There is evidence for God

"Isn't the Abrahamic God supposed to be omnipotent (Revelation 19:6) and omniscient (Hebrews 4:13, Isaiah 46:9-10)?If you cannot confirm these things, how do you know that the deity you have demonstrated to exist is the deity of Abrahamic religions?"Yes, the Abrahamic God is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, and if I cannot confirm these things, then I have not demonstrated the Abrahamic deity to exist.But, who says I cannot confirm these things? Evidence is incrimental, WaterTipper. It accumulates, gets stronger and weaker etc. If I were to give evidence of all of God's attributes, I'd be doing much, much more than just indicating that God exists: I'd be proving that God exists. Instead of giving a cumulative case for God's existence in which I argue there's something that is omnipotent and omniscient and morally perfect and...etc., I've chosen to just argue for one of God's attributes: supreme intelligence. This suffices to indicate that God exists. This distinction might help:"Let us call an argument in which the premisses make the conclusion probable a correct P-inductive argument. Let us call an argument in which the premisses add to the probability of the conclusion (that is, make the conclusion more likely or more probable than it would otherwise be) a correct C-inductive argument." [1]I'm giving a correct C-inductive argument for God's existence, not a correct P-inductive argument. My evidence makes God's existence more probable than it would otherwise be, but it does not make God's existence probable."Your argument seems to be flawed in that you initially assume all things in the universe have a purpose, or as you've stated it, "gearing towards an effect." To make such a baseless claim and assume it as fact is fallacious. Please provide evidence for so before basing your argument on it."I haven't assumed that causes are geared towards producing particular effects, I argued that they were. Check out my citation of Thomas Aquinas again wherein he argues that if causes weren't geared toward one effect instead of another, they wouldn't produce any effects at all."Also, your argument seems to be that parallel to something like investigating "the meaning of life." That is up to an entirely different debate."I don't think my argument concerns the meaning of life, it just concerns how non-intelligent agents can be directed toward producing things that don't yet exist."Please provide evidence that objects can only exist in reality or the mind, no more, no less.Your assumption is actually false in that the definition of existence is "the fact or state of living or having objective reality" (Oxford English Dictionary). Since "existing" in the mind is not grounded on objective reality by definition, it's not really existence at all, thus invalidating your entire point."The sensations, images and ideas that exist in our minds are very much often grounded in mind-independent reality. E.g. The image of a tree in my mind is grounded by the tree I'm looking at, etc. Your suggestion implies radical skepticism of the external world.As for whether objects can exist without existing in reality or in a mind, consider this: 1. Everything that exists is either mind-dependent or it is not. [Law of Excluded Middle]2. If it is mind-dependent, then it exists either in a mind (e.g. an idea) or in reality (e.g. inventions of minds). 3. If it is not mind-dependent, that is if it is mind-independent, then it exists in reality (e.g. stars, mountains and countries). 4. Therefore, everything that exists either exists in a mind or in reality. [(1)-(3) Constructive Dilemma]Footnotes:[1]: Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 2004. p. 6