Responding in order:
1) It's not getting the info across. You've described the information there in three distinct ways -- by your own description, the information there is proof, evidence but not proof, and information that points to evidence.
Is that how you're trying to win the debate, by making your position *every* position so that, no matter what is said, you're always correct?
So you're debating!?
2) This is hilariously weird, but it fits the nature of your posts very well. That is, when you make a mistake you are more than happy to make it everyone's responsibility. Super, super weird that you write that you are willing to admit that "we" make mistakes.
Please leave me and "we" out of it. You are responsible for your own logical mistakes.
Generally I don't do the "we" thing. But since so many people express the human race as one in their posts, for the sake of brevity and information flow, I have been doing the "we" thing. Now, all of a sudden, you want to leave yourself outside of the human race. Who do you think you are, God (rhetorical)?
3) The scientist in me recognizes that the information contained in your link does *not* prove God -- not even close.
Remember again that:
a) Science cannot conclude upon that which cannot be directly observed.
b) By definition, an intelligent designer cannot be directly observed.
c) Therefore, science cannot cannot conclude upon an intelligent designer.
So, again, it is an absolute, logical impossibility for scientific evidence to constitute proof for God's existence.
Quit calling that garbage "proof."
Thank you for explaining the precise reason that Big Bang, age of the universe, evolution-produces-life, black holes, dark matter and energy, parallel universes, chaos, and quantum anything, are all theories.
The point remains. The evidence expressed at
https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is proof that God exists.
