How does one respond to this argument?It's long but an interesting read. Thanks :)

[Neo-Scholastic]

Also[the] no scientific method isn't the only way to gain knowledge but it is the only way to ascertain and validate said knowledge against our observable reality.

Do you have a scientific study or physical evidence to prove that the scientific method is the only way to validate knowledge beliefs? (knowledge is belief that has already been justified as true)

Let me say this: a God which can only be argued for with logical or philosophical ideas, and not by evidence, is irrelevant. It is not interacting with Mankind since any interaction of sufficient import should provide sufficient evidence of existence.

The so-called God of the Philosophers is indeed rather pale. But it is something and the implications are surprisingly far reaching when discussing metaphysical questions such as those you are fond of raising.

If "god" is being argued for as an abstract idea only, it is no more real than any other concept…

&

Words are not as accurate as mathematical symbols…it's vitally important to negotiate the language, definitions and claims as much as anything else.

When you use terms like “abstract ideas” it suggests that you do not have a fully developed nomenclature, one such as that used by the Schoolmen, that clearly distinguishes between abstractions, ideas, and concepts. In modern usage the meanings of those words often overlap so some confusion is to be expected. Before being so dismissive of theological arguments, you would be best advised to confirm that you fully grasp how the words are used in context. Another example would be a word like substance. In antiquity and medieval philosophy the word meant something quite different since Descartes.

…when someone is using arguments in place of evidence, they haven't even established its existence. See my video:

You should reconsider your ceaseless self-promotion of that video. It truly misses the point. Demonstrations intended to show the existence of God are based on experiences common to all people by means of the senses. The evidence under consideration is not any one particular thing or class of things; but rather, the universal features of reality as a whole and all things within it. They do not concern specific beings; but rather, being as such.

…To begin with: what's a god? How do you differentiate between a god and a non-God? No theist has ever given me a coherent answer to this. The discussion seems kind of pointless if I don't even know what they are arguing for.

From the very beginning of the Christian Church believers have known that the fullness of God is incomprehensible to Man. Anslem gave the best definition of God: that which the greater than which cannot be conceived. Even though God cannot be fully comprehended that does not prevent people from knowing some things about Him, particularly like what He is not, such as limited or contingent.

Secondly: when you've finished telling me what it is, if we ever get that far, why should I care?

Well, at the very least you could more precisely target your critiques. Maybe then people like me would take them more seriously.