No verifiable evidence is the Christian position

[Esquilax]

Because it's logically valid Esq. Logically valid yet possible to translate another way. I don't see how the alternate translation/s lead to an equally satisfying answer, but that's for you to support, if you oppose it.

Esq spotted it Chas. "verifiable"

Wait, is that seriously your position?

You're on really, really shaky ground there. For one, logic doesn't necessarily lead to truth; it only does so if one feeds in correct premises, and you've just admitted that there's more than one way to interpret the evidence you're using. Besides that, your second sentence is fallacious from top to bottom; when it's not being an argument from ignorance ("I can't think of a response that I find more satisfying, and therefore this is right") it's being an argument from personal incredulity ("I can't see how any explanation could be better, therefore god.") Furthermore, it doesn't matter what explanation you think is more satisfying, unless you can... oh, right, demonstrate that it correlates with physical reality. And to do that, you'd need to verify that your evidence supports your claim.