When is a Religious Belief Delusional?

[SteveII]

Note the bold. Please provide a list of the "indisputable evidence" that there is no God.

Provide the evidence that I do not have an invisible garage dragon. Of course, you cannot. In your delusion, my invisible garage dragon cannot be proven to not exist. Therefore you must accept it as real. It may seem trivial to you, but that is your argument. Maybe you don't much like that fact. Fine. Stop making such stupid "arguments" in that case. The garage dragon argument is not a claim of fact. It is an illustration of the paucity of yours.

Easy--dragons, by definition have an explanation of their existence, another entity in the universe, a contingent object. As such, this dragon would be subject to investigation by science. Your invisible dragon takes the concept of a dragon and then without explanation exempts it from the laws of physics. Every stitch of our scientific understanding of how the universe works is evidence that your invisible dragon does not exists. So, because there is "indisputable evidence" to the contrary, your are delusional to think you have an invisible dragon in your garage. 

If God exists, by definition he exists necessarily and is not a part of the universe. Not another being among beings. Reasons to believe in the existence of God are in a different category than any silly analogy you can dream up. 

Absence such a list, such a belief by definition is not a delusion.

Wrong. You are entirely innocent of any demonstration for the deity of your choice, and nobody but you believes in it bar a population of YOU. Not even your co-rteligionists believe in it. All of them have their very own version, many of whom want to kill you and yours.

These "no evidence" claims don't get less stupid the more atheists make them. There is plenty of reason and evidence to come to a rational belief in God. If you don't think so, that is because of some defect in either your understanding of what constitutes reasons, evidence, rational, or something.

Note that this is not merely "in spite of no evidence". It is in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary. 

Yet somehow, you fail to present any evidence at all. Why is that?

Here you go. Deal with this list of evidence:

---

For those following, first a definition: Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.

P1. Miraculous effects have been specifically attributed to God (a supernatural being). Example, the paralytic healed by Jesus: "Mark 2:10...but I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all...". There are a hundred such examples in the NT where supernatural causation was declared or unmistakably inferred from the context.
P2. The resurrected Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people. Recently crucified people do not walk around and declare that they have conquered death and provided a way for man's redemption and as such, this is an obvious, rather big, supernatural claim.
     In support of P1 and P2, we have the following:
     a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
     b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry (every other NT writer)
     c. They presided over the early church (Paul, Acts, first/second century docs)
     d. This early church instructed Paul (Paul, Acts)
     e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written). We can infer from this the source of these beliefs were a critical mass of people who believed these events really happened which actually prompted immediate and significant action on their part--to evangelize the Roman world.  
     f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
     g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
     h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
     i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
     j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
     k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
     l. Alternate theories of the NT and early church provenance lack explanatory power of the evidence on all sorts of levels
P3. The main promise of the NT is a series of specific supernatural effects on a person
P4. An untold number of people have reported such effects
P5. An untold number of people have reported minor miracles (defined as person-oriented miracles for which the goal is very narrow -- as opposed to the NT miracles which had broad application and goals). Ranges from healing, bringing about events/experiences/encounters/open doors, extraordinary strength/peace/perseverance, evangelistic success, etc.
P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming).
P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming.
P8. The question of why our universe has the narrow range of physical constants which seem necessary to form matter and conserve energy but under naturalism has no other explanation than fantastically amazing chance that would not be accepted in any other case.
P9. The question of why our minds seem non-physical but have causal powers over the physical undercuts hard naturalism and seems to have parallels to the concept of the supernatural (not that they are necessarily supernatural).
P10. The question of why there seems to exist a knowledge of basic morality in most people and most people believe it to be based on an objective set of principles (moral Platonism) not derived from any evolutionary process.
P11. There is physical evidence for the supernatural (from P1, P2)
P12. There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of personal reports of the supernatural (from P4, P5)
P13. There are reason to think that naturalism is an insufficient worldview and the existence of the supernatural has better explanatory powers in a variety of these gaps. (from P6, P7, P8, P9, P10)

THEREFORE: There are multiple lines of evidence/reasoning that infer the supernatural. Bayes showed us that that more data points that you have that infer a conclusion, the higher the probability the conclusion is true.

---

Even worse for your position is that you cannot even adequately undercut the evidence that people rely on for the religious beliefs. Who's delusional again?

Sure we can. What we cannot prevent is you ignoring all of it.

You say that you can, but no one ever can. So...I'm calling bullshit.