My proof of God's existence is his Creation. As the Bible stated, every creation speaks or shows the Existence of a Creator.
As much as a House shows the existence of a House Builder, a Car of a Car Maker, etc.
So basically, you're telling us that you believe what the bible says because the bible says so. In other words, you've assumed your position in advance. Sound about right? How about lightening and thunder? Does lightening need a "lighteninger" and thunder a "thunderer"? Your first sentence commits the fallacy of circular reasoning. It says, "My proof of God is God". FAIL!
We have demonstrable examples of houses and cars being built by people. We have exactly NO examples of your Yahweh god doing anything.
Now if one says, the Creator doesnt exist and everything is just Science, then he has the burden of proof to show how Science can make it happen. Science "constructs" can be reproduced, so if the universe was a Science Construct, then reproduce it please, by all means.
This is, once again, your fallacious Straw Man argument. Do you know what that is? None of us has said "there is no God" (although I have said Yahweh most certainly does not exist - but that is another debate). We have said that all of the arguments given for a god have thus far failed. Therefore, we see no reason for accepting the claim (just like we don't believe in Unicorns). Again, we did NOT make a positive claim. So you are attacking an argument we have not made.
Second, you are attacking another argument we have not made by thinking we have said, "It's all just science". WTF? Where do you people come up with this shit? Do you even know what science is? Have you taken even ONE science course? It doesn't seem so. It seems you are quite ignorant. You are putting words in our mouth, instead of actually trying to understand our position. How arrogant!
Meaning if one wants to claim he doesnt believe in a Creator then prove that the Universe can be scientifically manifested.
This is called the fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof
. If you claim that Unicorns exist and I don't believe you (say b/c you haven't given good evidence or reason for it), the burden of proof is on you - not me. The default position is to disbelieve a claim until sufficient evidence has been provided - not the other way around.
If I don't believe your claim to a God, I am not (by default) required to give some other explanation. Do you have to provide another explanation for every wacky claim people make up? This is exactly how it works with your God claim. The burden of proof is on you, not me. The answer "I don't know and neither do you" is more than sufficient.
Is it really backwards?
Some thinks, "To See is to Believe"
I say it works the other way around in reality, "believe first and you will see".
Scientific research has a purpose. This purpose is the "Belief". Example, a cure for cancer.
Scientists are faced with the dilemma that cancer cant be cured, They Believed there is a cure, then they research for a cure.
A guy flew a kite believing there is a use for that lightning and that it may be controlled and used.
A guy wanted to harness atomic fusion, he believed he can so he studied it and he was able to come up with a fusion reactor.
If you would delve into business, wouldnt you believe first that you will earn in that field before you invest in it? Specially if you are the pioneer of that business.
The bible did say no one has seen God. And then asks everyone to believe in him. Then promised that you will see.
Its like marriage, a girl believes a guy would give him a good life so she marries him. Would she marry him if she didnt believe in him? What do you think?
Ignorance, ignorance, ignorance.
1. Do you actually think that in order for something to be real you have to 'believe' in it first? What magic! So how about you demonstrate that and just "believe" you are sitting in my living room right now so we can have this conversation face to face. Or how about you "believe" yourself into Unicorns existing? I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way sir. Belief is not a choice. One must be convinced (by either good evidence or bad).
2. The purpose of scientific research is NOTHING LIKE what you claim. Again, you show how ignorant you are. When scientists search for a cure (listen carefully now) THEY DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A CURE! "Believing there is" a cure is completely different from thinking there might be
one. You need to go take some science classes and come back when you know WTF you're talking about.
3. You keep using this word "believe", as any person who has a hypothesis about something is just as COMMITTED to it as you are to the bible. NOPE! You are dead wrong. Tentative trust (that can very easily be changed) is nothing like your belief in the bible (because that cannot be easily changed). You are wholly and firmly committed to it, and that is opposite of what science does.
4. Regarding starting a business, I run 3 businesses. I didn't "believe" any of them were GOING to be successful. I started with an hypothesis and then tested it. Are you testing the bible uncritically as I do my businesses? I think not. If one of my businesses fails in it's business model (and it's happened before) I will stop supporting it. Will you do the same with the bible?
5. Regarding marriage, you have given another false analogy. Marriages are DEMONSTRABLE and if the man started showing signs that he did NOT actually love the woman, she would be able to see he was lying. Your alleged "God" thing is not demonstrable. Can you demonstrate this god as I can demonstrate my wife? [Waiting for you to get right on that] If not, then your marriage example fails miserably.