"You are checking theism with twisted, naturalistic logic. The two are completely incompatible, and thus one cannot define the other. That is the greatest fallacy of those who support Naturalism, thinking that they have an upper hand in defining the undefinable."
"If God wanted himself to be able to be tested by his own creation, then we could do so. We can't, and thus He doesn't."
"Since God works 100% through natural methods (meaning he rarely comes down to earth and "supernaturally" interacts with it), then everything [...] should have a natural, non-supernatural explanation to begin with, and all you need to do is find just a few examples that shift the credibility back to a naturalistic world view."
"I could show you, but it wouldn't make sense to you. The idea of placing faith above reason is irrational. I'll give you this much. Starting there (faith above reason) allows us to attribute the mechanisms of this world to something greater than us."
"This isn't that hard. It's simply a matter of taking the source of all matter, energy, and everything else, seeing that there is complexity, and saying - "I call that God."
"Any 'hard evidence' I have would be misinterpreted, because it would not fit within your belief system"
"Our belief system (theism) starts with God, with a source, and trickles down. If you don't have that, and you are trying understand it from the fundamentals of Naturalism, then you are wasting your time."
"You call our evidence weak because it is founded on a God that exists outside the walls of our reality. Fine by me."
Why do people laugh at Creationists? (Only Creationists don't understand why!!) :-P
To satisfy my 'naturalistic leanings' I'm taking the afternoon off to go and browse an exhibition of photos from Volcanoes.