There is truly no physical evidence pointing to the existence of God, otherwise it won't be a matter of belief. I also don't see any evidence that contradicts the existence of God.

For me, the existence of God makes more sense in my philosophical model than his non-existance.

It seems like a statement like this cannot be made without first giving a definition of God. Clearly, people have different ideas of what God is.

So either you are saying there is no evidence for one particular definition of God, but you are not giving us the definition or you are saying there is no evidence for any of the different definitions of God that might exist. The latter is a difficult argument to make in my estimation, because any one person is probably ignorant about a sizeable portion of definitions.

I'll try to explain my idea of God.

He isn't bound by space or time, ah he created them. Following that, he has no material form otherwise he would be bound by space.

He created us humans for the sole purpose of worshipping him. He is complete, in the sense he lacks nothing. All human feelings that stem from lack don't apply to him (hunger, loneliness, jealousy, etc...)

It's impossible to prove such a supreme being exists. However, I elected trust the words of people who claimed to be his prophets, as I have found no logical contradiction that proves God can't exist.

>So either you are saying there is no evidence for one particular definition of God, but you are not giving us the definition or you are saying there is no evidence for any of the different definitions of God that might exist

Russel's teapot.

I don't think this is an example of Russel's teapot. In Russel's teapot, you are giving a solid explanation of what you are claiming, it just happens to be unfalsifiable.

In the example I was criticizing, the word "God" was used without any further explanation of its meaning (in a thread which hosts discussions on different definitions of the word "God" no less).

Of course, if you are a priori assuming that any definition of God is going to be unfalsifiable, you can draw the connection to Russel's teapot, but again, I don't think you can convincingly do this without knowing all the definitions.

Where does the vacuum come from? What causes a particle to emerge from a vacuum?

The question you're asking about where the vacuum came from is the good one, we can answer the second by reference to the laws governing the vacuum.

are you referencing to virtual particles? If so, are those real or just mathematical device used for quantum calculations?