The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Mister Agenda]

Part of being truthful is not accepting made-up answers.

No-one is deliberately making anything up though that doesn't mean there isn't a chance that they're wrong.

I agree. I don't think the process of getting these particular answers was someone unilaterally throwing it out. But the first thing to ask someone who claims to have such an answer is 'how do you know?'. If their answer is scripture, the natural follow-up question is 'how did they know?'. If the method for knowing is something that can't be verified, like revelation, it can't truly be said to be knowledge, only belief, as evidenced by contradictory revelations.

The thing is there are good rational reasons to believe God even from scientific perspective and don't even start on the nature of morality and freewill, I feel that's the point when atheism/materialism falls apart. There certain good points atheists make here and there sure, certainly there is a case for a slightly less literal interpretation of scripture though that was always an element within the faith. You can also be open to some level of doubt if you can't be 100% factually certain though given the nature of what God is I don't think that level of certainty is possible for a regular human. You can't be certain the atheist/material view is correct either so by rights you will have to entertain some doubts over that.

As a rule, we DO entertain doubts over that.

If we knew we wouldn't call it faith. Faith is what you believe to be true for what you regard as good reasons even if you don't and can't really know as a factual certainty. Bear in mind that you can't scientifically prove Gods existence so that's a non-issue.

It's not possible to prove something is the tri-omni creator of the universe, but it would be well within the realm of science to prove the existence of a cosmically-powerful being that wasn't using its power to conceal itself from science.

You've got the question/s, you got the answer/s of some kind so you can well have the truth right there.

We might have the truth right here. But we don't have a way to know it's the truth. Without good evidence or strong arguments, any of us having the truth would be a coincidence. You can be correct in your conclusion even if you are wrong in your reasoning.

You are going to be interested in knowing and experiencing this truth once you understand the likelihood of this truth. Atheism isn't true, or it's only true to a certain extent within the limits of what it covers which is the scientific knowledge we have.

If you could prove 'atheism isnt true', by which I interpret you to mean that there is a real being who fits the description of what you mean when you say 'God', there would be no atheists. And all you need to do to 'disprove atheism' is prove God. You could greatly weaken 'atheism' (reduce the number of atheists) if you could prove the odds of God are at least 10%.

When you say 'atheism isn't true' that falls under the category of claims you make without having any way of knowing they're true.

Caveat: The phrase 'atheism isn't true' is confusing. Atheism is not believing in any God or gods. It's a state of mind. It is not the claim that there is no God or are not gods. Theism isn't the claim that there IS such a being(s), it's the state of believing it. Better just to say 'it's not true that there is no God', or better, 'God exists'.