Dualism

[Purple Rabbit]

Well we had to establish the single question from the wider topic you had asked about to be able to answer. I don't see why you should have a problem with that. You didn't ask me to widen the subject - you widened it yourself.

I'll try to make sense of this:
With "the single question" you seem to mean the following question A) "why faith in the existence of the christian god does not require proof?".
With "the wider question" you seem to mean B) "why faith in general (not necssarily faith in the christian or other gods) does not require proof?"
You seem to assert that the answer on A is positive:
A+: "faith in the existence of the christian god does not require proof"
But not the positive answer on B:
B+: "faith in general does not require proof"

I acknowledge A+ and B+ because faith as such does not require proof, it is the nature of faith that proof is not necessarily needed to adhere to it, which does not mean that there necessarily is any truth in it.
You only acknowledge A+, but you give no reason why A+ is true and B+ is not, other than christian doctrine.

Your reference to christian doctrine suggests to me however that you not only claim A+ to be true but also a much more stronger claim, A++.
A++: "the existence of the christian god does not require proof and is a true statement"
Constantly in your answers there is that mix of A+ and A++.
If I am wrong about this please say so.

Notice that christian doctrine has no relevance on the statement X: "A+ is true and B+ is not", since the christian doctrine does not provide objective measures to differentiate between A+ and B+. It only asserts that A++ is true "I am the only god" which is begging the question on A++, a logcal fallacy, but says nothing on A+ versus B+.

So really, while our quarrel is on X, the undertone is that you imply A++ from X. This is of course another illogical leap of faith (btw: by doing so you have widened A+ since you now also apply the rule to other statements than existence of the christian god). That faith needs no proof does not mean that what the faith is about is true by default. You cannot promote a faith statement into a truth statement. You can only say that you believe your faith statement is true. You cannot say that your faith statement is absolutely true because it needs no proof. That would be an illogical conclusion.

My assertion is that God cannot be conclusively proved by it's nature. You'd need to re-define God for that to be possible, so that's why belief is an exception.

What IS your definition of god? Be aware, by defining god in terms of unprovable your reasoning will become circular.

I have tried to explain this to you in several different ways but obviously you've missed it.

So far, you have only presented circular reasoning on this. So please give me the non circular variant of the definition of god because on this definition all your claims in this thread are based.