Ok, so you don't think that your statements are speculation, but you cannot say how you "know" them to be true either. See that's the big contradiction in what you are saying. You seem to be copy/pasting a load of big words you've found on the internet in the vain hope that they resemble something logical.
You just admitted that you have no evidence, not of "God" (which you admit is silly, fine), but of your statement that God exists objectively. In other words, your belief is pure speculation, because you don't think that God can be proven or have any evidence to suggest its existence, and at the same time you say you do not know how you can say God's existence is objective. It's one big contradiction. Either God cannot be known objectively (so there would be no evidence and therefore no reason to believe) or it can (and so there should be evidence).
You just admitted that you have no evidence, not of "God" (which you admit is silly, fine), but of your statement that God exists objectively. In other words, your belief is pure speculation, because you don't think that God can be proven or have any evidence to suggest its existence, and at the same time you say you do not know how you can say God's existence is objective. It's one big contradiction. Either God cannot be known objectively (so there would be no evidence and therefore no reason to believe) or it can (and so there should be evidence).
