No verifiable evidence is the Christian position

[Esquilax]

Your second sentence makes no sense. I presume you're asking the old clichéd question about how one chooses one set of directions over another. This rich source if evidence all focuses on the same subject. Some is weak and some is unbreakably (so far) strong. We would have to gravitate toward the best answer or suffer cognitive dissonance. That's why I choose the bible as my source.

Would you care to explain why the bible is your source? What in it is so unbreakable that you'd opt to believe in it?

[fr0d0]

How do we discern any difference between undetectable and non-existent?

The only way we'd consider the undetectable is if we reasoned it to be so. The non existent has no justification.

[Edwardo Piet]

The logically impossible is both undetectable and non-existent.

[Chas]

How do we discern any difference between undetectable and non-existent?

The only way we'd consider the undetectable is if we reasoned it to be so. The non existent has no justification.

Reasoned from what? Since it (whatever it is) is undetectable, then on what basis do we reason its existence?

[Captain Colostomy]

God can act in any situation and never be discovered, because that's how he always works.

Always? That's not how the bible tells it. Just calling him 'he' seems a nod in discovery's favor, too. For an always elusive deity, there is a lot known about 'him'.

[fr0d0]

Reasoned from what? Since it (whatever it is) is undetectable, then on what basis do we reason its existence?

From questions that cannot be answered in any other way, such as purpose. Humanity has consistently and independently identified the subject.

---

Always? That's not how the bible tells it. Just calling him 'he' seems a nod in discovery's favor, too. For an always elusive deity, there is a lot known about 'him'.

That's exactly how the bible tells it. And every revelation is dismissed by people who don't believe, because they can be. Nothing is verifiably proven.

[Chas]

Reasoned from what? Since it (whatever it is) is undetectable, then on what basis do we reason its existence?

From questions that cannot be answered in any other way, such as purpose. Humanity has consistently and independently identified the subject.

Or we understand that purpose is created by each of us.

Not all questions that we can ask are meaningful questions. "Why are we here?" is one such.

[Undeceived]

What about optical illusions? Or how about this: does everything exist exactly as you see it? The sun looks perfectly spherical--are we justified in believing it is indeed a sphere? Can you confidently call a rock a rock without examining it to the last atom? Where do you draw the line between a rock and a boulder? Is that line verifiable... or do you the categories come from your head?

As for optical illusions, you might be seeing something that isn't there, but it won't have a physical presence that corresponds to any of your other senses, which should be your first hint that something is up.

So you do use reason in addition to or in opposition to your senses.

[Ryantology]

From questions that cannot be answered in any other way, such as purpose. Humanity has consistently and independently identified the subject.

So, God represents a combination of ignorance and a determination to answer questions with no objective answers.

[Faith No More]

Yes absolutely. You have to verify the rock exists before you can believe it. Do you see how dumb that is? The rest of humanity reason that if it looks like a rock, it is a rock.

If we based our knowledge solely on looks, we would have never progressed beyond Newtonian physics.

No need to test that. Humans are capable of reaching rational conclusions and building on them. This is how a lot of progress is made.

I think you are make a big error by staking your claims on the ability of human. Our whole reality is filtered through the flawed mechanisms of the human mind, which evolved to survive and adapt, not solve the reasons for existence.

And yes, progress is made from building on conclusions. Do you know how? Through, you guessed it, verifiability.

You would have us transported back to our past where we had instinct and no memory. The goldfish is your evolutionary next step.

So let me get this straight, your position is that requiring verifiable evidence for the answers to complex questions causes us to regress? Do you know how you got that computer you're typing on?