At the same time, you are not saying that the defendant is completely innocent. It could be that the defendant really did commit the murder, but you need to see evidence before you are convinced that the defendant is guilty.
The same applies to my position.
However under the law the person is completely innocent of this crime, because he or she has been determined innocent by the court.
Nonetheless we are not trying to convict God of a crime, We in your view are tried to establish the existence of God, but you claim that you cannot day that God exists because I have failed to prove this. That is because I thought we are talking about the nature of Reality and Methodological Naturalism.
If you want to put God on trial, then you need to accuse God of creating the universe. To be sure God would plead guilty, but for those what are skeptical of this, Let me try to give the evidence you demand to prove that God created the universe in a court of law.
First of all let me concede that no one saw God create the universe so there are no witnesses except God, Whose testimony is found in Genesis 1:1.
Second, let us say that God had a motive in creating the universe, because God loves the universe and humans who live in the universe. God had a motive.
Third, God has the opportunity to create the universe. God is the only Entity that stands outside of space and time, so God is the only Entity Who had the opportunity to create the universe.
Fourth, God had the means to create the universe, God is the only Entity Who is the Source of all Power, Truth, and Meaning, and thus is the only Entity Who could create the universe.
The evidence is overwhelming. God created the universe ex nihilo. Either God did it or it did not happen. Science proves that it did happen. God did it.
If you want to claim that it (an idea) isn't made of matter/energy then you need to show that this is the case. From what I have seen, ideas are physical as they are the product of a very physical brain.
Information may be the product of the mind which is in part physical, but it is not physical, because it does not meet the definition of being physical, which is being composed of matter/energy. This is a philosophical, scientific question, which must be determined by the rules of philosophy and science, rather than what we want to be true.
Learning information and communicating information is cone by encoding, sending, and decoding this information. The research being done on the mind helps us to understand the relational nature of information, which is not composed of matter/energy.
Emotions like love are the product of our physical brains.
You are way behind the times. Love is a relationship, which is structured and lasting, rather than an emotion, that is based on the endocrine system. The brain may be physical in part, but the mind which governs us is relational, based on theology, education, and experience, which are4 not physical.
Those are claims, not evidence.
This is testimony, which is always welcome in a court of law.
Posit all you want. What is important is the evidence that backs a theory.
Science is the evidence that the universe is a cosmos, not chaos. Science is based on the theory that the universe is rational and works. Now Dawkins, Dennett, and other New Atheists have tried to use quantum physics and other mind games to "prove" that the universe is not rational and does not work. I hope that you are not tricked into believing that this is true like at least one person with whom I have dialogued.
People for the most part believe their experience that life is good and meaningful. Science is based on experience, not speculation. This is the evidence of evolution.