I know I'm a bit late in the discussion, and to be honest I skipped over pages 1 through 24 because I really don't have the three years it would likely take to read it (not to mention I'm afraid that the previous pages contain as much math as the previous two posts, in which case I'm plain screwed!), but here's my answer to the original question way back on page 1:
I do believe in God. Furthermore, I'm not so sure that God is something that can be proven scientifically. I don't think science is the right study to even begin to look for God (or god, or gods, etc...). I think history is much more relevant. The question then is 'Does history provide evidence of a divine being of some type?'
For myself, I believe in the Bible, and so I rephrase the question a bit as 'Is the Bible historically and/or spiritually accurate?' Frankly, if the Bible is accurate, and evidence can be provided to support this claim, then God exists because an accurate historical document details his 'exploits' so to speak. One could pose the same question of any historical figure (example, did Julias Ceaser really exist? Would be answered by accurate historical documents and archaeological findings). Consider the following excerpt from FF Bruce's "New Testament Documents"
<<<<<<<begin disturbingly long quote<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
There are in existence about 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. The best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350, the two most important being the Codex Vaticanus, the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome, and the wellknown Codex Sinaiticus, which the British Government purchased from the Soviet Government for £100,000 on Christmas Day, 1933, and which is now the chief treasure of the British Museum. Two other important early MSS in this country are the Codex Alexandrinus, also in the British Museum, written in the fifth century, and the Codex Bezae:, in Cambridge University Library, written in the fifth or sixth century, and containing the Gospels and Acts in both Greek and Latin.
Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some goo years later than Caesar's day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC-AD 17) only thirty five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books iii-vi, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of has two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant MSS of his minor works (Dialogue dc Oratoribus, Agricola, Gcrmania) all descend from a codex of the tenth century The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<End disturbingly long quote<<<<<<<<<<<<
This can be read in full at
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc02.htm
While this isn't exactly definitive proof, it is evidence, which is what has been asked for.
