Evidence that God exists

[fr0d0]

Seems an unnecessarily insulting reply, but I'll humour you

Ok, so you don't think that your statements are speculation, but you cannot say how you "know" them to be true either.

Tosh. The statement up for grabs here is whether faith requires existence. I say it does not. Read the OP and tell me what we're discussing apart from that???

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.

Nice. Moving on...

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.

No I didn't actually. You're making assumptions, and they're wrong.

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).

We've already established that objective reality doesn't require evidence (or are you saying you can't accept West's definition of 'objective'?).

---

You said, "God exists objectively, therefore we have reason to think that he is real. Evidence has no bearing, as it can't possibly." To exist objectively is to be real, by your definition. Therefore, what you said was, "God is real, therefore we have reason to think that he is real. Evidence has no bearing, as it can't possibly." How is that different from what I said?

Not my definition.. West's definition.

You are real, therefore we have reason to think that you're real???

You said "god is real because god is real, so we dont need any evidence"

So you are real because you are real, so we don't need any evidence.

I don't see what we're achieving here.