Yes or No. Is the universe 12,000 years old? Dont hide behind your bible. No but

[Emsworth]

However, the bible does argue the INdirect evidence of God:
1) the testimony and actions of those who have had God intervene in their lives
2) the fact that the universe exists
3) the authority of the Word of God

Point 3 isn't really evidence at all. It attempts to use "the Word of God" to prove that God exists. Clearly, this is a circular argument.

Point 2 does not in any way suggest that God exists. As has been demonstrated numerous times, the fact that the universe exists in no way implies that someone created it.

Point 1 is unreliable at best. In any event, I am sure that there are several people who would testify that there is not one God, but many gods. That hardly makes them correct.

Hence, there is neither direct nor indirect evidence for God's existence. Belief in God is just that -- a belief.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is another invalid argument. The Second Law of Thermodynamics only states that total entropy tends to increase. Nothing in the laws of science suggests that "entropy can't decrease."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So how can we choose between different religions? Many different religious texts can lay claim to dozens of writers across many centuries.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More circular reasoning. "God exists. If you don't accept him, it's because God intended it that way."

[Emsworth]

The fact remains that every single experiment and/or process ever observed in the history of man has supported the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.  Even the newly discovered Dark Energy supports them.

The existence of an omnipotent God is inconsistent with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. You cannot insist on using the laws of thermodynamics to prove the existence of an entity that violates those very laws.

[Emsworth]

The 1st and 2nd Laws relate to the natural forces, not supernatural

The distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" phenomena is utterly arbitrary. On what objective basis can you claim that some events are more "natural" than others?