Agree with Shikko for pretty much everything but

(13) Observable: able to be detected, either directly (i.e., with human senses) or indirectly (i.e., by  having its direct effects detectable with human senses).

Many people claim to feel God directly through their senses, I would say independently verifiable should also be a criteria for observable. To say "I feel the immense love of the pink unicorn through phsyical sensation, ergo it is observable and shown to exist" would be permittable under your definition.

(14) God: an entity to which is attributed powers impossible for any human to possess, and which has some sort of connection to the purported immaterial portion of a person's soul.

This definition is the most important, and also the most different, depending on who you ask?

Is it a personal God?

Is it a blind watchmaker?

Is it simply a fancy name attached to the universe?

Is it Yahweh, Zeus, Loki?

Is it omni-benevolent, present, potent, scient?(as these are almost always at odds with each other as we understand them)

Did such a God create everything from nothing? Was he always there?

Is this God one of many with similar powers? More power, less power than the others?

Anyways, you see where this is going. The definition of a God has no singular definition that can be applied, and as such, each definition of God needs to be defined at the beginning of any debate about existence of such an entity. It is the usual problem we get into when someone starts talking about an Abrahamic god, creates all of the usually applicable(and imo, quite persuasive)arguments against that particular God's existence. It is then that the theist asserts, "thats not what I take to be God at all, you have created a strawman of something I don't even believe." Many times the theist would be correct in this assertion; however, when debating topics so much is assumed by the debater from the familiarity of similar posts and background's of theists that implies many are indeed arguing for the monotheistic Abrahamic God.

It really boils down to the fact that, God is an extremely subjective concept. One cannot argue against a position that one's opponent has not clearly defined. This is in turn creates the necessity that the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. Thus, defining God must be done by the person asserting its existence, to do anything less than that, is to engage into a semantic battle of ever-increasing strawmen which leaves both sides on thin ice.

I guess what I am trying to say is that theists must define their own version of God to even create a realistic framework of where debate can flow from.

I wasn't saying it sucked, but rather the question itself can't be answered by any one person, so its not really a defiinition you or I could really create.

Theism - belief in one or more gods.  Colloquially, theism can also include belief in belief in gods, since many moderates are uncertain about their god belief but are firmly convinced of the value of religion.  Philosophically, however, theism is strictly limited to genuine god belief.

Atheism - lack of belief in any god(s).  Again, philosophically, this is the only qualification, but colloquially, atheism has many more implications.

Belief - the state of holding a thing to be real and true.

Faith - non-contingent belief.  (Belief despite evidence to the contrary or no evidence.  Alternatively, belief supported by invalid evidence.)

Evidence - empirical data which provides support for a conclusion.  It falls into several categories:

1) Direct evidence: evidence that is sufficient to demonstrate the fact in question without further investigation.  Citing a book of law would be direct evidence that a certain act is illegal, for instance.

2) Circumstantial evidence: evidence that gives support for inference, but is not conclusive.

3) Primary evidence: Original sources.  The gospels are not primary evidence, for they have been copied many times.

4) Secondary evidence: Anything that attests to primary evidence, but is not original.  For instance, a photo of a fossil.

5) Real evidence:  As the name implies, this is something that materially exists.  A flat tire is real evidence, as is a photograph.  (In other words, primary and secondary evidence can be real.)

6) Personal evidence: testimony, essentially.  If I told you there is a flat tire, I have given personal evidence that real evidence exists.

7) Lay evidence: Testimony from someone who is not qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject

Expert evidence: Testimony from someone who is qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject.

Obviously, each category of evidence has a different level of reliability, and different claims require different degrees of proof, and therefore, evidence.

Proof: In math, a deductive argument demonstrating a conclusion.  In science, the word is not really applicable, because science is never deductively certain of anything.  Colloquially, it means a demonstration beyond reasonable doubt that something is true and real.

Prove: Same thing.  In math, to provide a proof.  In science, nothing is ever proven.  It is only demonstrated with some degree of certainty.  Obviously, we can say colloquially that some things are proven.  For instance, evolution and gravity can be said to be so overwhelmingly certain that they have been proven.

Semantics: the study of the meaning of language.

Properly basic: Something that Llamas say from time to time.

Non-contingent belief:  See "Faith."

Contingent belief: Belief supported by valid evidence.

Fact: Something that has been deductively proven.  Scientifically, something that is so certain as to be currently without dispute.

Observable: the quality of being directly or indirectly perceived in the material universe.

God:  Search me, fella...

Rational: conforming to the rules of logic.  Valid and believed to be true.

Irrational: not conforming to the rules of logic.  Invalid.

Both rational and irrational have different uses, but to be philosophically precise, they must be used to describe something that contains (either explicitly or implicitly) a logical argument.

The definitions of a lot of these words will vary depending on the context in which they appear.