I think that the attributes of God are a different and complex issue. And I don’t think that anything I say in such regards will be understood properly, by either camp. Evolution theory is actually a bit irrelevant.
James says he “KNOWS” god exists. Ok how does one “know” god exists?
Kropotkin
Only speak what you Know to be precisely true, and that intimidation issue will go away. Of course, you have to learn how to Know something first. 
Well, the natural mind comes with “error correction software”. A large part of that communication process is not communicated exactly but deduced exactly by the receiver. If you pick only one line out of a text, you might misunderstand the intention of that one line. But if you see the line within its context, you can deduce which of various possible meanings was intended. Ancient scriptures are very much that way. You have to do a lot more than just read the text. You have to come to understand their mindset, manners, and situation because they lived in such an extremely different environment and were a very different culture and race. And their internet service really sucked in those days.
That’s the first question that I was expecting the more intelligent members to ask: “How does one KNOW anything?” But since you asked it, I guess I’ll go ahead with that on the chance that later someone might understand it. Although this will seem very simple to me, it might seem complicated to others, so please bear with me.
Certainty is built in stages, beginning with fragments of certainty that are somewhat useless by themselves but when put together like a puzzle, build into a useful certainty. And the first stage of building useful certainty (rational confidence), is provided by defined concepts, definitions.
If one wants to know if something exists, he has to first be certain of what it means to exist, then know for certain what it is that is proposed to exist, and then know for certain if there is an example of that thing that can be said to exist by the definition of the state of “existing”. That constitutes three stages of thought to reach certainty.
If I define “existence” as “that which has affect”, all I need to do is look for whatever is supposed to exist and see if it has affect. Of course other people will define “existence” in other ways. But I am not concerned with their certainty just yet, only my own. And as far as I am concerned, if something is proposed to exist and yet is known to have absolutely no affect upon anything whatsoever, I don’t really care if it exists in that non-affecting way. That is where rationality comes into the game. It would be useless and irrational to be concerned about something’s existence if one already knows that whatever it is truly has absolutely no affect. Whatever it is can’t affect anything and thus thinking that it exists doesn’t help anything and is a waste. So my rational definition of “existence” is “that which has affect”.
Then if it is God that I am inquiring about, I need a suitable definition for “God”. Once I choose a definition that seems rational and useful toward whatever purpose I intended becoming confident about, I can proceed to seek out anything that certainly fits both definitions. If I find something, then by virtue of the lack of alternatives, God most certainly exists. There is no way out of that conclusion.
Of course, that is why many Atheist advocates choose definitions for “God” that will seemingly yield no example in reality. And it is probably also why Theists avoid providing a definition, so that they don’t have to worry about Atheist promoters and rationalists over-rationalizing God out of existence. But I don’t play that game. I am not a promoter on either side of that fence. Good philosophers are not politicians.
As far as other people are concerned, many definitions of “God” might be relevant to them and there are many definitions used throughout the world. And when these people get into arguments concerning the existence of God, or actually any discussion of God and yet have no defined concept, even connotatively, they merely produce conflict and confusion. No progress is made when people are over burdened with conflict.
There are five definitions for “God” that are of serious significance:
1) God is the God-belief itself, serving the personal concern of choosing behavior and emotional stability.
2) God is the idealized concept of an Ubermensch to rule over Mankind, serving as a guide to create a world dictator.
3) God is the most effective CIA type of organization capable of controlling the destiny of the world.
4) God is who/whatever created or sustains the entire universe.
5) God is who/whatever determines the outcome of any and every situation.
Each of those has their own degree of existence (of having actual affect). And of course, many people can (and do) come up with their own personal definitions for “God”. But it isn’t my job to straighten out the world. If they want to go crazy with irrational issues, it would be irrational of me to try to prevent it. I am only concerned with my own definition and the usefulness of it.
And I can clearly see that number (5) is different than the others in that if (5) exists, it is by definition, the determiner of all of the others and thus their God. So I first choose b[/b]. And if I can find anything that fits that definition, and thus has affect, I have to conclude that “God exists” regardless of the other possible definitions for “God” and “existence”.
So at that point, I am up to trying to find out if there is anything that fits definition (5). And that is where Rational Metaphysics comes into it.
Rational Metaphysics is a method or process for creating an understanding and determining whether it is true.
It involves;
1) Definitional Logic - what I have just discussed (definitions and relevance) along with logical coherency.
2) Scientific Falsification - providing a means to demonstrate that there is no alternative to the hypothesis.
3) Resolution Debating - Ongoing verification of each detail utilizing the minds of others to eliminate blindness.
Utilizing that method, I actually did find something that fits the definition of God that superseded all others and has notable affect. And upon further examination found that God to also fit the descriptions commonly given in ancient scriptures.
So the path to “knowing that one knows” and certainty/inerrancy in all one believes and does:
Rational Metaphysics:
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony.
Using that method, even a crippled mind such as my own can find inerrant certainty. And as it turns out, that is exactly what ALL life has always been doing, merely very sloppily.
Can you install that “error correction software” on this site? 
The ‘fruit’ of muddy communication is all too often … and for me once is too often … a cesspool of acrimony.
80% of all conflicts are embedded in conflated definitions. Get that part of the communication (and/or thinking) straight, and you’re almost home free.
only 80% James?? … I trust your judgement
I don’t ask for your trust, but merely consideration.
According to the general theistic definition of God, you’re an atheist James.
You know how closet homosexuals are often ironically very vocal against homosexuality (Ted Haggard syndrome)? I guess the same applies to closet-atheists like you, very vocal against atheism 
Knowing the possible is possible, but any attempt to know the impossible is impossible.
Btw, logic and rationalism are never grounded on reality but merely on abstraction of reality.
