religions are false? To me, the latter seems self-evident.

Fundamentally, I'm not going to spend my precious time on this planet in moral and intellectual subservience to the self-appointed priesthood of a supposed god that never does anything and never shows up. To do that is to surrender the half of your humanity, and I am very sorry to see so many of my fellow human beings doing it.