The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[Deesse23]

IDK, maybe that is unreasonable, maybe it couldn't.  The faithful don't believe that it was capable of hiding it's tracks, at any rate.

Which is why the faithful (in this case, Kloro) are the ones who keep insisting that existence is evidence enough. But to point to a natural thing - a tree, a river, Boris Johnson - and say, 'There is evidence for God!' isn't sustainable, as there are always alternative explanations that are, at the very least, plausible. In order for a piece of godvidence to be acceptable, it would have to be of such a nature as to preclude all potential naturalistic explanations.

Boru

Well, yeah, thats the difference between *evidence* and *good evidence*

You can point at anything and claim its evidence for *insert your favourite obsession*. You arent (technically) wrong in doing so. Everything is evidence for anything.
The thing is tho: good evidence rules out other explanations than *insert your favourite obsession*. The more alternative explanations your evidence excludes, the better evidence it is (for your favourite obsession).

Nature is no good evidence for a god, since it doesnt exclude...wait for it....any (and there are many!) natural explanations for the existence of...nature.