@RW Standing,
In the topic called “Irrefutable basis for Belief in God ” RW Standing writes: "Anything that can be proved to exist, and which a person considers sufficient to call God, is therefore his indisputable God."
This is a complex sentence, let us analyse it:
A- In the first part of this sentence he says "Anything that can be proved to exist,” but we are not quite sure what is suggested to be a “proof” - The “proof” in modern logic or deductive reasoning means “sound” argument which is a type of ”valid” argument consists of true premises and true conclusion.
B- In the second part of the sentence he says “a person considers sufficient to call God”, but again we are not quite sure what is suggested to be “sufficient” to call something God. It seems RW Standing giving licence to anyone to call anything with any name he/she fancy. On the other hand RW Standing may adhere all the rules of modern reasoning/deductive logic applying to sufficiency criteria - it is not clear.
C- In the last part of the sentence he says “is therefore his indisputable God". - God or unicorn he thinks he has “sufficient proof” to call God or unicorn will obviously be his personal God or unicorn; trouble arises if he start believing and claiming that his personal God or unicorn is also universal God or unicorn. Because, personal criteria of sufficiency and proof may be short of universal sufficiency and proof.
So, this “Irrefutable basis” is more like “subjective reason” for belief in God.
Thanks,
pekin