The idea of God is a transcendental illusion (inferred from transcendental logic).
A transcendental illusion is not the real thing and thus cannot be known.
It is impossible to know God as a real thing.
I disagree, but what’s your point?
My point is your points are pointless, groundless and your God as an object is merely pseudo-rational and a transcendental illusion.
As a rationalist on rationalism, once you rely on logic, you are abstracting and goes off the ground to infer the reality of a thing off the ground is leaping into the void of a bottomless chasm.
In abstracting, one attempts to make particulars more universal by getting rid of specific differences and thus compromise the veracity of the objects.
Science relies on logic but its soundness is dependent on observations, testability and verifiability by anyone who do the same process with a recognitions of its limit to certainty.
I understand and acknowledge theism is a critical necessity for the majority to deal with an existential issue now (not the future), but the theistic object [God] reified cannot be real nor possible.
One problem why the theists of ULR have difficulty or are blind to the illusoriness of God is they never made any attempts to ‘know thyself’ (Socrates) and one’s existential psychology. It is a survival default for humans to direct their attention outward rather than inward. But as humanity progresses, the average human is beginning to direct their attention to ‘know thyself’ and free themselves from the bondage of slavish theology.
Until you direct attention to ‘know thyself’ well, you are likely to blame non-theists for giving you problems rather than understanding ‘you’ are the problem.
Your post seems to be nothing but your assertions, your preaching, unsupported opinions, common propaganda. How about trying to prove the truth of merely this one quoted assertion of yours.
“your God as an object is merely pseudo-rational and a transcendental illusion.”
But what about the question of discerning certainty? god is most likely, “as an object” a merely pseudo-rational and transcendental illusion. As I understand existence that doesn’t preclude a god, but to argue, I’m not certain. If I am left only to my own definitions and I follow the if then sort of reasoning I can get myself just about anywhere my imagination yearns for and I end up in a room with rubber on the walls and floor with oddly dressed servants who don’t pay a whole lot of attention to my orders.
A degree of question, in practice, provides an equivalent service. Certainty is for those who know no better/other/alternate method. I tend to give those who claim to know, a wider berth. There is nothing, I think, more ingorant, then a person who thinks they know and if they claim to know they know, I’ll be docking in a different port altogether. I may be alone, don’t know.
Knowing? doesn’t seem possible inside of time and it’s changes. I have often wondered if any knowing at all isn’t dependent on all knowing. There is an odd sort of link between knowing and experience, and what you have and perhaps more importantly, what you haven’t.
Can any sort of certainty be arrived at by beginning with IF?
conj. conjunction
In the event that.
Granting that.
On the condition that.
n. noun
A possibility, condition, or stipulation.
Yes, certainly … IF you know what you are doing. 
Yes, it was supposed to be facetious, dipxxxx. 
That is all fine and good, but come on, get real.
IF I decide that whatever is to be said to exist must have affect in order to qualify as existent (including any proposed God), then I truly know it to be fact. Every ontology, every understanding of existence, is chosen, either consciously or unconsciously. There is no other form of truth. There never has been, nor could there ever be. And that is the part that people have trouble understanding.
I choose to call “that which exists” as “whatever has affect”. Reality cannot dispute it. Reality can never disagree. I know it to be a fact because it is entirely 100% indisputable. And I need no empirical experiment to prove it. But of course, we all know that an avid denier can deny anything, thus isn’t worth listening to.
Sounds more to me like you have just reached the point of self affliction.
The possibility remains that you are mistaken about its affect in which case the condition would not be met, but being unaware of your mistake you think it has. You just think you know it to be a fact and because you are under the delusion that it is entirely 100% indisputable the actual nature of what is taking place escapes your awareness.
Not true.
Take another type of example from numbers.
You have the choice of picking a base for your numbering system, base 10, base 2, or whatever. Reality cannot tell you that the base of your numbering system is wrong. It is a free choice.
By choosing different base systems, you inherently will cause some operations to be easier or harder and that is why you might want to change from one to another. The thing that you cannot do is mix them together.
The same is true with languages or ontologies. You are free to choose the base of them to be whatever you want, as long as you stay consistent and don’t go mixing them together.
In the case of my ontological choice of connecting existence with affect, if any time came where something had no affect at all and yet was considered to be in existence (by someone else), why would I care? If it has no affect upon me or anything else at all, why should I care to call it “existent”? There is no option for my declaration to be untrue simply because I don’t care about the proposed alternative and never will.
It is a choice of rationality. Reality cannot tell you what language is correct. It can only tell you if the choice that you made was rational in the long run. Your understanding of the universe is merely a language choice. You can make a mistake in using the language or in choosing which language is best at the moment. But the language itself can never be incorrect.
The language will always be incorrect. It is a symbol, a map, and not the territory.
That is a mental fallacy on your part.
A ball is exactly a ball only because the ball is exactly what we call “a ball”.
“Is that really John?”
Never?
Then who is it?
How do you know?
“‘John’ is merely his name, what people call him.”
So when I point to the person who everyone calls “John”, it is not John who I am pointing at?
“Could you hand me that box?”
–“That isn’t really a box.”
“Well, what is it?”
–“We can never know what anything really is.”
“So you can’t hand the box to me?”
–“Which box?”
“Does it matter since it really isn’t what it is anyway?”
–“Okay, here’s the box.”
“I asked for the box!”
–“I gave you the box!”
“No you didn’t!”
–“Well then what is that?”
“We can never know what anything really is.”
Playing with a language doesn’t make the language wrong. It merely makes you wrong.
Destroying your language merely destroys your mind.
… which for a great many in your world is the whole point, to make you into mindless sheeple defending their masters.