And this evidence is?
Wide and various, though by no means uncontested. For example, I've always been fascinated by the inability of naturalists to see order and design in the universe. It appears they find my recognition of it surprising, and yet it seems to perfectly obvious to me that I cannot believe they cannot see it on every side. Or take consciousness...how does a purely material world suddenly "cough up" this completely non-material property, something the dead opposite of "material"? Or take the question of evil: atheists think it is a serious problem for theists...and yet it's surely far greater for atheists, who don't even have a way of legitimizing a category by which evil can be recognized. If "evil" actually exists, then that fact alone argues very powerfully for the existence of objective value, and objective value argues for God.
You realize, of course, that I cannot do any justice to all these lines of thoughts here, because of space. The only important point for our purposes is that you can see I think I see plenty of evidence, and by faith connect the dots to God. For some reason, the atheist does not.
For the believer I grant you but for this 'God'? Seems a pauce 'God' if the believer can nuance 'it'.
No, I didn't say a person could "nuance" God, only that discussing the attributes of God has to be nuanced, in the sense that you're dealing with something profound that is capable of nuance.
Actually, the secularist has a huge problem with an Uncaused Cause. Something had to precipitate the Big Bang, and before that, the existence of the "noble gasses," so called, that prepared for the Big Bang. This "Cause" had to set into motion all the laws upon which science itself depends, and convert an accident (a "bang"), into a creative and generative force. We can argue afterwards about what mechanism took over after that, but the problem remains: why is there something rather than nothing, since "nothing" is precisely what we should expect from nothing -- if that's all there was at the start. Why did *anything* start to exist? Being itself is what is incomprehensible, from a materialist perspective.
That's a hard problem to grasp, but it's fundamental. It's not just "what is" that we need to account for, but for the property of "being" itself. On a naturalist worldview, it can never be explained, and yet the naturalist is just as bound to have to locate the origin of being in an Uncaused Cause as the theist is.
In any case, how should purely material processes suddenly generate entirely different properties like qualia and consciousness? That's a question that the worlds greatest scientists and philosophers cannot answer. Something very spooky is going on in this universe, in addition to the purely material stuff.
The serpent had the right of it.
You're being sarcastic, of course. There's actually a lot one can learn from that passage, even if one is only prepared to see in it a human legend. But you won't get anything out of it by getting the details wrong. If you want, we can discuss it further; but I have a sense you don't actually care a whole lot about Biblical exegesis, perhaps, and would rather simply "take your shot" and then move on: correct?
Yes, C.S. Lewis. He's very simple, straightforward and homespun. A lot of people have found him helpful in catching the broad outlines of certain theistic issues (like "mere Christianity"), though like any theist he is not without his detractors, of course.
Wolterstorff has the very best philosophical book I have read so far on the issue of "Justice," and Plantinga is really good on a number of things. Both are very highly regarded in secular circles as well as theistic ones. There are very, very bright minds around that operate from a theistic perspective, just as there are bright atheists. What we have to stop doing is dismissing each other out of hand. We need to start talking and listening sympathetically.
Rather like you and I are doing right now, I think.
So this 'God's' attributes can be understood in a nuanced way can they? How convenient.