Evidence for the existence of God

[Asmodee]

My answer is simple.  Demonstrate to me that magic is real and we'll have something to talk about then.  You say you believe in the "Biblical God".  That doesn't really tell me much, but I assume it to mean that you believe how the Bible describes him.  I have found that the New Testament is generally more universally accepted than the Old Testament, so we'll limit it to just the NT.  And it doesn't get any more "Christian" that the words of Jesus the Christ (Christ was a title, not a last name), so we'll limited it just to the things he spoke directly.  This is taken from Mark 16

17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

So, "those who believe" not only can, but WILL heal the sick.  Jesus says these signs WILL accompany those who believe.  Not that they might.  Not "Well, through the power of prayer....God's will....faith of a grain of mustard see....if...."  THESE SIGNS WILL accompany those who believe.  Show me ONE person who fits that description.  All I need is the evidence Jesus says I WILL have.

Based on the master texts, those verses were actually additions made by later copyists and were never part of the original manuscripts. According to reliable early manuscripts, the Gospel of Mark ends with vs. 8.

Well, now I am thoroughly confused.  You had this to say earlier:

Well, Boru, since you ask, my own view of God is the Biblical God.

And now you tell me that you actually reject parts of the Bible as inauthentic.  So now not only have you utterly destroyed the definition of "God", making it impossible for me to answer your question with any intellectual honesty, you also just added considerable ambiguity to your already ambiguous answer when asked for an  "unambiguous" definition of God.  At this point we would need to go a more basic discussion and you would need to tell me which portions of the Bible you accept as authentic and which portions you do not.  It probably wouldn't hurt if you told me which particular Bible you were using.  And I'd really like to know how you felt about the parts you accept and the parts you reject.  For instance, if I were to use a part of the Bible that you accepted as authentic for toilet paper, would that bother you?  How would your feelings differ if the part I used was a part you objected to?  And then I would need to actually examine the new text we ended up with to see what was cut and what was left, just so that I could gain an understanding of what you were asking.

And no, I'm not trying to "confuse the issue".  Surely you can see a need for all of this given that my answer to your question was based substantially on a portion of the Bible you reject as unauthentic.  Obviously, what I would requires as proof, given that your particular idea of God is not "the Biblical God", but the God of "some undefined portion of the Bible which definitely excludes any part of the Gospel of Mark after vs 8." Presumably there would be other later additions which would also not influence your idea of what God was.  And with such changes I am going to need to know how you feel about the Old Testament, too.  Literal or figurative?  A little of column A, a little of column B?

At this point I am no longer even sure of what your definition of God was.  If pressed, my answer would be the same, though.  Show me magic.  It's the only answer I can give you, and then only because it's the answer I already had before realizing that you rejected the authenticity of unknown portions of the Bible.  To be honest, I doubt I'm going to make the time to reevaluate the Bible with the portions you feel are later additions removed.  It's just too much work to answer what should have been a simple question.  But I would still like to know your thoughts.