The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[R00tKiT]

That sure is a poor justification for your specific mythology. Or, it is you admitting that you are unable to demonstrate the existence of a god.

I am unable to demonstrate deductively the existence of a god. And it's not a problem. Deduction only works if we provide ourselves with a general enough set of axioms. In the context of the existence of god, such axioms will take the form of an exhaustive list of the most elementary facts about reality we can all agree about, unfortunately such a list doesn't and cannot exist.

Sorry to inform you, but actual demonstrable, falsifiable, repeatable evidence for the existence of gods would be a world changing event.

Sorry to inform you, such an event cannot logically take place. The god of abrahamic religion can never be perceived by our finest machines. And again - and this is the relevant part- it's not a problem. Think about it, we now know that there are fundamental limits to what we can measure (e.g. the uncertainty principle, the Planck constant, etc.) . We can never surpass these limits regarding our own observable reality, let alone that of god.

Prophets, of all religions, have come and gone all throughout history. They all seem to be very appealing, charismatic, convincing (to those who don't understand good standards of evidence), yet, while you believe Joseph Smith was a charlatan, all the Mormons believe the same about Mohamed, and we think they were both full of shit. And the interesting thing is, you  and the Mormons give pretty much the same reasons for dismissing the other's prophet, that we give for dismissing both.

I think it's unfair from a historical perspective to compare an obvious fraud with an abrahamic religion. And what you think without referencing any evidence is irrelevant. As long as you can't substantiate your claims about Islam which led you to dismiss it, you are the one having trouble with standards of evidence.

Everything that surrounds me is not evidence for a god. It is evidence that those things exist.

You are doing inference right now from what surrounds you. You only saw one person probably (yourself) typing words in the keyboard then sending them in this forum. Despite that you are convinced that all these members are actual people doing the same thing. There, we have an inference, which you do automatically, from the smallest sample (you only) to all the members of the forum.

Claims of prophets, are just that, claims. The fact that ancient text exist that claim that these people were prophets, barely rises to the level of hearsay evidence. 

Muhammad came up with the Qur'an as a literary challenge. A challenge which was relevant to his time. It's a very complicated topic, but overall, it's easier to explain his biography if he were a prophet than if he weren't. Many christian apologists today acknowledge he was sincere. The only hanging point worth a dicussion is whether his inspirational spells (i.e. the Qur'an) were the product of his subconsciousness, that is, the manifestation of some natural mental disorder like temporal lobe epilespy, or coming from up high. And the former doesn't look very defensible.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/793843/
Overall claims of prophets are actually more than claims, they either have a challenge relevant to their time and surroundings (Muhammad's contemporaries were highly proficient in Arabic, an extraordinarily eloquent book belittling their deities like the Qur'an is really, really miraculous for these folks ; Moses' contemporaries practiced sorcery, a staff turning into a serpent is then a "suitable" miracle, etc. 
No atheist will complain if they saw Moses' staff in action. But they complain a lot with Muhammad's miracle - the only miracle that exists today -, and it's not difficult, with all that has been said in mind, to understand why.

Please help us out, and create a logical syllogism, that ends with the conclusion, "therefore one must accept hard solipsism". Because I sure am having a hard time going from your word salad, to "therefore one must accept hard solipsism".

I will come back soon with a brain-juice syllogism. For now, it's not hard to see how denying any inference whatsoever leads to denying all other minds - because inference and analogy are the only way to establish the existence of other minds. If you deny all other minds, you believe in your mind only, which is the definition of solipsism.