Oh come on it's not difficult to grasp, provide evidence of god without a mealy mouthed essay.<quoted text> I've answered that. The problem is not with the evidence and never has been. The problem is with the atheist who rejects evidence to protect his atheism. God is a theoretical construct as opposed to empirical construct. Let me quote from a book i am reading.
''If science can validly deal with physical objects that are completely outside ordinary experience (because they are not perceptible) and can employ theoretical constructs (not empirical concepts) to know something about these objects, then one cannot be precluded from employing theoretical constructs to deal with the question of God.''
''The existence of God explains why there is something rather than nothing; It explains the intelligibility and order of the universe; it explains the continuing existence of the universe; it explains the beginning of the universe; it explains the inherently mathematical model nature of the universe; it explains the existence of the laws of nature; it explains the beauty of the universe and the relationship between mathematical beauty and truth; it explains the existence of information; it explains the existence of free will and the ability to recognize good and evil;...''
Atheism on the other hand explains nothing.
Your god is the most powerful entity in the universe and he needs you to describe the subtle nuances of a spiral pattern in a flower to plead for someone to accept that his existence is even possible.
If your god is a quadratic equation then sorry, I can solve one of those either simultaneously or graphically, he doesn't impress me.