No verifiable evidence is the Christian position

[Esquilax]

Esq

It is the true answer if it's the only logical one.

Not if you're feeding in false premises, like... say, the existence of the supernatural. See, that's the thing: it's entirely possible your basal assumptions are just wrong, and thus whatever you're saying is logical would be anything but.

How many scientists replicating an answer does it take to declare a theory? Two?

The numbers aren't what makes a theory a theory. Sure, if something is good science it'll earn its consensus among scientists, but the key to that is that it is replicatable, testable and falsifiable, things your religious claims just aren't.

How many religious people replicating an answer does it take to declare a theory? There cannot be enough apparently.

By replicating, do you perhaps mean asserting? You've already stated that the evidence you have isn't verifiable; you don't get to pretend that the claims you make just 'cause you wanna are in the same ballpark as actual, verified and verifiable science.

I produce the bible as evidence. So according to you, "I have reason to be convinced"

The bible isn't evidence. The bible is your claim.

Circular reasoning, yes. You demand that unlike in the real world, you must have physical evidence of something that isn't physical.

We can only perceive the physical world; since you can't detect the non physical, you cannot possibly have a basis for believing that it exists. Are you getting this?

Do you see the circle? In denying the truth, you are able to support your assertion that this particular non physical thing cannot be logical.

Logical arguments are based on premises, and premises need to be demonstrated to be true. You agree with this and utilize it in every other aspect of your life, but because you have a presupposition that you really want to be true here, you let it slide. It's so terribly obvious; your position should leave you open to accepting every unevidenced claim, so long as it makes some kind of sense, but you don't. You just believe the one you've already decided was true before you started looking to see if it conformed with reality.

You insist that we must have evidence of this thing that cannot, by its nature, be evidenced. Again, circular reasoning.

No, my point, and the point of everyone else here that you've ignored, is that if something cannot be evidenced, then it also cannot be believable.

Wake up and smell the mustard Esq. It smells of shit, because you're full of it.

Please, tell me more about the things you believe that you admit don't have any evidence. That'll certainly distance you from looking like you're full of shit.