No, I already demonstrated His existence earlier in this thread.
..using arguments that sound to me like the following:
The Argument from Cat Vomit
1. Some things in the universe (such as cat vomit) have a unity of diversity.
2. God is reported to have a unity of diversity.
3.Therefore, God exists.
The Argument from Night and Day
1. Jeremiah said that night and day follow a pattern.
2. Night indeed follows day, and day indeed follows night.
3. How did Jeremiah know that? It's a miracle!
4. Therefore, God exists.
The Argument from Incompleteness.
1. No logic system is complete.
2. This argument uses logic.
3. Therefore, God exists.
The Argument from Limited Observation
1. We are limited in how far back in time and space we can observe.
2. If we cannot observe it, then it is nonphysical.
3. God is said to be nonphysical.
4. Therefore, God exists.
The Argument from the Definition of Good
1. God defines what words mean in English.
2. God defined that the English word "good" means whatever God is.
3. Based on this definition, God's character is "good".
4. Therefore, God is good.
5. Therefore, theists get to make the United States a theocracy.
The Argument from Incredulity
1. We don't know anything beyond the observable universe.
2. If we don't know something, then Ed1Wolf gets to make it up.
3. Therefore Ed1Wolf is right.
4. Therefore, God exists.
The Argument from Proof
1. I have proven this.
2. What? You think I said I have proven it? Straw man!
3. Your logic is invalid. You use a straw man.
4. Therefore I have proven it.
5. Therefore, God exists.
The Argument from Ed1Wolf's Feelings
1. Ed1Wolf subjectively feels that God's character is objectively good.
2. It is objective truth that anything that Ed1Wolf subjectively feels is objective truth.
3. Therefore it is objectively true that God's character is objectively good.
4. The Bible's strong recommendations perfectly conform to God's character.
5. Therefore the Bible's strong recommendations about morality are infallible.
All of these arguments are bunkers.