That's where we end up at the old argument...prove there is wind. I can't hold it. I can't see, taste, or smell it. I can see the effects of the wind, but I can't actually see the wind itself.
WHOA. You just made a huge, incorrect statement.
Can we prove there is wind? Of course we can! You said it yourself, you can see the effects of the wind. It's observeable,testable and subject to the scientific method.
Here's a link to the Texas Tech University Wind Science and Engineering Research Center. Try and tell THEM they can't prove wind exists.
Sometimes we just believe in things that we can't see, because there is enough things that point us in the direction of belief. I see leaves moving on the trees. I know that some force moves them. Science is able to explain that by the air shifting through high and low pressure cells, the axial spinning of the Earth, etc, and therefore, I believe there is wind.
AHA, now here is the real crux of the problem. You are confusing belief and knowledge. I have no problem acknowledging that you have a belief in God. I have a huge problem though, when you claim to KNOW God exists, or have proof of his existence. Belief and proof are not synonymous.
To me, the Big Bang Theory holds no weight. I've never felt comfortable saying that everything we are... is here by chance. After all of the logic, medical, sociological studies I've done... as intricate as everything is... I just can't fathom that we're here by accident, or decended from apes. (If genetic mutation caused us to decend from apes, and "survival of the fittest" arguments actually worked, there would not be both humans and apes at the same time.)
I'm not a big fan or proponent of the Big Bang either...for the same reasons I don't believe in Creationism...there's just not enough proof to support the theory. That's why it's called a THEORY. That's why Creationism is a THEORY.
Here's your other problem...you don't FEEL comfortable? Feelings shouldn't enter into the equation. We're talking about FACTS here, not FEELINGS. Feelings alter and shape BELIEFS, they have no impact on KNOWLEDGE. Beginning to see a trend?
You use a lot of logic in your arguments. I, too, understand and appreciate the value the use of logic in validating claims. However, I believe there are two important points about logic to keep in mind.
1) Ockham's Razor. The simplest answer is most likely to be the most accurate. The more exceptions you have to write in to any rule to make it valid, the more likely you're going to run into another exception.
Ah, Occam's Razor. If you're gonna pull out the big guns, you better know where the trigger is
You've boiled down OR to something that is far too simplistic to accurate define it, namely, "take the simplest solution". To stay true to the best understanding of Occam's Razor, it should be defined as, "do no multiply entities unneccessarily".
Do a quick search on the Paris Astrological Society and their denial of the existence of meteorites because of a simpler explanation.
As HL Mencken said, "For every complex problem, there is an answer that is simple, elegant, and wrong."
It would also help to do a little study on the subject of parsimony.
If you're going to honestly and objectively use Occam's Razor, then you need to examine why Theism is presumably the simpler explanation to Naturalism.
I could go further with this, but this could easily be a thread in, and of itself.
2) You have to believe some source of data. For instance, take the number three. Yes, that number that sits on the keyboard between 2 & 4. We only know that three means three because someone decided that it means three. At some point, we have to take it for granted that three does mean three... otherwise, I could say that "three = green" and there is nothing that says anything to the contrary.
Again, belief and knowledge are two different things.
But enough of my shoddy logic, and back to God.
Hey, if you're gonna play the logic card, you have to be willing to play by the logical rules and see it through to the end.
As I stated before, I have my "proof" that leads me to believe. You're right, it's not something that I can show you. I can only tell you my story about the day that changed my life. But there is no photograph, no signed book.... only a vision of stairs that I had never seen in my life... and then the trip into the middle of a city that I had never been to.... only to find the exact stairs from my vision. I prayed and asked God for a sense of direction... for His help. He showed me stairs, then lead me straight to them.
Please, don't take offense at what I am about to say. Keep in mind that I was a believer once and understand what you are saying. What I also understand, after years of hindsight and objectibility, is that things aren't always as they appear. Theists tend to pound round pegs into square holes to match their beliefs (there's that word again).
Let me put it to you this way. If I were to acknowledge that what you have is real proof, real evidence, then how will you address me when I tell you that I also have proof and evidence to the contrary. I can relate stories to you that "prove" that God does not exist. What about other religions? They have "proof" that Allah exists, or "proof" that Vishnu exists. Why is their "proof" any different than yours? ALL those "proofs" can't be correct, but they CAN all be wrong.
As I said above:
I know it's not enough for you. But those stairs were enough for me. I cannot logically or illogically deduce any other way that I could have "seen" a set of stairs so clearly that they could have been a photograph (when I'm sure they weren't), and then find them in the world. The color of the concrete, the design of the railing, shadows, everything.
Are you SURE you can't? Objectibility isn't an easy thing to resign yourself to. Again, it's those feelings that help shape your belief.
I'm sorry to hear that you once were a believer, but have since changed your mind because you didn't have an experience to "prove" that God is here. I don't know, and can't explain why you wouldn't have a situation strike you so brutally that you couldn't help but know God is there, but it's sad to see someone that wants so badly to believe turn away.
My story isn't unique though, I hope you realize that. There are many, many like mine. All I ask is that you weigh your "proof" of existence and my "proof" of nonexistence together. If they are equally weighted, then something, somewhere has to be wrong. Harboring a belief without actively pursuing it logically is intellectually dishonest.
Sadly though, discussions regarding beliefs with you will be pointless. Any scripture reference I could quote you could immediately refute with any other reference. Whether it be God, unicorns, or UFOs - it just comes down to whether or not a person believes in the existance of the topic.
There's that word again, belief
Are you honestly telling me that if a person believes, with their heart, mind and soul, that unicorns exist, that they really DO?
As I stated before, you may not want to believe that the Eiffel Tower exists, but if I can prove to you that it does, what would that say about your belief in it's nonexistence?
Likewise, if you want me to believe in something extraordinary, like God, you had better be able to offer up extraordinary evidence to support that claim.
I believe in God for reasons that are strong enough that I cannot refute. You do not believe in God for reasons that are strong enough that you cannot refute as well. I do believe that we're at a stalemate, as far as our opinions of God go.
Logically Durruck, how can there be a stalemate? If I say I believe the moon is made of cheese and you say you believe it's made of marshmallow, how can both of our beliefs be true? As I said, both of our beliefs can't be true, but they CAN both be wrong. Once again, if your belief in God is right, wouldnt you have to acknowledge EVERY god because of their believer's "proof" which is identical to your own?
By the way, sorry for the long reply. I had a lot on my mind
The longer your replies are, the longer mine are
" 
