Hello soulcalm17

[Belacqua]

Are you sure that something which has objective being will necessarily be provable through objective evidence?

Well I have not claimed this of course, but why would one assume something can be objectively real and offer no objective evidence? For context the claim that something exists carries the "burden of proof", if they cannot satisfy that then I prefer not to speculate on hypotheticals. 

I'm not clear what you mean by "objective evidence." I assumed you meant science-type evidence -- empirical, repeatable, testable, quantifiable. But I guess you're not using objective and scientific as synonyms here.

Well offer the best most compelling reason you have to believe a deity exists, and I will give it my due diligence. Think of a scale with pure subjective claim at the bottom, and objective fact at the top,  the more evidence one has at the higher end of the scale the more compelling I'd find it. Whilst all beliefs might be influenced subjectively, they are not all equally subjective. If I claim I saw a mermaid, and I claim the earth is not flat, then the beliefs are at different ends of that scale. 

exist
x·ist ig-ˈzist 
existed; existing; exists
intransitive verb
1a: to have real being whether material or spiritual"

Real
adjective
1. actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

So you seem to have the same problem with the claim a deity exists, namely can you demonstrate that anything spiritual exists outside of the human imagination? 

That leaves open the question of whether spiritual things exist. As I'm understanding your view of metaphysics, you think they don't. 

I do not believe they exist unless someone can demonstrate this objectively, but this is not a claim, as you have worded it, as I suspect the idea is unfalsifiable. FYI I must remain agnostic about all unfalsifiable beliefs, but also withhold belief from them all, since to believe them all would involved believing contradictory ideas, and believing some and not others, must involve closed minded bias. 

And of course there are all kinds of open questions we could raise. For example, do numbers exist? Some people say they do, and some say they don't. If they exist, they are not detectable through sensory tests. For Plato and many others, God is more like a number or a concept than he is like a physical being. 

If you're asserting that deities exists only as an abstract concept, I'd have no problem with that. I see no evidence numbers exist outside of the human imagination that created them, so prima facie I'd say that was a good analogy. 

Does justice exist? It is an intelligible thing, because while we may see the results of justice, or see just acts, we never see justice itself. And many people see God as being more along those lines.

Since justice is a subjective abstract idea, imagined by humans, this seems again like a good analogy. If you're claiming a deity is like this, then I would remain an atheist obviously. 

If you want to define existence as something that is detectable by science, then of course theologians agree with you that God doesn't exist in that way. Since I'm not sure how you're using the word "objective," 

I have not mentioned science, though I would observe that it's results in understanding objective reality makes it by far the best method humans have created. I explained above that imagine it's a scale with purely subjective beliefs and claims at one end, and objective facts at the other. You accept there is a difference I assume between someone claiming they experienced a unicorn spiritually, and someone claiming the earth is not flat?

I can't say whether the arguments the theologians and philosophers use are what you would call objective. They are not subjective in the sense that our perceptions of them differ from person to person -- the arguments are there, and unchanging, written down.

Offer one and we can take a look, I have not seen any that offer objective evidence for any deity thus far, but I am only 58 after all. the second sentence seems wrong, else atheists would not exist surely, it is axiomatic that my perception of theological arguments differs from those who accept they are a compelling reason to believe a deity exists. 
For clarity here, I identify as an atheist, this means I do not believe any deity or deities exist, it does not mean I hold a belief no deity or deities exist, again see my explanation of unfalsifiable beliefs and where agnosticism would also apply. Agnosticism is the belief that nothing is know or can be known about a deity, though it would apply in a broader sense to all unfalsifiable ideas of course. I am agnostic about concepts of deities that are unfalsifiable, as I must be, but I withhold belief from them as well, so am also an atheist. 

I'm not willing to use "objective interpretation" as a synonym for "a literal interpretation." Because for example when Jesus talks about seeds cast on stony ground that don't take root, an objective person would NOT conclude that he's giving advice about agriculture. 

A false equivalence there, since I am dubious any atheist would disbelieve that deities can exist purely in the human imagination, or in the abstract. FYI if Jesus existed, then we can't know what Jesus did or did not say or do, as the gospel myths are anonymous hearsay.  

Objective analysis sees that he's using a metaphor. Likewise, if I say "That guy has really made his way up in the company," an objective listener would not assume that the guy has travelled vertically to a higher floor. The non-literal meaning would be clear to an objective listener.

I agree, though your point escapes me, unless you are saying deities only exist in the human imagination as abstract concepts, so god is only ever being used as a metaphor? Otherwise whilst the assertion is true, almost trivially so, it is irrelevant to the claim a deity exists outside of the human imagination, which I don't believe.

Well, there are a number of very smart people who think that numbers do have existence independent of human minds. Roger Penrose, for example. But I suspect you will reject his conclusions since they are not based on "objective evidence" -- at least, I think this is the case. I'm still not sure what you mean by this term, and since you seem unwilling to define it for me I guess I'll just let it go. 

My point about objective interpretations of texts recognizing non-literal expressions goes back to what we were talking about earlier, in which you were saying that the "core messages" of the myths in Genesis were made worthless by the fact that their science is inaccurate. I still hold that non-literal expressions can have "core messages" that are very worthwhile, even if they involve talking animals or other clearly fictional elements. If you look into literary tropes, like Romantic irony, or the ineffibility topos that Dante uses over and over, you'll see that it's long been a characteristic of writing about God that those things which are beyond human speech must be described through non-literal means. It requires effort and imagination on the part of the reader, but I guess that does mean that certain pre-requisites are necessary when reading those things. These literary methods certainly wouldn't fall under what you mean by "objective evidence," I'm pretty sure.

It seems that you've reached the age of 58 entirely innocent of any philosophical arguments for God. Even very basic things, like Plato's Ideas. It would be an awfully big job to start you off on all that now, and given your current epistemological commitments it looks as though you are unsympathetic to the whole project. I think you are satisfied with where you are intellectually, and I'm not interested in rocking the boat. So I'll drop the subject.