How Much Evidence Will It Take You To Believe In God???

[Mister Agenda]

Again, all you are doing is offering your opinion.  

All you've offered is your opinion. That you've offered proof is also your opinion, one that you hold despite having the logical flaws in your so-called proof patiently (and impatiently) pointed out.

If a logical argument contains a fallacy, the conclusion may be true, but not for the reasoning given. If a logical argument is free from fallacy but is based on an unsound premise; the conclusion may be true, but not based on that premise. The essential feature needed to legitimately claim you've proved something is that people who are not invested in agreeing with you find it convincing; because they accept that the premise is true and the reasoning is not fallacious...if that's the case, the only remaining flaw is that there's no evidence that something is obliged to exist because you've come up with a good argument for it; but reasonable people would at least have to acknowledge that it's a good argument. Yours isn't. If you are correct about the existence and nature of God, it's not because of the reasons you've given.

If I had to point at a single factor that precipitated my atheism, it would be exposure to 'proofs' such as this, which made me actually think about what they were saying and realize that no one has ever devised an argument for the existence of God that isn't flawed. Folks like you do more to make atheists than anyone, because you don't realize that the true purpose of apologetics is not to convert the disbeliever, but to persuade those who already believe that their faith is reasonable...and it's fairly effective at that, so long as the intended audience wants to believe badly enough to avoid scrutinizing the arguments too closely.