I bit exactly the same. However I feel somewhat cheated by the first "bullet", because of the way the question's formulated. I actually don't think that you nee

I bit exactly the same. However I feel somewhat cheated by the first "bullet", because of the way the question's formulated. I actually don't think that you need "irrevocable proof" to believe in God any more than to believe in something else. However we actually need extremely strong evidence in both cases; evolution has very strong evidence in its favour, while there isn't any evidence that God exists. Same thing for the second bullet : I stated that God has the freedom to achieve the logically impossible, BUT I don't think that it carries any weight because God doesn't exist and therefore it is all empty chit-chatting anyway. So rational discourse on the subject of God is of course somewhat hard to take seriously anyway, after a certain point.