I have proof God does exist

The majority of Pro's R1 is unrelated. He then mentions The Signature, which I have read. I will refute that here. "There are two ways that God reveals Himself, establishing Himself as The Lord and only God Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and all that is therein to humankind. First, through the working of miracles 1 Cor. 12:10. However, a manifestation of God in the earth is sporadic and only occurs at widely separate intervals within history... Now, I"m going to show what God has declared is the second way; He reveals Himself and has revealed Himself. Without question the only God and Lord of the entire universe through the Holy Bible, of which NO OTHER BOOK CAN MAKE THIS CLAIM! This is The Signature of God!" The reason manifestations of God are "sporadic and only [occur] at widely separate intervals" is because most human beings realize that their hallucinations are just that and not a bearded man in the sky trying to talk to them, or whatever else might be the case. The rest of this section gives examples of miracles,l all covered by the above statement. The most annoying argument apologists use is the argument from scripture. "My Holy Book is true because in my Holy Book it says that my Holy Book is written by God and my Holy Book says that God is never wrong." Or something of the like. I will also refute all of Pro's R1 rambling. "I love these pros and cons none of them have any foundation, just point of view." My foundation is that a negative is assumed to be true until proven otherwise (the same reasoning that leads to "innocent until proven guilty). "The Fundamental church view is He did it in 6 days (speaking everything into existence) BAM!" Yes, and I disagree. "The scientific view of an evolving is understandable however they still haven't completed the puzzle as of yet." Here inlies the greatest strength of science and the worst weakness of religion: We can say "I don't know yet." Religions give answers to unanswerable questions, but scientists search for those answers. In a religious community, when asked an existential question an answer is expected, but in a scientific one, "We don't know yet" or "I'll look into that" are perfectly acceptable. "When anyone says creation began with a Big Bang I say, I believe that but what caused that? They say it was an atom and I say I believe that also but where did the atom come from? Cosmic dust or a molecule. I can believe that also but they had to have a beginning. That's the piece of the puzzle the scientific community hasn't figured out because that's where God comes in to the puzzle" I have never heard anyone say that the Big Bang was caused by an atom, but I get your point. You're using the First Cause argument. There are two good refutations to this, I will explain both. The first is logical: If you were to use an infinite regress like one of Zeno's paradoxes to prove the existence of something that you claim to be the end of this regress, which is an apt description of the First Cause argument, your argument is subject to the special pleading fallacy. The infinite regress is infinite, and if you try to end it with God, then what created God? The only answer to an infinite regress is an infinite cycle, which leads to my next refutation. This one is scientific. It is called the Big Crunch Theory. It is one of many, none of which have been definitively proven, for the future of the universe. I personally think this the most likely. It goes like this: Our universe is one of many throughout time, following a cyclical pattern. As our universe ages, the quantity of dark energy which aids the momentum from the Big Bang will diminish, and the said momentum will be overcome by gravity. Our universe will then begin to condense into a singularity, a stage known as the Big Crunch. This singularity now includes the entirety of the Universe's mass, mostly in energy, in a very small area. This forces matter out, in a Big Bang, the start of the next Universe. Source: http://www.iflscience.com... "He says He created the heavens and earth and all that is therein." Again, argument from scripture. "The Church with their view that it happened in 6 days and that God spoke everything into existence isn't very biblical either because if you read the Gen. account you'll actually see that God did it in about 20 plus seconds, WHAT!! Well how long does it take to say, "Let there be light" or "Let the earth bring forth seed after its kind." Is God handicapped with a speech impediment?" No, but He is extremely lazy, along with being evil, narcissistic, and bipolar. "If we knew Scripture or had a teaching beyond "something things we just have to believe by faith," something that makes sense like FACT that would solve the question wouldn't it? Do you know that Scripture tells us, "A thousand years is like a day and a day like a thousand years to God? If we were to apply this to creation we could see that with a 365 day year (which wasn't at that time) multiplying that by 1000 we'd see 365,000 years x 6 days we'd see more than 2,000,000 years I can see an evolving here and it says the earth was without form and void not it wasn't there it could have been there trillions of years." I honestly have no clue what you're saying here. "But the real question to put an end to pros and cons is DOES GOD EXIST? Is there PROOF? The answer is yes. If your interested to know write voiceofthesign @aol.com this fellow is from Colorado and has written a booklet entitled, The Signature and I have never read or heard anyone explain with proof the existence of God. He has a PDF file that he will share with you. Than come back here and tell me what you think" I have told you what I think: It's bs.