Whatever you say, Nietzsche. Maybe in another hundred years you'll be right this time.

You are applying an argument similar to that which was earlier applied to the question of God's existence. If you want to show logical inconsistency within a set of religious beliefs, you should take certain premises (such as the existence of God and souls) for granted for the sake of argument. Otherwise it is enough to simply say that science has no evidence of such phenomena.

Another example of such a thing would be the idea of the afterlife; there is no empirical evidence for such a place, of course, but it is expressed in the beliefs of the religion. If you have evidence against the existence of the soul or afterlife or whatever other supernatural phenomena it would be worth arguing against said existence, but otherwise it's simply not a compelling argument.

Where is the glory in a God who forces people to believe? There is no glory in a caged animal paying attention to you, but there is when it follows you around outdoors where it is free to run away. If it is difficult (but not unreasonable) to believe in God's existence, then God is more glorified by that belief. You could see 'glory' as a kind of appreciation as I use it here.

kikabo:
I notice you didn't attempt to refute the verse with Thomas. How does lack of context explain that one?

And I agree, context is important when analyzing verses, but for the sake of brevity I didn't give an in-depth context explanation for those verses. Let us then reconsider John 8:58 by starting with the surrounding verses. (My apologies for the lengthy quote to those uninterested)

In these verses Jesus was speaking to a crowd of Jews in the temple. It is a lengthy discussion that begins earlier in the chapter. Now, what would trigger the Jews to want to stone Jesus so suddenly? He had already implied that he was greater than Abraham and that they did not know God, and even called them liars. What truly enraged them was Jesus' deliberate use of the phrase "I AM," a clear reference to a state of preexistence and solely attributed to God. Consider when Moses encountered God as the burning bush:

Indeed, the Hebrew word Yahweh was derived from the Hebrew verb for "to be." This is a reference to God's nature as not being defined or determined by any other than Himself, the self-existent One. The Jews whom Jesus was speaking to would have been quite familiar with this name of God and recognized it immediately when Jesus applied it to himself.

Note that this is also applicable to Trezker's hypothetical question of "Where did God come from?" According to the Bible, he did not come from anywhere; he simply is. I think that's an acceptable property for an omnipotent, omnipresent being to have.