The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[Simon Moon]

A third option is that you people are genuinely dishonest with all the suggestive evidence around you. I already explained how the existence of other minds doesn't meet you "standards of evidence", yet you accept them because you see enough stimuli in your everyday life to warrant an inference to  the best explanation - that my neighbor's behavior is better explained if he were a human being than if he were some weird manifestation of a ghost sent by Satan.

Show me some of this 'sugge4stive evidence'. Because so far, all I've even been provided with from theists (you included), is fallacious arguments; like, argument from design and argument from ignorance.

My acceptance of the existence of other minds is a pragmatic position I take, because that is all that I am presented with.

I am not presented with anything like the existence of other minds, for a god. Again, all I am presented with is reality. Theists claim this reality is due to some god or another, but they are unable to support their claim.  

We receive enough a lot of input through our senses around us suggesting design and thoughtful creation, this itself calls for an inference to the best explanation.

No, we receive input that some believe has the appearance of design. But all I am ever presented with by theists, to demonstrate that it is actual design, are fallacious teleological arguments.

If you want to open a new thread with your best 'argument from design' example, I am sure many here will be happy to show every flaw.

The same reason humanity can never know what's beyond the uncertainty principle, can never measure anything smaller than Planck's length, etc. Our knowledge of this universe is limited forever, demonstrably so. Our knowledge of the gods, a fortiori, certainly won't lift off the ground.

So...

Your admission that a device (or other scientific method) for detecting gods may be beyond human ability, should just be another reason why belief in gods is irrational.

Nome one other claim, other than the existence of a god, would you accept, without demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic?

It's not clear what would convince an atheist of a prophecy to begin with. Any serious discussion about some particular claim made by a prophet can't be carried out, I think, without presupposing the existence of god.

You could convince me that a so called prophet had an experience. Convincing me it was a god responsible for said experience, would in fact require demonstrating the existence of a god.

But I am not sure how you could ever eliminate every natural and mundane explanation, from being less likely than a god.

And what are these great reasons for infering so .....?

Whichever they are, what would they yield to if applied to the universe and all forms of life around you?

The great reason, is, that is what I am presented with. Every day when I go out, text or talk on the phone, talk online, watch tv, etc, I interact with what appears to be other minds. It is part of my reality, that I am forced by pragmaticism to accept. I am not claiming to know, with absolute certainty, that other minds exist, only that it is the most rational belief based what I am constantly presented with.

There is no answer for hard solipsism. I may be in the Matrix. But until someone demonstrates that to me, and shows me a way out, or how to talk to the beings outside the Matrix, I am forced to live by the rules, and accept what I am presented with, inside the Matrix.

I am not presented with anything even close for the existence of gods.

Ancient texts (Quran included), fallacious arguments (argument from design, Kalam cosmological argument, ontological argument, etc),  miracle claims, prayer, etc, etc, certainly do not work. So, I am left being unconvinced that gods exist (or there I am in the Matrix), and all you seem to offer are flawed inferences.