Ah…well, I wouldn’t say necessarily though I do agree with you, insofar as a judeo-christian god goes. I thought you were just referring to an ‘inpersonal’ god. We can’t actually prove, either way, if a god is omniscient or omnipotent, let alone ‘being’ but our subjective perceptions and experiences may reasonably tell us that this is not so. But not everyone feels this way.
Only if one has not experienced god [in say a vision]. …maybe for some a belief connects you to something you consider to be god, then it is logical and real to them, and thus if it is as real to those who experience it as experiences you have about the world ~ which they have not experienced, then the logic of the situation is the same?
In my case it is only Logic that verifies the existence of God.
And does so quite well.
No faith required… merely being really good with Logic. 
Let’s see your logic.
I think I have already had such a discussion with you.
Seeing logic is most largely dependent on the seer, not the sayer.
Yes you seemed to be making a mistake similar to that of Anselm i.e. thinking you can establish an a priori proof of God’s existence. The problem is, any postulated existent being may or may not exist.
Can you prove it to be necessarily a mistake?
I don’t know. You’ll have to lay out your argument.
I think this thread would benefit greatly from the laying out of such an argument. Considering the thread is on whether or not the belief in God can be logically demonstrated, if you consider yourself to be capable such a demonstration, James: then please, by all means.
So why did you proclaim it to be mistake?
I begin every proof with definitions that are to be taken for the duration of the syllogism whether they fit common usage or not.
From there, I piece together what must be true by eliminating all impossible alternatives such as to draw conclusion relevant to the argument.
The only way for anything I put together to be false is for me to make a mistake in ensuring that I really eliminated all alternatives.
If I haven’t made any such errors, then what I conclude is unquestionable (assuming an intelligent and rational questioner).
With all of that in mind, I KNOW that God exists and the Resurrection happened. But I also know that very few people can follow logic simply because they have their own definitions conflated and are willing to presume that they don’t just so they can argue against things that they don’t want to be true. They have no love of Truth or Wisdom, but rather merely want their preferred flag to be raised as high as possible. I am not a politician, else I would be sweet talking you rather than just telling you that you are not likely to be able to follow obvious rationale because of your passions to insist on your deeply felt worldview regardless of how wrong it might be.
Now on the other hand, if you WILL COMMIT to truly and exactly following rationality (logic) yourself and demonstrate that you are, I will (again) put together such a rational proof. But realize that such requires answering direct questions with clear responses.
And right there may be the crux of the problem - many of us ‘see’ ourselves as being logical or thinking logically in the moment because of how that may serve us - but it may not be true logical thinking that we’re seeing but our own rationalizations. Logical thinking requires that we strip everything down to the bone and examine it honestly and as objectively as we can. Perhaps the less we find that it serves us, the more logical we are being - or is that being illogical? 
Even the most logical of us may have an Achilles’ heel - and if we don’t take that into consideration, we may lose our balance and falter.
That is NOT to say that you are not a highly logical being, JSS. I’m just playing d’s/ a
What you say is true, but logic has a serious constraint. What is defined is what it is defined to be and nothing else.
With that one tool and limit, logic reveals who is really being honest.
You can prove, using only logic, that the resurrection happened? I’m interested. Please, commit to laying out the argument for us. That should start us on an interesting path. However, I should say I’m already somewhat skeptical of how you “know” your definitions to be the correct ones, and how that permits you to label the definitions of others conflated and illogical. This is, of course, of paramount importance, for the rest of your argument will follow deductively (you claim) from your definitions.
That seems a little preemptive.
Can you elaborate on that? For instance, an example?
I’m usually bad at coming up with examples, but I had recently posted this one;
I suggested that you seemed to be be making a mistake based on our previous discussion and the similarity of your position to Anselm’s. Of course in the first place you would have to define what you mean by God and the Resurrection. That usually ends up being a lot stickier than is usually acknowledged. Many a thread on ILP has bogged down on that point. But, from merely postulating that a being exists it doesn’t follow that it does.
I have no idea what Anselm’s stance or argument is, but I won’t proceed past the definition of “God” if I can’t get agreement and I start with that one. Why bother.
Go for it.
Do you agree to answer relevant questions with reasonably short direct answers and stay confined to the type of logic I explained in that post?
I thought you were going to provide your definition of God. What post?