Hell

[Welsh cake]

Look, I cant give you empirical proof, I can't show you Gods face but when I look at life around me, other people, the sun I feel there is someone behind it.

Out of everything you said this is the only statement I have any objection to because of its egocentricity. Why do you look around and observe reality then conclude that "someone" is behind everything? Why "somebody"? Why couldn't it have all happened naturally?

Regarding the second, I am challenging your assumption that evidence is necessary in order to hold onto a hypothesis.

It's all down to our own attempts at critical thinking and applying our standards of evidence to enable us to discern fact from fantasy; accepting relevant ideas supported by evidence and rejecting irrelevant notions refuted by evidence, we don't want to hold onto nonsense. You don't seem to want to accept this methodology since it places your god concept in an awkward position, but hey that's fine, that's your issue, however when we observe any phenomena in reality and try to propose an explanation for it we call that a hypothesis.

When OnlyNatural mentions the word in the context of them being supported or unsupported he's talking about scientific hypotheses. If we can't test the idea then it cannot function as a satisfactory explanation of real world phenomenon and is discounted, at least until new research, evidence or compatible scientific theories are presented.

If it is observable scientific evidence you are looking for, then I'm afraid you rule out the possibility of evidence for God, since God is not a part of the physical world and thus can not be subject to the scientific method by definition. If you only allow for observable scientific evidence full stop, and you require such evidence for any truth claim, then your position becomes self-defeating (since it is impossible to provide observable scientific evidence for all the non-scientific claims you have made - including those regarding the necessity of such evidence!).

How do you know he's not part of reality? (Aside from being a fictional character within a collection of writings written by multiple authors, that is) Simply because we cannot observe or test him? That's not a very convincing argument I must say. Matthew how do you distinguish your god from other make-believe imaginary concepts if you have no means of detecting him from the get-go? How do you know he's real?

You don't seem to appreciate your approach is the one that is self-defeating because if we decide tomorrow the scientific method cannot apply to testing god claims, then he becomes as real as, not just other deities from various religions, but ghosts, kitsunes, dragons, minotaurs, ogres and all other products of myth.

When evaluating a truth claim then the best and only reliable method we have is science which relies on evidence.

This is itself a truth claim, but I can conceive of no evidence that supports it. By its own lights, then, I must reject it.

Let's not be silly now. You even acknowledge regress arguments later on, so you're deliberately using logical regression to try and apply the scientific method unto itself and then marvel at your brilliance when it obviously does not work.

I'm talking about a baseless belief. A belief that isn't supported by rational argument.

I believe that a basic belief in God is rational because it is justified externally by God's revelation rather than internally by the reasons one has for holding it. So basic belief in God is not unsupported - it is supported by God and not by arguments.

Your circular argument demonstrates very little except that you, like many theists, don't know what the word "rational" means.